Mobile v. Bolden Supplemental Brief for Appellees

Public Court Documents
January 1, 1979

Mobile v. Bolden Supplemental Brief for Appellees preview

Date is approximate.

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

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