Mobile v. Bolden Supplemental Brief for Appellees
Public Court Documents
January 1, 1979

Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Mobile v. Bolden Supplemental Brief for Appellees, 1979. c661cf11-be9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/7be432b4-b6ab-4942-810c-971c3b922145/mobile-v-bolden-supplemental-brief-for-appellees. Accessed April 27, 2025.
Copied!
I n the &upn>mr Court o f iijr Mnitrb States October T erm , 1979 No. 77-1844 City of M obile, A labam a , et al., Appellants, v. W iley L. B olden, et al., Appellees. No. 78-357 R obert R. W illiam s, et al., v. Appellants, L eila G. B row n , et al., Appellees. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR APPELLEES J. U. B lacksher L arry M enefee 405 Van Antwerp Building Mobile, Alabama 36601 E dward Still Suite 400 Commerce Center 2027 First Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 J ack Greenberg E ric Schnapper Suite 2030 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 Counsel for Appellees TABLE OF CONTENTS Page ARGUMENT ................................................................................ 2 I . THE INTERVENING DECISIONS OF THIS COURT GIVE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT TO THE LOWER COURTS' FINDINGS OF INVIDIOUS INTENT ............................................................... 2 I I . THE INTERVENING DECISIONS OF THIS COURT CONFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENFORCE SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT ...................................................................... 6 I I I . SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT LEGISLATION IN THE 1979 ALABAMA LEGISLATURE . . . 10 CONCLUSION • I 13 - i TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page Cases A l le n v. State Bd. o f E l e c t i o n s , 393 U.S. 544 (1969) ..................... .................... 8 Cannon v. U n iv e rs i ty o f Chicago , 60 L.Ed 2d 560 ( 1979) ........................................................ 7 ,8 Chrysler Corp. v . Brown, 60 L.Ed. 2d 208 (1979) ............................................................... 7 City o f Rome v. United S tates , No. 78-1840 ............................................................ 8 Columbus Board o f Educat ion v. Penick , 61 L.Ed. 2d 666 (1979) .............................. 3,6 Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) .......................... 8 Dayton Board o f Education v. Brinkman, 61 L.Ed. 2d 720 (1979) .................................... 3 ,6 i Kirksey v . Board o f Superv isors o f Hinds County, 554 F .2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977) ........................................................................... 6 New York City Trans i t A uthor i ty v. Beazer, 59 L.Ed. 2d 587 (1979) ................ 7 Personnel Adm'r o f Mass. v . Feeney, 60 L.Ed. 2d 870 (1979) .................................... 3 Touche Ross and Co. v . Reddington, 61 L.Ed. 2d 82 (1979) .................................... 7 Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) ........................................................ 4 n Page Statutes Education Amendments Act o f 1972, T i t l e IX .................................................................... 7 ,8 Voting Rights Act o f 1965, Sect ion 2 .............. 5 ,7 -9 Voting Rights Act o f 1965, S ec t ion 5 ............ 8 ,9 L e g i s la t i v e Mater ia ls 111 Cong. Rec. (1965) .................................................... 9 S. 1564, 89th Cong. , 1st S e s s ................................. 9 H. Rep. 711, 89th Cong. , 1st S e s s ...................... 9 H. 951, 1979 Alabama L e g i s l a t i v e Session ...................................................................... 10 Other A u th o r i t i e s ‘ Supreme Court Rule 41(5) .............. 