Order; Correspondence from Boyd to Judge Thompson
Public Court Documents
October 7, 1986 - October 9, 1986

7 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Dillard v. Crenshaw County Hardbacks. Order; Correspondence from Boyd to Judge Thompson, 1986. 590e03b3-b7d8-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/7f74bf9c-0471-464b-a4f2-d831e7bd87de/order-correspondence-from-boyd-to-judge-thompson. Accessed April 19, 2025.
Copied!
% ® 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