Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?

Irving Weekly Title

Local News

Council Approves Settlement for Voting Rights Violation

At the September 3 Irving City Council meeting, the Council passed a resolution to approve the negotiated settlement in the voting rights case, Benavidez v. City of Irving. The compromise would replace the current at-large voting system with one in which six members of the council are elected from single-member districts. The proposed district map is shown below. The vote was 6-3 with council members Lewis Patrick, Tom Spink and Beth Van Duyne opposing the resolution.
 
The proposed settlement must now be approved by U.S. District Judge Jorge Solis.The case was filed by Irving resident Manual Benavidez in fall 2007, it was tried in February 2009 and, in July, Judge Solis ruled that Irving’s current at-large system violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Irving’s Hispanic voters. Following his ruling, Judge Solis gave the City of Irving and the plaintiff Benavidez 90 days to propose an election and redistricting plan, including a schedule for implementation. The City was prohibited from holding elections until resolution of the case.
 
The redesigned map calls for Places 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 to become single-member districts, in which only registered voters living in the district can vote for their council representative. All registered voters in Irving may vote for at-large Places 2, 8 and the mayor. The plan will begin with the May 2010 election, in which Places 1, 2 and 7 are up for election; in May 2011 Places 3, 5 and the mayor will be elected; and, in May 2012, Places 4, 6 and 8 will be elected. If this scheduled is approved, each election will include two council members from single member districts and one at-large candidate.

In addition to the redesigned districts, the City has agreed to pay $200,000 of the plaintiff’s legal costs. In the absence of an agreement, the plaintiff could recover up to the full amount of his $800,000 legal costs.

During the Council meeting approximately 15 residents testified about the plan. Slightly more than half testified against the measure, some of the issues voiced included concern about the alleged gerrymandering of District 1 and support for continuing the appeal process. For those in support of the resolution, the major concern was that if the parties can’t come to an agreement, the judge could design the districts and Irving would ultimately get an 8-1 system with only the mayor being elected at-large.

 
After the conclusion of the public testimony and after several Council members spoke, Mayor Herbert Gears, who was the point-person for Irving during the negotiations, took the microphone to lay out Irving’s options and clear up what he described as misperceptions surrounding the case.

Gears stated, "Although people want to ignore it and engage their own law and order degree, I am not a lawyer, but my law and order degree tells me that the Federal judge has ruled against Irving. Period. We lost. Right now, we are subject to a Federal Court Order, we are prohibited from holding an election of any kind. …That is the situation that we’re in." Although since the July opinion, there has been a lot of discussion and opinions, Gears cautioned, "I think it is prudent that we assess the condition we are in accurately and accept it.

"…All cities go through this process when they continue to grow. Irving is over 200,000 people." Gears continued, "There are a lot of different ways that cities transition into single member district type systems. Some of them are less effective than others, but it is the process that we are going through right now. And sometimes, it’s messy. And we have a strike against us in that the Federal Court has ruled against us and our system."

Irving has filed an appeal to preserve all options. Mayor Gears explained, "If this settlement is altered in any way by the judge or not approved tonight, we’ve reserved our rights to proceed with our appeal."

The only two options available to the City Council were to pursue the appeal or to approve the resolution. The mayor described those options and the corresponding effects. "We [can] continue to fight. We have been told our appeal could last up to 24 months. We’ve been told when we get the new census data in 18 months that we are going to be sunk in the next courtroom, because it is going to further bolster the case of the plaintiff, who has already won." Irving has already paid $400,000 on legal fees and an appeal would at least double that figure. In addition, if the plaintiff is ultimately successful through the appellate level (which Irving’s attorney believes would be the result), Irving would be responsible for paying the plaintiff’s legal bills as well and Irving could wind up with an 8 - 1 system, which people on both sides of the issue think would be bad government.

Now that the decision to pursue settlement has been made, Gears believes this is the best option for Irving. "We worked a great deal. Through a great deal of work with [City Attorney] Charles Anderson, [outside counsel] Bob Heath, and the attorneys for the plaintiff, we arrived at where we are today. We have a hybrid system. We have at-large council members…. [The City Council] had a choice of what to do. To fight, or settle this once and for all, and get this behind us….It is a momentous decision for the City to make."

 
The next step is for the City’s legal team and plaintiff’s attorneys to present an order for the Court to evaluate.

You May Also Like