Correspondence from Winner to Leonard; Motion to Certify Class Rule 23, F.R. Civ. P.; State Board of Elections Registration Statistics Part II; Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class; Affidavits

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ' 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

. SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al,

Plainti ffs,

Civil Action

No. 35257

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANTS,
WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF 
MICHIGAN, FRANK J. KELLEY, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 
THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, MICHIGAN STATE BOARD OF 
EDUCATION AND JOHN W. PORTER, ACTING SUPERINTEN- 
DENT OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTION._____________________

Now come defendants, William G. Milliken, Governor of the 
State of Michigan and ex-officio 'member of Michigan' State Board of 

Education, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General of the State of Michigan, 
Michigan State Board of Education and John W. Porter, Acting Suoerin— 

tendent of Public Instruction (hereafter collectively referred to as 
the State Defendants), by their attorneys, Frank J. Kelley, Attorney 
General of the State of Michigan, and Eugene Krasicky, Assistant 

Attorney General, and make their answer to plaintiffs’ complaint in the 
above captioned cause by respectfully representing to this Court as 
follows:

I. The allegations in paragraph I of plaintiffs’ complaint
t

are conclusions of lav; requiring no answer.

II. The State Defendants lack sufficient information to form 
a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in paragraph II 
of plaintiffs’ complaint and leave plaintiffs to their proofs.

III. The State Defendants lack sufficient information to form 
a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained In paragraph III 
of plaintifts’ complaint and leave plaintiffs to their proofs.

vs .

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, Governor 
of the State of Michigan, et al,

Defendants.
________________________________________ /

exhibit a



IV. The State Defendants admit the allegations contained 
In paragraph IV of plaintiffs’ complaint except insofar as such 
allegations are conclusions of law requiring no answer concerning 
the legal responsibilities of the defendants.

V. The allegations contained in paragraph V of plaintiffs 
complaint are conclusions of law requiring no answer.

VI. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained 
in paragraph VI of plaintiffs' complaint.

VII. The State Defendants admit the allegations contained 
in paragraph VII of plaintiffs' complaint.

* /
VIII. The State Defendants lack sufficient information

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations contained in 

paragraph VIII of plaintiffs' complaint and leave plaintiffs to the! 
proofs.

IX. The State Defendants admit that on April 7, 1970 the 
Detroit Board of Education made certain attendance area changes 
affecting 12 senior high schools and as to the balance of the 
allegations contained in paragraph IX of plaintiffs' complaint
the State Defendants lack sufficient information to form a belief 
as to the truth of such allegations and leave plaintiffs to their 
proofs.

t

X. The State Defendants admit the allegations contained 
in paragraph X of plaintiffs' complaint.

XI. The State Defendants admit that four members of the 
Detroit School Board were recalled at an election held on August 

1970, admit that Public Act ^8 was approved by the Governor on 
July 7, 1970, deny that Public Act voided any desegregation plan, 
and, lacking sufficient Information to form a belief as to the truth



of the remainder of the allegations in paragraph XI of plaintiffs’ 
complaint, leave plaintiffs to their proofs.

XII. The State Defendants admit Exhibit E, which speaks for 
itself, deny plaintiffs’ interpretation of Exhibit E, and deny the 

conclusions of law constituting the remainder of paragraph XII of 
plaintiffs’ complaint.

XIII. The State Defendants admit the allegations contained 
in the first two sentences of paragraph XIII of plaintiffs’ complaint, 
admit Exhibit F, which speaks for itself as to the composition of

the regions, and deny the last sentence of paragraph XIII of plaintiffs’ 
complaint.

XIV. The allegations contained in paragraph XIV of plaintiffs’ 
complaint are conclusions of law requiring no answer.

XV. The allegations contained in paragraph XV of plaintiffs’ 
complaint are conclusions of law requiring no answer.

XVI. The allegations contained in paragraph XVI of plaintiffs' 
complaint are conclusions of law requiring no answer.

XVII. The State Defendants admit that there is a constitu­
tional duty to operate a unitary public school system and affirmatively 
state that the Detroit Public Schools are under the operational control 
of the Detroit Board of Education.

XVIII. The State defendants deny the allegations contained 
in paragraph XVIII of plaintiffs' complaint.

XIX. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained in 
paragraph XIX of plaintiffs' complaint.

- 3-



*

XX. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained 
in paragraph XX of plaintiffs' complaint.

XXI. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained 

in pargraph XXI of plaintiffs' complaint.

XXII. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained 
in paragraph XXII of plaintiffs' complaint.

XXIII. The State Defendants deny the allegations contained 

in paragraph XXIII of plaintiffs' complaint.

AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE

I. Plaintiffs' complaint fails to allege that any of the 
plaintiffs would have attended a 'different senior high school pursuant 
to the attendance area changes affecting twelve high schools made by 
the Detroit Board of Education on April 7, 1970. Further, plaintiffs' 
complaint fails to allege that any of the plaintiffs attend any of 

the twelve senior high schools affected by the same April 7> 1970 
attendance area changes. Thus, plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate 

the requisite standing to attack the constitutionality of the first 
sentence of Section 12 of Act M8, PA 1970, which delayed implementation 

of the April 7, 1970 attendance area changes until the commencement of 
functions by the newly established first class school district boardr
on January 1, 1971.

WHEREFORE, the State Defendants respectfully pray and move:
A. That this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 12 (b)(6), 

B’ederal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismiss plaintiffs' complaint as 
to the State Defendants for failure to state a claim upon which reliei 

can be granted.

- 4 -



B. That this Honorable Court, pursuant to Rule 12 (c), 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, enter its judgment on the pleadings 
in favor of the State Defendants as against plaintiffs.

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General
/ )  ■ x ,  -/s  A t . * ; Wi-Ao*-. X.
Eugene Krasicky ’
Assistant Attorney General

Gerald F. Young 
Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants
Business Address:

Seven Story Office Building 
525 West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan 48913

Dated: October 13, 1970