Supplemental Answers of Plaintiff Charles Maxwell to Defendants' Interrogatories
Public Court Documents
January 29, 1976

9 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Bolden v. Mobile Hardbacks and Appendices. Supplemental Answers of Plaintiff Charles Maxwell to Defendants' Interrogatories, 1976. 6d0e7180-cdcd-ef11-b8e8-7c1e520b5bae. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/4e21802b-8fdf-4ee7-9a59-1accdebe1a17/supplemental-answers-of-plaintiff-charles-maxwell-to-defendants-interrogatories. Accessed July 30, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION WILEY L. BOLDEN, REV. R. L. HOPE, CHARLES JOHNSON, JANET O. LePFLORE, JOHN 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 official capacities ‘as Mobile City Commissioners, Nk Kk ok Sk % ¥ k X % k k ¥ F F X X ok OF * 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 or 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 To 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. (3d) 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 Bolitionl ov 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. fa)={(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. 64. See Appendix A. 65.(f) See Appendix A. 128. See Appendix A. 129. See Appendix ‘A. 131. See Appendix A. 134. See Appendix A. 135. See Appendix A. / / ~ Sit Vi , a J £/ 3 Ly Aq Defy nee Ral sy J... 4. SLAC GREGORY B./ STEIN CRAWFORD & BLACKSHER 1407 DAVIS AVENUE MOBILE, ALABAMA 36603 EDWARD STILL, ESQUIRE SUITE 601 ~- TITLE BUILDING 2030 THIRD AVENUE, NORTH BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203 Attorneys for Plaintiffs STATE OF ALABAMA ) $y 88 COUNTY OF MOBILE ) Personally appeared before me, the undersigned authoriey 2 5. 77 Lz 7 in and for said County and State, (tial ZZ 2 ZN ett known to me, who upon being first duly sworn by me, on oath Zz ‘deposes and says that SL is informed and believes, and on such information and belief states, that the foregoing answers cg0 to interrogatories propounded by the defendanf{s are true. Before me on this the 5/72 day of EA at SAA 27 ve | 7 7 i / f rd / 7 ya ? 4 = id Cor, ER ’ ‘AAA AE OR PELIC MOBILE COUNTY, ALABAMA 1 ~ {A My Comm. Expires Mar CERTIFICATE OF SFRWICE Lia — (UF ap 1976, I served a copy of the foregoing Supplemental Answers to Interrogatories upon all counsel of record as listed below by S : 1l, Esquire David Bagwell, Esquire Post Office Box 123 Mobile, Alabama 366001 S. R. Sheppard, Esquire Legal Department City of Mobile Mobile, Alabama 36001 \ f 277) ried 2K) 5 oy VY ; F Yi nN Agzeray VA AA J. UO. BLACESFER-\}] - GREGORY (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, II11., ESQUIRE SUITE 2030 10 COLUMBUS CIRCLE NEW YORK, MN, Y. 10019 Attorneys for Plaintiffs APPENDIX A 2. Yes. Verna Maxwell. Age: 45 2258 Harry Court Rana Maxwell. Age: 15 2258 Harry Court Charles Maxwell, Jr. Age: 13 2258 Harry Court 4. Self: (a) Answered in orginal answers. (b) Cody Road lived with in-laws Harcy Court own (c) Answered in original answers. (d) ward #3, voting place at Stanton Road: since I've been voting in Mobile. (e) No. Wife: (a) Born in Mobile. {b) 721 Cody Rosd living with parents 1454 Chingquepin St. living with uncle 2258 Harry Court owns {c) Yes. (1) Mobile County; date unknown. (1ii)-(iii) She had to have someone:"vouch" for her. (d) ward #10, Davis Avenue--to 1958 ward #3, Stanton Road--1958 to present (e) No. Children: (a) Both born in Mobile, (b) Resided only at Harry Court. (c)-(e) N/A. 45. 4a) No. (b) N/A. {c). Ho. 64. No. 68. N/A. 59." Yes, 70. N/A. 71. No. ‘I have no opinion. on this. 73. No. I have no opinion on this. 82. N/A. 83. Yes. 84. N/A. 85. {a) Yes. (b) Yes. (c) Yes. (d) Yes. 86... N/A. 87. Yes. 885. N/A. 89. Yes. 90. N/A. 91. Yes. 92. N/A. 93. Yes. 94. N/A. 5. Yes. 98. A decrease in city sales tax may well mean a decrease in employees hired by the City--since such a decrease would probably affect manual laborers first, and since black City employees are primarlly such laborers, such a decrease would affect blacks disproportionately:; hence, blacks would pro- bably not favor a decrease in tax while whites would. 93. Yes. 100. N/A. 101, Yes. 102. N/A. 103. I have no opinion. 104. N/A. 105. Yes. 106. N/A. 107. Yes. 108. N/A. 109. Yes. 110. N/A. 11l.. Yes. 112. N/A. 113. Yes. 114, - N/A. 120. Answered in original answers. be | 128. Yes, but this may/because blacks often rent from white owners and the latter, i.e., the white owners, are unwilling to pay assesments. 129. None. 131. Bolden 15 years Hope 15 years Janet LeFlore 20 years John LeFlore 20 years Purifoy 25 years ScotL 15 years Smith 10 years Taylor 5 years S. Williams 5 years E. Williams 15 years F. C. Wilson 25 years 134. No. 135, "NO.