▁sub mer ged ▁the ▁will ▁of ▁the ▁African - American ▁citizens ▁and ▁thus ▁denied ▁their ▁access ▁to ▁the ▁system . ▁The ▁Court ▁found ▁that ▁the ▁requirement ▁that ▁candidates ▁run ▁for ▁specific ▁seats ▁en hanced ▁the ▁African - American ▁citizens ' ▁lack ▁of ▁access ▁because ▁it ▁prevent ed ▁a ▁coh es ive ▁political ▁group ▁from ▁concentr ating ▁on ▁a ▁single ▁candidate . ▁ ▁H eld : ▁▁ 1 . ▁The ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁did ▁not ▁err ▁in ▁con cluding ▁that ▁the ▁District ▁Court ▁applied ▁the ▁proper ▁legal ▁standard , ▁where ▁it ▁appears ▁that ▁the ▁District ▁Court ▁demonstrated ▁its ▁understanding ▁of ▁the ▁cont rolling ▁standard ▁by ▁obser ving ▁that ▁a ▁determ ination ▁of ▁disc rimin atory ▁intent ▁was ▁" a ▁requ is ite ▁to ▁a ▁finding ▁of ▁un const itution al ▁vote ▁dil ution " ▁under ▁the ▁Four teenth ▁and ▁Fif teenth ▁Am end ments . ▁▁▁▁ 2 . ▁Where ▁neither ▁the ▁District ▁Court ' s ▁ult imate ▁find ings ▁of ▁intent ional ▁disc rim ination ▁nor ▁its ▁subs idi ary ▁find ings ▁of ▁fact ▁appear ▁to ▁be ▁clearly ▁err one ous ▁and ▁such ▁find ings ▁were ▁agreed ▁to ▁by ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als , ▁this ▁Court ▁will ▁not ▁disturb ▁the ▁find ings . ▁▁▁ 3 . ▁Nor ▁is ▁there ▁any ▁reason ▁to ▁over turn ▁the ▁relief ▁ordered ▁by ▁the ▁District ▁Court , ▁where ▁neither ▁that ▁court ▁nor ▁the ▁Court ▁of ▁App e als ▁disc ern ed ▁any ▁special ▁circumstances ▁that ▁would ▁milit ate ▁against ▁util izing ▁single - member ▁districts