Whitest v. Crisp Cnty. Sch. Dist.

601 F.Supp.3d 1338

Mathew WHITEST, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.CRISP COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al., Defendants.

CASE NO.: 1:17-CV-109 (LAG)

United States District Court, M.D. Georgia, Albany Division.

Signed April 28, 2022

Bryan L. Sells, Sean Jengwei Young, Atlanta, GA, Dale E. Ho, Pro Hac Vice, New York, NY, for Plaintiffs Mathew Whitest, Curtis Lucas, Jr.

Sarah Williamson, Cordele, GA, Pro Se.

Kenya Williamson, Cordele, GA, Pro Se.

Betty Jean Williamson, Cordele, GA, Pro Se.

George Whitehead, Jr., Cordele, GA, Pro Se.

Crandall Postell, Cordele, GA, Pro Se.

Hieu M. Nguyen, Gainesville, GA, Phillip L. Hartley, Gainesville, GA, for Defendants Crisp County School District, Justin Posey, Dr. Elizabeth Maddox, Lelee Phinney, Lonnie Nelms, Lydia Adkins, Scott Forehand.

Anne Ware Lewis, Atlanta, GA, John J. Park, Jr., Atlanta, GA, Frank B. Strickland, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant Becky Perkins.

John J. Park, Jr., Atlanta, GA, Bryan Francis Jacoutot, Atlanta, GA, Bryan P. Tyson, Atlanta, GA, Frank B. Strickland, Atlanta, GA, Loree Anne Paradise, Atlanta, GA, for Defendant Crisp County Board of Elections and Registration.

ORDER

LESLIE A. GARDNER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This case began in June 2017, when Plaintiffs Mathew Whitest and Curtis Lucas, Jr. (collectively, the Whitest Plaintiffs), and pro se Plaintiffs Crandall Postell, Sarah Williamson, Kenya Williamson, Betty Jean Williamson, and George Whitehead Jr. challenged the at-large method of election for the Crisp County Board of Education. (Doc. 1). The Complaint alleged that the at-large election system diluted the voting strength of Black voters in Crisp County in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301. (Id. ¶¶ 3, 27–28). After attempts to settle the case failed, the Whitest Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment. (Doc. 110). Defendants, the Crisp County School District and the Crisp County Board of Elections and Registration, conceded liability and stipulated to facts satisfying the three Gingles preconditions and several Senate factors. (See Docs. 110-1, 113); Thornburg v. Gingles , 478 U.S. 30, 50–51, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). On August 20, 2021, the Court concluded that the at-large election method of electing all six members of the Board of Education violated Section 2 and granted the Whitest Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment. (Doc. 119 at 9). The Court found that the at-large election system denied Black voters in Crisp County an equal opportunity to participate in the electoral process and to elect candidates of their choice. (Id. ).

To ensure no future elections would be conducted under the unlawful at-large plan, the Court outlined a timeline and procedures for implementing an appropriate remedial plan for the 2022 elections. (Id. at 9–11). In accordance with well-established precedent that the legislature should have the first opportunity to create a remedial plan, the Court directed Defendants to confer with Crisp County's legislative delegation about devising a remedy for the 2022 elections. (Id. at 10); see Lawyer v. Dep't of Just. , 521 U.S. 567, 576, 117 S.Ct. 2186, 138 L.Ed.2d 669 (1997). At a status conference held on December 8, 2021, the Court directed the Parties to prepare and submit proposed remedial plans by January 7, 2022. (Doc. 131 at 22:24–23:1). The Court subsequently received two proposed remedial plans. Defendant Crisp County School District submitted draft legislation, House Bill (HB) 956, that it developed in coordination with the Georgia Legislative Reapportionment Office. (Doc. 133 at 2–4; Doc. 136-1). This legislation would decrease the size of the Board to five members, with one to be elected at-large and four to be elected by district—two from the City of Cordele and two from the rest of Crisp County. (Doc. 133 at 2). Plaintiff Postell submitted a plan maintaining the size of the Board and creating six single-member districts. (Doc. 135 at 2–3). The Whitest Plaintiffs stated that they do not oppose the School District's remedial proposal but noted that their "non-opposition is entirely dependent on the Georgia General Assembly actually adopting the School District's plan." (Doc. 134 at 1).

