Plaintiffs' Opposition to Application for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment

    /

BLAtrKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A.
ATToRNEYS AT LAw

4O5 VAN ANTWERP BUILDING

P. O. EOX lo5l
MOBILE. AL.AEAMA 36633

February 3, L984
TELEPHONE

(20s) 433-20CtO
JAME5 U. BLAtrKSHER

LARRY T. MENEFEE
GREGORY B. !iTEIN

Lani Guinier, Esq.
Legal Defense Fund
99 Hudson Street
l6th Floor
New York, New York

Re: McMillan v.

Dear Lani:

10013

cambia Count

Pursuant to our_phone conversation on Thursdry, r encloseherewith the following documents that may give you someassistance in the North Carolina legislative reapportionment
case:

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Application for Stayof Enforcement of Judgment of the united statls
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed
December l, L982;

Plaintiffs' Opposition to Application for Stay of
Enforcement of Judgment in Lire United states bourt
of- Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, filed May 23, f9g3(this was in opposition to a second stay applicationlater in the cq.se and presents more comltititea facts
than you probably have- now in the North'carorina case) ;

Excerpts from stan Halpin's ph.D. dissertation, alongwith Peyton Mccrary's written index of the referencesto mixed districting systems.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A.

ames U.

JUB: pfm

Encls.

Blacksher



,t

!l
a ..

t'

I }I THE

SUPREME COURT OT THE UNITED STATES

0ctober Term, 1982

HEI{RY T. MCI,I I LLAil , ET AL . ,

Appel I ees,

Y.

ESCAI.IBIA COU}ITY, FLORIDA, ET AL.,

Appel I ants.

0PP0STI0H T0 APPLICATI0II F0R STAY 0F EIF0RCEl,lE]lT
OF JUDGi{EI{T OF THE U}IITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUiT

Pla{ntlffs-Appel'l ees Henry T. McM{llan, et a1 .,
through their unders{gned counsel, herewlth oppose the

Appl lcat{on for Stay of Enforcement of Judgment of the Un'lted

States Court of Appeals for the Fl fth C{rcult flled on or

about November 29, 1982, by Defendants-Appellants Escamb{a

County, Flor{da, et dl ., and urge that all of the rellef
sought in sald appl'lcatlon be denled. As grounds for thelr
opposlt{on, Plalntlff s-Appel'l ees woul d show as follows:

1. The success of Escambia County's appeal 1s

€kfr--



particularly unl'lke1y in this case. As'lndlcated by thelr

pet{tlons filed 1n the Court of Appeal s, Appellants must

concede that the I ower courts appl { ed the correct I egal

standards for determl ni ng whether the at-'l arge el eCtlon

scheme for the Escambia County Conim{ssion is

unconstitutlonal. Consequently, Appellants' contentions {n

the ant{clpated appeal to th'l s court wi I I be based entirely

on arguments that the f : nd'l ngs of f act made by the Dl strict

Court anrl af f i rmerl Dy the Court of Appeal s are cl earl y

erroneous. The court of ,\ppea'l s caref u'l 'ly appl 1ed the

standa rd s recentl y a nnounced 'ln Rogers v . Lodge , 102 s. ct '

3272 (1982), conclu<1ed t-hat the Dlstrict court had correct'ly

anticipated the hold'i ngs of Rogers and clty of iloblle v.

Bol den, 446 U. S. 55 ( I 9E0 ) , and determi ned that there 
'{as

ampl e evi dence to support the fi ndi ng of the D{ str{ct Court

that Escambia County's at-1 arge el ection system has been

ma{nta{ned for a racial ly lnvldlous purp0se'

2. Logers emphasi zed th{ s Court' s specl al

rel uc tance to set asi de the I ower courts' f{ ndl ngS of

discrimlnatory lntent, Decause {t 1s a "pure question of

f act,, subject to Rul e 52, Federal Ru'l es of civ{1 Procedure.

102 S. Ct. at 3?78, quoting

s.ct. 1781, 1789 (1982).

Pul lman-Standard v. Sw{ nt, 102

The record suPPortl ng the fi ndl ng

t

of racial lntent 1s even strcnger in the instant CaSe than



i

that 1n Rogers. Not only i s there detall ed evidence of the

type called for by |,thite v. Regester,4lZ U.S. 755 (1973),

and Zlmmer v. McKeithen, 4g5 F.Zd lZgT (5th C{r. 1973) (en

banc ), affll sub nom. , East carror r parl sh schoor Bd. y.

Ilarshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1975), bu*t there {s other evidence

{nd{cating that the incumbent County Commlssioners had acted

afflrmat{vely to prevent a change to s{ngle-member dlstrlcts.
The court of Appeal s hel d that the commi ssioners, recent

actlon was not suffic'{ent by itself to establ{sh a racia'l
purpose behlnd the at-1 arge scheme, but that under the Rogers

standards {t was lmportant ev{dence that buttressed.the
lnference of I ntent suppl ied by l{h{ te and Z{mmer factors.

llcl'lll I an v. - Escambi a county, 688 F. zd 960, 964, 969-6g and

n.19 (1982). MoreovLrr, the lower courts viewed the modern

attempts to retaln at-1 arge el ect{ons against h{ stor{cal
evidence that single-member d{str{cts were ut{lized during

the first hal f of thls century 1n the whlte-only primaries.
688 F.2d at 968. The chrnge to at-1 arge el ections {n the

prlmar{es as wel I as {n the general el ectlons rras made only

after the exclusion of blacks from the pr{rnarles was struck

down. I d .

