Memo in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss
Public Court Documents
February 3, 1986

3 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Dillard v. Crenshaw County Hardbacks. Memo in Support of Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, 1986. 4f47140f-bad8-ef11-a730-7c1e5218a39c. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/5a38b774-5864-45d2-b977-115b810f5c34/memo-in-support-of-defendants-motion-to-dismiss. Accessed June 17, 2025.
Copied!
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