public debate on:. (a) no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or...

DISTRICT VOTING VS. AT-LARGE VOTING

Public Debate on:

SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in Section 1973b(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b) of this section.

(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political process leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that it members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered; Provided, that nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population

THORNBURG vs. GINGLES

1. The minority is sufficiently

large and geographically compact enough to constitute a majority in a single member district.

2. The minority group is politically cohesive.

3. The majority votes sufficiently as block to enable it— in the absence of special circumstances, such as an unopposed minority candidate – usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.

“Having reviewed the Declaration and Supplemental Declarations of Richard Engstrom, [Docs. 54-6, 54-7], County Defendants do not dispute that Plaintiffs are likely able to establish the second and third preconditions of Thornburg v. Gingles, ....” [cit. omitted].

County Defendants’ Response to Court’s Order and Plaintiffs/BOE Defendants’ May 2, 2012 Brief, [NAACP case, Dkt 67, p. 10].

SENATE JUDICIARY REPORT – 9 OBJECTIVE FACTORS TO CONSIDER IN DETERMINING A SECTION TWO VIOLATION

1. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise participate in the democratic process.

All counties in the State of Georgia have a history of official discrimination that touched the right of blacks to vote –starting with slavery, Jim Crow laws, black codes, whites only primaries, laws against registration of black voters, literacy tests etc.

2. The extent to which voting in the elections of the stateor political subdivision is racially polarized.

Fayette County has admitted that racially polarized voting is a fact of life in Fayette County elections


3. The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority voter requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group.

Fayette County uses at-large voting which requires a candidate for local office to campaign over the entire county – an area of 199 square miles- an unusually large area for a single board seat

4. If there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group has been denied access to that process.

The slating process is conducted by the dominant political party in Fayette County- the Republican Party. Even when blacks have run as Republicans they have lost.


5. The extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process.

Given the current employment statistics of the Fayette Bd. Of Comm. and Sch. Bd. the case could be made today that there is discrimination in hiring by both of these entities

6. Whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals.

Robert Horgan in 2008 appealed to voters to vote for him in order to preserve Fayette County’s “heritage”. Recent campaigns commonly refer to not allowing Fayette to become like Clayton County – a majority black county.


7. The extent to which members of a minority grouphave been elected to public office in the jurisdiction.

8. Whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group.

No minority person has ever been elected to the Fayette Bd. of Comm. or Sch. Bd. nor to any Constitutional county office Very few minorities are appointed to boards and authorities in Fayette Co.;


9. Whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision’s use of such voting qualification,prerequisites to voting or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.

Several Factors indicate that the policy of using the exclusionary practice of at-large voting is tenous:

1. A district wide campaign is less expensive to mount thereby enticing more entrants to run for office

2. No evidence to show that al-large office holders are more qualified than district wide office holders.

3. At-large systems are more subject to racial appeals and manipulation

COMPARATIVE REGIONAL ELECTION FORMATS

ELECTION FORMAT SURROUNDING COUNTIESMAP

District Voting System

At-Large Voting System

COUNTY COMMISSION ELECTION FORMATSADJACENT COUNTIES

CountyNo.

Comm’rs

Type SystemPopulation

(2010 census)

Black/ % White %

Coweta 5 5 election districts/Chairperson rotates to each district 127,317 17.9 78.2

Spalding 5 5 election districts/Chairperson chosen from amongst district commissioners 64,073 33.2 63.8

Clayton 5 4 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 259,424 66.0 26.1

Fulton 7 5 election Districts/Chairperson chosen at-large, one commissioner chosen at-large 920,581 44.5 47.5

Fayette 55 residency Districts; all commissioners elected at-large/Chairperson chosen from amongst district commissioners

106,567 20.8 72.7

COUNTY COMMISSION ELECTION FORMATSOUTLYING COUNTIES

CountyNo.

Comm’rs


(2010 census)

Black % White %

Carroll 7

6 election districts/Chairperson elected at-large as a full time employee of the County and is the administrative head of county government

110,527 18.7 78.0

Douglas 5 4 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 132,403 40.1 55.7

Henry 6 5 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 204 37.8 56.5

Pike 5 4 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 17,869 11.0 86.9

Dekalb 7

5 election Districts; 2 “super districts” comprising half the county population; a County-wide elected executive is the administrative head of government

691,893 54.4 37.8

Troup 5 4 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 67,044 34.0 62.4

COUNTY COMMISSION ELECTION FORMATSOUTLYING COUNTIES, CON’T

CountyNo.

Comm’rs


(2010 census) Black % White %

Heard 65 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 11,834 10.6 86.6

Cobb 54 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 688,078 25.9 66.7

Lamar 54 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 18,317 31.1 66.5

Meriwether 5

5 election Districts/ Chairperson and Vice Chairperson elected from amongst the all commissioners 21,992 39.4 58.5

Butts 5

5 election Districts/ Chairperson and Vice Chairperson elected from amongst the all commissioners 23,655 27.5 70.4

DISTRICT MAPS

FAYETTE COUNTY COMMISSION DISTRICT 1

NAACP PROPOSED DISTRICT 5

FAYETTE COUNTY BD. OF COMM. DISTRICT DEMOGRAPHICS

District Number District 1

Rank

District 2

Rank

District 3

Rank

District 4

Rank

District 5

Rank

FayetteInformal Description Fayetteville Tyrone/ S. Fayette PTC N. Fayette County

C. Fayetteville Total

Commissioner Oddo Barlow Ognio Brown McCarty GENERAL

2010 Population 21,642 2 20,962 4 20,850 5 21,709 1 21,404 3 106,582 Households 8,121 1 7,737 3 6,895 5 8,010 2 7,404 4 38,182 Household (HH) size 2.61 5 2.71 3 3.02 1 2.70 4 2.89 2 2.79 Median Age 42.7 3 41.8 4 43.0 1 40.9 5 43.0 1 42.3

HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2012 % HH Income < $35k 26.9% 1 16.7% 4 16.1% 5 22.8% 2 20.7% 3 20.8%

% HH Income > $100k 26.2% 5 44.3% 2 44.4% 1 31.8% 4 35.3% 3 36.1% Median HH Income $57,490 5 $87,063 2 $89,065 1 $64,470 4 $77,397 3 $74,486 Average HH Income $77,165 5 $105,224 1 $102,891 2 $82,995 4 $93,644 3 $91,885

HOME VALUES 2005-09 Median Home Value $210,478 5 $298,068 2 $303,700 1 $238,663 4 $229,118 3 $254,506

RACIAL COMPOSITION 2010 % White Alone 62.2% 4 79.1% 3 87.6% 1 81.1% 2 46.1% 5 71.1%

% Black Alone 29.0% 2 12.3% 3 7.6% 5 7.8% 4 43.2% 1 20.1% % All Other 8.8% 3 8.6% 4 4.8% 5 11.1% 1 10.7% 2 8.8%

2017 % White Alone 55.7% 4 73.6% 3 83.9% 1 76.4% 2 39.5% 5 65.7% % Black Alone 34.1% 2 15.8% 3 10.0% 4 9.9% 5 48.4% 1 23.7% % All Other 10.2% 4 10.6% 3 6.1% 5 13.7% 1 12.1% 2 10.6%

FAYETTE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT STATS

BD. OF COMM. EMPLOYMENT STATS

MALE FEMALENON-

MINORITY MINORITY

SUPERVISORY ROLES 73.20% 26.80% 95.88% 4.12%NON-SUPERVISORY ROLES 65.11% 34.89% 88.74% 11.26%

MALE FEMALENON-

MINORITY MINORITY Total % MinorityCOUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 1 0 1 0 1 0%

DIVISION HEAD 4 0 4 0 4 0%

DEPARTMENT HEAD 10 5 14 1 15 7%

MANAGER 25 9 32 2 34 6%

SUPERVISOR 31 12 42 1 43 2%

NON-SUPERVISORY 237 127 327 37 364 11%

TOTAL 308 153 420 41 461 9.76%

ALL % All %TYPE EMPLOYEE MALE FEMALE NON-MINORITY MINORITIES TOTAL % Minority Minorities White Non- Pop. 2011 HispanicClassified Employees 272 849 836 285 1121 25% Certified Employees 324 1360 1482 202 1684 12% Leadership Team 34 52 73 13 86 15%

TOTAL 630 2261 2891 500 2891 17.30% 33.80% 67.20%

Black Non-Hispanic 20.8%

Hispanic 6.5%Asian 4.1%Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander 0.1%American Indian/Native Alaskan 0.4%Persons Reporting Two or More Races 1.9%

TOTAL 33.8%

BD. OF EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT STATS

public debate on:. (a) no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or...

Documents

political process

minority group

political campaigns

large voting

political subdivisions

fayette county elections

majority black county

entire county