Order Approving Lee County Settlement on Interim Basis

    (eh BF 
® ® uth 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE D 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION APR 1 4 1985 

JOHN DILLARD, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, > 

vs. ) CA NO. 85-T-1332-N 

CRENSHAW COUNTY, ALABAMA, ) 
et al., 

Defendants. ) 

ORDER APPROVING LEE COUNTY 

SETTLEMENT ON INTERIM BASIS 
  

Pursuant to the Order of this Court entered on March 5, 

1886, a hearing was held on April 8, 19888, to @determine the 

fairness and adequacy of the proposed settlement submitted by the 

parties pursuant to the requirements of Rule 23, Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure. At the hearing the attorneys for both plaintiffs 

and the Lee County defendants urged the Court to approve the 

settlement and presented evidence that the publication and notice 

requirements of this Court's order of March 5, 1986, had been 

complied with and presented supporting demographic data 

describing the districting plan. No class members filed any 

written objections with the Clerk of the Court and none appeared 

 



  

in person to express objections to the proposed settlement. 

The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23, 

Fed .R.Civ.P., concerning notice to the class have been met and 

that the proposed settlement is fair, just and equitable. tton 

v, Hinton, BBO P.24 13268 (5th Cir. 1877); Eolmes v. Continental   

Can Co., 708 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1983); Iurns v.. Russell Corp., 

604 F.Supp 1335 (M.D.Ala. 1984). However, the Court will not, at 

this time, give final approval to the proposed settlement since 

it has not yet been precleared by the Department of Justice, 

pursuant to the provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965, 42 U.S.C. section 1873c. Mchaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S.   

130 (1981). Therefore the Court directs that Defendant Lee 

County, within fourteen days of date hereon, submit to the 

Department of Justice for preclearance pursuant to Section 5 of 

the Voting Rights Act of 1965 the proposed election plan. The 

Defendant Lee County is further directed to request expedited 

consideration from the Department of Justice and the Court 

expresses its desire that the Department of Justice reach a 

determination on this matter at the earliest practicable date. 

The Defendant Lee County shall promptly notify this 

Court of the determination of the Department of Justice. If this 

plan is precleared by the Department of Justice, the Court will 

issue an order finally approving the settlement. In the event 

that the Department of Justice objects to the proposed plan, the 

 



  

Court will allow the parties an opportunity to make a further 

Submission to the Department of Justice in an attempt to cure the 

objections. 

Qualifying for the party primary elections has already 

closed. Party primary elections are scheduled for June 5S, 1086, 

with any necessary runoffs to be held on June 24, 1986. Election 

officials are in the process of arranging for the conduct of 

party primary elections. The Court determines that even though 

this plan should not be approved as a final plan until the 

Department of Justice has precleared the plan, the Court 

determines that the plan should be implemented as the Court’s own 

interim plan for the conduct of the imminent primary elections. 

Upham v. Seamon 456 U.S. 37 (1982); Burton v. Hobbie 543 

F.Supp. 235 (M.D.Ala. 1882), aff'da U.S, 103 S.0%:. aas (Nov. 

1, 1982), 

Therefore, the Court hereby enjoins Lee County, 

Alabama, Hal Smith, in his official capacity as Probate Judge of 

Lee County, Annette H. Hardy, in her official capacity as Circuit 

Clerk of Lee County and Herman Chapman, in his official capacity 

as Sheriff of Lee County, their agents, servants, attorneys and 

those acting in concert with them from failing or refusing to 

conduct primary elections for the Lee County Commission from 

Districts 2, 4, and 5 of the plan submitted by the parties to 

this Court. 

 



  

DONE __ this VA% day of Frpe , 1986. 
  

  

LY } A 

  

,UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
v