3. Appellants' gpplicat{on for stay, pp. L-2,
lmp'l ies that the judgment in the {nstant case wi'l I affect
sixty-one other non-charter countles in F'l orida. But the



Dlstrlct Court's judgment does not declare unconstltutlonal

that sectlon of the Fl orida Const'l tution whlch requ{ res

non-charter county commissions to be elected at-large.

Rather, ut{llzlng the standards set out 1n Rogers v. Lodge,

the lower courts determined only tiat Escamb'!a County has

retalned the optlonal at-'l arge scheme for raclal ly {nvidlous

reasons. Indeed, the Court of Appeal s reaff{ rmed I ts earl ler

rul lng that the State consti tutional provl slon {n quest{on

had not been adopted 'l n 1901 f o r a rac'l al purpose. 688 F .2d

at 968, n.1B

4. t{'l th respect to the slngle-member d{str{ct
remedy ordered by the Distrlct Court, Appellants' petlt{ons

for rehearlng and for a stay flled 1n the Court of Appeals

contended on1 y that i n applyi ng the correct 1 egal standards

set out 1n l{{se v. Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535 (1978), the 'l ower

courts mlsread Florlda law regardlng the authority of the

Escambia County Commission to reapportion itself.
Accoldlngly, by appeal'! ng the remedy to th'l s Court Appe'l lants

are seeki ng merel y rev'f ew of a state 'l aw questlon. Thl s

Court is not 1'lke'ly to note pr"obable iurisdlctlon solely to

conslder whether it woul d subst{tute 1ts interpretat{on of

4

.l



Fl or{da I aw for those of the two courts be1 ow.!/

5. The app'l lcatlon for stay does not allege that

the Appel lants wll I suffer {rreparable lnjury {f the stay ls
not granted. I ndeed , none could be a1 1 c'ged because the

lncumbent Escambla County Comml ssloners have al neady served

beyond the terms for wh{ch they were elected, and even under

the remote possl bi 1 1 ty that th{ s Court m1 ght reverse the

Judgment bel ow, a return to at-1 arge el ectlons coul d be

accompl ished s{mp1y and wi thout confusion by an appropr{ate

order of the Distr{ct Court. No change in the form of

government 1s lnvolved 1n the 'lnstant case, and the execut{ve

and admlnlstrat{ve functions of Escambia County's government

w{ I 1 suffer no di sruption by a change i n

el ectl ng comml ssioners.

.6. The c I a ss of b'l ack vote rs ,

w{ll suffer lrreparable injury to the'ir

the method of

on the other hand,

const{ tut{onal ly

L/ Florida is not a covered jurisdict{on wl thin the
meaning of-S 4 of the Yoting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. S
1973b, SO the redistrlcting p1 ans proposed by the part{es for
adopt'lon by the D{ strict Court were not subject to
preclearance under S 5 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. S 1973c.



oo

gutr!nteed vot{ ng r{ghts so 1 ong as commi ss1 oners serYe uho

rere el ected under a rac 1 al I y dl sc ri mi natory apportl onment

plan.Therecentdec.lslonoftheCourtofAppeals,rendered

in l{ght of th{s Court's op{n1o'n 1n Rogers v'' Lodge'

conf{rrns that blacks in Escambia County are ent{tled to the

rel { ef whl ch wa s ordered by the D1 strl c t court over four

yearsago.Theyshou.ldnotberequlredtowaltlongerfor
vlnd.lcationofthelrconstltutlonalrlghts,eSpec.lallywhen
the llkellhood of success on appeal '1 s so remote'

7 , The appl'lc atl on f or stay does not al I ege that

the pub1lc lnterest wi ll be iniured .lf the stay {s not

granted. To the contrdrY' an important public lnterest is

lnjuredSolongasthecitlzensofEscambiaCountyaredenled
theopportun.ltytose]ectthelrcountycommiss.lonerSthrough

thedemocr.atlcprocesses.SeeMoore-L:--Brown,49U.S.L.ll.

3162, 3163 (Sept' 5' I98O) (Powe11' J'' denying stay of

el ectl ons ) ' Si nce the mandate has i ssued from the Court of

Appeal s, the Di strlc t Court has schedul ed a hearl ng for

DecemberZs,lgS2,todetermlnewhatdlstrict{n9planshould
be employed'l n remedial elections' No countY comm{ ssi oners

(tnefiveEscambiaCountyCommiss{onerSwereor.lg{na1ly

elected to staggered terms) have been electul.rl:ltt e1 ectlons

were stayed by the Court of Appea'l s i n 1978' The l ast

regularly scheduled election rvas 1n November 1982' and the

]i I

1 l
: *t,

6



next regul arly schedul ed e'l ection wi I I be November 1984. The

next obvlous opportun{ty for remedlal interlm electlons will
be Apri'l 1983, when municipa'l elections are held for the c{ty
of Pensacola. staying these el.ections, i n Justice powel l's
words, wou'l d be an "unacceptable alternative." Id. This is
particu'l arly so where after exhausti ve appel I ate revi ew the

present el ectl on system has been decl ared unconsti tut'i onal ,

where the lncumbents have served beyond their elected terms,

and where the court of Appeals has already determ{ned that a

stay 'i s unwa rra nted. I d. 2l

8. Perhaps because they recognized this Court w{l

not be i ncl i ned to stay el ect'ions al together, Appel l ant

County commi ssioners urge thi s court to enter an affi rmative

lnjunction ordering immediate elections pursuant to the

Ll This Court should note thaI the Court of Appeals
exped'i ted Tts post- Rogers decision on rehearing in order tofacilitate speedy inTeFTm-elections'i n Escambia county. Infact, the Court of Appeal s ci ted the need for prompt
di sposi ti on as i ts reason f or dec I 'i ni ng to consi der theadditional, statutory ground under S 2 of the voting RightsAct, 4? U.S.C. S 1973, re1 ied on by the District Court in
support of its judgment. Plaintiffs- Appellees submit that
the Voting Rights Act prov'ides even stronger grounds foraffi rma nce than the cons ti tut'i onal theori es rel i ed on by the
court of Appeals, particularly in light of the lgBz amendmentto S Z.



lqryF,

exlst{ng at-large p'l an. Pla{nt{ffs-Appe'l lees subnlt that

further use of at-1 arge el ect{ons woul d be unJust and

lnequi table. Because there i s an outstandi ng judgment that

the at-'l arge system { s unconstl tutional , a iudgment that has

been subjected to protractea anO careful appel late revlew,

the status quo 1s no longer the state law plan but the

court-ordered remedi al pl an. See Moore v. Brown, supra,49

U.S.L.l,l. at 3162. Furthermore, because of the remote

llkelihood of success on appeal, the imposition of lmmediate

at-l arge el ections, fol I owed shortly by di smi ssal or summary

affirmance by this Court, is 1ike1y to necessitate a second

special election, thereby increasing the expense and

electoral confusion for the voters and taxpayers of Escambia

County. However, Pl aintiffs-Appe1 lees rei terate the position

they have mainta'ined since 1978: We oppose at-1arge

el ect'ions pendi ng appeal , but v{e pref er them to no el ections

at all.

l.lHEREF0RE, for al I the aforegoi ng reasons, the

Pl ai nt':f f s-Appel l ees pray that thi s Court wi l l deny al I the

relief requested in the Appl ication for Stay of Enforcement

of Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the

Fifth Circuit.

I



It

Rcspectful ly subnl tted th{ s lst day of Docenber,

1982.

gLicTsHER, MENEFEE T sTEIil, P.A.
405 Yan Antwerp BulJ dll ng
P. 0. Box 1051
Mob{le, Alabama 35633

I

B

L

Com
Ave

AI

s
end
in

,F
ERG

R

CI
ew

0r
App

L

,

G

H

t
e

B

E

s
N

I

T

TI
0,
st
am

1G

&

ar

se

EN

NI
30

:,
s
fs

RY

S

40
1r
gh

PR

s
M

AS

RE

UI
20
um
rk

ey
if

RR

D

4
F1
n9

SP

:'

ha

GR

GU

2

Iu
0r

ne
ti

AR

RD
e

F

{n

s
g9
s.

ah

t:

G

e
oI
Yo

rn
nt

I{AR
1te
27
rm{

llT
rlg
7S
d.
I la

CK

NI
ite

Co
wY

tor
ai n

ll
r
7

d
I

c
N

i

w

t
a

ED
Su
20
BI

KE
Sp
11
Iv
Ta

JA
LA
Su
10
Ne

At
PI

MENEFEE

merca center
nue , llo rth
abama 35203

erson
Luther X{ ng, Jr.

I orl da 32301

rcl e
York 10019

el I ees



Pt flffilr; '.'I
t ,*'i;

It

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I do hereby certify that on this December l, 1982, I
serred a copy of the foregolng 0PPoSITI0N T0 AppLIcATIoil FoR

STAY OF ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGME}IT OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF

APPEALS F0R THE FIFTH cIRCUIT upon couns,el of record: Louis

Ray, Esq., 6th Floor, Seville Tower, ZZO palafox Street,
Pensacola, Florlda 32501; Paula Drummond, Esqu{re, 28 l{est

Government Street, Pensacola, Fla. 32501; Charles Rhyne,

Esq., Rhyne & Rhyne, 1000 Connect{cut Avenue, l{.1{., Suite

800, l{ashington, D.C. 20036; and Don Caton, Esq., p. 0.

Box 12910, Pensaco'l a, Flor{da 3252L, by depos{tlng same ln

the United States Ma11, postage prepaid.

PLA I IIT I F FS.AP PE LLE ES

;q_

TORNEY