Order; Correspondence from Boyd to Judge Thompson

    % ® Da fix. fe 
7, rail rig LCF 
°K Re. / L g )/ / JO (o 

FTILED 

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE 

  

: OCT 71986 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN PIV IN MAS C. C 

2 AVER, CLER; 
By oa RIE 

DEPUTY CLERK 

JOHN DILLARD, et al., ! ) 
) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 
V. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 85-T-1332-=N 

) 
CRENSHAW COUNTY, etc., et al., ) 

) 
Defendants. ) 

ORDER 
  

By agreement of the parties, it is ORDERED that the issue of 

remedy as to Calhoun, Lawrence and Pickens counties is now under submission. 

DONE, this the 7th day of October, 1986. 

A 
  

  
"YNITED STATES inn 

 



/ 

a % Rie 0/15] LE 
BALCH & BINGHAM 

ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS 

  

  

  

S EASON BALCH JOHN RICHARD CARRIGAN THE WINTER BUILDING 

JOHN BINGHAM WILLIAM E. SHANKS, UR POST OFFICE BOX 78 2 DEXTER AVENUE 
SCHUYLER A BAKER T DWIGHT Susan COURT SOUARE 

EA wr AN THORNE SEE tN i MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 3810! MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36.2< 
MAURY D. SMITH RALPH F MacDONALD. Il TELECOPIER 205. 269-0.28 
WILLIAM J. WARD STEVEN G. MSKINNEY (20%) B34-8500 
ROBERT M COLLINS STEVEN F CASEY 
HAROLD A. BOWRON. JR MALCOLM N CARMICHAEL BIRMINGHAM OFFICES CAREY J. CHITWOOD RICHARD L L PEARSON 
A. KEY FOSTER. JR. BRIAN D HBTs STR 
JOHN S. BOWMAN JAMES A. BRADFORD rg dh Ee vy THOMAS W. THAGARD, JR DAN H. MCCRARY I 

CHARLES M. CROOK EDWARD B. PARKER, 11 BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 3527 
STERLING G. CULPEPPER, UR WILLIAM P COBB. || 20%) 25-8100 
EDWARD S. ALLEN WILLIAM S. WRIGHT TELECOPIER 1205) 252-0 WARREN H. GOODWYN JOHN J. COLEMAN, Ii 
ROBERT A. BUETTNER PATRICK H. LUCAS AND 
JAMES O. SPENCER. JR. JOHN F. MANDY " 
H. HAMPTON BOL ROBERT L. SHI ; 
C. WILLIAM GLADDEN, JR. ALAN T. ROGERS Octob 1 9 FINANCIAL SENTER 
MICHAEL L. EDWARDS M. STANFORD BLANTON ctober 9 ’ 86 B05 NCIITE TDD. ees 
MARSHALL TIMBERLAKE ELLEN G. RAY iO5 NOR? gol STREE 
WALTER M. BEALE, JR. KEITH B. NORMAN CE BOX 306 
RODNEY O. MUNDY JAMES M. PROCTOR, II BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 3527 
JAMES F. HUGHEY, JR. T. KURT MILLER 205) 251-8100 
S. EASON BALCH, JR. J. THOMAS FRANCIS, JR. TELECOPIER (205i 252-1074 
JOHN P. SCOTT. JR. ROY W. SCHOLL. lil 
S. ALLEN BAKER, JR. SUSAN B. BEVILL 
J. FOSTER CLARK PAUL A. BRANTLEY OF COUNSEL 
STANLEY M. BROCK PATRICIA A. MCGEE 
RANDOLPH H. LANIER JONATHAN S. HARBUCK D. PAUL JONES, JR 
DAVID R. BOYD DAVIS G. REESE EDWIN W. FINCH, iI 

The Honorable Myron H. Thompson HAND DELIVERED 
  

United States District Judge 
Federal Courthouse 
Montgomery, Alabama 36104 

Re: Dillard, et al. v. Crenshaw County, et al. 
Civil Action No. 85-T-1332-N 
  

Dear Judge Thompson: 

Now that the Court is considering the remedial matters 

relating to Lawrence County, we take this opportunity to make 

some limited observations and argument, and specifically to res- 

pond to some of the matters addressed in Mr. Menefee's recently- 

filed memorandum. 

