Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

GOOSBY v. TOWN BD. OF HEMPSTEAD

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


February 20, 1997

DOROTHY GOOSBY, SAMUEL PRIOLEAU, XAVIER MORALES, and MILADYS MORALES, Plaintiffs, against TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK, GREGORY P. PETERSON, RICHARD A. ZAGARINO, CURTIS FISHER, JOSEPH RA, ANTHONY SANTINO, JOSEPH KEARNEY, in their official capacities as members of the Town Board of the Town of Hempstead, NASSAU COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS, JOHN DeGRACE and STEVEN SABBETH, in their official capacities as Commissioners of Elections of Nassau County, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: GLEESON

FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

 JOHN GLEESON, United States District Judge:

 This is an action brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, and the First, Thirteenth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs, African-American *fn1" citizens of the Town of Hempstead (the "Town"), challenge the at-large voting practice used in the Town to elect the six Councilmembers who sit on the Town Board of the Town of Hempstead (the "Town Board"). Plaintiffs contend that this system dilutes the voting strength of the minority population in the Town in violation of the Voting Rights Act, and seek an order directing the implementation of a single-member district election system.

  The complaint was filed on August 8, 1988. On November 16, 1994, the case was reassigned to this Court. Discovery was completed in February 1996. Defendants moved for summary judgment, which motion was argued and denied on April 5, 1996. A three-week bench trial was held in July 1996, and closing arguments by counsel were heard on August 14, 1996.

 This decision is arranged in three parts. Part I sets forth a brief overview of the legal principles governing claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Part II sets forth my findings of fact. Part III sets forth my conclusions of law.

 I conclude that plaintiffs have established a violation of Section 2 and are entitled to the relief they seek.

 I. OVERVIEW OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES GOVERNING CLAIMS UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

 Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, reads in pertinent part as follows:

 

(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 . . . .

 

(b) A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes 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 its 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.

 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (1994). There is no dispute that the at-large system for electing the members of the Town Board is an electoral practice that is subject to challenge under Section 2. In addition, it is clear that the 1982 amendments to Section 2 rejected the plurality opinion in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 64 L. Ed. 2d 47, 100 S. Ct. 1490 (1980), which sought to impose on Section 2 plaintiffs an obligation to prove that the challenged practice was adopted or maintained with the intent to discriminate against minority voters. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 43-44, 92 L. Ed. 2d 25, 106 S. Ct. 2752 (1986).

 In Gingles, the Supreme Court identified three "preconditions" to a successful challenge to multimember districts under Section 2: (1) the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district; (2) it must be politically cohesive; and (3) the white majority must vote sufficiently as a bloc to enable it, in the absence of special circumstances, to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. 478 U.S. at 50-51. "Regarding the third prong, Gingles instructed that 'in general, a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white "crossover" votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting.'" NAACP v. City of Niagara Falls, 65 F.3d 1002, 1007 (2d Cir. 1995) (quoting Gingles, 478 U.S. at 56).

 The satisfaction of these three preconditions, which have come to be known as the "Gingles factors," is necessary but not sufficient to prove a Section 2 violation. More is required; if the preconditions are met, a district court must then consider whether, under the totality of the circumstances, the challenged practice impairs the ability of the minority voters to participate equally in the political process. City of Niagara Falls, 65 F.3d at 1007 (citing Gingles, 478 U.S. at 80). Thus, proof of the Gingles preconditions does not always portend liability under Section 2, Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 114 S. Ct. 2647, 2657 n.10, 129 L. Ed. 2d 775 (1994), but "it will only be the very unusual case in which the plaintiffs can establish the existence of the three Gingles factors but still have failed to establish a violation of § 2 under the totality of circumstances." City of Niagara Falls, 65 F.3d at 1019 n.21 (citing Jenkins v. Red Clay Consolidated School Dist. Bd. of Educ., 4 F.3d 1103, 1135 (3d Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1252, 129 L. Ed. 2d 891, 114 S. Ct. 2779 (1994)); Teague v. Attala County, 92 F.3d 283, 293 (5th Cir. 1996); Clark v. Calhoun County, 21 F.3d 92, 97 (5th Cir. 1994); see also Johnson v. De Grandy, 114 S. Ct. at 2657 n.10 (noting that § 2 challenges to multimember districts are likely to be easier plaintiffs' cases than challenges to electoral practices in single-member districts).

 In assessing the totality of the circumstances in which a challenged electoral practice is employed, a district judge must conduct a "searching practical evaluation of the 'past and present reality.'" Gingles, 478 U.S. at 45 (quoting S. Rep. No. 417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982) ("Senate Report") at 30, reprinted in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News ("U.S.C.C.A.N.") 177, at 208). This requires a fact-intensive, functional view of the political process, in an effort to determine whether the Town's political processes are equally open to participation by its black citizens. Id. at 45-46.

 Gingles identified as relevant to this inquiry the factors set forth in the Senate Report (which accompanied the 1982 amendments to Section 2), which are as follows:

 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 to participate in the democratic process;

 2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized;

 3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group;

 4. if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process;

 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;

 6. whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals;

 7. the extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction;

 8. whether there is significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group; and

 9. whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of the challenged voting qualification, prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.

 See Senate Report at 28-29, 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 206-07, cited in Gingles, 478 U.S. at 36-37, 44-45; see also City of Niagara Falls, 65 F.3d at 1007-08.

 The factors set forth in the Senate Report are not exclusive, *fn2" and are not to be applied mechanically. A failure by plaintiffs to establish a particular factor "is not rebuttal evidence of non-dilution." Senate Report at 29 n.118, 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 207. Nor should the outcomes of these factors be tallied, as though a majority of them, or particular ones among them, must weigh in plaintiffs' favor before a Section 2 violation is established. Id. Rather, these factors are simply guideposts in a broad-based inquiry in which district judges are expected to roll up their sleeves and examine all aspects of the past and present political environment in which the challenged electoral practice is used, "because 'ultimate conclusions about equality or inequality of opportunity were intended by Congress to be judgments resting on comprehensive, not limited, canvassing of relevant facts.'" City of Niagara Falls, 65 F.3d at 1008 (quoting De Grandy, 114 S. Ct. at 2657).

 II. FINDINGS OF FACT

 A. The Town Of Hempstead And Its Characteristics

 The Town of Hempstead is the most populous town in the United States. Measured by population, it is larger than all but 13 cities in the United States, and is larger than six states. It is 25% larger than New York's third and fourth congressional districts, which both include substantial portions of the Town as well as surrounding areas. The Town is apparently among the largest undivided election districts in the country. According to the United States Census, the total population in the Town is 725,639 (as of 1990), of which 12.1% are black and 83% are white. The voting age population is 11.2% black and 84.8% white. Of this voting age population, 48.6% are registered Republicans, 29.6% are registered Democrats, and 21.8% are either unregistered or are registered as something other than Republican or Democrat.

 Since 1960, the black population has grown steadily from 3.4% of the total population to 5.8% (1970) to 9.3% (1980) to the 1990 level of 12.1%. As of 1990, the black population in the Town was 87,644, and there is ample reason to conclude that it has continued to grow as a percentage of the total population during the past seven years.

 The Town of Hempstead is located in Nassau County. The Town includes twenty-two villages and thirty-four unincorporated areas. The county, the Town, and the villages each have their own local governments. The responsibilities of these governments are in some respects distinct. Who fixes a damaged road, for example, depends on whether it is a state road, a county road, a town road or a village road. In other respects, the responsibilities of these levels of government overlap.

 The Town is governed by a Town Board, a legislative body that is required under New York Town Law to have a Supervisor and at least four Town Councilmembers. The number of Council seats may be increased to six by a referendum vote of the Town residents. Prior to 1967, the Town Board consisted of a Supervisor, a Presiding Supervisor and four Town Councilmembers. In 1967, the number of Councilmembers was increased by referendum to six. Since that time, the six Councilmembers have been elected in staggered four-year terms. Every two years, in the odd-numbered years, three Councilmembers are elected at-large. Each eligible voter in the Town is able to cast three votes, one for each vacant seat on the Board. "Single-shot" voting (voting for only one candidate) is permitted, and cumulative voting (casting multiple votes for one candidate) is prohibited. The three candidates who obtain the most votes win the three seats on the Board; there is no requirement that a candidate receive a majority vote to win a seat. This system is used in every town on Long Island and in all but approximately ten of the 900 towns in New York State. A referendum to change the electoral system in the Town of Hempstead from an at-large to a councilmanic district system was rejected in 1967 by the Town residents.

 From 1967 until January 1996, the Town Board also included a Supervisor and a Presiding Supervisor, both of whom sat on the six-member Nassau County Board of Supervisors. After a successful challenge to the constitutionality of that body, see Jackson v. Board of Supervisors, 818 F. Supp. 509 (E.D.N.Y. 1993), and as a result of a county-wide vote and state legislation, the Board of Supervisors was replaced with a nineteen-member county legislature in 1994. The Presiding Supervisor position was eliminated in 1996. Thus, the Town Board now consists of six Councilmembers, who are part-time Town employees earning $ 45,000 per year, and the Town Supervisor, a full-time employee who is the chief executive and administrative officer of the Town and a voting member of the Town Board. *fn3"

 Throughout the trial of this case, defendants have asserted that the Town Board has only a limited governmental function. They correctly point out that Town residents are affected by a complex web of governments -- state, county, town and village. Nonetheless, the evidence establishes that the Town Board exercises substantial authority, both formally and informally, in a wide variety of areas of importance to its residents.

 The formal powers and responsibilities of the Town Board include controlling Town finances, acquiring and selling real property, maintaining Town property (including its various parks), filling vacancies in Town offices, removing fire and health hazards, awarding and executing Town contracts, cleaning and repairing Town streets and roads, maintaining adequate lighting on Town roads, collecting garbage in certain areas of the Town, *fn4" and promulgating zoning laws and hearing applications for rezoning areas of the Town. The Town has numerous departments, including the Public Safety Department, the Department of Sanitation, the Department of Water, the Department of Parks and Recreation, the Department of Senior Enrichment, the Department of Planning and Economic Development, the Department of General Services, the Department of Highways, the Department of Industry and Commerce, the Department of Conservation and Waterways, the Department of Occupational Resources, and the Department of Buildings. The Board appoints the members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, and hears appeals from its denials of zoning variances. The current Town budget is $ 290 million, and there are approximately 2500 Town employees.

 The formal authority of the Town Board is supplemented by the political influence its members wield. For example, there is no Town Police Department (the Public Safety Department's 60 "safety officers" are not peace officers), but a Councilmember need only pick up the telephone in order to influence the actions of the Nassau County Police Department. Similarly, the Town Board has the power to pass resolutions that can influence other governing bodies. In these and other ways, Town Councilmembers exercise considerable influence over the operations of the other governmental entities that affect the Town's residents.

 The main political parties in the Town are the Republican Party and the Democratic Party. Other political parties that have fielded candidates include the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the Right to Life Party.

 The Republican Party has had a lock on Town-wide elections since the inception of Town government. Indeed, since 1907, the victor of every Town-wide election (Presiding Supervisor, Supervisor, Councilmember, and Town Clerk) -- 71 elected officials in all -- has been a Republican. With the exception of Curtis Fisher, who was elected in 1993, all have been white.

 B. The First Gingles Precondition: A Sufficiently Large And Geographically Compact Minority Group

 Dr. Andrew Beveridge, an expert in the field of districting, created a map establishing six single-member districts in the Town. He followed four principles in creating the six districts depicted in Plaintiffs' Exhibit ("PX") 4D, which is appended to this decision at A-1: (1) each district should have as close to an equal number of residents as possible, with a maximum variance of 5%; (2) the boundaries of each district should conform, to the extent possible, to the existing political geography; (3) the districts should be reasonably compact; and (4) to the extent possible, where the first three criteria have been met, the black population should be included in one district. Dr. Beveridge thereby proposed a hypothetical black-majority district without subordinating traditional districting principles to race.

 For Census purposes, areas within the Town are designated either villages, Census Designated Places ("CDPs") or unincorporated areas. A CDP is an unincorporated area that is considered a community. There are approximately 10,000 Census blocks and 747 block groups in the Town, from which Dr. Beveridge was able to measure racial composition and draw the six proposed districts, each of which has close to 120,000 people. The largest district is only 1.67% over 120,000, and the smallest, District 3, was only 2.53% less than 120,000.

 District 3 is a majority-minority district. Its boundaries follow village and CDP boundaries except in two places: it cuts through the village of Freeport and through the West Hempstead CDP. Where it cuts through Freeport, it crosses south of Sunrise Highway and takes in additional areas with minority residents. *fn5" The proposed District 3 is very similar to Assembly District 18 -- a majority-minority district for election of a member of the New York State Assembly. A comparison of District 3 and Assembly District 18 is depicted in Plaintiffs' Exhibit 4F, a copy of which is appended at A-2. District 3 includes all four of the predominantly black communities in the Town: Lakeview, Roosevelt, Freeport and Hempstead. The total population of District 3 is 55.45% black; the voting age population is 52.57% black. The proportions of blacks and whites in District 3 are within tenths of a percentage point of their proportions in Assembly District 18.

 There are some communities that Dr. Beveridge split in his proposed map that might naturally be expected to be included in the same district. For example, Hewlitt, one of the five areas that make up a community known as the "Five Towns" (the other four are Inwood, Lawrence, Cedarhurst, and Woodmere) is not in the same proposed district as the other four. Also, Lido Beach is closest to District 4 but is included in District 6. Dr. Beveridge also split what is known as the "tri-community" of Malverne, Lakeview, and Lynbrook, including only Lakeview in District 3.

 Nonetheless, the proposed districts are compact. Dr. Beveridge measured compactness by dispersion in the district, which is calculated by the ratio of the area of the actual district to the area of the ideal district, where the ideal district is a circle the radius of which is the line from the center of the district to the farthest point in the actual district. The most compact district would thus have a dispersion measurement of one. The average compactness for the districts Dr. Beveridge created was .44, and the compactness for proposed District 3 was .38. District 3 was thus more dispersed than the average dispersion of all six districts. However, in 1990 the average compactness for United States Congressional districts was .36, and the average compactness for New York Congressional districts was .30. Moreover, the compactness for New York State Assembly District 18 (the majority-minority district) is .29.

 Dr. Beveridge also measured the compactness of his proposed districts by dividing the perimeter of the ideal district by the perimeter of the actual district. Again, the perfectly compact district has a perimeter ratio of one. Proposed District 3 has a perimeter ratio of .27, which compares favorably with the average perimeter ratios of the majority-minority Assembly District 18 (.26) and the U.S. Congressional districts as measured in 1990 (.24), and it exceeds the 1990 average perimeter ratio of New York Congressional districts (.20).

  The compactness of District 3 is further demonstrated the old-fashioned way -- by looking at a map. The black population in the Town is clearly confined, in large measure, to a geographic block in its center. Plaintiff's Exhibit 4D, appended at A-1, depicts this visually. In fact, the black population is even more compact than the map suggests, as the northern end of District 3, though shaded in its entirety, includes Eisenhower Park, in which very few people reside.

 C. The Second Gingles Precondition: Political Cohesion Of The Minority Group

 There is no dispute that the black voters in the Town are politically cohesive. Although defendants have challenged the ability of plaintiffs' proposed District 3 to perform by electing a minority-preferred candidate, they agree that the black voters consistently vote cohesively for the Democratic candidates, who always lose the Town Board elections.

 Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Michael D. McDonald, conducted a "performance analysis" to determine whether, given turnout rates and the degree of racially polarized voting, one could reasonably expect that a candidate preferred by black voters could win in a single-member district system. Dr. McDonald concluded that based on the level of black support for the minority-preferred candidate, estimated using a double regression analysis *fn6" of the election districts in the 18th Assembly District ("A.D."), blacks would have been able to elect their preferred candidate had they been voting in a single-member district with a voting age population that was 47.8% black in the 1991 Town Council election, 44.6% black in the 1993 Town Council regular election, and 34.2% black in the 1993 Town Council special election.

 It can be expected, and I find, that blacks in proposed District 3 would be able to elect their preferred candidate.

 D. The Third Gingles Precondition: White Bloc Voting

 Both plaintiffs and defendants presented expert testimony at trial regarding the voting patterns among blacks and whites in the Town. Plaintiff's expert, Dr. McDonald, analyzed Town Board elections from 1983 to 1993. *fn7" The first stage of his analysis was a comparison of the percentages of the vote each candidate received in the Town-wide election with the percentages received from voters residing in the 18th A.D., the majority-black district for election to the New York State Assembly. From this analysis, Dr. McDonald drew the preliminary conclusion that the black-preferred candidates would have fared better than they did in the Town-wide elections if the Town Council elections had been held in a majority-black district. Indeed, in the regular elections in 1991 and 1993 and in the special election in 1993, all but one of the seven winning candidates would have been different had the election been held within the 18th A.D. *fn8"

  However, this analysis is not alone sufficient to determine whether there is a pattern of racially polarized voting in the Town of Hempstead, because it does not measure the degree of difference in support for certain candidates among whites and blacks.

 Dr. McDonald thus conducted a further analysis to estimate these levels of support for each candidate. He used methods of statistical analysis called "ecological correlation and regression analysis" (or "ecological regression") and "extreme case analysis." Both methodologies are designed to measure the strength of the relationship between changes in two variables. Ecological regression and extreme case analysis are standard techniques used to estimate voting behavior among distinct population groups. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 52-53.

 Extreme case analysis predicts the percentage of voter support for certain candidates among the racial groups by using the support given to the candidates in geographic areas where the voting population is racially homogeneous, which was defined in this case as more than 90% white or more than 90% black. Ecological regression analysis correlates the percentage of voters who voted for a particular candidate with the percentage of blacks in the voting age population in a particular geographic area.

 Because both extreme case analysis and ecological regression analysis provide only estimates and are subject to error, Dr. McDonald performed both among voters of various areas to determine whether they produced consistent estimates of the racial groups' support for each candidate. Dr. McDonald performed four analyses to measure white voting: (1) an extreme case analysis of the seven A.D.s (or parts thereof) within the Town that are over 90% white; *fn9" (2) an extreme case analysis of the eight election districts within the 18th A.D. that are over 90% white; (3) a simple regression analysis using results from all election districts within the 18th A.D.; and (4) a double regression analysis using results from all election districts within the 18th A.D. To measure black voting, Dr. McDonald did three analyses: (1) an extreme case analysis of the seven election districts within the 18th A.D. that are over 90% black; (2) a simple regression analysis using the results from all election districts within the 18th A.D.; and (3) a double regression analysis using results from all election districts within the 18th A.D.

