Defendants' Motion in Limine

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 
  

WILEY L. BOLDEN, et al., : 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. 3 CIVIL ACTION NO. 75-297-P 

CITY OF MOBILE, et al., 

Defendants. 3 

DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE 
  

In its opinion rendered in the above-styled cause, a four- 

man plurality of the United States Supreme Court concluded that 

"it is clear that the evidence in the present case fell far short 

of showing that the appellants [City of Mobile] 'conceived or 

operated [a] purposeful device [ ] to further racial discrimina- 

tion.'" The plurality further noted that "[w]lhether it may be 

possible ultimately to prove that Mobile's present governmental 

and electoral system has been retained for a racially discrimina- 

tory purpose, we are in no position now to say." The Court there- 

after reversed the lower judgments, remanding the case to the 

court of appeals for "further proceedings." 

Following remand of this action by the Fifth Circuit Court 

of Appeals to the United States District Court, Southern District 

of Alabama, Judge Virgil Pittman presiding, a hearing was held on 

October 27, 1980. Following arguments by counsel, Your Honor 

denied Defendants' motion to dismiss this action and requested 

responses from the parties concerning the issues that remained 

for disposition by the court. Accordingly, Defendants submitted 

a statement of such issues to this Court, without thereby waiv- 

ing its position that the action is due to be dismissed. 

The plurality opinion entered by the United States Supreme 

Court and Justice Stevens's concurring opinion clearly indicate 

that the evidence previously presented by Plaintiffs failed to 

meet the evidentiary standard enunciated by the Court. Accord- 

ingly, a judicial review at this juncture of evidence previously 

presented to this court by Plaintiffs is inappropriate; in any 

further proceedings, Plaintiffs are necessarily limited to the 

presentation of new, additional evidence. 

 



  

ot Fe 

Inasmuch as the following factors were specifically 

considered by this court in its previous ruling, Defendant 

City of Mobile respectfully moves the court to exclude evidence 

of any nature regarding the following: 

(1) 

(2) 

(3) 

(4) 

(5) 

(7) 

(8) 

(9) 

(10) 

(11) 

(12) 

The geographical residential distribution of whites and 

blacks in the City of Mobile; 

Survey of housing patterns in the city; v 

Study performed by the Council on Municipal Performance using 

the 1970 block census data; 

Study performed by the University of South Alabama for the 

City of Mobile; | 

Evidence regarding the fact that no black person has ever 

been elected to the at-large city commission office; 

Evidence that there was a "general polarization" in the white 

and black voting during the past two decades; 

Evidence that black candidates sought election in the at-large 

county school board elections in 1962, 1966, 1970, and 1974, 

including, Dr. Goode, Dr. Russell, Ms. Jacobs, and Ms. Gill; 

Evidence that three black candidates entered the race of the 

Mobile City Commission in 1973, specifically, Ollie Lee Taylor, 

Alfonso Smith, and Lula Albert; 

Evidence that two black candidates sought election to the 

Alabama State Legislature in a 1969 at-large election, 

specifically, Clarence Montgomery and T. C. Bell; 

The order entered in Sims v. Amos, 336 F.Supp. 924 (M.D. Ala. 
  

1972), establishing single-member state legislative districts; 

Evidence regarding a state senate election that followed the 

court's order in Sims, including, any reference to the fact 

that the white winner published a simulated newspaper with 

both candidates' photographs appearing on the front page, 

one dnder the other, one white, one black; 

Evidence regarding the term of City Commissioner Joseph N. 

Langan, including, his re-election campaign in-1969 and 

Nis attempted race in 1972; 

 



  

(13) 

(14) 

(15) 

(16) 

(17) 

(18) 

(19) 

(20) 

(21) 

(22) 

(23) 

(24) 

(25) 

Evidence regarding a run-off race in an at-large legislative 

race in 1969 involving a white and a black, including, 

an agreement between various white prospective candidates 

not to run or place an opponent against the white; 

Any testimony from previously-active candidates for public 

office that a black's election under the at-large system 

is highly unlikely anytime in the foressesls future; 

Statistical analyses denominated as "regression analysis;" 

Any "regression analyses" regarding the city commission races 

in 1965, 1969, and 1973; 

Any "regression analyses" regarding the primary and general 

election of county commission in 1968 and 1972; 

Any "regression analyses" regarding selected school board 

races in 1962, 1966, 1970, 1972, and 1974; 

