Correspondence from Blacksher to Clerk
Public Court Documents
June 9, 1980

4 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Bolden v. Mobile Hardbacks and Appendices. Correspondence from Blacksher to Clerk, 1980. fed65af1-cdcd-ef11-b8e8-7c1e520b5bae. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/40033d23-8065-4326-8660-169fc9fd0b44/correspondence-from-blacksher-to-clerk. Accessed July 09, 2025.
Copied!
BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 405 VAN ANTWERP BUILDING P. O. BOX 1051 MOBILE, ALABAMA 36601 JAMES U. BLAGKSHER June 9, 1980 TELEPHONE LARRY T. MENEFEE (205) 433-2000 GREGORY B. STEIN Mr. Gilbert F., Ganucheau, Clerk U. S. Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit Room 102, 600 Camp Street New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 Re: Wiley L. Bolden, et al. v, City of Mobile, et al, No. 76-4210 Dear Mr. Ganucheau: Please grant us leave, pursuant to Local Rule 10,1,12, to file this reply to the supplemental brief filed by the City on or about May 29, 1980. Three copies are enclosed for immediate distribution to members of the panel. There are at least two questions this Court must address on remand: (1) Is the issue of racial intent in the maintenance of at-large elections still open? (2) If so, has the district court decided this question? The City contends that the Supreme Court's mandate requires reversal of the district court's judgment and leaves no issues open on remand. But counting the votes of the justices on the critical issues shows that such an interpretation of the mandate would be fundamentally unjust and could not have been intended by the Court. The Court held, 8 to 1, that proof of racial intent in the creation or maintenance of at-large elections, under Arlington Mr, Gilbert F. Ganucheau June 9, 1980 Page Two Heights - Feeney standards, establishes a violation of the fourteenth amendment.l/ And five of the justices eonclyded that a racial purpose was proved on the present record.=< Justice Stevens voted for reversal because he believed race should be the sole motive in order to adjudge the election system unconstitutional.2/ Thus, for widely varying reasons, %/ six justices voted for reversal and remand for further pro- ceedings consistent with the Court's several opinions. But while the Supreme Court need not have a majority reason for 1/ ~ City of Mobile v. Bolden, 48 U.S.L.W. 4436, 4438-39 (Stewart), 4448 (White), 4443 (Blackmun), 4446 (Brennan), 4458 (Marshall) (Apr. 22, 1980). 2/ © 48 U,S.L.W. at 4446 (Stevens), 4443 (Blackmun), 4449 (White), 4446 (Brennan), 4458 (Marshall). 3/ ~ "I am persuaded that some support for its retention comes, directly or indirectly, from members of the white majority who are motivated by a desire to make it more difficult for members of the black minority to serve in positions of responsibility in the city government. I deplore that motivation and wish that neither it nor any other irrational prejudice played any part in our politi- cal processes. But I do not believe otherwise legitimate political choices can be invalidated simply because an irrational or invidious purpose played some part in the decisionmaking process." 48 U,S.L.W, at 4446, 4/ Justice Blackmun voted for reversal because of his unhappiness with the remedy. 48 U.S.L.W. at 4443, Mr, Gilbert F, Ganucheau June 9, 1980 Page Three reversal and remand, the proceedings in the lower courts must be governed on each issue by the majority view of the justices. The answer to question (1), whether reexamination of the motives for retaining Mobile's at-large elections is still open, is yes. Because of his unique viewpoint, Justice Stevens would supply the fifth vote for foreclosing the maintenance intent issue in this case if the Stewart plurality has also foreclosed it. Clearly they have not, Contrary to the City's assertion, footnote 21 plainly states that the plurality did not reach the issue Of wherkgr at-large elections had been retained for invidious purposes b) Since the maintenance intent issue is still open, this Court must address question (2): Has the district court decided it? The appellant City contends that it did not. We disagree; indeed, we believe this court has already acknowledged such a finding independent of the Zimmer analysis, However, if the Court has any doubt, the question should be remanded to the district court for clarification and any necessary additional proceedings, If there is a remand, it is critically important that this Court first answer question (1). If this Court does not at least decide whether the maintenance intent issue is still open, the question is bound to return here on appeal, regard- less of how the trial court rules. 5/ As we argued in our supplemental brief on remand, p.10, in light of footnote 21, the plurality's statement about the evidence falling '"far short" of proving intent can only be understood as restricted to its reading of this Court's opinion as having relied solely on Zimmer, Mr. Gilbert F, Ganucheau June 9, 1980 Page Four Best regards. Sincerely, BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A, pi: Glpebidle es U, Blacksher JUB:pfm xc: Edward Still, Esq, Eric Schnapper, Esq, Charles B. Arendall, Jr., Esq. Fred G, Collins, Esq. Charles S, Rhyne, Esq. Non-Partisan Voters League Hon. Virgil Pittman Encls.,