Correspondence from Lani Guinier to Finance Re Sherpell v. Humnoke

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

WILEY L. BOLDEN, et al. ra) 

Plaintiffs, : ) 

and 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 

Plaintiff-Intervenor, ) 

Vs. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. 75-297. 

CITY OF MOBILE ALABAMA, ) 
et al. 

Defendants. ) 

NOTICE OF PROPOSED COMPROMISE 
  

TO: ALL BLACK CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF MOBILE, ALABAMA 

In this class action brought by Wiley L.Bolden, 

Rev.R.L.Hope, Charles Johnson, Janet O.Leflore, Charles 

Maxwell, Ossie B.Purifoy, Raymond Scott, Sherman Smith, Ollie 

Lee Taylor, Rodney 0 Turner, Rev.Ed Williams, Sylvester 

Williams and Ms.F.C Wilson, on behalf of themselves and all 

black citizens of the City of Mobile, Alabama, this Court has 

previously rendered a judgment that the at-large system of 

{ 

 



  

electing the Mobile City Commission is unconstitutional and 

in violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court 

withheld entry of a remedial order to provide the state an 

opportunity to enact a constitutionally acceptable election 

plan. Subsequently, the Court established a March 1, 1933, 

deadline for the Legislature to enact an acceptable 

redistricting plan and a deadline of February 1, 1983, for 

the parties in the litigation to submit proposals for a 

court-ordered redistricting plan. This order anticipated the 

possibility that the Court would order the holding of interim 

elections in 1983. However, the Court had also indicated 

that it might stay the 1983 elections if the defendants 

appealed from a final order. 

Recently the representative black plaintiffs and the 

Defendant City of Mobile have informed this Court that they 

wish to compromise and finally resolve this lawsuit on the 

following basis: 

1. A final injunction would be issued against the 

conduct of further elections under the at-large election 

scheme provided by state law for the City of Mobile, and the 

defendants would agree not to appeal this final judgment. 

2. Elections under the now court-ordered system shall 

sot be conducted until the next regularly scheduled city 

elections in 1985, unless the Alabama Legislature establishes 

another election schedule under its own election scheme which 
~ 

 



  

complies with the constitution and laws of the United States. 

3. If by that time the Legislature has not carried out 

its responsibility to enact a new state-approved election 

plan that complies with the constitution and laws of the 

United States, the 1983 elections for the three Mobile City 

Commissioners shall be conducted by single-member districts. 

Following the final approval of this proposed compromise, 

this Court would receive the proposals of the parties for the 

boundaries of the three single-member districts. A hearing 

will be held on i, 1983, to receive any objections to 

the proposed boundaries by the parties or by the members of 

the plaintiff class, and thereafter the Court would enter an 

order determining how they should be drawn. 

4. If the 1985 Mobile city elections go forward under 

this court-ordered plan, the three City Commissioners would 

sit as a Board and would not designate separate executive 

responsibilities for each Commissioner. Instead, a city 

administrator would be appointed by the City Commission to 

supervise and coordinate the executive functions of Mobile's 

government. Final administrative and executive authority 

would remain with the City Commission, not with the city 

administrator. The City Commission would have the authority 

to resolve by ordinance any conflicts with the present state 

law and the court-ordered plan, subject to review by the 

Court upon its own motion or upon motion of any of the 

& 

 



  

parties. 

5. The Court has previously determined that the 

attorneys for the plaintiffs are entitled to recover their 

costs and attorneys' fees. The amount of attorneys' fees and 

costs will be determined by the Court following final 

approval of the proposed compromise. 

6. The proposed consent decree emphasizes that the 

court-ordered plan is designed only as a temporary remedy, 

and it urges the Alabama Legislature promptly to carry out 

its responsibility to adopt a new election system that 

complies with the constitution and laws of the United States. 

The Court will retain jurisdiction of the action for one year 

following implementation of a court-ordered plan or 

legislative plan. 

7. Because this lawsuit is a class action, this Court 

has the responsibility of insuring that the interests of the 

entire class of black citizens are adequately protected in 

any proposed compromise or settlement. Accordingly, if any 

black citizen of the City of Mobile objects to the above 

proposed compromise and final resolution of this lawsuit, he 

or she should set out the objection in writing, identifying 

this case by its name and number, and by mailing the written 

objection to Mr.John V.0'Brien, Clerk, United States District 

Court, Southern Division, P.0.Box 2625, Mobile, Alabama 

36652, or by delivering to the office of the Clerk, First 

 



  

Floor, U.S. Courthouse, St.Louis and St.Joseph Street, 

Mobile, Alabama, on or before ss: 1983. #In 
  

addition, this Court will conduct a hearing on 
  

1983, at o'clock M., at which time it wil] 
—   

consider all objections from members of the plaintiff class 

to the proposed settlement, whether made in writing or in 

person, with such to be held in the courtroom on the second 

floor of the aforementioned U.S.Courthouse. 

  

DATED this day of s 1983. 

  

VIRGIL PITTMAN, Senior Judge