Memo in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISTON 

JOHN DILLARD, ET ALS * 

PLAINTIFFS, * 

VS, * CASE. NUMBER 85-T~1332-~N 

CRENSHAW COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET ALS * 

DEFENDANTS %* 

MEMO IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT 

COFFEE COUNTY'S MOTION TO DISMISS 

Defendant, Coffee County, et als, by and through 1ts Attorney of 

Record, would submit its Brief and Argument as follows on {ts position. The 

theme of that position 1s namely that Defendant, Coffee County, 1s already 

under a Federal Court Order Reapportionment plan approved on or about 

December 22, 1971. In that Order dated December 22, 1971, (SEE: Order 

attached to Coffee County's Motion to Dismiss heretofore filed) that Court 

retained jurisdiction of the cause for all purposes. 

In Sim, et als v. Baxley, et als, the Defendants, (Coffee County 

Commission), or their successors in office and those acting in their behalf 

or in concert with them were enjoined from failing to conduct or falling to 

cause to he conducted an election unless it followed the following 

guidelines: 

The Coffee County, Alabama commission districts 

shall remain as present lv constituted in four 

districts. The Coffee County Commission shall be 

composed of six commissioners, one of whom must be 

a resident and qualified elector of District 1 as 

{t 18 now composed and conatituted; one of whom 

 



  

must be a resident and qualified elector of district 

2 as it is now composed and constituted; one of 

whom must be a resident and qualified elector of 

District 3 as it 18 now composed and constituted; 

and three of whom must be residents and qualified 

electors of District 4 as it 1s now composed and 

constituted; all of whom shall be elected by the 

qualified electors of the entire County at large 

at the time and in the manner prescribed by law. 

The vote of each Commissioner on the Coffee County 

Commission will be equal to the vote of each other 

Commissioner, 

In its Order entered on December 22, 1971, the Court in Civil 

Action No. 1170-S, Sims, et als vs. Baxley, et als, District Court for the 
    

Middle District of Alabama, Southern Division, declared the apportionment 

created by Act No. 630 of the 1927 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature 

and by Act. No. 571 of the 1953 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature 

were vold and violative of the l4th Amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States. SEE: Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112 (1966). Consequently, the 
  

Court ordered the County Commission to promulgate the aforementioned plan 

remedying the constitutional infirmities extant under the scheme existing 

then. 

Hence, in summary, Defendant, Coffee County, argues that the 

circumstances involving it here are unlike any of the other circumstances 

{involving the other seven (7) counties made parties to this lawsuit, Thus, 

this Motion to Dismiss should be granted. 

ROWE, ROWE & SAWYER 

RY : ( A) Gare Apr 

W 
  

arren Rowe | 
Rowe, Rowe & Sawyer 

P. 0. Box 150 
Enterprise, Alabama 36331 

(205) 347-3401 

 



  

must be a resident and qualified elector of district 

2 as it is now composed and constituted; one of 

whom must be a resident and qualified elector of 

District 3 as it is now composed and constituted; 

and three of whom must be residents and qualified 

electors of District 4 as it is now composed and 

constituted; all of whom shall be elected by the 

qualified electors of the entire County at large 

at the time and in the manner prescribed by law. 

The vote of each Commissioner on the Coffee County 

Commission will be equal to the vote of each other 

Commissioner. 

In its Order entered on December 22, 1971, the Court in Civil 

Action No. 1170-S, Sims, et als vs. Baxley, et als, District Court for the 
  

  

Middle District of Alabama, Southern Division, declared the apportionment 

created by Act No. 630 of the 1927 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature 

and by Act. No. 571 of the 1953 Regular Session of the Alabama Legislature 

were void and violative of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the 

United States. SEE: Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112 (1966). Consequently, the 
  

Court ordered the County Commission to promulgate the aforementioned plan 

remedying the constitutional infirmities extant under the scheme existing 

then, 

Hence, in summary, Defendant, Coffee County, argues that the 

circumstances involving it here are unlike any of the other circumstances 

involving the other seven (7) counties made parties to this lawsuit. Thus, 

this Motion to Dismiss should be granted. 

ROWE, ROWE & SAWYER 

rae UN 

BY: WY /\owr 

Warren Rowe | 
  

Rowe, Rowe & Sawyer 

P. 0. Box 150 
Enterprise, Alabama 36331] 

(205) 347-3401