Supplemental Answers of Plaintiff Charles Maxwell to Defendants' Interrogatories

    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.