Jeffers v. Clinton Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify a Plaintiff Class

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRiCT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

EASTERN DIVISION

;: ;: ;;;il;; -;;-;;;;;;; - ;;;;il;;-;;;;;---*
CLYDE COILINS, O.C. DUFFY, EARL FOSTER,
REV. ELIHUE GAYLORD, SHIRLEY M. HARVELL,
LINDA SHELBY, J.C. JEFFRIES, LAVESTER
McDONALD, JOSEPH PERRY, CLTNTON RTCHARDSON,
T.E. PATTERSON, EARNEST SIMPSON, BRIAN
SMITH, And CHARLIE STATEWRIGHT ON bEhAlf Of
themselves and all others sinllarIy situated,

Plalntiffs,

v.

BILL CLINTON, ln hls capaclty as Governor
of Arkansas and Chal.rman of the Arkansas
Board of Apportlonment; W.J. McCUEN, ln hls
capaclty as Secretary of State of Arkansas
and rnember of the Arkansas Board of Appor-
tlonment; STEVE CLARK, ln hls capaclty as
Attorney General of Arhansas and member of
the Arkansas Board of Apportlonnent; and
the ARI(ANSAS BOARD OF APPORTIONMENT,

----:::llliill:----x

' - i-t,- '

lil*. B BREr\,",-s, CLERK

%

No. H-C-89 0O4

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFSI
MOTION TO CERTIFY A PLAINTIFF CLASS

Plalntlffs have moved that thls case be malntalned as a

class actlon pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23la) and 23(bl (21 , whlch

provlde:

(a) Prerequlsltes to a Class Actlon. One or more
members of a class Bay sue or be sued as representa-
tlve partles on behalf of all only lf (1) the class 1s
so nunerous that joinder of all members ls lmpractlc-
able, (2) there are questlons of law or fact common to
the cIass, (3) the clalms or defenses of the represen-
tatlve partles are typlcal of the clafuns or defenses of
the c1ass, and ( 4 ) the representatlve parties w111
falrly and adequately protect the lnterests of the
class.



(b) Class Actions Maintainable. An action may be
maintained as a class actlon if the prerequisites of
subdivision (a) are satisfled, and ln additlon:

(2) the party'opposing the class has acted
or refused to act on grounds generally appIl-
cable to the cIass, thereby naklng aPpro-
prlate flnal inJunctlve rellef or correspond-
lng declaratory rellef with respect to the
class as a whol.e

Plaintiffs ln thls case clearly satlsfy the requlreroents of

Rule 23(a). Flrst, the cfass they seek to represent all Black

cltlzens of Arkansas ellgible to vote ls clearly too nunerous

to permlt Jolnder. It consists of over 2OO, OOO nemb'ers. See

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistlcal

Abstract of the Unlted States 254 (table 431), 257 (table

43s) ( 1e86) .

Second, plaintlffs meet the regulrenents of conrnonallty and

typicallty, whlch the Supreme Court has noted rtend to t""g"."

General Telephone Co. v. Falcon, 457 U.S. 147,157 n.13 (1982).

The named plalntlffs' clalms regarding the adoptlon and malnten-

ance of the 1981 Arkansas leglslatlve apportlonnent scheme and

the effect that the current scheme has had on the abl1lty of

Black voters to elect the candldates of thelr cholce are neces-

sarlly "lnterrelated," .1d., wlth the lnterests of the class aS a

whole. It ls preclsely the characterlstlcs plalntlffs share

wlth the other members of the proposed class whlch form the basis

for thelr clalm'that the 1981 apportlonment schene vlolates the

Constltutlon and sectlon 2 of the Votlng Rlghts Act.



In fact, vote dilution cases are particularly appropriate

for class certification. A key substantive element of the claim

ls that the class is politlcally cohesive and that the qrouDts

abllity to elect candidates of its choice has been diluted. E,

e.q., Thornburq v. Ginqles, 478 U.S. 30, 51 (1986). Simllar

voting rights cases have proceeded as plaintiff class actlons.

