Correspondence from Kirk to Still

Correspondence
September 15, 1986

Correspondence from Kirk to Still preview

3 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Dillard v. Crenshaw County Hardbacks. Correspondence from Kirk to Still, 1986. b887fe97-b7d8-ef11-a730-7c1e527e6da9. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/66fa4f50-c634-4e52-aa40-bf6e352ef801/correspondence-from-kirk-to-still. Accessed April 27, 2025.

    Copied!

    LAW OFFICES 

WO Fok A 
CURRY & KIRK 
P.O. DRAWER A-B 

Corroltlon, tloluma ITH 
J. H. CURRY (1801-1984) AREA CODE 205 
W. O. KIRK, JR. September 15, 1986 TELEPHONE 367-8125 

—, 
Mc. Edward Still Copy 
Attorney at Law 

714 South 29th Street 
Birmingham, AL 35233 

Re: Dillard vs. Crenshaw County (Pickens County) 

Dear Ed: 

I received your letter of September 11, 1986, with regard to 
the above case. 

The stipulation entered into between Pickens County and the 
Plaintiffs call for elections in November of this year under an 
approved remedial election plan and to this date there is no 
approved remedial election plan. 
  

  

The plan that Pickens County submitted to the Court and to 
the Justice Department calls for single-member district 
commissioners from Districts Two and Four to be elected in 1986 
and no elections for commissioners in Distrists One and Three 
until 1988 and there is certainly no reason to suggest that 
commissioners be elected by any means for Districts One and Three 
until the year 1988. Since the four commission district plan 
filed by Pickens County has no changes in Districts Two and Four 
and since they have had single-member district elections in the 
Primary, it would seem to me that no additional election would be 
necessary except the General Election in November which could be 
held under single-member district voting for Districts Two and 
Four. 

With regard to your list of questions, Pickens County would 
respond as follows: 

(1) There is no problem with identifying voters under the 
four member plan as that has already been done. 

 



  

(2) The public has been well informed by radio and 
newspaper accounts, as well as a public hearing concerning this 
case and the position of the parties. 

(3) It would be a virtual impossibility to reidentify 
voters under the five member plan submitted by the Plaintiffs by 
November 4, 1986. The five member plan cuts across all precinct 
district lines in Pickens County and the plan itself only 
identified population and nct voting precincts and not registered 
voters. 

  

(4) Certainly, no candidate qualification deadlines have 
been set as that would be impossible under the condition of not 
knowing which plan will be implemented. 

The position of Pickens County is that no elections will be 
necessary 1in November of 1986 except for the elections of 
commissioners in Districts Two and Four to be voted on only by 
the registered voters of the respective Districts Two and Four in 
the General Election. 

There would be no elections in Districts One and Three until 

1988. 

All of this is in accordance with the plan submitted to the 
Justice Department and the Court. 

Sincerely yours,     
WOKjr:bw 

cc: Hon. Myron H. Thompson 

U. S. District Judge 
P.O. BOX 235 
Montgomery, AL 36101 

Mr. James U. Blacksher 

Blacksher, Menefee & Stein, P. A. 

P. O. Box 1051 

Mobile, AL 36633 

 



  

Mr. Larry Menefee 
Blacksher, Menefee & Stein, P. A. 
Fifth Floor, Title Building 
300 21st Street North 
Birmingham, AL 35203 

Mr. Terry G. Davis 
Seay & Davis 
P.O. Box 6215 
Montgomery, AL 36106 

Mr. Julius L. Chambers 

Ms. Deborah Fins 

NAACP Legal Defense Fund 
99 Hudson Street 

New York, NY 10013

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top