 In his ecological regression analysis, Dr. McDonald measured the relationship between the racial composition of the Town's A.D.s and election districts and the level of support given to particular candidates within those units in elections from 1983 to 1993. He placed the independent variable (the percentage of black or white registered voters in an election district within the 18th A.D.) on the horizontal axis. Dr. McDonald then placed the dependent variable (the percentage of voters in a particular A.D. who voted for a particular candidate) on the vertical axis. He then plotted data points on the graph that represented the percentage of black or white voters in each A.D. who supported a particular candidate. Finally, Dr. McDonald drew a line through the data points which best fit the points on the graph, or the line from which there would be the least variance from each data point. The slope of this line represents the increase (or decrease) in support for a particular candidate when the racial composition of a geographic area changes. By extending the line through the vertical axes on the left and right of the graph, Dr. McDonald estimated the level of white and black voter support for a particular candidate.

 Dr. McDonald's ecological regression analysis consisted of both a simple regression and a double regression. The simple regression measured the percentage of white and black voters of the total voting age population who supported a particular candidate. The double regression measured the percentage of support among voters who actually voted. Both analyses of white and black voter support for certain candidates were based on the support in each election district within the 18th A.D. However, Dr. McDonald chose to use the double regression results since they were a more accurate measurement of voter support in each race.

 Dr. McDonald computed these figures by considering the percentage of voters in each election district within the 18th A.D. who voted for a candidate and the percentage of voters in each election district who did not vote for that candidate. He then added these figures to determine the percentage of voters in each election district who actually voted in that election. With these figures, he was able to estimate the support for particular candidates in each election district from the voters who actually voted in that election, rather than the support for each candidate as a percentage of the total voting age population in the election district. Thus, this method took account of any differences in the turnout rate between blacks and whites. Dr. McDonald was then able to compare the white voter support with the black voter support. He made the following findings: n10 1983 Town Council (3 candidates elected) n11 Whites Blacks Candidate Mondello (R,W) 60.6% 25.1% Peterson (R,W) 60.0% 26.1% Cairo (R,W) 59.6% 22.8% Bernstein (D,W) 28.2% 52.8% Lawrence (D,B) 26.5% 53.2% Reddan (D,W) 25.7% 49.5% 1985 Town Council (3 candidates elected) Whites Blacks Candidate Gaurdino (R,W) 60.0% 29.1% Bernstein (R,W) 58.7% 28.9% Weisbein (R,W) 57.9% 26.0% Lawrence (D,B) 26.4% 44.9% Magaliff (D,W) 25.8% 43.3% Guise (D,W) 25.6% 43.3% 1987 Town Council (3 candidates elected) Whites Blacks Candidate Cairo (R,W) 61.7% 27.3% Zagarino (R,W) 61.0% 23.4% Cullin (R,W) 59.6% 26.1% Davidson (D,W) 25.3% 45.4% Brewington (D,B) 24.0% 57.8% DelMastro (D,W) 24.7% 43.0% 1989 Town Council (3 candidates elected) Whites Blacks Candidate Levy (R,W) 54.4% 25.3% Guardino (R,W) 53.5% 25.2% Kearney (R,W) 53.0% 23.3% DelMastro (D,W) 33.1% 49.5% Labelson (D,W) 32.2% 50.4% Mosely (D,B) 32.0% 53.9% 1991 Town Council (3 candidates elected) Whites Blacks Candidate Cairo (R,W) 50.6% 15.3% Cullin (R,W) 49.2% 17.3% Zagarino (R,W) 49.3% 15.0% Kalastein (D,W) 35.4% 49.5% Grabinger (D,W) 34.7% 51.5% Ford (D,B) 33.3% 58.4% 1993 Town Council (3 candidates elected) Whites Blacks Candidate Fisher (R,B) 50.1% 28.6% Kearney (R,W) 50.1% 15.4% Santino (R,W) 50.0% 14.6% Davidson (D,W) 32.5% 51.3% DeJong (D,W) 32.1% 52.4% Dorsky (D,W) 32.0% 51.2% 1993 Town Council Special Election (1 candidate elected) Whites Blacks Candidate Blakeman (R,W) 61.3% 20.8% DeFreitas (D,B) 37.6% 78.4%

19970220

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.