After reviewing the Parties’ submissions, the Court raised several concerns about the Parties’ proposals and the lack of supporting materials provided. (Doc. 143 at 2–4). In an Order issued February 9, 2022, and during the subsequent hearing on the matter, the Court explained that the Parties’ filings omitted essential information needed for the Court to fulfill its obligation to "ensure that any remedial plan it enacts provides a full and complete remedy of the Section 2 violation and that the remedial plan itself complies with the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act, and applicable case law." (Id. at 2 (citing Ga. State Conf. of NAACP v. Fayette Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs , 996 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1358–59 (N.D. Ga. 2014) ); Doc. 148 at 3:4–5:16). Further, the Court expressed concern that the School District's proposal appeared to maintain the at-large election method for all five Board of Education members and merely imposed residency requirements on four of the five members. (Doc. 143 at 1 n.1; Doc. 148 at 4:14–24). At the hearing held on February 15, 2022, the Court identified documentation and information the Parties needed to submit so the Court could adequately evaluate their proposals; and all Parties agreed to supplement their filings. (Doc. 148 at 41:25–46:22). The Court issued an Order that afternoon detailing the specific materials needed from each Party. (Doc. 147 at 1–2).

Thereafter, the School District submitted a copy of the General Assembly's website showing the dates for actions taken by the House and Senate on HB 956, which the School District described as "the history of the bill." (Doc. 149 at 1; Doc. 149-1). The School District also provided a general description of the process followed in drawing the legislation and the criteria applied but did not include the supporting documents the Court requested, such as transcripts, meeting minutes, or other records of hearings, discussions, debates, or other relevant testimony related to the plan. (Doc. 149 at 2–4; Doc. 147 at 2). In response to the Court's concern about the legislation's language suggesting all five Board members would be elected at-large, the School District provided a copy of draft legislation, HB 1430, clarifying "that the four district, one at-large plan requires that a board member be elected to represent each of the four districts and only by the voters within each of those districts." (Doc. 149 at 1; Doc. 149-2). HB 1430 was passed by the Georgia General Assembly and signed into law by the Governor of Georgia on March 22, 2022.¹ The legislation does not become fully effective, however, unless the voters of Crisp County vote to rescind a 1956 local amendment to the Georgia Constitution that providing for the current at-large election method for the Board of Education. (See Doc. 113 at 1–2; Doc. 133 at 4). A referendum on this matter will be held on May 24, 2022, in conjunction with the primary election. (Doc. 149 at 2; Doc. 150 ¶ 4).

Defendant Crisp County Board of Elections and Registration also provided transcripts of testimony given by officials from the Georgia Secretary of State's office about the timeline and process for November 2022 election preparations. (Docs. 150-1, 150-2). Given the Court's ruling that the existing at-large election method violates federal law and the fact that a legislative remedy was passed by the Georgia General Assembly, the Board of Elections and Registration advised the Court that it started updating the voter-registration database with the HB 1430 districts so that the May primaries may be conducted under the new plan and the legislation may be promptly implemented for future elections upon approval by the voters. (Doc. 149 at 2 n.1; Doc. 150 ¶ 4). The Board of Elections and Registration also represented that it would "send new precinct cards to all Crisp County voters indicating their new districts for the School District and will have maps for the new School District boundaries available in its office for candidates and voters to review." (Doc. 150 ¶ 5).

Despite agreeing to do so, Plaintiff Postell did not submit any of the requested information or documentation for his proposed remedial plan. (See Doc. 151). During the February 15, 2022 hearing, Plaintiff Postell told the Court that he could provide the data used to create his remedial proposal within one week (Doc. 148 at 8:2–12, 39:20–40:7, 41:14–17); but, in his supplemental filing, he stated that "the time allowed [was] not enough." (Doc. 151 at 1). Plaintiff Postell has since made no effort to provide this information to the Court. The Whitest Plaintiffs provided a declaration from Dr. Stephen Popick, an expert in the statistical analysis of voting behaviors, who analyzed the School District's remedial proposal. (Docs. 144, 144-1).

The Parties each ask the Court to take certain actions in connection with their remedial proposals. Plaintiff Postell urges the Court to adopt his "six district plan that would give [B]lack people in [Crisp County] four districts out of six." (Doc. 151 at 1–2). The Whitest Plaintiffs ask for an order "(1) enjoining the defendants from conducting any further elections under the unlawful at-large election plan; (2) enjoining the defendants from failing to conduct a primary election ... [on] May 24, 2022, in accordance with the plan set out in House Bill 956," as modified by House Bill 1430, and "(3) retaining jurisdiction to enter such further relief as necessary to ensure that school board elections go forward in 2022 under a plan that complies with the Voting Rights Act." (Doc. 144 at 5). The School District requests "that the Court only enter an injunction enforcing its previous liability order as it relates to the 1956 local constitutional amendment and the subsequent implementing legislation." (Doc. 149 ...