Mobile v. Bolden Supplemental Brief for Appellees

    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