As a preliminary matter, the Court should be aware of cert- 

ain recent developments which will impact on the scheduling of 

the special election to be held pursuant to the Court's earlier 

orders. As the Court is aware, the parties originally agreed 

that the special election would be held during the fall of this 

year. However, it has now become clear that, at least in Law- 

rence County, it will simply not be possible to conduct the 

election on that schedule. The impossibility results from the 

time required for the mechanics of identifying voters to dist- 

ricts, notifying the voters, qualifying candidates, and assorted 

 



  

October 9, 1986 

Re: Dillard, et al. v. Crenshaw County, et al. 
Page 2 
  

kindred problems. In an effort to work our way through these 

problems, we have met with Mr. Menefee and are well under way 

with the preparation of an alternate schedule which will be pre- 

sented to the Court in due course for approval, with the consent 

of all parties. 

As the Court also knows, we are awaiting word from the Vot- 

ing Section of the Department of Justice regarding Lawrence 

County's Section 5 submission. We expect to hear from the Attor- 

ney General in the next two weeks or so (although it could be 

longer since it was necessary for Lawrence County to make a sup- 

plemental submission), and we respectfully suggest that the Court 

might reasonably decide to defer any ruling on the Lawrence 

County situation for a short while, in order to give the Attorney 

General a little while longer to make a decision. Since it 

appears that the Lawrence County elections will not take place 

until perhaps January of 1987 -- assuming approval by the Court 

of the parties' joint proposal -- it does not appear that any 

harm would be caused by the Court waiting a little longer before 

ruling on the Lawrence County matter. 

Regardless of what the Court decides about going forward 

with a ruling, there are some substantive matters that we feel 

need to be addressed. With respect to the five (5) single-member 

districts proposed by the County, it is clear that the Court 

should give its approval. Disregarding, for the time being, the 

unpopulated Airport-Industrial Park complex area, we ask the 

 



  

October 9, 1986 

Re: Dillard, et al. v. Crenshaw County, et al. 
Page 3 
  

Court to examine the competing plans. First, the one predomi- 

nantly black district proposed by the County is identical to the 
  

one predominantly black district proposed by the Plaintiffs. The 

County's demographer and the Plaintiffs' demographer shared and 

agreed upon data in constructing this district. With respect to 

the other four (4) districts, there is simply nothing wrong with 

the County's proposal. Indeed, Mr. Menefee concedes that "there 

is ... no real dispute as to the location of the lines.” (Brief 

p. 14). Plaintiffs' passing comments about their proposed dist- 

ricts being more contiguous and following census boundaries more 

1/ closely= raise superficial points which are hardly grounds 

authorizing this Court to select the Plaintiffs' plan over the 

County's plan, when the County's plan is conceded to be racially 

fair, and, equally as advantageous to blacks, as the Plaintiffs’ 

plan. We urge the Court to review the deposition of the County's 

  

1/ Unless the compactness, or lack thereof, of districts 
somehow has an impermissible purpose, effect, or result, the 
County's preferences should be honored. For example, what may 
appear to the eye to be "more contiguous" may actually upset 
communities of interest far more than some other, perhaps less 
compact, plan. This is simply a quagmire which this Court should 
avoid. The same is true regarding the "issue" of preservation of 
census boundaries. As made clear in the deposition of Charles R. 
Clark, it was necessary to secure "split" data from the Census 
Bureau to create a racially-fair plan which also met one person- 
one vote considerations. In other words, several enumeration 
districts had to be split. The Plaintiffs accomplished the same 
thing by conducting some supplemental house counts. The Plain- 
tiffs' plan no more honors traditional enumeration district lines 
than does the County's, and, even if it did, any difference would 
be de minimis. In this regard, please see pages 30-34 and 37-40 
of the Clark deposition. 

 



  

October 9, 1986 

Re: Dillard, et al. v. Crenshaw County, et al. 
Page 4 
  

demographer, Mr. Clark, in reaching its conclusions regarding the 

fairness and reasonableness of the County's proposal. 

The only real point of contention regarding the districts is 

the placement of the unpopulated Airport-Industrial Park area. 
  

In the Plaintiffs' plan, this area is included in the majority 

black District 1, but is included in the majority white District 

2 in the County's plan. The Plaintiffs' explanation of the rea- 

sons for this difference is factually inaccurate, misleading, and 

totally unsupported by any evidence before this Court. In truth, 

the County's decision to put the complex in District 2 had noth- 

ing to do with race and is entirely reasonable. 

First, it is not true that all the residents immediately 
  

surrounding the Airport-Industrial Park site are black. In fact, 

the residents on three sides are mostly white, and some of the 

residents to the north are white. The undisputed evidence before 

this Court clearly establishes this fact. (Please see the 

excerpts from the deposition of Charles R. Clark which are 

attached hereto.) The area north of the site, which is mostly 

black, was included in the predominantly black district in order 

to increase its black population, but the predominantly white 

areas east, west, and south of the site were not, for obvious 

reasons. 

There was nothing illogical or discriminatory about includ- 

ing the Airport-Industrial Park site in District 2 rather than 

in District 1. The site is owned jointly by the County and the 

 



  

October 9, 1986 
Re: Dillard, et al. v. Crenshaw County, et al. 
Page 5 
  

City of Courtland, which is in proposed District 2. The County 

simply believed it was most appropriate to put the unpopulated 

site in the same district as Courtland. There were no impermis- 

sible considerations -- racially motivated or otherwise -- enter- 

ing into this decision. The City of Courtland simply wanted to 

have the airport site, of which it is a partial owner, in the 

same district with the City, and the County acceded to this 

wish. 

We recognize that there was no trial evidence (except Mr. 

Clark's testimony regarding the instructions given to him, depo. 

p. 34) regarding the reason for the County's decision to locate 

the complex in District 2 rather than District 1. At the same 

time, there was no evidence that its placement was for any imper- 

missible purpose, and the Plaintiffs' suggestion to the contrary 

is simply a product of their imagination. We respectfully sug- 

gest that, in the absence of any evidence of racial motivation or 
  

discriminatory result, the Court should not tamper with the 

County's proposed districts based on the placement of an unpopu- 

lated area which, because of its nature, will never become popu- 

lated. 

With respect to the issue of the commission chairman elected 

at-large, the County adopts the arguments set forth in its pre- 

trial memorandum, the evidence submitted by all of the Defendants 

at trial, and the memoranda submitted by the Pickens and Calhoun 

County Defendants since the trial. We also ask the Court to 

 



October 9, 1986 
Re: Dillard, et al. v. Crenshaw County, et al. 

Page 6 
  

consider the matters set forth in our recent letter to the Attor- 

ney General regarding the County's Section 5 submission, which is 

attached hereto along with the pre-trial memorandum mentioned 

above and some excerpts from the Clark deposition. We also adopt 

the position set forth in that letter with respect to the 

permissibility of ‘phasing in the remedial plan, rather than 

requiring immediate elections in all five districts. 

Summarizing, we urge the Court to approve the County's pro- 

posed districts without change. If the Court were to conclude 

that the Airport-Industrial Park area should be included in the 

majority black district, rather than in District 2, we respect- 

fully submit that the very most the Court should do would be to 

order that this limited change be made, and that the County's 

plan otherwise be implemented as proposed. See Upham v. Seamon, 
  

456 U.S. 37 (1982). We emphasize that we do not believe that any 

change should be ordered. 

Also, we believe that the Court should approve without 

change the County's proposal for a commission chairman elected 

at-large, and for the phasing in of the new district system. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Aerio R Boyd — 

David R. Boyd 

DRB/jam 

Enclosures