Honiss W. Cane, Jr. v. Worcester County, Maryland George M. Hurley John E. Bloxom Reginald T. Hancock Floyd F. Bassett Jeanne Lynch, Members, Worcester County Board of Commissioners, and George H. Dryden Hinson Finney Mark Frostrom, United States of America Center for Voting and Democracy Republican National Committee, Amici Curiae. Honiss W. Cane, Jr. v. Worcester County, Maryland George M. Hurley John E. Bloxom Reginald T. Hancock, Floyd F. Bassett Jeanne Lynch, Members, Worcester County Board of Commissioners, and George H. Dryden Hinson Finney Mark Frostrom, United States of America Center for Voting and Democracy Republican National Committee, Amici Curiae
Docket: 95-1122
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; June 16, 1995; Federal Appellate Court
In the case Honiss W. Cane, Jr. v. Worcester County, Maryland, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals reviewed appeals regarding a district court judgment that imposed a remedial voting plan for the Worcester County Board of Commissioners. The plaintiffs alleged that the existing at-large electoral system violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 by diluting African-American voters' votes. The district court found that African-American voters constituted a sufficient majority to form a single-member district and were politically cohesive, resulting in systematic discrimination against them in the electoral process.
The court determined that the County's proposed remedial plan closely mirrored the original at-large system, which had already been ruled as violative of Section 2. Consequently, the district court mandated the implementation of a cumulative voting system instead. The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's findings that the at-large system contravened Section 2 and modified part of the decision, remanding it with instructions for further action.
The cumulative voting scheme ordered by the district court as a remedy for the Section 2 violation was vacated and remanded due to the court's failure to allow the County an adequate opportunity to propose its own remedial plan. The district court had immediately imposed the cumulative voting scheme without deferring to the County's legislative preferences. On remand, the County submitted three plans, with the primary proposal dividing the County into five single-member districts. Although none of these districts would have a majority African-American population, the County argued that African-American voters could achieve a 'functional majority' in District 3, where they comprised 44.68% of the voting age population, aided by projected white crossover voting. The district court, however, noted that no plan relying on such crossover voting had been previously approved and concluded that this did not provide African-American voters a reasonable chance to elect their preferred candidate. After rejecting all County-proposed plans and one from the Plaintiffs, the district court crafted a remedy that included primary elections based on the County's second proposal and a countywide general election using cumulative voting, to be conducted by November 7, 1995. At oral argument, all parties agreed to reject the district court's cumulative voting scheme but disagreed on remand instructions. The County contended that its second remedial plan was adequate and requested an additional 90 days to devise a new plan, arguing it had insufficient time due to the court's earlier deadlines. However, it was determined that the County had ample opportunity to propose a compliant remedial plan, having been asked to do so as early as January 1994.
The County has failed to propose an acceptable remedy for the violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act identified by the district court nearly 18 months prior. Despite a five-month period since the district court's remand, the County has not advanced a viable electoral plan and is requesting an additional 90 days, which would delay the upcoming November elections. The plaintiffs argue that since all parties agree the previously imposed cumulative voting scheme is inadequate, the district court should implement the plaintiffs’ single-member district plan, which would ensure fair representation for African-American voters and align with the County's legislative goals, despite the County's objections due to municipal divisions. Alternatively, plaintiffs propose another plan that divides only two municipalities and adequately remedies the Section 2 violation.
The district court had previously found that the existing election scheme diluted African-American votes, and despite this ruling being affirmed, no remedy has been enacted, allowing current commissioners elected under the unconstitutional scheme to remain in office. The court expresses reluctance to further postpone the general election and concludes that the plaintiffs' alternative plan is a suitable remedy. Consequently, it remands to the district court with instructions to implement this alternative plan immediately, ensuring that the scheduled elections in November 1995 proceed as planned. The County's earlier proposed plans were rejected as non-viable, and the court notes that the County had an opportunity to develop a single-member district plan but did not act on it. The deadline for candidate filings is July 3, 1995.