Any "regression analyses" regarding referendums held in Mobile 

in 1963 and 1973 to change the form of city government; 

Any "regression analyses" regarding a county-wide legislative 

race in 1969; 

Evidence that three blacks have been elected to the fourteen- 

member Mobile County legislative delegation since the 

establishment of single-member districts in 1972; 

Evidence regarding city elections held in Prichard, including, 

the election of Prichard's first black mayor and its first 

black councilman in 1972; 

Any evidence that the structure of the at-large election of 

city commissioners combined with the polarization of Mobile's 

electorate discourages qualified black citizens from seeking 

office or being elected; 

4 
Employment figures from the City of Mobile regarding black/white 

ratios and/or salary classifications; 

Evidence regarding the number of blacks employed by the Mobile 

Fire Department; 

 



  

(26) 

(27) 

(28) 

(29) 

(30) 

(31) 

(32) 

(33) 

(34) 

(35) 

(36) 

(37) 

(38) 

(39) 

(40) 

The order entered in Anderson v. Mobile County Commission, 
  

Civil Action No. 7388-72~-H (S.D. Ala. 1973), enjoining racial 

discrimination by 

The order entered 

{S.D, Ala. 1971), 

The order entered 

(S.D. Ala. 1951), 

The order entered 

the City of Mobile; 

in Allen v, City of Mobile, 331 F.Supp. 1134 
  

desegregating the Mobile Police Department; 

by Sawyer v. City of Mobile, 208 F.Supp. 548 
  

desegregating the municipal golf course; 

in Evans v. Mobile City Lines, Inc., Civil 
  

Action No. 2193-63 (S.D. Ala. 1963), dealing with public 

transportation; 

The order entered 

2634-63. (8.D. Ala. 

city alrpoxri: 

in Cooke v. City of Mobile, Civil Action No. 
  

1963), dealing with segregation at the 

Evidence regarding the racial composition of the 46 City 

committees; 

Evidence regarding the racial composition of the Industrial 

Development Board; 

Evidence regarding the racial composition of seven committees 

that were organized by private investment groups for the 

purpose of securing municipal bonding; 

Evidence regarding the racial composition of the Board of 

Adjustment; 

Evidence regarding the racial composition of the Codes Advisory 

Committee; 

Evidence regarding the racial composition of the Mobile 

Housing Board; 

Evidence regarding the racial composition of the Educational 

Board; 

/ 
Evidence regarding the racial composition of the following 

boards -- Air Conditioning, Architectural Board, Board of 

Examining Engineers, Board of Electrical Engineers; 

Evidence regarding the racial composition of the 1976 Bi- 

centennial Committee; 

Evidence regarding the racial composition of the Independence 

Day Celebration Committee; 

 



  

(41) 

(42) 

(43) 

(44) 

(45) 

(46) 

(47) 

(48) 

(49) 

(50) 

(51) 

(52) 

(53) 

(54) 

Evidence regarding the racial composition of the City of 

Mobile's advisory group for the mass transit technical group; 

Evidence regarding the lack of affirmative action by the 

City of Mobile to place blacks on the boards identified in 

(31) = (41); 

Evidence regarding the occupants of :public housing in the 

City of Mobile, specifically, the race of the occupants; 

Evidence regarding the elevation of the City of Mobile, 

particularly as it affects the watersheds in the Mobile area; 

Evidence regarding the City of Mobile's master drainage plan; 

Evidence regarding the current drainage facilities in the 

City of Mobile; 

Evidence regarding the resurfacing of streets in Mobile's 

predominantly black neighborhoods; 

Evidence regarding the maintenance of streets in Mobile's 

predominantly black neighborhoods; 

Evidence regarding a finding by the United States Treasury 

Department, following a complaint filed by the N.A.A.C.P., 

that there was racial discrimination in the City of Mobile's 

resurfacing program; 

Evidence regarding the neighborhood in the general vicinity 

of the Williamson School, specifically, the lack of sidewalks 

in this area; 

Evidence regarding the lack of sidewalks in the Plateau area; 

Evidence that blacks in Mobile, and their neighborhoods, 

endure a greater share of infant deaths, major crimes, T.B. 

deaths, welfare cases, and juvenile delinquency than do 

whites in their neighborhoods; J 
7 

Evidence regarding The Neighborhoods of Mobile: Their Physical 
  

Characteristics and Needed Improvements (1969), including, 
  

the existence of social blight in 78 Mobile neighborhoods; 

