Jose Aranda v. J. B. Van Sickle

concurring:

After some hesitation, I too conclude that summary judgment was proper in this case, and I concur in the judgment of the court and in the approach adopted by Judge Barnes. Certain conclusions of the trial court do remain troublesome, however, and further comment on these matters seems appropriate.

The standards for determining the constitutionality of systems for electing state legislators set forth in cases such as White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 , 93 S.Ct. 2332 , 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973), and Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124 , 91 S.Ct. 1858 , 29 L.Ed.2d 363 (1971), have not yet been applied by the Court to systems for electing city council members or mayors. This was noted in the concurring opinion of four Justices in Wise v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 550 , 98 S.Ct. 2493 , 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978), but it was not there suggested how municipal elections differ in relevant respects from cases involving state legislatures. Perhaps in the two cases different weights might be assigned to the analytic elements examined to determine whether or not the election system is unconstitutional, cf. United States v. Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District, 461 F.Supp. 117, 122…

This is an appeal from the granting of a motion for summary judgment made by the defendants, who were once members of the city council, and the Mayor, of the City of San Fernando, California.

The district court found that the plaintiffs, members of the San Fernando Mexican-American community, who brought this class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , had failed to establish that the at-large election scheme used by the City of San Fernando to elect its city council was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth, Fifteenth, Nineteenth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

I. FACTS:

The City of San Fernando, which has a population of 16,500, was incorporated in 1911 under California Government Code Section 34102. It has used an at-large election scheme under California Government Code Section 36503 or its predecessors in selecting its members of the five-person city council since that time. Council members are elected for terms of four years. The mayor is selected from among the council members.

Since 1911 only three Mexican-Americans have been elected to the city council despite the fact that Mexican-Americans comprise approximately fifty percent of the…

600 F.2d 1267 Jose ARANDA et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. J. B. VAN SICKLE et al., Defendants-Appellees. No. 77-2714. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. July 12, 1979. Joaquin G. Avila, Mexican-American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, San Antonio, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants; Morris Baller, Mexican American Legal Defense & Educational Fund, San Francisco, Cal., argued. John A. Lewis (argued), Lewis, Varni & Ghirardelli, San Fernando, Cal., for defendants-appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Before BARNES and KENNEDY, Circuit Judges, and VOORHEES, District Judge. * BARNES, Senior Circuit Judge: 1 This is an appeal from the granting of a motion for summary judgment made by the defendants, who were once members of the city council, and the Mayor, of the City of San Fernando, California. 2 The district court found that the plaintiffs, members of the San Fernando Mexican-American community, who brought this class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , had failed to establish that the at-large election scheme used by the City of San Fernando to elect its city council was unconstitutional under the…