Presentation on theme: "Public Debate on:. (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State."— Presentation transcript:
(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
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].
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 state or 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 group have 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
County No. Comm’r s Type System Population (2010 census) Black/ %White % Coweta5 5 election districts/Chairperson rotates to each district 127,31717.978.2 Spalding5 5 election districts/Chairperson chosen from amongst district commissioners 64,07333.263.8 Clayton5 4 election Districts/Chairperson elected at- large 259,42466.026.1 Fulton7 5 election Districts/Chairperson chosen at- large, one commissioner chosen at-large 920,58144.547.5 Fayette5 5 residency Districts; all commissioners elected at-large/Chairperson chosen from amongst district commissioners 106,56720.872.7
County No. Comm ’rs Type System Population (2010 census) Black %White % Carroll7 6 election districts/Chairperson elected at-large as a full time employee of the County and is the administrative head of county government 110,52718.778.0 Douglas5 4 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 132,40340.155.7 Henry6 5 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 20437.856.5 Pike5 4 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 17,86911.086.9 Dekalb7 5 election Districts; 2 “super districts” comprising half the county population; a County-wide elected executive is the administrative head of government 691,89354.437.8 Troup5 4 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 67,04434.062.4
County No. Com m’rs Type System Population (2010 census)Black %White % Heard6 5 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 11,83410.686.6 Cobb5 4 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 688,07825.966.7 Lamar5 4 election Districts/Chairperson elected at-large 18,31731.166.5 Meriwether5 5 election Districts/ Chairperson and Vice Chairperson elected from amongst the all commissioners 21,99239.458.5 Butts5 5 election Districts/ Chairperson and Vice Chairperson elected from amongst the all commissioners 23,65527.570.4
District Number District 1District 2 District 3 District 4 District 5Fayette Informal Description Fayetteville Tyrone/S. Fayette PTC N. FayetteCounty C. Fayetteville Total Commissioner Oddo BarlowOgnio Brown McCarty GENERAL 2010 Population21,642220,962420,850521,709121,4043106,582 Households8,12117,73736,89558,01027,404438,182 Household (HH) size2.6152.7133.0212.7042.8922.79 Median Age42.7341.8443.0140.9543.0142.3 HOUSEHOLD INCOME 2012% HH Income < $35k26.9%116.7%416.1%522.8%220.7%320.8% % HH Income > $100k26.2%544.3%244.4%131.8%435.3%336.1% Median HH Income$57,4905$87,0632$89,0651$64,4704$77,3973$74,486 Average HH Income$77,1655$105,2241$102,8912$82,9954$93,6443$91,885 HOME VALUES 2005-09Median Home Value$210,4785$298,0682$303,7001$238,6634$229,1183$254,506 RACIAL COMPOSITION 2010% White Alone62.2%479.1%387.6%181.1%246.1%571.1% % Black Alone29.0%212.3%37.6%57.8%443.2%120.1% % All Other8.8%38.6%44.8%511.1%110.7%28.8% 2017% White Alone55.7%473.6%383.9%176.4%239.5%565.7% % Black Alone34.1%215.8%310.0%49.9%548.4%123.7% % All Other10.2%410.6%36.1%513.7%112.1%210.6%
MALEFEMALE NON- MINORITYMINORITY SUPERVISORY ROLES 73.20%26.80%95.88%4.12% NON-SUPERVISORY ROLES 65.11%34.89%88.74%11.26% MALEFEMALE NON- MINORITYMINORITYTotal% Minority COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR 101010% DIVISION HEAD 404040% DEPARTMENT HEAD 105141157% MANAGER 259322346% SUPERVISOR 3112421432% NON-SUPERVISORY 2371273273736411% TOTAL 308153420414619.76%
ALL % All% TYPE EMPLOYEEMALEFEMALENON-MINORITYMINORITIESTOTAL% MinorityMinoritiesWhite Non- Pop. 2011Hispanic Classified Employees 272849836285112125% Certified Employees 32413601482202168412% Leadership Team 345273138615% TOTAL 63022612891500289117.30%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% TOTAL33.8%