2 - i i i - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES October Term, 1979 No. 77-1844 CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA, et a l . , A p p e l la n t s , v . WILEY L. BOLDEN, e t a l . , A p p e l l e e s . No. 78-357 ROBERT R. WILLIAMS, e t a l . , A p p e l la n t s , v. LEILA G. BROWN, et a l . , A p p e l l e e s . On Appeal From The United States States Court o f Appeals f o r the F i f t h C i r c u i t 2 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR APPELLEES These two v o t i n g r i g h t s c a s e s , argued in tandem b e fo r e the Court on March 19, 1979, were subsequently r e i n s t a t e d on the calendar and are now s e t f o r reargument on O c t o b e r 29, 1 979. P l a i n t i f f s - a p p e l l e e s , pursuant to Rule 4 1 ( 5 ) , and in response to the Supplemental B r i e f f i l e d in C ity o f M o b i l e , f i l e t h i s supplemental b r i e f to a d d r e s s t h e f o l l o w i n g i s s u e s r a i s e d by e v e n t s o c c u r r in g s in ce the o r i g i n a l argument: (1 ) the impact o f t h i s C o u r t ' s in terven ing d e c i s i o n s on the lower cour ts ' f in d in g s o f i n v i d i ous i n t e n t ; (2 ) the impact o f th i s C o u r t ' s in terven ing d e c i s i o n s on the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f p r iv a t e e n f o r c e ment o f s e c t i o n 2 o f t h e V o t i n g R i g h t s A c t ; (3 ) the l a t e s t attempts to procure passage by the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e o f laws p r o v i d i n g f o r single-member d i s t r i c t e l e c t i o n s . ARGUMENT I. THE INTERVENING DECISIONS OF THIS COURT GIVE ADDITIONAL SUPPORT TO THE LOWER COURTS' FINDINGS OF INVIDIOUS INTENT____________________ The th resh o ld qu est ion in both these appeals is whether t h i s Court w i l l d i s tu rb the concurrent fa c t u a l de terminations o f purp ose fu l d i s c r im in a t i o n made by th e D i s t r i c t Court and C our t o f 3 Appeals. I f these f in d in g s stand, whether t h i s Court grounds i t s d e c i s i o n s on the Voting Rights Act or the C o n s t i t u t i o n , i t w i l l not be necessary to r e a c h any o f the o t h e r i s s u e s p r e s e n t e d by these cases . The p r i n c i p l e s r e c e n t ly enunciated in Columbus Board o f Education v. P e n i ck , 61 L.Ed. 2d 666 ( 1 9 7 9 ) ; Dayton Board o f E d u c a t i o n v . Brinkman, 61 L.Ed. 2d 720 (1 9 79 ) ; and Personnel Adm'r o f Mass. v. Feeney, 60 L.Ed. 2d 870 (1979), applied to the instant ca ses , compel aff irmance o f the f in d in g s o f d i s c r im in a to ry in ten t . As in Columbus, 61 L.Ed. 2d at 680, the de fendants here do not s e r i o u s l y d ispute most o f the t r i a l c o u r t ' s subs id iary f in d in g s - - h i s t o r i ca l r a c i a l d i s c r im in a t i o n , current d i s p a r i t i e s in the p r o v i s i o n o f p u b l i c s e r v i c e s t o b lacks , r a c i a l t a c t i c s that deny b l a c k s ' c h o i c e s a r e a l i s t i c chance o f e l e c t i o n , law m akers ' c o u r t r o o m a d m is s i o n s o f r a c i a l m o t i v e s and bad f a i t h . R ath er , th ey c h a l l e n g e the f a c t u a l i n f e r e n c e s which the lower courts may draw from these f a c t s . T h is Court has r e a f f i r m e d i t s p r a c t i c e o f g iv in g s p e c i a l de ference to the f ind ings o f "the judges who have l i v e d with the case over the y e a r s . " Columbus, supra, 61 L.Ed. 2d at 676 n .6 . The replacement o f " b la t a n t " d isenfranchisement dev ices with more su bt le forms o f d i s c r im in a t io n and the " co ld n e ss and im persona l i ty o f a pr inted r e c o r d " mean t h a t f e d e r a l t r i a l j u d g e s areme an 4 "unique ly s i tu a te d . . . to appraise the s o c i e t a l f o r c e s at work in the communities where they s i t . " I d . at 685 (Stewart , J . , c o n c u r r in g ) , 683 (Burger, C . J . , c o n c u r r in g ) . Such co n s id e r a t i o n s g ive an added f o r c e to t h i s C o u r t ' s t w o - c o u r t r u l e in these c a se s . See Columbus, supra , 61 L.Ed. 2d at 684-88 (Stewart , J . , c o n c u r r in g ) . Feeney lays to r e s t the p r i n c i p a l c ontent ion o f t h e M o b i l e d e f e n d a n t s in bo th the D i s t r i c t Court and Court o f Appeals — that Washington v. D a v i s , 426 U .S . 229 , (1 9 7 6 ) r e q u i r e s p r o o f o f in v id io u s in tent at the time o f a cha l lenged law 's enactment. L e g i s la t i o n innocent in i t s o r i g i n s is n e v e r th e le s s c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y o f f e n s i v e ; i f i t is "subsequent ly r e a f f i r m e d " or "subsequent ly r e enacted" f o r an in v id io u s purpose. Feeney, supra, 60 L.Ed. 2d at 886, 888. Thus the courts below did not m is in te rp re t Davis when they looked past the a l l e g e d l y " r a c e - p r o o f " beginnings o f the c i t y and sch o o l board e l e c t i o n plans to see i f they had been maintained in l a t e r years f o r r a c i a l reasons. The fa c t u a l f in d in g s o f in ten t in the instant cases have even s t ron g er e v id en t ia r y underpinnings than those in Columbus and Dayton. Here we have " c o n t e m p o r a n e o u s exp 1 a n a t i o n [ s ] " t h a t r a c i a l d i s c r im in a t i o n was "one o b j e c t i v e " in the S t a t e ' s r e f u s a l t o authorize single-member d i s t r i c t s f o r M o b i l e ' s c i t y government and sch o o l board. This is the "b es t ev iden ce " the d i s s e n te r s in Columbus found wanting in that case . 61 L.Ed. 2d at 709 (Rehnqui s t , J. , d i s s e n t i n g ) . B la c k and w h i te l e g i s l a t o r s gave unrebutted testimony that the p r o b a b i l i t y o f b lacks g e t t i n g e l e c t e d kept the l o c a l d e l e g a t i o n from a p p r o v i n g s in g l e -m e m b e r d i s t r i c t proposa ls fo r the City o f Mobile in 1965 and 1976. The d i s t r i c t court squarely h e ld that these r a c i a l c o n s id e r a t io n s "prevented any e f f e c t i v e r e d i s t r i c t i n g which would r e s u l t in any b e n e f i t t o the b l a c k v o t e r s ” . C i t y o f M o b i l e J.S. 30b; Will iams J .S . 35b, App. 33a. The cour ts below did not , as appe l lants urge, base t h e i r f ind ings o f in ten t merely on l e g i s l a t ive "awareness o f consequences" . Tho'se courts properly r e l i e d in part on d i r e c t o b j e c t i v e and c ir cum stant ia l ev idence o f the l a w s ' under ly ing purposes. They a l s o cons idered the " f o r e s e e a b l e consequences" o f the e l e c t i o n plans as re levant to, but not c o n t r o l l i n g o f , the m ot ivat ion in quiry . See City o f Mobile J .S . 30b. Attaching weight to the f o r e s e e a b le consequences o f s ta te a c t ion was express ly sanct ioned by Columbus. 61 L.Ed. 2d at 681; see a l s o id_. at 712 (Rehnquist , J . , d i s s e n t i n g ) . In a d d i t ion to the lower c o u r t s ' f ind ings o f present d i s c r im in a to ry in t e n t , there i s a d i s t i n c t a l t e r n a t iv e ground, recogn ized by Columbus and Dayton, f o r upholding the judgments in the instant 6 appeals . The State o f Alabama may not "knowingly [ c ont in ue ] i t s f a i l u r e to e l im in ate the conse qu e n ce s o f i t s p a s t i n t e n t i o n a l l y s e g r e g a t i v e p o l i c i e s " regard ing v o t i n g r i g h t s . See Columbus, supra , 61 L.Ed. 2d at 679. In these cases , there i s no se r io u s d ispute that , at l e a s t from 1901 to 1965, the State did everyth ing in i t s power to e x c l u d e b l a c k s a l t o g e t h e r from the e l e c t i o n p r o c e s s e s . The D i s t r i c t Court found that those o f f i c i a l d i s c r im in a to r y p o l i c i e s shared d i r e c t r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the r a c i a l a t t i t u d e s in M o b i l e ' s e l e c t o r a t e that produce b l o c v o t in g by w h i t e s and thus r e s u l t in d i l u t i o n o f b l a c k v o t in g strength through the l o c a l a t - l a r g e e l e c t i o n p lans . City o f Mobile J .S . 20b-21b, 38b-39b. The teach ing o f Columbus and Dayton that s ta tes may not perpetuate past o f f i c i a l racism by use o f neutra l s ch oo l laws or p r a c t i c e s provides d i r e c t support f o r the analogous p r i n c i p l e in the realm o f v o t in g r i g h t s . See Kirksey v. Board o f Super v i s o r s o f Hinds County, 554 F . 2d 139 (5th C ir . ) (en banc ) , c e r t . d e n i e d , 434 U.S. 968 ( 1977). I I . THE INTERVENING DECISIONS OF THIS COURT CONFIRM THE EXISTENCE OF A PRIVATE CAUSE OF ACTION TO ENFORCE SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT This Court r e c e n t ly r e i t e r a t e d i t s adherence to the p r a c t i c e o f f i r s t d i sp o s in g o f s ta tu tor y 7 claims b e f o r e reach ing c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s su es . New York City Transit Author ity v. Beazer, 59 L.Ed. 2d 587 5 600 ( 1 979) The l o w e r c o u r t ' s f a i l u r e to pass on the s t a tu to r y claims w i l l not de ter t h i s Court from d o i n g s o . Id . at 601 n . 2 4 . P l a i n t i f f s - A p p e l l e e s in both City o f Mobile and Will iams have throughout th i s l i t i g a t i o n asserted claims fo r r e l i e f under § 2 o f the Vot ing Rights Act o f 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. See Bolden Ap p e l l e e s ' B r i e f , pp. 11-12 ; Brown Appel lees 1 B r ie f , pp. 11-12. Even though n e i th e r the D i s t r i c t Court nor the Court o f Appeal based i t s judgment on th i s s ta tu to r y ground, in te rven in g d e c i s i o n s o f th is Court leave no doubt that p l a i n t i f f s haye a cause o f a c t i o n under § 2, and t h i s Court ought t o address i t , p a r t i c u l a r l y when doing so w i l l avoid the n e c e s s i t y o f r e a c h i n g the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i s s u e s . The standards e x p l i c a t e d and appl ied in three o f t h i s C o u r t ' s d e c i s i o n s l a s t term compel the c o n c lu s io n that a p r iv a t e cause o f a c t i o n should be implied under § 2 o f the Vot ing Rights Act. Touche Ross and Co. v. Reddington, 61 L.Ed. 2d 82 (1979 ) ; Cannon v. U n ivers i ty o f Chicago , 60 L.Ed. 2d 560 (1 9 79 ) ; Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 60 L.Ed. 2d 208 (1979). Cannon, constru ing § 901(a) o f T i t l e IX o f the Education Amendments o f 1972, 20 U .S .C . § 1681, i s i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from the 8 in s tan t case . S ec t ion 2 o f the Vot ing Rights Act, l i k e T i t l e IX o f the Educat ion Amendments o f 1972, "presents the a t y p i c a l s i t u a t i o n in which a l l o f the circumstances that the Court has p rev iou s ly i d e n t i f i e d as support ive o f an implied remedy are p r e s e n t . " 60 L.Ed. 2d at 587. Both s t a tu te s were enacted f o r the b e n e f i t o f a s p e c i a l c l a s s , id . at 571, and both employ " the r i g h t - or d u t y - c r e a t in g la n gu age [w h i c h ] has g e n e r a l l y been the most accurate i n d i c a t o r o f the p r o p r i e t y o f im p l i c a t i o n o f a cause o f a c t i o n . " Id_. at 571 n. 12. Indeed, Cannon r e f e r s d i r e c t l y to the s p e c ia l c l a s s o f b lack c i t i z e n s p r o te c te d by s e c t i o n 2, and to th is C ou r t 's e a r l i e r d e c i s i o n f in d in g a p r i y a t e r i g h t to r e l i e f under i t s s i s t e r p r o v i s i o n , s e c t i o n 5. I d . at 571, c i t i n g A l l en v. State Bd. o f E l e c t ion s , 393 U.S 544 (1969 ) . Thus § 2 p r o h i b i t s c e r t a i n c o n d u c t and c r e a t e s f e d e r a l r i g h t s in favor o f p r iv a t e p a r t i e s in p r e c i s e l y the manner contemplated by Cannon and Cort v. Ash. Cannon, 60 L.Ed. 2d at 572 n .1 3 ; Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66 (1975) . In our i n i t i a l b r i e f s we argued that s e c t i o n 2 o f the Voting Rights Act in co r p o ra te s the same "purpose or e f f e c t " standard found in s e c t i o n 5. The Appel lants in City o f Rome v. United S t a t e s , No. 78-1840, urge that s e c t i o n 5 does not p r o h i b i t e l e c t o r a l dev ices which have a d i s c r im in a to ry e f f e c t but no in v id i o u s purpose. The l e g i s 9 l a t i v e h i s t o r y o f the Voting Rights Act revea ls t h a t e a r l y v e r s i o n s o f some s e c t i o n s r e f e r r e d s o l e l y t o d i s c r i m i n a t o r y " e f f e c t " o r o n l y to d i s c r im in a to r y "p u r p o se " , —̂ but that in every case 1/ As o r i g i n a l l y dra f ted s e c t i o n 5 app l ied to p r a c t i c e s with a d i s c r im in a to ry e f f e c t , but not a d is c r im in a to r y purpose. S. 1564, § 8, 111 Cong. Rec. 28358. I t was broadened to inc lude both by the Senate Ju d ic ia ry Committee. I l l Cong. Rec. 28360. S e c t i o n 4, which d e s c r ib e s when a j u r i s d i c t i o n can remove i t s e l f from coverage o f s e c t i o n 5, i n i t i a l l y r e f e r r e d to den ia ls o f the r ig h t to vote "by r e a s o n o f r a c e " . S. 1564 , 111 Cong. Rec . 28358. I t was changed by the Senate Committee to r e f e r to t e s t s or dev ices used " f o r the purpose" o f denying the r ig h t to vo te "on account o f ra ce " , S. 1564, § 4 ( a ) , 111 Cong. Rec. 28360, but was m od i f ied on the f l o o r to inc lude d is c r im in a tory e f f e c t . I l l Cong. Rec. 28365. The pocket t r i g g e r in s e c t i o n 3(b) r e f e r r e d to d i s c r im in a to ry purpose in the Senate v e r s io n , 111 Cong. Rec. 28360, but the House b i l l included d is c r im in a to r y e f f e c t as w e l l and that v e r s io n was adopted by the Conference Committee. I l l Cong. Rec . 283 7 0 ; H. Rep. No. 711, 89th C o n g . , 1st S e s s . , p. 1. Challenges by the Attorney General t o the use o f t e s t s or d ev ices by j u r i s d i c t i o n s which had b a i l e d out under s e c t i o n 4 at f i r s t were required to show d i s c r im in a to r y purpose, 111 Cong. Rec. 28360, but t h i s t o o was amended to c o v e r d i s cr iminatory e f f e c t . Id. at 28365, 28370. 10 C o n g r e s s r e d r a f t e d the s e c t i o n to c o v e r b o th purpose and e f f e c t . Whenever Congress s p e l l e d out th e r e l e v a n t e v i d e n t i a r y s t a n d a r d under the Vot ing Rights Act, i t re fused to exc lude e i t h e r d i s c r im in a to r y purpose or d i s c r im in a to r y e f f e c t . This uniform determ inat ion to r e j e c t e i t h e r form o f l i m i t a t i o n on the scope o f the Act conf irms the e s t a b l i s h e d c o n s t r u c t i o n o f s e c t i o n 5. Had C o n g r e ss b e l i e v e d t h a t s e c t i o n 2 i t s e l f was l i m i t e d t o e i t h e r " p u r p o s e " o r " e f f e c t " , tha t p r o v i s i o n t o o would dou bt le ss have been amended; at the very l e a s t one o f the s u c c e s s f u l proponents o f the broader language would have v o i c e d some o b j e c t i o n to such a l i m i t a t i o n in s e c t i o n 2. I I I . SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICT LEGISLATION IN THE 1979 ALABAMA LEGISLATURE_____________________ On J u ly 2, 1979, b l a c k M o b i l e County Rep r e s e n t a t iv e James E. Buskey introduced H. 951 in the 1979 Regular Sess ion o f the Alabama L e g i s la ture . The b i l l proposed an o p t i o n a l m ayor -counc i l form o f government with single-member d i s t r i c t s f o r c i t i e s M o b i l e ' s s i z e , t o be adopted upon ap prova l by the c i t y ' s v o t e r s in a mandatory r e f erendum e l e c t i o n . Pursuant to the L e g i s l a t u r e ' s p r a c t i c e w i th r e s p e c t t o l o c a l b i l l s , i t was r e f e r r e d to House Local L e g i s l a t i o n Committee No. 3, where i t was d i s c u s s e d by M o b i l e ' s l o c a l d e l e g a t io n . A s u b s t i t u t e b i l l was repor ted out o f 11 co m m it te e which amended B u s k e y ' s b i l l in two important r e s p e c t s : (1 ) the referendum e l e c t i o n would be h e l d o n ly i f " t h e u l t i m a t e j u d i c i a l t e s t o f the c o n s t i t u t i o n a l i t y o f [ M o b i l e ' s ] present form o f government [should] f in d aga inst the At-Large Commission form ," and (2) in such event, the v o te rs cou ld choose e i t h e r a " d i s t r i c t commission" government, with three c i t y commis s i o n e r s e l e c t e d from s i n g l e - m e m b e r d i s t r i c t s , or a mayor and nine single-member d i s t r i c t c o u n c i l members. Under the c o m m iss ion o p t i o n , the t h r e e s u c c e s s f u l c a n d i d a t e s w o u ld , a f t e r the e l e c t i o n , choose 'and d i s t r i b u t e among themselves the ex e c u t iv e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r three separate departments, f inance and adm in is trat ion , pu b l i c s a f e t y , and p u b l i c works and s e r v i c e s . Each commissioner-department head 's powers would be s u b je c t to "the d i r e c t i o n , and s u p erv is ion o f the board o f commissioners as a w h o le . " Subst. H.B. 951, § 20. At the urging o f Mobile County's three black r e p r e s e n t a t iv e s , the b i l l was amended to s t r i k e the c o n d i t i o n o f j u d i c i a l p r o s c r i p t i o n o f the a t - l a r g e form o f government and to requ ire ho ld ing the r e f e re n d u m e l e c t i o n w i t h i n 50 days a f t e r i t s enactment. The b i l l passed the House, but i t d i e d on the S en ate c a l e n d a r when w h i te M o b i l e l e g i s l a t o r s in both houses e x e r c i s e d t h e i r l o c a l 12 c o u r t e s y p r e r o g a t i v e s and w i th d re w the needed unanimous support. T h is h i s t o r y d e m o n s t r a t e s o n c e a g a in the r a c i a l nature o f t h i s i s sue w i th in the Alabama l e g i s l a t u r e . I t a l so i l l u s t r a t e s that the L e g is la tu re understands , as do we, that the d i s t r i c t court o p in io n in the in s tan t case permits the use o f a m od i f ied v e r s i o n o f the commission form o f government. As we n o t e d in our p r i n c i p l e b r i e f , the w h i t e - c o n t r o 11ed M o b i l e County S c h o o l Board rep ea ted ly represented to the t r i a l court that i t supported and would propose l e g i s l a t i o n c rea t in g s i n g l e - m e m b e r s c h o o l b o a r d d i s t r i c t ^ . Brown A p p e l l e e s ' B r i e f , p. 31, n . 27. During the 1979 Sess ion , as in every o ther s e s s io n o f the L e g i s l a ture s in ce the complet ion o f the t r i a l in 1976, the School Board again d e c l in e d to propose such a b i l l . This fu r th er supports the d i s t r i c t c o u r t ' s c o n c lu s io n that the Board had acted in bad fa i t h . 13 - CONCLUSION For th e above r e a s o n s the o p i n i o n s o f the cour ts below should be a f f i rm ed . R e s p e c t fu l l y submitted, J. U. BLACKSHER LARRY MENEFEE 405 Van Antwerp Bui ld ing M obi le , Alabama 36601 EDWARD STILL Suite 400 Commerce Center 2027 F i r s t Avenue North Birmingham, Alabama 35203 JACK GREENBERG ERIC SCHNAPPER Suite 2030 10 Columbus C i r c l e New York, New York 10019 Counsel f o r A ppe l lees :4 -> 'V • • :4 . ». %-■ ' - i* ■ ; MfclLEN PRESS INC. — N. Y. C. 319