Federal District Court Finds Ferguson School District Elections Violate the Voting Rights Act

You can find the 119-page district court opinion here.

This looks to be a very careful, and in some parts very technical look, at whether the Ferguson school board elections violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, in that protected minority voters have less opportunity than other voters to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. Given what the trial court called the “unique” facts of the case, the trial court has not (yet) ordered the drawing of new minority opportunity districts. The judge encourages the parties to settle with an acceptable remedy.

Among the technical questions is whether minority plaintiffs can state a VRA violation even if they make up a slight majority of the population. On this question, the court concluded that the evidence on this point was uncertain, but as a legal matter: “As a result, even if the any-part Black VAP were slightly over 50% of the VAP, there is no evidence that such a distinction makes a functional difference in terms of how the political processes operate to the detriment of African Americans in FFSD. Under the facts of this case, a bare numerical majority of the VAP is insufficient to translate into meaningful electoral opportunity.” To the extent the government appeals, it will likely be on issues such as this.

But on the big picture, in terms of African-American political opportunity in Ferguson, the trial court paints a picture that seems uncomfortably familiar about life in cities with large minority populations and a shrinking white population that continues to exercise political control:

Intentional discrimination is not an element of a § 2 violation. See Gingles, 478 U.S. at 35-37. Plaintiffs have never alleged that Defendants intentionally discriminate against African Americans, and I do not make any findings that Defendants engaged in intentional discrimination. Rather, it is my finding that the cumulative effects of historical discrimination,current political practices, and the socioeconomic conditions present in the Districtf impact the ability of African Americans in FFSD to participate equally in Board elections.

The ongoing effects of racial discrimination that have long plagued the region, and the District in particular, have affected the ability of African Americans to participate equally in the political process. The fact that the electoral process in FFSD Board elections is not equally open to African Americans is most apparent in the stark levels of racially polarized voting seen in  Board elections and the failure of white voters to support candidates from the African American community, which has essentially blocked African American voters from exercising effective political power in the District. Against this backdrop of inequality, a number of other factors hinder African American electoral success, such as an absence of meaningful access to endorsements, and subtle racial campaign appeals. Importantly, each of these factors interact with the voting practices and procedures that are in place for school board elections in FFSD, including the at-large and off-cycle election features, as well as, to some extent, the staggered terms of Board members, to dilute the African American vote. Ultimately, the complex interaction between these processes and conditions has “cause[d] an inequality in the opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters to elect their preferred representatives.”Gingles, 478 U.S. at 47.

 Determining whether a § 2 violation exists is a complex, fact-intensive task that requires inquiry into sensitive and often difficult subjects. The facts of this case, which include African American and white voting-age populations at levels of near numerical parity, and a trend in the District that suggests the African American voting-age population is growing, set it apart from most § 2 cases, making review especially challenging. But as the Supreme Court has emphasized time and again, “the question whether the political processes are equally open depends upon a searching practical evaluation of the past and present reality, and on a functional view of the political process.” Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45 (internal quotation marks omitted) (citing S. Rep. No. 97-417, at 30 & n.120 (1982)). Having undertaken that inquiry, I conclude that Plaintiffs have established a § 2 violation. Because the facts of this case are so unique, however, the remedy that is ultimately warranted likely needs to be equally unique. Although I do not make any findings now as to the proper remedy, I encourage the parties, each of whom have a vested interest in the FFSD community, to work together in the remedy phase to devise a solution that effectively addresses the current inequalities impacting the electoral process and accommodates the special characteristics present in the FFSD population.

[This post has been updated.]

Share this: