Filed Date: March 9, 2018
Closed Date: Aug. 9, 2022
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a case about possible racial dilution in school board elections.
In 1995, an individual in Hereford, Texas, filed suit in the United States District Court, Northern District, seeking to overturn the system by which Hereford Independent School District elected its school board members. The system was a combination of the single-member system and at-large system; five members were elected from single-member districts and two were elected at-large. The plaintiff claimed that the 5-2 election system diluted the voting strength of minorities. Also, the plaintiff asked that the defendant be enjoined from any further election of school board members under the 5-2 method and that the school district be instructed to institute a system in which all seven school members would be elected from single-member districts. The plaintiff contended that at the time the suit was filed the Hispanic population of Hereford ISD exceeded 50% of the total population and that the Hispanic student population of Hereford ISD exceeded 66%. The plaintiff also noted that over the past third years Hispanic-named persons had run for at-large positions on the Hereford ISD School Board no less than sixteen years and all such candidates had lost.
The case was settled before going to trial in 1995, and the defendant agreed to initiate a system for electing its school board members from seven single-member districts.
In 2022, the case was reopened but settled again. The polling place for early and regular voting has been changed as a result as below: (a) if the District holds an election jointly with the City of Hereford, the District will use the election day polling places established by the City of Hereford, and for early voting will use the early voting polling places established by the City or will use the District's Central Administration Office; (b) if the District holds an election jointly with the Deaf Smith County, the District will use the election day polling places established by Deaf Smith County, and for early voting will use the early voting polling places established by the County; (c) if the District has an election sperate and apart from the City or the County, the District will use the District Central Administration Office as its early voting and election day polling places.
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13637640/parties/gamez-v-hereford-independent-school-district/
Fitzwater, Sidney Allen (Texas)
Rios, Rolando Leo (Texas)
Stormer, Fred A (Texas)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/13637640/gamez-v-hereford-independent-school-district/
Last updated Aug. 8, 2025, 7:39 a.m.
State / Territory: Texas
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: March 9, 2018
Closing Date: Aug. 9, 2022
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
The plaintiff claimed that the 5-2 election system diluted the voting strength of minorities. Also, the plaintiff asked that the Hereford school district be enjoined from any further election of school board members under the 5-2 method and that the school district be Instructed to institute a system in which all seven school board members would be elected from single-member districts. Gamez contended that at the time the suit was filed the Hispanic population of Hereford ISD exceeded 50 percent of the total population and that the Hispanic student population of Hereford ISD exceeded 66 percent. The plaintiff also noted that over the past thirty years Hispanic-named persons had run for at-large positions on the Hereford ISD School Board no less than sixteen times and all such candidates had lost.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: Unknown
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Hereford Independent School District (Hereford), School District
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Form of Settlement:
Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Content of Injunction:
Amount Defendant Pays: 11,000
Issues
Voting: