Final Order Approving Escambia County Settlement; Final Consent and Decree Between Plaintiffs and Escambia County Defendants

Public Court Documents
May 5, 1986

Final Order Approving Escambia County Settlement; Final Consent and Decree Between Plaintiffs and Escambia County Defendants preview

14 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Dillard v. Crenshaw County Hardbacks. Final Order Approving Escambia County Settlement; Final Consent and Decree Between Plaintiffs and Escambia County Defendants, 1986. c01ab6be-b8d8-ef11-a730-7c1e5218a39c. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/c46801a3-6d55-4191-a747-446fac434f22/final-order-approving-escambia-county-settlement-final-consent-and-decree-between-plaintiffs-and-escambia-county-defendants. Accessed April 06, 2025.

    Copied!

    ® 
| » 

ay, s71 

FILED 

  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MAY 5 1986 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA : 

NORTHERN DIVISION THOMAS C. CAVER, CLER 

DEPUTY CLERK 

JOHN DILLARD,” ET AL... 

Plaintiffs, 

VS. CIVIL ACTION NO. 85-T-1332-N 

CRENSHAW COUNTY, ALABAMA, 
£7 AL. 

Sg
r?
 
Se

g?
 
S
g
?
 

Ng
? 

Cm
gd

 
Np

ed
 

Ve
m?
 

Nm
pd
 

Sm
gd
 
C
m
 

Defendants. 

FINAL. ORDER APPROVING ESCAMBIA COUNTY SETTLEMENT 
  

Pursuant to Order of this Court entered on March 17th, 1986, a 

hearing was held on April 18th, 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 attorneys for both plaintiffs and Escambia County 

defendants urged the Court to approve the settlement and presented 

evidence that the publication and notice requirements of this Court's 

Order of March 17th, 1986 had been complied with and presented 

supporting demographic data and testimony describing the districting 

plan. Defendants further presented testimony and documents proving 

submission to the United States Department of Justice under 

provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and filed with the 

Court a letter from that department dated April 14th, 1986 interposing 

no objections to the proposal. 

Further testimony elicited at the hearing supported publication, 

 



notice and a meeting of the County Commissior opemed to the public for 

the purpose of explaining the plan. No class members filed any written 

objections with the County or with the Clerk of this Court, and none 

appeared in ‘person {0 express any objections to the proposed 

settlement. Further testimony ' indicated satisfaction with the plan 

among those members of the plaintiff class contacted. 

This Court finds that the requirements of Rule 23, Fed. R.Civ.P. 

concerning notice to the class have been met and that the proposed 

seitlement is fair, Just and equitable. LC on 1] t, 559 F.2d 

1326 (5th Cir. 1977); Holm Conti a OQ 706. F.2d 1144 

(11th Cir," 1883); lLurns _v. Russell Corporation, 604 F.Supp. 1335 

(Md. Ala. 1984). This Court further finds preclearance bby the 

Department of Justice pursuant $0 the provisions of Section 5 of the 

Voting Rights Act of 1865, #2: U.S.C. Section 1873(c). 

THEREFORE, the Court hereby enjoins Escambia County, Alabama; 

Martha Kirkland, in her official capacity as Probate Judge of Escambia 

County; James D. Taylor, in his official capacity as Circuit Clerk of 

Escambia County; Timothy A. Hawsey, in his official capacity as 

Sheriff of Escambia County; Devon Wiggins, William Cook, James E. 

Evans, Sammy McGowin, and Weldon Vickrey, in their official capacities 

as members of the Escambia County Commission; their agents, servants, 

attorneys and those acting in concert with them from failing or 

refusing to conduct primary elections for the Escambia County 

Commission in accordance with the plans submitted by the parties to 

this Court.  



  

PA 
DONE this the day of Lie! 1986. 

wet Qle— 

  

  

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

 



- p > 
. 

  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE | LI 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

   
NORTHERN DIVISION 

JOBN DILLARD, ET 4AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vs, 

CRENSHAW COUNTY, 
BT 4L., 

ALABAMA, 

Defendants. 

MAY © 1986 

THOMAS C. CAVER, CLERY 
BY 
  

LEPUTY CLERK 

CIVIL ACTION NO. 85-T-1332-N 

| 
WO

R 
J 

CR
G 

WH
 
S
S
 

I
 

VE
 

J 
V
W
 

J 
SS
 

FINAL CONSENT DECREE BETWEEN PLAINTIFFS 
AND 

This lawsuit was brought by plaintiffs, 

White, ‘Willie  NMcGlasker, 

behalf of themselves and 

County, Alabama. Plaintiffs 

utilized by the Escambis 

diluted thelr right to vote 

amendments and 42 U.S.C. 

The defendants are Escambia County, 

Kirkland, 

in his official capacity as 

his official capacity as 

attorneys, 

direction. 

sections 1973, 

in her official capacity as Probate Judge; 

employees and those acting in concert with 

Ullyses McBride, John T, 

William America and Woodrow McCorvey, on 

Others similarly situated in Escambia 

alleged that the at-large election system 

County Commission denied, abridged and 

pursuant to the fourteenth and fifteenth 

1983 and 1988. 

Al abama, gua County; Martha 

James D. Taylor, 

Circuit Clerk, and Timothy A. Hawsey, in 

Sheriff of Escambia County; their agents, 

them or at their 

The defendants denied the allegations of %Zhe complaint. The 

parties engaged in extensive discovery and the case was being 

readied for trial. Prior fo trial on the meriis of this case, the 

 



  

Parties met and discussed settlement, and they entered into a mutually 

satisfactory settlement of all <caims and have consented to the 

issuance of this decree, order and Judgment. (Hereinafter "this 

Decreet), : 

The court has fully examined this settlement and finds that it is 

fair, reasonable and adequate, that the rights of the Class 

represented by the named plaintiffs, and each member thereof, are and 

will be ‘fully protected by the settlement, and that it is in 

accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965, as amended and follows the applicable rules and 

principles of law, 

THEREFORE, upon due consideration by the court of the record 

herein, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED as follows: 

This court has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject of 

this action. 

IX. Notice. 

The court has heretofore approved by order a form and mode of 

Notice to. Class concerning the settlement. This order has Deen 

complied with and the Court finds that adequate notice has been given 

{0 the Class, 

 



  

1lX. Ihe Election Process 

1. There shall be five single-member commission districts 

established in Escambia County as drawn on the map on file with this 

Court and as advertised and published by the county. 

2 Elettions shall be held in districts numbered one, three and 

five in 1986 and in districts numbered two and four in 1988. Tne 

commissioners so elected shall serve four year terms in accordance 

with state law. The incumbent at-large commissioners whose terms do 

not expire until January 1989, i.e. those residing in and representing 

districts two and four, and the Chairman, shall be allowed to serve 

out their current terms. When the commissioners elected in 1986 take 

office, the Escambia County Commission shall consist temporarily of 

six commissioners. When the single-member district commissioners 

elected in 1988 take office, the Escambia County Commission shall 

consist of five commissioners elected for four-year staggered terms. 

3. When the commissioners from single-member districts take 

office in 1989, the county commissioners shall elect one of their 

number {0 be president of the commission. The president of the 

commission shall preside at meetings of the county commission, shall 

set the agenda and perform such other duties required of a chairman by 

general law of the State of Alabama, but shall receive no more 

compensation than does any other commissioner. 

4. The Escambia County Commission shall be empowered to appoint 

 



  

a full time county administrator. 

5. The plaintiffs are prevailing parties for the purpose of the 

award of attorneys' fees and expenses. A determination of plaintiffs? 

claims for attorneys' fees and expenses is deferred until further 

order of the court or aphroprigte motion by any party. 

6. This plan shall remain in effect only until the Legislature 

of Alabama shall adopt a plan, whether it is the plan approved by this 

Court or another plan, which meets the requirements of the laws and 

Constitution of the United States. 

