crediting testimony of black aldermen that the inclusion of white neighborhoods in their wards would jeopardize their re-election chances
How later courts described this case
- crediting testimony of black aldermen that the inclusion of white neighborhoods in their wards would jeopardize their re-election chances
- “Because our finding of liability is limited to two relatively small groups of districts, we believe that the remedy should be designed to ameliorate the effects of unconstitutional vote dilution in those two areas."
- approving Voting Rights Act settlement with Hispanic community regarding 1982 state legislative redistricting
- “The 65% figure is a general guideline which has been used by the Department of Justice, reapportionment experts and the courts as a measure of the minority population in a district needed for minority voters to have a meaningful opportunity to *122 elect a candidate of their choice.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BUA, District Judge
(concurring):
I fully concur in Judge Cudahy’s well-reasoned and exhaustive opinion. I write specially merely to more fully respond to Judge Grady’s discussion of the settlement agreement executed between the defendants and the DelValle plaintiffs. As has been repeatedly emphasized, “[fjederal courts look with great favor upon the voluntary resolution of litigation through settlement.” Airline Steward and Stewardesses Assn. v. Trans World Airlines, 630 F.2d 1164, 1166 (7th Cir.1980), cert. granted, 450 U.S. 979 , 101 S.Ct. 1511 , 67 L.Ed.2d 813 (1981); Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. Village of Arlington Heights, 616 F.2d 1006, 1013 (7th Cir.1980); Airline Stewards and Stewardesses Assn. v. American Airlines, 573 F.2d 960, 963 (7th Cir.1978), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 876 , 99 S.Ct. 214 , 58 L.Ed.2d 190 (1979). “Settlements are entered into because of ‘the uncertainties of outcome in litigation, as well as the avoidance of wasteful litigation and expense ... ’” Airline Stewards, 573 F.2d at 963 (quoting Florida Trailer and Equipment Co. v. Deal, 284 F.2d 567, 571 (5th Cir.1960)). Thus, in reviewing a settlement agreement, a court “should not attempt to decide the merits of the controversy ... [because] [a]ny virtue which may reside in a compromise is based upon doing away with the effect of such a decision.” Patterson v. Stovall, 528 F.2d 108, 114 (7th Cir.1976). It is with these considerations in mind that this court has accepted the DelValle settlement agreement.