Order Approving Coffee County Settlement on Interim Basis

    ® i» <7) , f. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION F ! ks E D   

JOHN DILLARD, et al., 

AUG 2 7 1386 

  

) 
) 

Plaintiffs, ) 
) T ~ 

vs. \ oy TOMAS C. CAVER, CLERI 
) DEPUTY CLERK 

CRENSHAW COUNTY, ALABAMA, ) 

et al., ) 

) 
Defendants. ) 

ORDER APPROVING COFFEE COUNTY 

SETTLEMENT ON INTERIM BASIS 
  

Pursuant to the Order of this Court, a hearing was 

held on August 22, 1986, to determine the fairness and adequacy 

of the proposed settlement submitted by the parties pursuant 

to the requirements of Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

At the hearing the attorneys for both plaintiffs and the Coffee 

County defendants urged the Court to approve the settlement 

and presented evidence that the publication and notice require- 

ments of this Court's prior order had been complied with and 

presented supporting demographic data describing the districting 

plan. No class members filed any written objections with the 

Clerk of the Court and none appeared in person to express objections 

to the proposed settlement. 

The Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23, 

Ped.R.Civ.P., concerning notice to the class have been met 

and that the proposed settlement if fair, just and equitable. 

Cotton. vi. Hinton, 559 F.24:1326 (5th Cir. 1977): Holmes v. 
  

  

continental Can Co., 706 F.2d 1144 (11th Cir. 1983); Lurns 
  

 



v. Russell Corp., 604 F.Supp. 1335 (M.D. Ala. 1984). However, 
  

the Court will not, at this time, give final approval to the 

proposed settlement since it has not yet been precleared by 

the Department of Justice, pursuant to the provisions of Section 

5 of the Voiing Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.8.C. section 1973c. 

Mcbhaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130 (1981). The defendant Coffee 
  

County has submitted the settlement for preclearance to the 

Department of Justice but has not yet received a response. 

The defendant Coffee County is directed to request expedited 

consideration from the Department of Justice and the Court 

expresses 1ts desire that the Department of Justice reach a 

determination on this matter at the earliest practicable date. 

The defendant Coffee County shall promptly notify 

this Court of the determination of the Department of Justice. 

If this plan is precleared by the Department of Justice, the 

Court will issue an order finally approving the settlement. 

In the event that the Department of Justice objects to the 

proposed plan, the Court will allow the parties an opportunity 

to make a further submission to the Department of Justice in 

an attempt to cure the objections. 

Qualifying for the party primary elections has already 

closed. Party primary elections are scheduled for September 

2, 1986, with any necessary runoffs to be held on September 

23, 1986, Election officiels are in the process of arranging 

for the conduct of party primary elections. The Court determines 

that even though this plan should not be approved as a final 

plan until the Department of Justice has precleared the plan,  



  

the Court determines that the plan should be implemented as 

the Court's own interim plan for the conduct of the imminent 

primary elections. Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (1982); Burton 
  

v, Hobble, 543 P.Supp. 235 (M.D. Ala. 1982), aff'd B.S. 
  

iy O03 8.0, 286 (Nov. 1, 1982). 

Therefore, the Court hereby enjoins Coffee County, 

Alabama, Marion Brunson, in his official capacity as Probate 

Judge Of Coffee County, Jim Ellis, in his official capacity 

as Circuit Clerk of Coffee County and Brice Paul, in his official 

capacity as Sheriff of Coffee County, their agents, servants, 

attorneys and those acting in concert with them from failing 

or refusing to conduct primary elections for the Coffee County 

Commission from District 5 of the plan submitted by the parties 

to this Court. 

\ 
1 V if A nL 

DONE this gn day of AN r “1986, 
  

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE. _ 
~~