Supplemental Answers of Plaintiff Rev. R. L. Hope to Defendants' Interrogatories

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

* WILEY L. BOLDEN, REV. R. 1. HOPE, 

CHARLES JOHNSON, JANET O. LeFLORE, 

JOIN L. LeFLORE, CHARLES MAXWELL, 

OSSIE B. PURIFOY, RAYMOND SCOTT, 

SHERMAN SMITH, OLLIE LEE TAYLOR, 

RODNEY O. TURNER, REV. ED WILLIAMS, 

SYLVESTER WILLIAMS and MRS. F. C. 

WILSON, 

Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION 

VS. NO. 75-297-H 

CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA; GARY A. 

GREENOUGH, ROBERT B. DOYLE, JR., 

and LAMBERT C. MIMS, individually 

and in their officlal capacities 

‘as Mobile City Commissioners, 

$
F
 H
F
 

H
N
 

% 
Hk 

ok 
¥ 

% 
% 

oF
 

* 
¥ 

ok 
¥ 

X 
* 

Defendants. 

SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWERS OF PLAINTIFF | 

TO DEFENDANTS! INTERROGATORIES 
  

Undersigned plaintiff submits his supplemental answers 

to defendants' interrogatories propounded to each plaintiff 

on or about August 25, 1975, as follows: 

2. See Appendix A. 

3. See Appendix A. 

4, See Appendix A. 

31. Plaintiffs do not claim that the City of Mobile's 

form of government has discriminated against any of the groups 

of persons referred to in interrogatories 6-30, except for the 

black citizens of Mobile. 

32. When the City of Mobile's form of government 

was instituted in 1910, it was the design and intention of 

those persons who constructed and participated in the Mobile 

government to dilute the votes of black citizens and deny 

them equal access to the political processes. Thus, the 

first discriminatory action was the institution of the City's 

 



  

present form of government; the names of the particular per-— 

sons having the described discriminatory intent are unknown 

to plaintiffs. Since the institution of the City's present 

form of government, the failure to alter or amend this form 

of government consitutes a continuing discriminatory omission. 

The names of all those persons who have supported this form 

of government, with its discriminatory effect, are unknown 

to the plaintiffs, and, indeed, it would be impossible to 

know and list the names of all such persons. A recent act 

evidencing the subject intentional discrimination was the 

opposition exhibited by Messrs. Doyle and Mims to the refer- 

endums that would have altered the City of Mobile's form of 

‘government. Additionally, all three of the present City 

‘Commissioners are parties to the continuing discriminatory 

omission, described above, of failing to alter oY amend the 

City's form of government. 

41. (c)-(y) Plaintiff has no opinion. 

43. Yes. Since blacks are generally poorer than 

whites, the filing fee required of candidates is a greater 

percentage of disposable income of potential black candi- 

dates than of potential white candidates. 

45. See Appendix A. 

50. The only factor mentioned above in No. 49 

which should be retained in a constitutional system is elec- 

tion by a majority vote. As 50 other factors, see my ori- 

ginal answer to this question. 

51B. (a) The Commission form of government implies 

a multi-member panel with (Executive and Legislative) powers. 

If such a panel were to have individually-assigned powers 

which were not jointly-held under the applicable law, then 

any plan of Commission government would still be an at-large 

system and thus unconstitutional given the prevailing political 

and racial situation in Mobile. 

 



  

(b) No, see (a). 

(c) Not necessarily. 

(d) The Executive may be elected at-large. 

I know of no limitations of the Executive powers which con- 

cern this action. 

(e) The legislative body must have a suffi- 

cient number of members so that there is no invidious 

discrimination against political or racial minorities. At 

this point I do not know the exact minimum number. 

(f) In my opinion all members of the legis- 

lative branch should be elected from single-member dis- 

tricts. The principles for division would be lack of 

invidious discrimination against political or racial mi- 

norities. For the minimum number, see (e) above. 

(g) In my opinion, the requirement of a 

majority vote, isolated from other factors such as multi- 

member districts, is not unconstitutional per se. 

53. Yes, the use of at-large elections denies 

blacks a meaningful voice in city government and dilutes 

their voting power. 

53.(c) The problem with the type of election 

system proposed in (a) is the at-large voting factor, 

not the number of districts. Allowing all the residents 

of a political unit to decide who shall represent each 

district provides nothing but geographical dispersion, 

not locally chosen representatives. 

59. (a)=(b) Plaintiffs do not presently 

possess sufficient information on which to base an opinion 

on this matter. Plaintiffs may form an opinion when they 

acquire such information, in which case, defendants will 

be supplied with a supplemental response to this inter- 

rogatory. 

(c)=(u) Plaintiff has no opinion. 