DONE this the S¥ day of M cin , 1986. 

Alm me 
~N NS 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

  

  

Agreed to: 

EDWARD STILL 
REEVES & STILL 
714 South 29th Street 
Birmingham, Alabama 35233-2810 
(20) 322-6631 

DEBORAH FINS 
JULIUS L. CHAMBERS 
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

TERRY G. DAVIS 
SEAY & DAVIS 
732 Carter Hill Road 

P.O. Box 6125 
Montgomery, Alabama 36101 

 



  

REC KIRKLAND, JR. 
307 Evergreen Avenue 
P.O. Box 646 
Brewton, Alabama 36427 
(205) 867-5711 

Yu BLL 
  

TEMES 'U. BLACKSHER 
ARRY T, MENEFEE 

BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN P.A. 
405 Van Antwerp Building 
P.O. Box 1051 
Mobile, Alabama 36633 
(205) 433-2000 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS 

LEE OTIS 
OTTS & MOORE 
P.O, Box 467 
Brewtoy, Alabama 36427 

    

  

        
  

7 AMES W. WESB~ 
/ WEBB, CRUMPTON & McGREGOR 

P.O. Box 238 
166 Commerce Street 
Montgomery, Alabama 36101 
(205) 834-3176 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS, ESCAMBIA COUNTY, ET AL. 

 



  

ED 228 
ED 23} 
ED 233 
ED 234 
ED 236 

Deviation - +0,51% 

White - 61.6% 
Black -37.8% 

  

SEAT #1 

WHITE 

578 

1079 
1503 
104 

1299 

4753



  

ED 

ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 

ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 

Deviation 1 -0.66% 

ees 
226 
287 
229 

230R 
230B 

23% 

e37P 
237@ 
c37R 
e378 
c38 

White 

Black 

TOTAL 

172% 
1056 
132 
759 

1401 
183 

144 
108 
208 
ge 
10 

188g 

7627 

SERT #2 

WHITE 

1662 
1054 
132 
S68 

1020 
1635 
144 

7 
139 
22 
10 

1493 

£487 

OTHER 

R
a
 

>
 
n
 

¥ 

 



  

ED 232 
ED 237 less 0-8 & K 
ED 239 less I-p 
ED 240 

ED 241 
ED 242 

Deviation: +0. 29% 
White 1 68.1% 
Black 3 26,1% 

SERT #3 

WHITE 

1290 

1630 
404 
707 

254 
981 

S326 

BLACK 

333 

379 
30 

348 

13 

3907 

2010 

 



SERT #4 

WHITE 

237K 108 

e373 280 

2391 124 

239J 8 

239K 203 

239L 73 

239M 314 

239N 58 

2390 263 

2339p 138 

246 798 
247 1446 
248 780 
249 1213 
250 less J-P & PL 149% 

~J
 

n
 

N
O
P
W
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
 

: 
no

 
a
 

O
 

Deviation: +1.,29% 

White 1 S93. 4% 

Black 1 2. T% 

 



  

ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 
ED 

243 
244 
2435 
250J 
230K 
250L 
250M 
250N 
e500 
250P 
250PL 
251 

Deviation: 

White 

Black : 

-1. 50% 
28. 8% 
68. 0% 

BERT #5 

WHITE 

2177 

 



  

SUMMARY 

TOTAL WHITE BLACK OTHER 

SERT #1 7717 4753 e915 49 
SEAT #2 7627 6487 1098 42 
SERT #3 7708 2326 2010 372 
EBERT #4 : 7777 7265 elo 302 
SEAT #5 1363 2177 »143 _R43 

38392 26008 11376 1008 

%DEV, AWHITE XBLACK 

SERT #1 +0, 51 61.6 37.8 
SERT #2 -0. 66 835. 1 14. 4 
SERT #3 +0. 39 £9. 1 ce. 1 
SERT #4 +1.29 S3. 4 2.7 
SERT #5 wieN 28. 8 68.0 

Ideal Commission Seat: 7678 
Total Deviation for this plant 2.79%

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