E.q., Glnsl.es v! EdElEten, 59O F.Supp. 345, 351 (E.D.N.C. 1984)

( three-judge court ) af f t d in Dart, reversed Ln part sub rIQ![,

Thornburq v. Ginqles, 478 U.S. 3O (1986)(action designated a

plalntlff, class actlon by stlpulation of parties); Major v.

Treen, 574 F.Supp. 325, 328 (E.D.La. 1983)(three-Judge court)

(platntlffsr notlon for cl.ass certlflcation granted).

Flnally, plalnttffs are representatl,ve partles who w111

falrly and adequately protect the lnterests of the class.

Plalntlffe are t7 adult black cltlzens who are properly

reg{stered to vote. They reside In fourteen dlfferent counties,

thus provldlng a geographlc cross-section of the c1ass. No

confllct exlsts between the lnterests of the named plalntiffs

and the lnterests of the remalning class members. Moreover,

plalntlffs have retalned counsel who have denonstrated "a

corporate reputation for expertness In presentlng and argulng the

dlfflcult questlons of law that freguently arise ln civll rlghts

l1tlgatlon. rr NAACP v. Button, 371 U.S. 415, 422 (1963). In

partl.cular, plalntiffsi counsel are experienced ln prosecutlng

cases ralslng clalms under the Fourteenth and Flfteenth

3



Amendments and section 2 of the Voting Rlghts Act of 1965. See,

e . q . , Thornburq v. Ginoles , supra; Ma jor v. Treen, SPE.
Clearly in the case at hand, the requirements of Rule 23 (b)

(2) are satlsfied. By adoptlng and maintaining the present

statewide apportionment plan for the Arkansas General Assembly,

defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally

appllcable to the c1ass, thereby naking appropriate final injunc-

tive rellef and corresponding declaratory relief with respect to

the class as a whole

Certiflcatlon pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) ls partlcularly

approprlate ln this case. The Advlsory Commlttee Notes accom-

panylng the 1966 amendment of Rule 23 lndlcate that subdlvlslon

29 (b)(2) 1s partlcularly aPpllcable to clvil rlghts sults

lnvolvlng allegatlons of systemlc raclal dlscrlml.natlon. Thus.,

" [a]ulta to vlndlcate votlng rlghts of black citlzens charglng

raclal dlscrlnlnatlon under the Constltutlon and federal

statutes have frequently been allowed as class actlons. Partl-

cularly where the alleged discrlnlnatory practlces have state-

wlde appllcatlon, plalntiffs ln such actlonE have been granted

Rule 23 class status." Stewart v. Waller' 4O4 F. Supp. 206, 2!t

(N.D. Ala. 19?5) (per curlam) (three-Judge court).



Therefore,

consisting of all

eliglble to vote.

8O1 Perry Street
Helena, Arkansas 72342
( 5O1 ) 338-6487

P.A. HOLLINGSWORTH
Holllngsworth Law Flrn
415 Maln Street
Lltt1e Rock, Arkansas 72201
(5011 374-3420

OLLY NEAL
33 North Poplar Strcet
Marlanna, Arkansas 72360
(501) 2s5-2578

this Court should certifY

Black citizens of the State

plaintiff class

Arkansas who are

a

of

Respectfully submitted,

0^.do-D.
PENDA D. HAIR

L275 K. Street, N.W.
Sulte 3O1
Washlngton, D.C. 2OOO5
(2O2) 682-130O

JULIUS L. CHAIVTBERS
SHERRILYI{ A. IFILL

99 Hudson Strect, 16th FI.
New York, New York 10013
l2L2) 21e-19OO

t.T. SIMES
Slnes and Assoclates
P.O. Box 2870 l

West Helena, Arkansas 72390
(5011 572-37e6

DON E. GLOVER
P.O. Box 2t9
Dermott, Arkansas 71638
(501 ) 538-9071

THLEEN BELL
Wllson & Bell

5



t

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

f, Kathleen 8e11, sttorney for the plaintiffs, do hereby

certify that f have served a copy of the above and foregoing

pleading upon the atEorney of record by placing a copy

of same in the U.S. Mall, postage prepaid, addressed to:

Mr. Frank Wi11s, fff
Assistant Attorney General
200 Tower Bullding
Fourth & Center Street,s
Little Rock, AR 7220L

on this 24th