 



  

120. See Appendix A. 

128. See Appendix A. 

131. See Appendix A. 

134. See Appendix A. 

135. See Appendix A. 

 



  

  

£7 A 7 / 
Biri Veg / LA 

IT BLA CKSHER 
GREGORY B/ STEIN 

  

CRAWFORD & BLACKSHE 

1407 DAVIS AVENUE 
MOBILE, ALABAMA 36603 

EDWARD STILL, ESQUIRE 
SUITE 601 - TITLE BUILDIN 
2030 THIRD AVENUE, NORTH 
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

STATE OF ALABAMA ) 

: : Ss 

COUNTY OF MOBILE ) 

Personally appeared before ge Unggrs ignes a authority 
L 7} 

  

in and for said County and State, pt 2 ~~ Lp fra H 
frie = 

known to me, who upon being first duly sworn by me, on oath 
y 

or 7 deposes and says that A _is informed and believes, and on 

such information and belief states, that the foregoing answers 

to interrogatories propounded by the deiondanbyyins true. 

  

  

Before me on this the 7 WHE day of Aor tt HA ts ; 
: Fi 7 ry 

19 2/ : : 2S / 

4 74 7 7 ” 

L i V4 { 7 / g 

IT Lf JZ Ar : 
/ IAS A LT 
  

ROTARY PUBLIC, an ALABAYA 

My C 
My Comm. Expires March 8, 197% 

ta 

 



  

  

NTH 
oi T do hereby certify that on this the’ day of January, 

1976, I served a copy of the foregoing Supplemental Answers to 

Interrogatories upon all counsel of record as listed below by 

depositing same in United States Mail, postage prepaid, or by 

Charles Arendall, Esquire 
David Bagwell, Esquire 
Post OFfice Box 123 
Mobile, Alabama 36601 

S. R. Sheppard, Esquire 
Legal Department 
City of Mobile 
Mobile, Alabama 36601 

   

5 ~ \ : a ” 

HK Appr pl Ye Ae ~ 
J. U, BLYXCKSIER ~~ 
CREGORY //B. STEIN 

  

CRAWFORD & BLACKSHER 

1407 DAVIS AVENUE 

MOBILE, ALABAMA 36603 

EDWARD STILL, ESQUIRE 

SUITE 601 — TITLE BUILDING 

2030 THIRD AVENUE, NORTH 

BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203 

JACK GREENBERG, ESQUIRE 
JAMES NABRITT, ESQUIRE 

CHARLES WILLIAMS, ITII., ESQUIRE 
SUITE 2030 
10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE 

NEW YORK, NN. Y. 10019 

- Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

 



  

APPENDIX A 
  

2. Yes: Zeola Hope; 2458 Wimpush Street: Age: 64 

3. Yes. Pursuant to the representations of defendants 

counsel before the Hon. Allan R. Cameron, United States 

Magistrate, this plaintiff need not respond more fully to 

this interrogatory. 

4. Self: (a) Answered in original answers. 

(b) Sanders Street rented 

St. Emanuel Street rented 

Wimpush Street own 

(c) Answered in original answers. 

(d) Precinct #33, voting place at Mobile 

County Training School - 1940 to present. 

(e¢) Yes; Democrat; from the time I started 

voting. 

Wife: (a) 1930; 19230, 

(b) Same as (b) under "Self". 

(c). (i) Mobile County; date unknow. 
(ii)=-(iii) I believe she encountered 

some difficulty, but I do not recall the particulars of this 

matter. 

(d) Same as (d) under "Self". 

(e) Yes; Democrat; from the time she started 

voting. 

Children: See response to interrogatory #3. 

45. (a) Yes. 

(b) During the time he ran for the City Commission, 

Mr. Greenough came by the Non Partisan Voters League office 

to become acquainted with us and to inform us that he was 

running for office. 

I met Mr. Mims when he spoke to a group of citizens 

at the Mobile County Training School; I do not recall the 

date. 

 



  

I met Mr. Doyle when he was running for the City 

Commission for the first time--he came by the Non-Partisan 

Veoters League office and introduced himself. 

{c) To. 

64. The Neighborhood Organized Worker (NOW), not still 

in existence or not very effective at the least, differed 

from other blacks who, like myself, supported and joined the 

Non-Partisan Voters League. NOW was more a radical group, 

advocating violence in some instances to overcome what was 

felt to be racial injustices; the Non-Partisan Voters League, 

on the other hand, is a law-biding group seeking betterment 

for blacks. 

57. Yes. 

68.. N/A. 

69. Yes. 

70. N/A, 

71. I have no opinion. 

7%. N/A. 

73. Bo. 

74. Black union members would be more pro-union, and 

would therefore feel stronger that xight-to-work laws should 

not exist. 

75. Yes. 

76. N/A. 

77. Yes. 

78. N/A. 

7%. Yes. 

80. N/A. 

8l. Yes, 

B82. N/A. 

 



  

974 

N/A. 

I have no opinion. 

N/A. 

 



  

128. No. 

128. No one. 

131. Bolden 7 or 8 years 
Janet LeFlore 3 years 
John L. LeFlore 8 or 10 years 
Purifoy 6 - 8 years 

Scott © ~-~ 8 years 
Smith 3 or 4 years 
Ollie Taylor 2 years 
Ed Williams . 15 = 20 vears 
S. Williams 3 years 

134. No. 

135. Yes. Mr. LeFlore. Meeting of Non Partisan Voters 

League date ~- March or April of 1975.