Evidence regarding the administration of the Park and Recreation 

Program, including, - a city projected park development 

program in the western part of the city; 

 



  

(55) 

(56) 

(57) 

(58) 

(59) 

(60) 

(61) 

(62) 

(63) 

(64) 

(65) 

(66) 

(67) 

(68) 

(69) 

Evidence regarding complaints made by Mobile's black 

community concerning alleged policy brutalities, including, 

incidents that occurred in the spring of 1976, or later; 

Evidence regarding alleged cross burnings in Mobile and 

Baldwin County; 

Evidence regarding the history of lynch mobs, racial discrimina- 

tion, and violence attributed to cross-burners or fellow- 

travelers; : 

Evidence regarding the responsiveness of the City of Mobile 

that manifests the alleged low priority given to the needs 

of Mobile's black citizens; 

Evidence of political fear of a white backlash vote when 

black citizens' needs are at stake; 

Evidence regarding the state policy concerning multi-member 

districting or at-large elections in the State of Alabama; 

Evidence of the prevailing forms of government in the State 

of Alabama from 1819 until 1911; 

Evidence regarding the purposes behind the 1901 constitutional 

convention of the State of Alabama, including, the purpose 

to disenfranchise the black voters of Alabama; 

Evidence regarding the cumulative poll tax that previously 

existed in the State of Alabama; 

Evidence regarding the restrictions and impediments to blacks 

registering to vote in the State of Alabama; 

Evidence regarding past racial discrimination that existed 

in Mobile's jury selection practices; 

Evidence regarding "white primaries" that existed prior to the 

passage of the Voting Rights Act of 15624 

Evidence regarding the use of "interpretation tests" for voter 

registration prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965; | 

Evidence regarding racial gerrymandering of local government 

prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965; 
— 

Evidence regarding the percentages of blacks registered to 

vote in Mobile County and the City of Mobile prior to the passage 

 



  

(70) 

(71) 

(72) 

{73) 

(74) 

(75) 

(76) 

(77) 

(78) 

(79) 

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Evidence regarding the passage of Alabama Acts 281 (1911); 

Evidence regarding the history and/or effect of the 

Populist movement in the State of Alabama; 

Evidence regarding the history and/or effect of the 

Bourbon interests tr ha State of Alabama, including, 

their efforts to disenfranchise the poor whites and blacks; 

Evidence of state legislative intent in 1911; 

Evidence regarding the passage of a bill in 1975 by the 

Alabama State Legislature that abolished the at-large 

election of the Mobile County Board of School Commissioners 

and created five, single-member districts; 

Evidence that the 1911 statute in question (Alabama Acts 281) 

was enacted for discriminatory purposes; 

Evidence that the City of Mobile has no ordinances proclaim- 

ing equal employment opportunity, either public or private 

to be its policy; 

Evidence that the City of Mobile has no non-discrimination 

rental ordinances; 

Evidence concerning the enactment of Act No. 823 in 1965; 

and, 

Any other evidence not relevant to the issue whether the 

Alabama State Legislature is currently maintaining the 

City of Mobile's at-large form of government for the 

purpose of diluting the vote of black citizens. 

: a 

C. B. ARENDALL, JF, 

Lo) Js. Ad 
WILLIAM C. TIDWELL, 

P. O. Box 123 

Mobile, Alabama 36601 

  

  

Attorneys for Defendants 
City of Mobile, et al. 

OF COUNSEL: er 

HAND, ARENDALL, BEDSOLE, 

GREAVES & JOHNSTON 

 



  

-8= 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I certify that I have on this [£9 day of November, 

1980, served a copy of the foregoing pleading on counsel 

for all parties to this proceeding by United States mail, 

properly addressed, first class postage prepaid, to: 

J. U. Blacksher, Esquire 

Messrs. Blacksher, Menefée & Stein 
P.O. Box 1051 

Mobile, Alabama 36601 

Edward Still, Esquire 

Messrs. Reeves and Still 

Suite 400, Commerce Center 
2027 lst Avenue, North 

Birmingham, Alabama 35203 

Jack Greenberg, Esquire 
Eric Schnapper, Esquire 
Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

Honorable Wade H. McCree, Jr. 

Solicitor General of the 
United States 

Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 

Drews S. Days, III, Esquire 
Assistant Attorney General 
Department of Justice 
Washington, D. C. 20530 

L 

¢ 

Loins Se Yuet