Swint v. Pullman-Standard Brief for Respondent in Opposition
Public Court Documents
October 3, 1988
Cite this item
-
Brief Collection, LDF Court Filings. Mississippi State Chapter Operation Push v. Mabus Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for an Award of Fees and Expenses, 1991. 8395e8e7-bd9a-ee11-be36-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/016ffce5-d77c-4cc9-be99-5af607ff642c/mississippi-state-chapter-operation-push-v-mabus-plaintiffs-supplemental-motion-for-an-award-of-fees-and-expenses. Accessed April 27, 2025.
Copied!
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
MISSISSIPPI STATE CHAPTER,
OPERATION PUSH, et al., Plaintiffs,
-vs- CIVIL ACTION NO. 84-35-GD-O
RAY MABUS, Governor of Mississippi,
et al., Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS* SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF
ATTORNEYS’ FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES,
AND EXPERT WITNESS EXPENSES
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI DELTA DIVISION
MISSISSIPPI STATE CHAPTER
OPERATION PUSH, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION
-vs- NO. DC 84—35-GD-O
RAY MABUS, Governor of Mississippi,
et al., Defendants.
PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTOR
NEYS' FEES, LITIGATION EXPENSES, AND EXPERT WITNESS
EXPENSES
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, move the Court pursuant to
42 U.S.C. Sections 19731(e) and 1988 for a supplemental award of
attorneys' fees and litigation expenses for legal work and
expenses incurred since the filing of their first motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses, filed September
19, 1989, and amended motion, filed November 1, 1989, and also
move the Court pursuant to Rule 37(c), Fed. R. Civ. P. , for
reimbursement of expert witness expenses and attorneys' fees for
defendants' failure to admit the truth of matters as requested
under Rule 36, Fed. R. Civ. P., which were proved at trial.
1. Lodestar attorneys' fees. The attached declarations and
affidavits, Exhibit 1, declaration of Frank R. Parker, and
Exhibit 2, affidavit of Judith Reed, show that each of these
attorneys expended the following number of hours on the appeals
of this case and work subsequent to the appeals.
Attorneys Hours Rate Lodestar
Frank R. Parker 151.6 $175 $26,530.00
Judith Reed 163.1 165 26,911.50
1
Lodestar $53,441.50
2. Enhancement. Plaintiffs move that this lodestar be
enhanced by 100 percent to compensate them for the contingent
nature of this case and the appeals, the risk of not prevailing,
and the quality of the legal services provided. Affidavits
previously filed in this case demonstrate that a contingency
enhancement is necessary in civil rights cases in Mississippi.
3. Paralegals and law students. The attached declarations,
Exhibit 4, declaration of Catherine Bendor, and Exhibit 5,
declaration of Julie Caskey, show that these paralegals/law
students who assisted plaintiffs' attorneys worked the following
number of hours on the appeals in this case:
Paralegal/law student Hours Rate Total
Catherine Bendor 170.7 $35 $5,974.50
Julie Caskey 222 35 7,770.00
Total $13,744.50
4. Litigation expenses. The attached declarations and
affidavits, Exhibits 1 and 2, show that plaintiffs incurred the
following litigation expenses subsequent to the filing of the
first motion (excluding expert witness expenses):
Expense Lawyers' Committee
Copying $270.54
Meals/lodging/transp. 936.47
Postage/overnight mail 121.09
Long distance calls 83.30
Court costs
NAACP Legal Def. Fund
$376.73
313.00
105.00
2
Totals $1,411.40 $ 794.73
5. Expert witness expenses. Plaintiffs also move the Court
pursuant to Rule 37(c) for reimbursement of expert witness
expenses incurred in the preparation and testimony of Prof.
Steven Hahn and Prof. Allan Lichtman. In support of this motion,
plaintiffs show the Court that plaintiffs requested defendants to
admit material facts pursuant to Rule 36, Fed. R. Civ. P. ,
Exhibit 6 attached, defendants denied those material facts,
Exhibit 7 attached, plaintiffs proved the truth of those facts at
trial by the expert witness testimony of Prof. Steven Hahn and
Prof. Allan Lichtman, and defendants' failure to admit those
facts was not justified by Rule 37(c), whereby plaintiffs are
entitled to an order requiring defendants to pay the reasonable
expenses incurred in making that proof. The expenses incurred,
as documented in Exhibit 1, declaration of Frank R. Parker,
Exhibit G, are as follows:
Prof. Steven Hahn $ 7,446.98
Prof. Allan Lichtman 12,790.00
Total $20,236.98
6. Post-judgment interest. Plaintiffs also move that the
Court also award post-judgment interest pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
Section 1961 until the Court's award of attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses is paid.
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs supplement their motion for an award
of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses and move that the
Court award them their attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.
3
Respectfully submitted,
BARBARA R. ARNWINE
FRANK R. PARKER
Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law
1400 Eye St., N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 371-1212
JULIUS L. CHAMBERS
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON
99 Hudson Street
Suite 1600
New York, N.Y. 10013
(212) 219-1900
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have this day mailed, postage
prepaid, copies of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for an Award
of Attorneys' Fees, Litigation Expenses, and Expert Witness
Expenses to the following counsel for defendants:
T. Hunt Cole, Esq.Special Assistant Attorney General
P.0. Box 220
Jackson, MS 39205
W.O. Luckett, Jr., Esq.
Michael T. Lewis, Esq.
Luckett Law Firm, P.A.
P.O. Drawer 1000
Clarksdale, MS 38614-1000
This 6th day of September, 1991.
FRANK R. PARKER
Attachments
Exhibit 1, supplemental declaration of Frank R. Parker
Exhibit 2, affidavit of Judith Reed
Exhibit 3, declaration of Charles Stephen Ralston
Exhibit 4, declaration of Catherine Bendor
Exhibit 5, declaration of Julie Caskey
Exhibit 6, Plaintiffs' First Request for Admission of
Facts and Genuineness of Documents, served May 10, 1985
Exhibit 7, Responses and Objections of All Defendants (Except
Defendant Robert L. Carter) to Plaintiffs' First Request
For Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents,
received June 28, 1985
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
MISSISSIPPI STATE CHAPTER
OPERATION PUSH, et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL ACTION
-vs- NO. DC 84-35-GD-O
RAY MABUS, Governor of Mississippi,
et al., Defendants.
SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION OF FRANK R. PARKER IN SUPPORT
OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES
AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
FRANK R. PARKER declares pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746
as follows:
1. I have been co-counsel for the plaintiffs in this action
since this action was filed and, after July, 1990, was lead
counsel for the plaintiffs in the Fifth Circuit appeal. I am
filing this declaration in support of plaintiffs' supplemental
motion for an award of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses.
2. Time and labor required. The attached listing, attached
as Exhibit A hereto, is an accurate compilation of the number of
hours I spent on the appeal of this case based on contemporary
time records and estimation based on my records in this case.
This listing shows that I spent 151.6 hours on this case since
the first motion for attorneys' fees was filed, including 30.7
hours assisting in the preparation of the Brief for Plaintiffs-
Appellants on plaintiffs' appeal on the remedy issue, 70.5 hours
writing the Brief for Cross-Appellees/Reply Brief on defendants'
appeal on the issue of whether plaintiffs proved a Section 2
violation, 28.5 hours preparing for oral argument, arguing the
appeals before the Court of Appeals, and following up on the
1
Fifth Circuit's decision, and 21.9 hours on the supplemental
motion for fees and expenses and supplemental memorandum of law.
3. Hourly rate. Since plaintiffs' original motion for
attorneys' fees was filed, district courts have awarded me court
awards of attorneys' fees in which they set the fair market rate
for my services, and I settled a claim for attorneys' fees, at
hourly rates ranging from $200 per hour to $130 per hour. These
hourly rates were set in the following cases:
(a) In Metropolitan Pittsburgh Crusade for Voters v. City.of
Pittsburgh. Civil No. 86—173 (W.D. Pa. July 23, 1991), attached
as Exhibit B, a challenge to at-large city council elections, the
district court awarded me attorneys fees at the rate of $200 per
hour (slip op. at 6: 48.8 hours x $200/hour = $9,760.00).
(b) In Collins v. City of Norfolk. Civil No. 83-526-N (E.D.
Va.) , also a challenge to at-large city council elections,
defendants agreed as part of the settlement of the fees issue
that the fair market rate for my legal work on the case was $170
per hour and that the fair market rate for Sidney R. Bixler, who
also was co—counsel in this case, was $150 per hour. Plaintiffs
interim claim for attorneys' fees and expenses was settled on
that basis for a total of $550,000 (defendants subsequently
agreed to pay an additional $18,700 for later work). A copy of
this settlement agreement is attached as Exhibit C.
(c) In Willingham v. City of Jacksonville, Civil No. 89-46-
CIV-4-B0 (E.D.N.C. June 10, 1991), attached as Exhibit D, which
was a challenge to at-large city council elections in Jackson
2
ville, North Carolina, the district court awarded me attorney's
fees at the rate of $150 per hour (slip op. at 1).
(d) In Smith v. Clinton. Civil No. LR-C-88-29 (E.D. Ark.
July 26, 1990), attached as Exhibit E, which was a challenge to
at-large voting in a two-member district for the election of
representatives to the Arkansas House of Representatives, the
district court awarded me attorney's fees at the rate of $130 per
hour (slip op. at 9).
4. Experience, reputation, and ability. Since the motion
was filed, my book, Black Votes Count: Political Empowerment in
Mississippi After 1965 (University of North Carolina Press,
1990), on voting rights in Mississippi— including this case— has
received three major book awards. These are: the McLemore Prize
of the Mississippi Historical Society, awarded to "the best
scholarly book on a topic in Mississippi history or biography;"
the Silver Gavel Award of the American Bar Association, awarded
for "outstanding contributions to public understanding of the
American system of law and justice;" and the Ralph J. Bunche
Award of the American Political Science Association, awarded for
"the best scholarly work in political science which explores the
phenominon of cultural and ethnic pluralism."
5. Litigation expenses. According to my office records kept
in the ordinary course of business, the Lawyers' Committee
incurred the following out-of-pocket litigation expenses in this
case subsequent to the first motion:
Copying $ 270.54
3
Meals/lodging/transportation
Postage/overnight mail
Long distance calls
936.47
121.09
83.30
Total $1,411.40
Business records supporting these expenses are attached as
Exhibit F.
6. Expert witness expenses. The attached business records,
Exhibit G attached, show that plaintiffs incurred the following
expenses in connection with the expert witness testimony of the
following:
Steven Hahn $ 7,446.98
Allan Lichtman 12,790.00
Total $20,236.98
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on September 5, 1991.
FRANK R. PARKER
4
HoursMississippi State Chapter. Operation PUSH v. Mabus
Frank R. Parker
2/8/90 Telephone conference, J. Reed, re. brief
for appellants 0.5
2/27/90 Telephone conference, J. Reed, re. brief
for appellants 0.2
3/8/90 ' Revision, editing statement of the case,
brief for appellants 6.0
3/9/90 Revision, editing statement of the case,
brief for appellants 6.0
3/12/90 Revision, editing statement of the case;
drafting of racial purpose argument,
brief for appellants 6.0
3/13/90 Drafting racial purpose argument,
brief for appellants 6.0
3/14/90 Editing, drafting, statement of the case,
racial purpose argument, brief for
appellants 6.0
6/5/90 Conference w/ Cathy Bendor re. research for
brief of cross-appellees/reply brief 0.7
6/6/90 Review of brief of appellees/cross appellants 2
Telephone conference, J. Reed 0.3
6/19/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 4
7/9/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
Reply brief 4
7/10/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 2
7/11/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 2
7/12/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 3
7/13/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 4
1
7/18/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 4
7/19/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 4
7/20/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 3.5
7/23/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 4
7/24/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 4.5
7/25/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 6
7/26/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 9*5
7/27/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 6
7/30/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief, sending brief to 5th Circuit 4
11/30/90 Preparation for oral argument 2.5
12/1/90 Preparation for oral argument 4
12/3/90 Preparation for oral argument 2
12/4/90 Travel to New Orleans and work on oral
argument on plans 4
Preparation for oral argument 6
12/5/90 Preparation and oral argument 3
6/10/91 Review of 5th Circuit decision 0.5
6/13/91 Preparation of petition for rehearing 6
6/14/91 Memo to clients re. 5th Circuit decision 0.5
8/1/91 Review of recent attorneys' fees decisions 1.5
8/27/91 Letter to Judge Davidson re. extension 0.3
7/16/90 Preparation of brief for cross-appellees/
reply brief 3
2
4.0
9/4/91
9/5/91
9/3/91
Preparation of attys* fee motion and
supp. memorandum
Preparation of supp. memorandum 7.8
Preparation of supplemental affidavit
3
IN THE UNITED
METROPOLITAN PITTSBURGH ^ ? A D E FOR VOTEJ^, and unincorporated *e^ ® ” hxp o^anization,
THOMAS E. SMITH, FLORENCE BRIDGES, SOY A. )
HOLMES, REGINALD D. PLATO, ISAAC J. SAXON,
CLAUDE J. JONES, ISAAC WADE, RONALD L.
SUBER, and MARSHALL ROSS,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANI.a
municipal corporation;Mayor, EUGENE DEPASQUALE, B£N WOODS'POLLOCK, SOPHIE MASLOFF, MICHELL MADOF ,
RICHARD GIVENS, STEPHEN GRABOWSKI,WAGNER, JAMES O'MALLEY, members of tne
Pittsburgh City Council; ALLEGHENYSSontS S ard of e l e c t i o n s; tom f o r e s t e r,
PETE FLAHERTY, BARBARA HAFER,Commissioners; ALLEGHENY COUNTY
DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE; EDWARD ST^ \ 5 ^ SAs> Chairman; ALLEGHENY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
ELECTIONS; JAMES SCANLON, Director,
)
)
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
))
))
)
)
)
)
I F M 3 @ n o w I
V)
k\ JUL 2 i I9SI
Civil Action 86-173
memorandum
OPINION
ZIEGLER, ri -rict Judge
Counsel for plaintiffs have resubmitted * motion for an
award of attorneys' fees and expenses following settlement of a
class action and the entry of a consent decree on June 10, 1987.
The court has rejected two pervious applications for counsel fees
due to want of specificity and other deficiencies. Thomas J.
Henderson, Samuel Issacharoff, Barbara M. Wolvovitz, Robert B.
McDuff, William L. Robinson, Patricia Hanrahan and Frank R.
1
Parker have submitted statements that are divided into five
categories and each category itemizes the date, the nature of the
service rendered, the hours claimed and the fee for the service
rendered*
The City of Pittsburgh has filed a memorandum in
opposition to the fee application in which it raises several
matters that deserve discussion. First, the City challenges the
fee claims that pre-date the consent order of June 10, 1987
contending that the claims are either unrelated to the issues on
which plaintiffs prevailed, non-descriptive or unnecessary. The
blanket opposition of the City to work that pre-dates the consent
order must be rejected. In our view, counsel are entitled to be
fairly compensated for the work that they performed to insure
that the districts drawn by the Apportionment Commission complied
with the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments, and to maintain a federal presence to protect the
rights of black citizens in the future. The date on which the
consent decree was signed is not controlling.
According to plaintiffs' counsel, the requests have
been restructured and limited to those hours relevant to the
issues on which plaintiffs prevailed, for example, communications
related to the class and negotiating the remedial objectives of
the litigation. We find that the hours expended and billable
rates of class counsel are fair, reasonable and compensable under
the teachings of the Court of Appeals, Fublie XjTtejrest
2
Research Group v. AT&T Bell Laboratories, 842 F.2d 1436, 1441 (3d
Cir. 1988), with the exception of the following claims:
Samuel Xssacharoff
1-9-86 Travel 4.0 $ 600
5-18-87 Vf 4.0 600
5-25-87 It 2.0 300
5-26-87 ft 2.0 300
6-1-87 ft 4.0 600
6-4-87 It 3.5 525
10-9-87 ft 2.0 300
10-9-87 tl 2.0 300
2-5-88 If 4.0 600
3-17-88 It 4.0 600
4-20-88 If 4.0 600
2-19-90 19 2.0 300
2-20-90 It 2.0 100
Total 39.5 5 5,925
Robert B. McDuff
3-26-87 Travel 2.0 $ 290
William L. Robinson
1-22-86 Travel 3.30 $ 660
11-18-86 If 3.30 660
2-3-87 If 660
Total 9.90 5 1,980
Patricia K&nrahan
1-9-86 Travel 5.50 $ 797.50
We have deleted the hours devoted to travel to and from
Pittsburgh for all counsel (2 hours each way) because co-lead
counsel, Thomas Henderson, practiced in Pittsburgh and he was
3
available or attended the same meetings and proceedings for which
travel time is claimed by the remaining counsel. In our
judgment, the City should not be required to compensate another
lawyer for the travel time to the same meeting or proceeding.
Next, the City argues that the description of services
in the submissions is inadequate for purposes of review. We
disagree. Counsel have verified the claims by affidavit and the
description of services is adequate to relate the charge to the
isries on which plaintiffs have prevailed We have reviewed each
entry and find that the hours expended and fees claimed are fair,
reasonable and related to the issues on which plaintiffs
prevailed with the exception of the following claims:
Thomas Henderson
1-22-87 Conversation 1.00
1-22-87 Conversation 0.50
2-02-87 Meeting 0.80
2-03-87 Preparation 9.30
2-12-87 Conve-rsation 0.40
5-18-87 Conversation 0.60
5-25-87 Research 4.60
Total 17.2
Barbara M. wolvovitz
1-09-87
4-21-87
Conversation
Conversation
0.50
0.70
Total 1.2
$ 150.00
75.00
120.00
1,395.00
60.00
90.00
690.00
$ 2,580.00
$ 60.00
84.00
$ 144.00
We shall also delete from the application of Thomas
Henderson items 5-2, 5-4, 5-12, 5-15, 5-22 and 23, 5-26, 5-43,
4
5-52 and 5-53, 5-62, 5-160, 5-162 because they are unrelated to
the prevailing issues; items 5-201 to 246 because they relate to
a rejected fee petition; and items 5—247 to 5—292 because they
are unrelated to the remedy or the protection of plaintiffs'
rights. We will therefore delete the additional sum of $24,060
from the fee award to Attorney Henderson.
Finally, we are required to delete from the application
of Samuel Issacharoff items 5—2 and 4, 5—6, 5—11, 5-13, 5-28-30,
5-32-34, 5-36, 5 38-40, 5-45-50, 5-53, 5-56-61, 5-63, 5 66, 5-68-
70, 5-72-74, 5-77 to 78, 5-80-82, 5-89, 5-91-92, 5-106-109, 5-16,
5-35, 5-79, 5-83-86, 5-88, 5-95, 5-98-100, 5-102-105, 5-110-133,
and 5-134-160. We will therefore delete the additional sum of
$21,847.50 from the fee award to Attorney Issacharoff.
As a result of our findings, we will delete the total
sum of $27,772.50 from the fee application of Samuel Issacharoff,
the sum of $26,640 from the application of Thomas Henderson, the
sum of $144 from the application of Barbara Wolvovitz, the sum of
$797.50 from the application of Patricia Hanrahan, the sum of
$1,980 from the application of William Robinson and the sum of
$290 from the application of Robert McDuff.
We find that the hourly rate claimed by each applicant
is reasonable and consistent with the billable rates of lawyers
in this community with comparable experience. However, we have
deleted from the lodestar the hours that we find to be
unnecessary, duplicative or unrelated to the issues on which
5
plaintiffs have prevailed. Counsels' request for a contingency
enhancement will be denied.
We will award Thomas Henderson the sum of $37,215.00
($63,855 - 26,640) for counsel fees, Samuel Issacharoff the sum
of $20,385.00 ($48,157.50 - 27,772.50), Barbara M. Wolvovitz the
sum of $15,296.00 ($15,440 - 144), Robert B. McDuff the sum of
$5,278.00 ($5,568 - 290), William L. Robinson the sum of
$2,000.00 ($3,980 - 1,980), Patricia Hanrahan the sum of $841.00
($1,638.50 - 797.50), and Frank R. Parker the sum of $9,760.00.
Finally, counsel are entitled to be reimbursed for the
costs and expenses related to the issues on which they have
prevailed with exception to the claims for expert witness fees.
See. West Virginia Hospitals, Inc. vs. Casey, 111 S.Ct. 1138
(1991). However, the applications leave much to be desired in
terms of specificity and therefore we will award reimbursement
only for these items that have been established to our
satisfaction after thorough review. Thomas Henderson will be
awarded the sum of $3,332.86 for costs and expenses and Samuel
Issacharoff will be awarded the sum of $19,050.98.1
cc: Counsel of record
1. We have deleted expert witness fees of $400 from the claims
of Mr. Henderson and $16,197.49 from the claims of Mr.
Issacharoff.
6
IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
METROPOLITAN PITTSBURGH CRUSADE FOR VOTERS,) and unincorporated membership organization,)
THOMAS E. SMITH, FLORENCE BRIDGES, ROY A. )
HOLMES, REGINALD D. PLATO, ISAAC J. SAXON, )
CLAUDE J. JONES, ISAAC WADE, RONALD L. )
SUBER, and MARSHALL ROSS, )
Plaintiffs, )
)vs. ) Civil Action 86-173
)CITY OF PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, a )municipal corporation; RICHARD CALIGUIRI, )
Mayor, EUGENE DEPASQUALE, BEN WOODS, MARK )
POLLOCK, SOPHIE MASLOFF, MICHELL MADOFF, )RICHARD GIVENS, STEPHEN GRABOWSKI, JACK )
WAGNER, JAMES O'MALLEY, members of the )
Pittsburgh City Council; ALLEGHENY )COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTIONS; TOM FORESTER, )
PETE FLAHERTY, BARBARA HAFER, )Commissioners: ALLEGHENY COUNTY )DEMOCRATIC COMMITTEE: EDWARD STEPHENS, )
chairman; ALLEGHENY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF )
ELECTIONS; JAMES SCANLON, Director, )
)Defendants. )
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this a /- day of July 1991, in
accordance with the memorandum opinion of record,
IT IS ORDERED that Thomas J. Henderson, Esquire, be and
hereby is awarded the sum of $37,215.00 for counsel fees and the
sum of $3,382.86 for costs and expenses against the defendant,
City of Pittsburgh.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Samuel Issacharoff, Esquire,
be and hereby is awarded the sum $20,385.00 for counsel fees and
the sum of $19,050.98 for costs and expenses against the
defendant, City of Pittsburgh.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Barbara M. Wolovitr,
Esquire, be and hereby is awarded the sum of $15,296.00 for
counsel fees against the defendant, City of Pittsburgh.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Robert B. McDuff, Esquire,
be and hereby is awarded the Siam of $5,278.00 for counsel fees
against the defendant, City of Pittsburgh.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that William L. Robinson,
Esquire, be and hereby is awarded the sum of $2,000.00 for
counsel fees against the defendant, City of Pittsburgh.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Patricia Hanrahan, Esquire,
be and hereby is awarded the sum of $841.00 for counsel fees
against the defendant, City of Pittsburgh.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Frank R. Parker, Esquire,
be and hereby is awarded the sum of $9,760.00 for counsel fees
against the defendant, City of Pittsburgh.
APR— 1 1—91 THU 11:1*3 R . u :Z: ^
City of
!Norfolk
Departm ent o f Law
I
I
I
I
i
April
Frank R. Parker, Esquire
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
1400 I Street, N.W.
Suite 400
Washington, D.c. 20005
Re: Collins v, City of Norfolk
Civil Action No. 83-526-N
Dear Mr. Parker:
This letter confirms the agreement b
(the "City") and the Lawyers' Committee 1
for itself, its present and former employ
agents and assigns ("Lawyers' Commitl
Gwendolyn Jones Jackson ("Jackson") wi1
interim attorneys' fees and expenses cl*
the Lawyers' Committee and Jackson by rea
styled Collins v. CitV— of Norfolk. Civi!
"Litigation"), pending in the United Stat
Eastern District of Virginia.
This agreement specifically exclude
for fees and reimbursement for expenses
agents or assigns and the consideration p.
Committee does not include any sums attr
expenses of James F. Gay.
Tn consideration of the payment of
Committee, the Lawyers' Committee shall
harmless the City of Norfolk, its prese
council, its present and former employee
members of the Norfolk Electoral Board, s
Norfolk Registrar from any and all claims common law for attorneys' fees, paralega
or incurred which are claimed by the
present or former attorneys, employ*
witnesses, the plaintiffs in the Litigat
by Jackson arising out of the Litigation,
the beginning of time through November 30
Lawyers' Committee and through December
Jackson. Without limitation, the consi
fees and expenses attributable through N>
following attorneys and paralegals in t
Parker, Patricia Hanrahan, Sidney R. B.
Brenda Wright, Debra James, Jill Rappap
Moore and Lucia F. Gill.
e x t h v r r c .
10, 1991
IIIIU PH. TRAPANI
City Attorney
IIAROIO P.JURLN
OANIfl R. MACCMriSTCR —
HI KNAKD A. PISIIKO
ANDKK A fORCMAN
NORMAN A THOMAS
MARY l. C. NfXStN
MARTI IA C. ROILINS
Deputy City Atlomtyi
CTNTI IIA B.H A U
NATIIANIU BCAMAN IV
JACK r. CIOUD
KATIII KINF H. JONrS
Assistant City Attorney!
stween the City of Norfolk
or Civil Rights Under Law
ees affiliated attorneys,
ee") and as agent for h respect to payment of
imed by and on behalf of
»on of that certain action
Action No. 83-526N (the
es District Court for the
any request to the City
nade by James F. Gay, his
lid hereby to the Lawyers'
Lbutable to such fees and
$550,000 to the Lawyers'
release, defend and hold
it and former members of
the present and former
nd the present and former
whether by statute or at . fees, and expenses paid
Lawyers' Committee, its
es, paralegals, expert
.on, agents or assigns or
including any appeal from
1990, in the case of the
7, 1990, in the case of
leration paid is for all >vember 30, 1990, for the
le Litigation: Frank R.xler, Robert B. McDuff,
5rt, Barry Fisher, Roger
908 City Hall Building / Norfolk, Virginia 23
FAX: (804) 622-6925
01 /(804) 441-2871
J
Frank R. Parker, Esquire Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
Page Two April 10, 1991
The
Lawyers' expended
10, 1992,
parties further agree that ar
Committee and/or by Jackson ir
subsequent to the dates covered
shall be compensated at the fc
y fees requested by the the Litigation for time
herein and through April
llowing hourly rates:
Parker $170/hr
Hanrahan 130/hr
Bixler 150/hr
McDuff 140/hr
Wright 130/hr
Jackson 150/hr
Paralegal 45/hr
The City reserves the right, however, tc
claim for legal fees and/or reimbursem<
subsequent to the dates covered herein z
the City including the number of hour;
services and the computation of such
Lawyers' Committee reserves the right, i
with the City on claims for legal fees
expenses incurred subsequent to the dates
such claim to the United States Distri
District of Virginia for determination.
contest whether any such
:nt for expenses incurred
re properly chargeable to
; charged for such legal
fees and expenses. The
i the absence of agreement
and/or reimbursement for
covered herein, to submit ct Court for the Eastern
If this agreement is accepted by yov on behalf of the Lawyers'
Committee and Jackson, please sign where indicated.
Since rely,
•(p R. Trap Attorney
Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Law, individually, and as agent for
Gwendolyn Jones^Jackson
Barbara R. Arnwine
cecutive Director
Frank R. Parker
Unde r
ii
i
Ii
iiii
■
K
)CITY OF JACKSONVILLE, NORTH )
CAROLINA, et al., )
)Defendants. )
This matter comes before the undersigned United States
District Judge on the plaintiffs' motion for attorneys' fees and
litigation expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C. SS 19731(e) and 1988.
On Hay 10, 1991, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for
voluntary dismissal pursuant to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
The plaintiffs have submitted affidavits which show the
attorneys, paralegals, and law students who worked on the case,
the number of hours they worked, and their hourly rates. The
court has reviewed the affidavits and has considered the time and
labor expended, the skill required to prosecute the action, the
customary fees for like work, the experience and ability of the
attorneys, and the results obtained. The court finds the
following fees and expenses reasonable.
Attorneys' Peesi
1. Frank R. Parker: 72.5 hours at $150 per hour.
2. Robert E. Montgomery, Jr.t 79.6 hours at $150 per hour.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU&T
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NEW BERN DIVISION ^ *cc;
No. 89-46-CIV-4-BO
<4:
A-,
*
*0 - '
❖
. JEROME WILLINGHAM, et al.,
! Plaintiffs,
v. ORPER
3. Leslie J. Winner: 6.75 hours at $135 per hour.
4. Adam Stein: 4.55 hours at $150 per hour.
5. Derick P. Berlage: 524.3 hours at $120 per hour.
6. Erika A. Kelton: 151 hours at $120 per hour.
7. Thomas M. Stern: .85 hours at $120 per hour.
|
8. JDdy Westby: 17.9 hours at $100 per hour.
9. Richard Taylor: 15 hours at $100 per hour.
10. Samuel Kwon: 13.2 hours at $100 per hour*
11. Anita S. Hodgkiss: 2.75 hours at $120 per hour.
Total Attorneys' Fees: $110,486.75
paralegals and Law Students:
144.3 hours at $40 per hour for: 5.772.00
TOTAL Fees for Attorneys. Paralegals and
Law_Students: $116,258.75
Litigation Expenses for Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under
Travel, meals and lodging
Court-ordered advertising ,
Postage, copying and long-distance calls
Books, periodicals
Total Lawyers' Committee
Litigation Expenses: $ 1,982.01
Litigation,Expenses for Paul. Weiss. Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison
$1,473.68
480.40
21.93
6.00
Copying
Mail and messengers
Depositions
$ 1,109.54
1,082.56
2,539.34
2
II
Travel, meals and lodging 5,031.41
Telephone 918.94
Lexis & Nexis research 1,373.07I
Books and periodicals 136
Total Paul, Weiss Litigation Expenses* $12,191.09
Litigation Expenses for Ferouson. Stein. Watt. WaUflgi Adkins &
Gresham
Copying $ 26.00
Postage 1.25
T e le p h o n e - — 2 0 156
Total Ferguson, Stein Litigation
Expenses t $ 47.81
TOTAL Litigation Expenses* $14,220.91
The defendant City of Jacksonville is ordered to pay the
plaintiffs the sum of attorneys' fees and litigation expenses in
the amount of $130,479.66.
The plaintiffs have also requested a 25 percent enhancement
of the attorneys' fees to compensate the plaintiffs for the
contingent nature of the recovery of attorneys' fees.
In this case the plaintiffs have failed to establish the
appropriateness of such an enhancement. The burden would be on
the plaintiffs to show that the fair market fees, otherwise
allowed, are inadequate or unrepresentative of the fees that
would fully compensate the plaintiffs for their attorneys' fees
and costs in litigating their rights in this suit.
3
There 1b no showing that fees greater than the fair market
value of the fees here allowed for attorneys' eervices would be
necessary in order to secure the participation of plaintiffs'
counsel in this litigation.
The plaintiffs' counsel had a sufficient forecast from the
proceedings underway in the City of Jacksonville that there was a
likelihood of success. In addition, the counsel representing
plaintiffs are here being fully compensated for all of the
gervices that they attributed to this litigation.
The court concludes from the arguments presented by the
parties that there was a lessened risk on the part of plaintiffs'
counsel that they would participate in this case without the
recovery of any fees and that straightforward compensation is the
appropriate method for awarding counsel fees. An enhancement in
this case would result in fees in excess of the market rate
rather than an adjustment for the uncertainty of recovery on a
contingent basis.
On these findings, the plaintiffs are entitled to their fees
and costs as outlined in this order.
SO ORDERED this y 1991. I
I etrtlfy the foregoing to be a true
•nd correct copy o f the original,
J. Rich Leonard. Clerk
United States District Court
Eastew'Uistrict of North
4
FILED
■J.S. DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS
IN THE UNTIED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
WESTERN DIVISION
JUL 2 6 1990
CARL ftJ3,BE
By:
, CLEF
ELBERT SMITH et al. PLAINTIFFS
V. LR-C-88-29
BILL CLINTON, Governor of Arkansas, et al. DEFENDANTS
ORDER
Pending before the court is the plaintiffs' motion for
attorneys' fees and costs in this suit challenging the at-large
election of representatives from District 48/49 of the House of
Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas.
The plaintiffs' allegations of unlawful dilution of votes cast by
black citizens were sustained and District 48/49 was ordered
divided into two single-member districts. Thus, the plaintiffs are
prevailing parties for purposes of recovering attorneys' fees and
costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 and 42 U.S.C. § 19731(e). While
unsuccessful in their attempt to preliminarily enjoin the primary
election, nonetheless the plaintiffs prevailed on the merits and
obtained the relief sought when the court adopted the redistricting
plan they presented.
The plaintiffs seek costs and fees for work done by six
attorneys and two paraprofessionals for a total of $83,410.19. Mr.
Robert MeDuff, lead counsel in the case, has requested an hourly
rate of $145.00. He has supplied to the court time records which
&
reflect 229.4 hours expended trying the actual lawsuit, and an
additional 40.5 hours for work on fee requests and related briefs.
Mr. Reginald Robertson, serving as the chief local counsel in
the case, has requested an hourly rate of $85.00 and has supplied
time records reflecting 152 hours expended in the case. Mr. Lazar
Palnick has requested payment for 71.7 hours at $85 per hour. Mr.
John Walker has requested payment for fifteen hours at the rate of
$165 per hour.
Two attorneys have requested fees for work done after the
court's decision in the case. Frank Parker has requested payment
for 13.25 hours at the rate of $165 per hour for his work on the
plaintiffs' Motion to Affirm in the United States Supreme Court.
Brenda Wright has requested payment for 15.7 hours of work at the
rate of $100 per hour for work on the Motion to Affirm and work on
the fee petition. Ms. Wright and Mr. Parker worked on the case
after the trial on the merits. Although they came to the case
late, their work was neither duplicative nor unnecessary.
The State of Arkansas ("State-) has objected to the amount
requested on several grounds. The State objects to the attorneys'
fees on the basis of the requested hourly rates, the number of
hours claimed and the number of attorneys requesting fees. The
State's primary objection to costs is the amount claimed for the
plaintiffs' expert witness. In addition, the State objects to
separate billing for time expended by paralegals and law clerks.
Under the "American Rule," reaffirmed in Alveska Pipeline
Service Co. v. Wilderness Society. 421 U.S. 240 (1975) litigants
2
in the United States, whether winners or losers, pay their own
attorney fees. Congress carved out an exception with the Civil
Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act of 1976, 42 U.S.C. S 1988,
providing that "the court, in its discretion, may allow the
prevailing party a reasonable attorney's fee as part of the costs."
Subsequently the Supreme Court has held that a trial court s
discretion is limited and that fees should ordinarily be awarded.
Christiansburo Garment Co. v. EEOC, 434 U.S. 412 (1978). Attorney
fees must be calculated so as to be comparable to practices and
rates "prevailing in the community for similar services by lawyers
of reasonably comparable skill, experience, and reputation." Blum
v. Stenson. 465 U.S.. 886, n.ll (1984). The "market rate rule"
applies not only to attorney fees but to awards for time expended
by paralegals and law clerks. Missouri v. Jenkins, --- U.S. ---,
109 S.Ct. 2463 (1989).
The Supreme Court has recently reaffirmed its holding in Hutto
v. Finnev. 437 U.S. 678 (1978), that an award of attorney fees
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988 against a state or its officers sued
in their official capacities is not barred by the eleventh
amendment. Jenkins. supra, at 2469.
The initial calculation of reasonable attorney fees to be
awarded is the number of hours reasonably expended times the
reasonable hourly rate, taking into account appropriate factors. 1
1 Factors to be considered include: (1) time .and labor
required; (2) novelty; (3) skill required; (4) preclusion of
employment by the attorney due to acceptance of the case; (5)
customary fee; (6) whether the fee is fixed or contingent; (7)
time limitations imposed by the client or the circumstances; (8)
3
jjensley v- Eckerhart. 461 U.S. 424 (1983); Blum v. Stenspn, 465
U.S. 886 (1984); Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley.Citizens' Council
for Clean Air. 478 U.S. 546 (1986); Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S.
561 (1986). This lodestar amount is presumed to be reasonable.
The Supreme Court has cautioned district courts to "exclude
from this Initial fee calculation hours that were not reasonably
expended." Hens lev. 461 U.S. at 434. The Hensley Court held: "In
the private sector 'billing judgment' is an important component in
fee setting. It is no less important here. Hours that are not
properly billed to one's client also are not properly billed to
one's adversary pursuant to statutory authority." Hensley 461 at
434, emoting Copeland v. Marshall, 641 F.2d 880, 891 (D.C. Cir.
1980) (en banc) [emphasis original].
While the law pertinent to calculating the attorneys' fees is
fairly well settled, the disputes in this case, as in most cases
of this kind, center on the reasonableness of the number of hours
actually expended and the prevailing market rate for attorneys'
fees in this locale.
Mr. McDuff, Mr. Parker and Mr. Walker may be accustomed to
receiving from $145 to $165 per hour in other jurisdictions, but
that rate is higher than the prevailing market rate in Little Rock,
Arkansas. Accordingly, they will each be compensated at the rate
the amount involved and the results obtained; (9) experience,
reputation, and ability of the attorneys; (10) "undesirability" of
the case; (11) nature and length of the professional relationship
with the client; and (12) awards in similar cases. Riverside v,.
Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986), citing. Johnson v . Georgia Highway
Express. Inc.. 488 F.2d 714, 717-19 (5th Cir. 1974).
4
of $130 per hour. Mr. Robertson and Mr. Palnick will be
compensated at their requested rates of $85 per hour; Ms. Wright
will be compensated at the rate of $100/ as requested.
Mr. McDuff/ lead counsel in the case, reasonably expended 250
hours in the case. Mr. Walker is awarded payment for 15 hours; Mr.
Parker is awarded payment for 13.25 hours; Ms. Wright is awarded
payment for 15.7 hours.
Mr. Robertson has requested compensation for 152 hours. His
itemized activity statement contains some entries for which he
cannot be compensated, such as 8 hours of travel to personally file
the complaint and 2 hours to mail copies of the complaint to
defendants and co-counsel. These are activities a private client
would be unwilling to pay an attorney $85 an hour to perform.
Thus, they are not billable to the adversary. £ee Hensley, 461
U.S. 424; Rivera, 477 U.S. 561. The court believes that a
reasonable number of hours for the chief local counsel in this case
is 120 hours.
Mr. Palnick's activity statement is also troubling. The
statement notes twelve telephone calls with Mr. McDuff which are
do not appear on Mr. McDuff's statement of activities. There are
also conferences noted for which other attenders have no record.
Furthermore, a private paying client would be unwilling to pay an
attorney $85 per hour to pick up co-counsel at the airport or talk
to the news media.
The court has a more basic problem with Mr. Palnick's fee
request. He is identified as "local and sponsoring counsel in
5
Little Rock." (Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum on Attorneys' Fees,
p. 28). If Mr. Robertson was "chief counsel in Arkansas"
(Plaintiffs' Reply Memorandum on Attorneys' Fees, p. 27), it is
unclear to this court why it was necessary to employ Mr. Palnxck
as "local counsel." The Local Rules of the Eastern District of
Arkansas require "local counsel," but not necessarily "Little Rock
counsel."
In any event, the State has agreed to pay Mr. Palnick for 49.6
hours of work. Thus, Mr. Palnick will be awarded compensation for
49.6 hours of work at his requested rate of $85 per hour.
There remains the question of allowable expert witness fees.
As the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has noted: "Talk may
be cheap, but expert testimony usually is not.- penny v. Westfigld
rnneoe. 880 F.2d 1465 (1st Cir. 1989). There is confusion
among the circuits as to the availability of expert witness fees
in civil rights cases, beyond the amount provided by 28 U.S.C. S
1821(b). Even within the Eighth Circuit, the law is far from
clear.
In r.rawford Fitting Co. v. J.T. Gibbons, Inc._, 482 U.S. 437
(1987), the Supreme Court held that, "absent explicit statutory or
contractual authorization for the taxation of the expenses of a
litigant's witness as costs, federal courts are bound by the
limitations set out in 28 U.S.C. S 1821 and S 1920." Crawford at
445. However, it was not clear from the Crawford opinion whether
it applied to expert witness fees when sought under 42 U.S.C. S
6
1988. See, Crawford, 482 U.S. at 445 (Blackmun, J., concurring);
Crawford at 446, n.l (Marshall, J ., dissenting).
The Eighth Circuit has held, in Sapaniiin v.— Gunter:
However, the $100 award [for the expert witness fee] was
not made as a taxation of costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1821, but as an expense under 42 U.S.C. S 1988. The cap on fees set out in Crawford Fitting thus does not apply.
[Citation omitted.] Reasonable expenses of litigation
incurred by counsel on the prevailing side can be awarded
as part of the fees due under Section 1988. Such awards
are not for court costs proper, but for reasonable
expenses of representation.
SapaNaiin v. Gunter. 857 F.2d 463, 465 (8th Cir. 1988).
Subsequently, however, the Court of Appeals, sitting en banc,
affirmed, by vote of an equally divided court, a district court s
order awarding prevailing plaintiffs expert witness fees as
expenses under 42 U.S.C. § 1988 at the statutory rate of $30 per
day, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1821. Gilbert v. City of Little Rock,
867 F.2d 1062 (8th Cir. 1989) (en banc).
This is the crux of the current confusion over allowable
expert witness fees: If expert fees are allowable directly under
S 1988 as a part of the attorney's "work product," then the only
limitation is "reasonableness." If, on the other hand, 28 U.S.C.
§1821 applies to all cases, including those in which fees are
requested pursuant to § 1988, then the amount of the expert's fee
recoverable from the losing party is limited to $30 day, the amount
specified in § 1821.
The Court's recent decision in Missouri v. Jenkins, supra,
failed to clarify the extent to which litigation expenses should
be awarded pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S 1988 and how those "expenses"
7
differ from allowable costs as defined in 28 U.S.C. SS 1920 and
1821, if indeed those section have any application in cases where
attorneys' fees are requested pursuant to § 1988.
However, the majority of the Court in Jenkins interpreted the
language in S 1988 allowing the prevailing party in a S 1983 case
a "reasonable attorney's fee as a part of the costs to mean a
"'reasonable' fee for the attorney's work product." Jenkins, 109
S.Ct. at 2470 [emphasis added]. £e§» Jenkins, 109 S.Ct. at 2475
(Rehnquist, C.J., dissenting).
In order to fully compensate attorneys for their "work
product," experts' fees should be included as a reasonable
litigation expense allowable directly under § 1988. This seems to
be the better view since, in a case such as this, the bulk of the
experts' services were rendered, not as a witness, but outside the
courtroom drawing up the redistricting plan proposed by th
plaintiffs and finally adopted by the court. In fact, the very
language of S 1821 is limited to the "attendance fee." Even if the
$3 0 cap were applicable, it would apply only to the court or
deposition appearance, and not to the consulting work performed.
See Penny. 880 F.2d at 1474 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
There is yet another compelling reason to award fully
compensatory experts' fees in this case. The State chose not to
propose a redistricting plan. Had the plaintiffs not submitted a
proposal, the court would have been obliged to retain a court
expert to devise a plan. Had that been necessary, the defendants,
8
as losing parties, would have been assessed the cost of the court's
expert pursuant to 28 U.S.C. S 1920(6).
Accordingly, the experts' fees will be awarded as requested
and will not be limited to $30 per day. However, the court- will
not allow travel expenses for the attorneys or the clients. The
plaintiffs chose both their attorneys and the forum in this case.
While the case was exceptionally well tried by Mr. McDuff, it
cannot be said that the plaintiffs were unable to secure local
counsel with requisite expertise. gee Avalon . Qinema Corp_.— L.
Thompson. 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982). The defendants should not
be required to pay the added expense of non-local counsel.
Likewise, the court will not allow the expenditure for overnight
delivery of mail or for long-distance telephone charges. Postage
is not normally billed separately in this vicinity, and is, thus,
not allowed as a separate expense.
In summary, the plaintiffs are awarded attorneys' fees as
follows:
Attornev Hours Rate Fee
Robert B. McDuff 250 $130 $32,500.00
Reginald Robertson 120 85 10,200.00
John W. Walker 15 130 1,950.00
Lazar Palnick 49.6 85 4,216.00
Frank Parker 13.25 130 1,722.50
Brenda Wright 15.7 100 1,570.00
The plaintiffs are awarded costs for litigation <expenses of
Eastern Arkansas Legal Services:
Filing Fee $ 120.00
Voter Registration Data 75.00
Census Maps 92.00 Maps 13.00
Transcript 154.25
9
Expert Witness Fee (Anthes)
Travel Expenses
Consultants' Fees Expert Witness Fee (Litchman)
Total
In addition, the plaintiffs are
expenses of the Lawyers' Committee
Copying Expenses
Expert FeesParalegal (Epstein § $35/hr) Paralegal(Bernholz § $35/hr)
Total
642.74
50.00
138.00
5,466.00
6,750.99
awarded costs for litigation
for Civil Rights Under Law:
677.50
7,404.28
269.50
773.50
9,124.78
IT IS SO ORDERED this day of July, 1990.
£ y/2£&Zi------JienryWp©4s—United/'St^tes District Judge
THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHE=T !
COMPLIANCE W11H RULE 58 AND/OR 78(a) FRCP
ON BY
10
COSTS
Push v. Mabus
January, 1990 through June, 1991
Copying/Printing ................................... $270.54
Meals/Lodging/Transportation ..................... $936.47
Postage .............................................. *121*09
Telephone/Telegraph ................................ 5 83.30
Total Costs ........... $1,411.40
Report Date: 07/31/91
R m Data...: 07/31/91 11:15
Run by..... Brenda
PUSH V ALLAIN
Month End G/l Trial Balance - Detail In the Order of PROJ
For All Accotaite
Beginning of.: January 01 1991 (01-91) Thru Ending of.: June 30 1991 (06-91)
G/L Account No , ,
Ctr Cal. Fleet Date J m t U n a Deecrlptlon
Debit
Page.: 1
10 « GLTB
CTL. : 315
110 90040 VOTING RIGHTS DUPLICATION
Balance January 01 1991 (01-91)
LAW Jun 91 06-91 06/26/91 04-00 0742 VXER01M 29219788 ,10001 LAW Jiai vi uo vi uo/c vendor.: XEROX CORPORATION
USE CHARGE JUNE 1991
LAW
COPIES MADE 1144
LAW
Balance June 30 1991 (06-91)
Activity --- »
110 90050 VOTING RIGHTS POSTAGE
Balance January 01 1991 (01-91) .00
06/13/91 04-00 0790 VPBP01M 910613 ,L0001
Vendor.: POSTAGE BY PHONE
REPLENISH POSTAGE MACHINE
LAW
06/26/91 04-00 0430 VUPS01M 6/15/91 ,L0004
Vendor.: UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUNO/NEW YORK CITY 6/12
LAW
19.81
9.75
Activity --- > l
.00
Balance June 30 1991 (06-91) V _ ^ . 5 6
110 90060 VOTING RIGHTS TELEPHONE/TELGR
Balance January 01 1991 (01-91)
LAW Jan 91 01-91 01/24/91 04-00 0206 VMEA01M 12021271 ,L0002
Vendor.: MEAD DATA CENTRAL
COMPUTER HOOKUP
LAW
LAW Jan 91 01-91 02/06/91 00-03 0184 TO REVERSE ACCRUED 1990 ACCOUNTS PAYABLE
HEAD DATA CENTRAL
LAW
27.90
Report Bate: 07/31/91
Run Date...: 07/31/91 11:15
Rial by.... : Brenda
PUSH V ALLAIH
Month End G/L Trial Balance - Detail In the Order of PROJ
For All Accounta
Beginning of.: January 01 1991 (01-91) Thru Ending of.: Jute 30 1991
G/L Account No
Ctr Cal. Flacl Data J m l Lina Description
110 90060 VOTING RIGHTS TELEPMONE/TELGR (Continues..)
LAW Apr 91 04-91 04/24/91
LAW May 91 05-91 05/16/91
04-00 0448 VL0N01*! 910424 ,L0006
Vendor.: LONG DISTANCE SERVICE INC
LONG DISTANCE CHARGES MARCH 1991
LAU
04-00 0257 VLON01*I 910515 ,L0008
Vendor.: LONG DISTANCE SERVICE INC
LONG DISTANCE CHARGES • APRIL
LAU
Activity
Balance J i m 30 1991 (06-91)
REPORT TOTAL
REPORT TOTAL for Detail Activity
(06-91)
Debit Credit
Page.: 2
10 * GLTB
C T L . : 315
1.26
1.05
-— > 30.21 27.90
2.31
50.95 .00
--- > 78.85 27.90
Report Date: 07/31/91
Run Date...: 07/31/91
Run by.... : Brenda
PUSH V ALIAIN
10:58 Honth End G/L Trial Balance - Detail In the Order of PROJ
For All Accounts
Beginning of.: January 01 1990 ( 01-90) Thru Ending of.: Decestier 31 1990
G/L Account No
Ctr Cal. Fiscl Date Jrnl Line Description
(12-90)
Debit
Page.: 1
ID * GLIB
CTL.: 315
Credit
110 85000
LAW Dec 90 12-90 12/11/90 04-00
LAW Dec 90 12-90 01/08/91 04-00
Vendor.: DIDION WORLD travel
PARKER - ORAL ARGUMENT/NEW ORLEANS 12/4
LAW
Balance December 31 1990 (12-90)
VOTING RIGHTS TRANSPORTATION
Balance January 01 1990 (01-9(3)
0115 VFAP01M 901210 ,L000
Vendor.: FRANK Rl PARKER
ORAL ARGUMENTS - W«TORLEANS, LA 12/4-5
LAW
0690 VDI001M 12-02-90 ,L0001
110 85010 VOTING RIGHTS MEALS/LODGING
Balance January 01 1990 (01-90)
LAW Dec 90 12-90 12/11/90 04-00 0117 VFAP01M 901210 ,L0002
Vendor.: FRANK R. PARKER
ORAL ARGUMENTS - NEW ORLEANS, LA 12/4-5
LAW
LAW Dec 90 12-90 12/31/90 04-00 0527 VAME01*1907900-01 ,L0001
Vendor.: AMERICAN EXPRESS
PARKER - ORAL ARGUMENT/NEW ORLEANS 12/4-5
LAW
Balance December 31 1990 (12-90)
110 90020 VOTING RIGHTS STA OFFICE/SUPL
Balance January 01 1990 (01-90)
LAW Aug 90 08-90 08/15/90 04-00 0488 VMET04M 82403 ,L0001
Vendor.: METRO GRAPHICS
PURCHASING RED COVERS FOR BRIEF
LAW
Balance December 31 1990 (12-90) 2 0 / 0 0
PUSH V ALLA1N
Month End G/l Trial Balance - Detail In the Order of PROJ
For All Accounts
Report Date: 07/31/91
Run Date...: 07/31/91 10:58
*1*1 **.... ' *r*"d* Beginning of.: January 01 1990 (01:90) Thru Ending of.: Deceefcer 31
G/L Accowit Ho
Ctr Cal. FI set Data J m l Line Description
110 90040 VOTING RIGHTS DUPLICATION
Balance January 01 1990 (01-90)
LAW Mar 90 03-90 03/22/90 04-00 0847 VXER01M140590475 ,10001
Vendor.: XEROX CORPORATION
XEROX USAGE CHARGE/SUPPLIES
LAW
307 COPIES HADE
LAW
LAW May 90 05-90 05/24/90 04-00 0665 VXER01M141168911 ,L0001
Vendor.: XEROX CORPORATION
XEROX SUPPLIES 4 MONTHLT CHARGES
LAW
18 COPIES MADEDE
LAW
LAW Jun 90 06-90 06/20/90 04-00 0864 VXER01*I525834856 ,L0001
Vendor.: XEROX CORPORATION
XEROX CARGES
LAW
288
1990 (12-90)
LAW Jun 90 06-90 06/22/90 04
COPIES]
VBRJ01M 900615 ,10002
Vendor.: BRENDA R. J A C K S O N ______________
BmDOR— DUPtrtCAT I HI CF6RUEIUUN LAW LIBRART
LAW
LAW Jul 90 07-90 08/07/90 00-13 0004 TO RECORD DUPLICATION EXPENSE
420 COPIES MADE
LAW
LAW Aug 90 08-90 08/08/90 04-00 0218 VCOP01M 2544 ,L0001
Vendor.: COPT PRESS, INC.
DUPLICATION - BRIEFS
LAW
LAW Aua 90 08-90 08/22/90 04-00 0839 VXER01*I025803848 ,L0001
^ Vendor.: XEROX CORPORATION
XEROX USE CHARGE
LAW
COPIES MADE 422
LAW
LAW Nov 90 11-90 11/28/90 04-00 0758 VXER01*I026853549 ,L0001
Vendor.: XEROX CORPORATION
USE CHARGE NOVEMBER
LAW
COPIES MADE 195
LAW
Page.: 2
ID « GLIB
C T L . : 315
Debit Credit
.00
17.08
1.72
„ „ ..... «7/X1/01 PUSH V AILAIN
■ X t a t ? . ; 07/31/91 10:58 Month Eod G/L Trial th. Order of PROJ
Run by.....: Brenda of.. January 01 1990 (01-90) Thru Endlns of.: Deceetoer 31 1990 (12-90)
C/L Account Mo , .
Ctr Cal. Flacl Data Jml Lina Description ....................... ...........
110 90040 VOTING RIGHTS DUPLICATION (Continues..)
LAU Dec 90 12-90 01/08/91 04-00 0836 VXER01*I027137505 ,10001
l a m uec t v Vendor.: XEROX CORPORATION
USE CHARGE FOR DECEMBER
LAU
COPIES MADE 265
LAU
Activity
Balance Deceetoer 31 1990 (12-90)
110 90050 VOTING RIGHTS POSTAGE
Balance January 01 1990 (01-90)
LAU Mar 90 03-90 03/22/90 04-00 0345 VUPS01M
NAACP IDF- MEW YORK 3/7
LAU
LAU Mar 90 03-90 03/22/90 04-00 0349 W S 0 1 M ^ ERV1CE
NAACP LDF - NEW YORK 3/12
LAU
LAU Apr 90 04-90 04,19/90 04-00 0386 ^ ' ^ T W . L O O O I ^
JUDITH REED/NAACP NEU YORK CITY 3/9
LAU
LAU May 90 05-90 05/09/90 04-00 0878 VUSP01M ^ 0 5 0 9 ^ 0 0 0 1
REPLENISH POSTAGE MACHINE
LAU
LAU Jul 90 07-90 07/27/90 04-01 0013 VUPS01M ^ ’^ T s E R V I C E
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE/NEU YORK 7/18
LAU
LAU Jul 90 07-90 08/07/90 00-14 0005 TO RECORD POSTAGE EXPENSE
LAU Auo 90 08-90 09/06/90 00-12 0006 TO RECORD POSTAGE EXPENSE
LAU S » 90 09-90 09/11/90 04-00 0127 VFED01M056-33977 ,L0001
ISM aep TV Vendor.: FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP.
HUBBARO SAUNDERS/JACKSON, MS 7/31
LAU
Page.: 3
ID # GLTB
CTL. : 315
.00
8.50
8.50
19.00
1.25
8.50
4.45
20.74
21.75
Report Dat*: 07/31/91
Run Oat*...: 07/31/91 10:58
Run by.... : Rr«nd*
PUSH V ALLA1N
Month End G/L Trial lalance - Detail In th« Order of PROJ
For All Accounta
•earning of.: January 01 1990 (01-90) Thru Ending of.: Dec eater 31 1990 (12-90)
G/L Account Ho . ,
Ctr Cal. H a d Data J m l Lin* Deacrlptlon
Debit
Pag*.: 4
ID « GLTB
CTL.: 315
Credit
110 90050 VOTING RIGHTS POSTAGE (Continue*..)
LAW Oct 90 10-90 10/10/90 04-00 0840 VRNR01M 901001 ,L0001
LA* ucc REPLENISH POSTAGE MACHINE
LAU
LAU Nov 90 11-90 11/30/90 04-00 0818 VUSP01M 901130 ,L0001
Vendor.: U.S. POSTMASTER
REPLENISH POSTAGE MACJHNE
LAU
Balance Decenter 31 1990 (12-90)
Activity --- »
.25
.25
93.19
93.19
.00
110 90060 VOTING RIGHTS TELEPHONE/TELGR
Balance January 01 1990 (01-90) .00
04-00 0259 VLON01M 13190 ,L0010
Vendor.: LONG DISTANCE SERVICE INC
LONG DISTANCE SERVICE /JANUART
LAU
LAU Mar 90 03-90 04/03/90 04-00 0691 VLON01M 900330 ,L0053
LAU n*r vu vu w Vendor.: LONG DISTANCE SERVICE INC
LONG DISTANCE CALLS - FEBRUART
LAU
I 04-00 0213 VLON01M 3/31/90 ,L0062
Vendor.: LONG DISTANCE SERVICE INC
LONG DISTANCE CALLS - MARCH 1990
LAU
LAU Apr 90 04-90 04/30/90 04-00 0727 VC&P01M«371-1212 ,L0006
^ Vendor.: CtP TELEPHONE CO.
TELEPHONE CHARGES MARCH 1990
LAU
I 04-00 0318 VLON01M 900718 .L0010
Vendor.: LONG DISTANCE SERVICE INC
LONG DISTANCE SERVICE - JUNE 1990
LAU
LAU Aug 90 08-90 08/15/90 04-00 0343 VLON01*! ..#C8021 ,L0007LAU AUB vu uo vu uo,.w vendor.: LONG DISTANCE SERVICE INC
LONG DISTANCE CHARGES - JULT 1990
LAU
I 04-00 0245 VLON01M C8021# ,L0009
Vendor.: LONG DISTANCE SERVICE INC
LAU Feb 90 02-90 02/12/90
LAU Apr 90 04-90 04/17/90
LAU Jul 90 07-90 07/18/90
LAU Sep 90 09-90 09/20/90
.18
2.94
23.78
1.98
7.18
12.82
K t 0.'!!; o Z I l f t 10:58 Month E n i G/L Trl.l • £ ™ - £ ^ , ' n ^ ^ °' " " S » "
Run ........8rend» gefl)nn)n# 0f.. January 01 1990 (01-90) Thru Ending of.: Deceaber J1 1990 (12-90)
G/L Account Mo , ... Debit Credit
Ctr Cal. flael Date J m t line Description ................................................................................
110 90060......................... VOTING * IGMTS HLEPHOME/TEK* (Continues..)
LONG DISTANCE CHARGES - AUGUST
LAW J7
LAD Nov 90 ,1-90 11/26/90 04-00 0372 VLOM01M |NC
LONG DISTANCE CHARGES - OCTOBER 1990
LAW ] 76
LAU Dec 90 12-90 12/20/90 04-00 0239 VLOHOI*. J ̂ O / W . L O O O ^ ^ ^
LONG DISTANCE CHARGES - NOVEMBER
LAW Dec 90 12-90 02/05/91 00-55 0174 ^ R E C O R D ACCRUED 1990 ACCOUNTS RATABLE 27-90
L MEAD DATA CENTRAL
LAU
Activity --- > 80.99 ...1??
Balance Deceefcer 31 1990 (12-90) ...................... .....................
REPORT TOTAL --- > 1,298.86
REPORT TOTAL for Detail A c t i v i t y ------ » 1,298.86
g r r . o t
/ / / *-r
LAWYERS' COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL. RIGHTS UNDER -LA**
f & n / # /*.7EL EXPENSE VOUCHER O F ____________ 7 _________________________
\MOUNT - TRANSPORTATION (Attach Bill)
LODGING - All Bills Paid Must Be Attached
MEALS (Daily Totals)(attach separate sheet if
necessary)
Date AmountDate Amount
V $ t/'T'jo '■ $.
$
TOTAL MEALS
TAXIS
TIPS
AUTOMOBILE"Expenses
MISCELLANEOUS (Describe)
LESS PERSONAL EXPENSES
TOTAL EXPENSES
(a) CASH ADVANCE
(b) LCCRUL CHARGES
LESS AMOUNTS PAID BY LCCRUL [Total of (a) and (b)]
$
$
$
NET REIMBURSEMENT REQUESTED
TIME - DATE & TIME OF DEPARTURE ^ RETURN---- Number of days away from home spent on business *2.
PLACE- - NAME OF DESTINATION /frbS U'l&tV'O --------
s
$._______________
$ v r
$ ________________
$
s n i l . *f)
BUSINESS PURPOSE - Business reason for travel or nature of business bene-.
M & 1'- w * * ' ___________________
Check if applicable: [ ] Direct
lobbying
[ ] Grassroots
Lobbying
[ ] Other Legislative
Activity
3~£2 c.Q"iSQO' 51hGc: CAROMEMBER
Cardmember Account Number
- — — — r i— r m — — tr~rr - — 1 i- i A A
| p t- j ► * !? p *. ? ?. l r<: ' . . 1
I ' . » » t . R j C r C ' - i l . L : •- ' i -' v \
<3
5 0 7 2 3 3
Date of Charge
i 3 0 . 1 0 * C "»i £ I S G E . S j
| i i 0 U .
1 l 1 7 1 0 t o 2 5 C '..jv . . .
• • / !
EXPIRATION ^
DATE |
CHECKED
Approval Code
< 2 ^
Typa of Delayed Chg.
haekorMNurRl
tJU fW dt Si
>ar Amt of Delayed Chg.
1
Ravieed Total
Cardmerntx
•m*
V / !PLEASE WRITE FIRMLY
. y~\
Merchandise and/Of sarvict purchasad on m il card l lu l l not ba resold Of re
turned for cash refund. Estibliatimtnt agroas to transmit to Amasican Express
Travel Related Sarvices Co, Inc. or luthoraed represtntativa fcr payment [
Cards S I l O S 1!
Invoice Number
Cardmember Copy
Q l
LU
O
LU
DC
CD
<
o
X
<
APEA ABOVE
Telephone H
THANK YOU IBS FKG
V/IMC.U U'.l ■ .*!Prr>C7
; Fi ►
19«
05- *915 No.
90-12* *301
©05-23 :_17 EX
$05-22: b“ EN
P< • • *2.25$
NEW ORtEANS
TOURS
AIRPORT
RECEIPT
AMOUNT:- - •/. A<-
/-
DATE:
SCNESTA 190
HOTEL:-— 5-----------
CAB COMPANY
PASSENGER S RECEIPT. TAXICAB FARE
Date . 199
Amount of Bare
Other Charges
Total
Driver’s N am e___________________
Cab Number---------------------
S
s
I
Telephone #
CAB COMPANY
PASSENGER’S RECEIPT. TAXICAB FARE
Date . 199
Amount of Bare
Other Charges
Total
S
s
Driver's Name
Cab Number _
rPJalalatxe, ̂ tauxaiit, oIitc.
209 bourbon Street
New Orleans, La., 70130. .1990
Telephone # ------------------------
CAB COMPANY
PASSENGER’S RECEIPT. TAXICAB FARE
Amount of Bare
Other Charges $
T o ta l......................... 1
Driver’s Name
Cab Number
1423 H Street. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 371-8800
Telex 197716 DWT UT
FAX 202-682-1927
DIDION WORLD TRAVEL
INVOICE
(SALES PERSON: 50 ITINERARY/INVOICE NO. 0078257
CUSTOMER N6R: 011380 ’ RIHPGQ
DATE: 27 NOV «
PAGE: 1
fO: LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR
CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW
1400 EYE STREET» N.W. SUITE 400
WASHINGTON D.C. 20005
_____________ >
THANK YOU FOR FAVORING
WITH YOUR TRAVEL BUSINESS. \
MUST PAY THE AIRLINES EA<
WEEK FOR ALL TICKETS ISSUE
WE WILL APPRECIATE RECE1VII
PAYMENT FOR YOUR TICKE
PROMPTLY.
PLEASE REMIT FROM THIS IHVOICi
POR: PARKER/FRANK REFERENCE: *AYD40408
DEC 90 - TUESDAY
AIR EASTERN AIRLINES
LV WASHINGTON NATL
AR ATLANTA
RESERVED SEATS
AIR EASTERN AIRLINES
LV ATLANTA
AR NEW ORLEANS
RESERVED SEATS
05 DEC 90 - WEDNESDAY
AIR EASTERN AIRLINES
LV NEW ORLEANS
AR ATLANTA
RESERVED SEATS
AIR EASTERN AIRLINES
LV ATLANTA
AR WASHINGTON NATL
RESERVED SEATS
AIR TICKET/S EA7245644830
FLT:397 ECONOMY
800A
955A
22D
FLT:583 ECONOMY
1106A
1144 A
1SD
FLT:316 ECONOMY
605P
825P
18D
FLT:430 ECONOMY
930P
110 8 P
18D
FOR PARKER FRANK
SUB TOTAL
TOTAL AMOUNT
BREAKFAST
EOF'*. BOEING 757
NON-STOP
SNACK
EQP: 727 STRETCH
NON-STOP
SNACK
EQP s DC-9 STRETCH
NON-STOP
EQP: BOEING 757
NON-STOP
585.00
585.00
585.00
24 HOUR EMERGENCY RESERVATIONS SERVICE 1-800-524-4500
7 DAYS A WEEK. YOUR CALLING CODE IS ST8J0
31-MONTHLY BILLING
THANK YOU FOR USING DIDION WORLD TRAVEL.
® Royal Sonesta Hotel
New Orleans
300 Bourbon Street, New Orleans, LA 70140
504-586-0300
DATE
FRANK PARKER
144 i AT N.W STE 400
WASHINGTON D.C. 20005
LAWYERS COMMITTEE
12-05-90
FOLIO NUMBER
93682 (3209)
CO-CAB 3:23PM
PAGE: 1
( ACTIVITY DATE CHARGECODE DESCRIPTION CHARGES CREDITS
17—04—90 LH140C LONG DISTANCE 703-760-3726 . 75
12—04—90 LH147C LONG DISTANCE 202-371-1212 • / 5
12-04-90 LH149C LONG DISTANCE 703—760—3726 . 75
12-04-90 LH171C LONG DISTANCE 804-644-7851 -y cr. / -J
12-04-90 CH254C LOCAL PHONE 581-4422 —r cr . / vJ
12—04—90 LH283C LONG DISTANCE 202-544-7139 . 75
12-04-90 1 H425C LONG DISTANCE 601-931-7651 . 75
12-04-90 R43209 ROOM CHARGE 115.00
12-04-90 RT3209 HOTEL TAX * 14.55
12—04—90 RZ3209 OCCUPANCY TAX 1 2. OU
12-05-90 CH603C LOCAL PHONE 584-6514 . 75
12-05-90 CH608C LOCAL PHONE 534-6071 , 75
12-05—90 CHS13C LOCAL PHONE 894-6252 . 7"5
12-05-90 CH816C LOCAL PHONE 86^-5743 . 75
12-05-90 LH829C LONG DISTANCE ̂ '2-371-1212 . / b
12-05-90 LHS31C LONG DISTANCE' 4-2-371-1212 . 75
12-05-90 LHS32C LONG DISTANCE ;7C>3-760-3726 . 75
12-05-90 AX3: 23F'M AMERICAN EXF'RESB 161.25
12-05-90 MV282 0 I D-COM y 7.29
12-05-90 BG70426 BEGUES - 1-5.81
THANK <0U FOR STAYING AT THE ROYAL SON ISTA HOTEL
***6ALANCE DUE** . 00
Thank you for choosing the Royal Sonesta Hotel. We look forward to having you as our guest again.V.
3 1 8 2 H C n S Q Q S i t 0 2
Cerdmember Accqum fKBftm 4K C ’7 ’1---v&Ti rHfi-L 37; H
CARDMCMBER
<•r^r
expiratwn
DATE
CHECKED
F f i m r $ p 4ft * £ r .
L A W * C * .$ C 3 H ft c M flt .
' Date ol Charge
12 4 9Q
ip r o v i l Code Type o1 Delayed Chj.
i-neac or M Number Amt of Oeteyed Chg.
----------------- i_______
merchandise and/or service purchased on this card shJTimberesoldoH?.
s s t t t r s 2s r . t rSHi Cards 18 lb 5 b
invoice Number Cardmember Copy
C
0
2U
?4
9
C
A
M
tX
Pl
d
m
U
S
A.
8
/9
0
pnSH V. AT.TATN
EXPERT WITNESS FEES
Steven Hahn ................ $7,446-98
Allan Lichtman.......... $12,790.00 Total — $20,236.98
(
Dat5 December 18, 1985
AmOUEt S 250.00
Sac. Sec. No. *________ _
Payable To - Steven Hahn
Address
Purpose travel reimbursement (receipt attached)
Charge Voting Rights Project (PUSH v. Allain)
CEZCX APPROPRIATE BOX:
r% Lobbvir.c [ 1 Grassroots
] other"Legislative Activity
Lobbying
3e sure to place a duplicate copy of this f o m in t-.e ap;
Project file if you checked one of the legtslatrve acwi/
above.
opriate
,y boxes
Far Accounting Cent, use a my
Cedes
Requested By Samuel Issacharoff
Approved By
iIi
PUSH v. ^llain
(
airline receipt for Steve Hahn
mimma
------------- - 1------- — ARCInssraen c o u p o n -•.-.M I H ' A * a * > ■■:
U U M W — ■̂ i ---------- HOT T V M H H T J -
u;.t i r K ^ u '-■•>■ t;--------------------------------------
f / i i L C B S ' V ' V -
' ■ : •'&•
*. r ■ ►
-4 Ijf «f*A . W *
V ' ' ' '■ •*
See below for Airline Form. Serial Number^
I I .W t L THrtVtL
MBU ( D P I
-.TirrTTrnj
• wr
nu
rm
wr
tn
aut
g/
ra
I «
*•«
«•'
R2QUZST rCH CSZCS
Date 2-j ________________
Ajscuns S 3/£ 5» 0 0
Sac. Sec. No. 7 7 —&J-D ~ (c 1*1 "/
Address O a Iv e rs ify ^ O i t r | 'trwa\C\ , 0 '\^ q o
HnS hiv- y C ' ° ° 4
Purpose
L a . J o l U , C - A 4 2 . 0 ^ 3
/tStcu'Cla Ou*aA iu A K m i/ tp A h f W
A_l
Charge V / / R . P d S H . A H alc*
CEZCZ ASP-SCS-SIATS 3CX :
f ] Direct. Lobbying [ ] Grassroots Lobbying
[ ] ether”Legislative Activity
3e stra ic place a duplicate ccpy of this fort m tee
Project file if ycu checked one of the legislative act
aheve.
appropriate
ivitv boxes
Jcr Accounting Cept. use on;v
Requested 3v [^UAAlK^lV\
Cedes
ji
i
UNIVERSITY OF CALIF( s’IA. SAN DIEGO
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANCELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIECO • SAN FRANCISCO
^1 Puj J-J
SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, C-004 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093
11 February 1936
Dear Sam,
I enclose a copy of the report. I hope that this
is the kind of thing you had in mind. If changes need to be made, do let me know. The research and
preparation thus far has required 91 hours.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Steve Hahn
HSQT^ST ?CH C 2 C X
DatS May 12, 1986
Amount S 1/015_________
Sac. Sec. No. 077- 40-6197
Payable TO Steven Hahn
Address Department of History, University of California
at San Diego, LaJolla, California 92093
Purpose Preparation of timeline, research
and report
Cmrgs PUSH v. Allain
CSSCZ A2Pr.CPP.ZACZ BCX:
r ] Direct; Lccivinc [ ] Grassroots icboycrg
[ 1 ether”Legislative Activity
3e sure to place a duplicate copy of tics t o m in toe at
Project file if you checked cue cf the legislative actov
aieve.
cpriat
y bexe
r c r A ccou nting Cent, use cr.xv
t
IA
ill
28 April 1986
Mr. Sam Issacharoff
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights
1400 Eye Street
Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Sam,
Enclosed is a sketch of the time line. As you can see,
it only goes up to 1965; I thought your office would be more
familiar with the post-1965 revisions if those are to be
included.
The preparation of the timeline, as well as the additional
research and writing of the report that I recently submitted,
required an extra 29 hours. It would probably be best to
send the check to my California address even though I'll be
here in D.C. for a bit.
Hope to see you sometime soon.
Cheers
Steven Hahn
REQUEST FOR CHECK
Date August 21,
Amount $ 2/906.98
Soc. Sec. No. __
1987
077-40-6197
Payable To Steven Hahn_____________________ _
University of California at San Diego
Address Department of History, C-004, LaJolla, California 92093
Purpose Revision of report, preparation for trial
PUSH v. AllainCharge ___________________________________ ____________________
CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX:
[ ] Direct Lobbying [ ] Grassroots Lobbying
[ ] Other Legislative Activity
Be sure to place a duplicate copy of this form in the appropriate Project
file if you checked one of the legislative activity boxes above.
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. SAN DIEGO
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANCELES • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIECO • SAN ERANCISCO \ SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZ
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, C-004 LA JOLLA, CALIFORNIA 92093
SERVICES RENDERED - STEVEN HAHN
Revisions on Report - May 1986 6 hours
Checking Footnote Citations - April 1987 3 hours
Preparation for Testimony - July 7-17, 1987 22 hours
Participation in Trial Proceedings:July 19 10 hours
July 20 10 hours
July 21 4 hours
Total hours 55 hours
55 hours @ $35/hr. $1,925.00
Airfare to and from 483.00
trial
Car Rental 498.98
Total $2,906.98
2031 F BROOKS RD.
n a f f . ^TN 33113
345-3800
- l - v * (t P t10 N S 42565 |
sho* **»is no c *« * a
W M M U U H £ N l AL C M A A G C 0 * E 0 * * I
fU U S 0 0 NOT **CIUD€ "t^U tU N O S €*v iC t_________4>Sn »■««» * koot * f >
NOTICE
It vnn nn THE FOLLOWING YOU WILL BREACH THIS AGREEMENT:
, n m S f THE VEHICLE UNSAFELY. "UNSAFELY" CAN INCLUDE
NEGLIGENT DRIVING OR VIOLATIONS O F / t u i^ c ONTRACT"1"
LAWS (SEE "WHAT IS A BREACH OF THIS CONTRACT -
M S J K m « S & l n USING ANY DRUGS.
X f f i S B w W CONTRACT TD
A w r a m K i i outside this st a t e w ithout our w r it -
I ENFAl\RTOSCOOPERATE WITH OUR ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION
ft YOU DO ANY OF THE ABOVE. YOU FORFEIT BOTH YOUR COLLI
SION DAMAGE LIMITATION AND THE LIMITED COW IF YOU HAVE
PURCHASED COW.______________________________________________________
' ^
5 1 LIMITED COLLISION DAMAGE WAIVER
limited -cow'
You i r t ibsotutsY Sable lor coision damage and
loss ol usi to our vthieH. Yo“ ^
total rtsponsituloy to saro by driving
and paring
div or traction thtrtot.
o tm LIMITED COLLISION OAMACE WAIVER IS
NOT INSURANCE
I DECLINE-
X
/ (?j O f L
171 REfUEUN G SERVICE
n___i& □__ -
R E N T E R
SIGNATURE ADDITIONAL
- DRIVER
. SIGNATURE• Srjno* i u n i
PI*
_ GALLON
129 TOTAL TIME
AND MILEAGE
IN
OUT I E I I -•1*1 M l
. ( V. I I >■ I ‘A I I M X . LESS CREDITS
J 7£ M 1
u OPTIONAL
PERSONAL ACCIDENT INSURANCE ( " pw >
Bsnaftls lot accidtntil loss ot Jd« sndicaOtnt
medical uprises is sot lorth in pobty tor;
fflicate. By inAiaDtng. " I accept. n iM i jm
chases covtraga wrtnin by inORpoods"*
met eo. md eeknowladges receipt K poiqr
31. SERViCE.CHGS
3Z SUBTOTAL
_____ p^f pay ot Iracbon tfroreol.
THIS IS NOT LIABILITY INSURANCE
& L o .o g
31 COW OR SUR-
CHARGE PER DAY
$ y . _ _ _
34. SUB TOTAL
ENTALILL
AID
i
NERS
b u ll jQGo 5050 04-05.
1985 a oi /ea
SIEVES"H KAHH
DOLLAR 9ENT A
cap / 00^299000 m i o p n
7 4 90 4 1 4 5 23 U l i .O I
44139 10456 11
XL t OPTIONAL-------— r y
PERSONAL EFFECTS PROTECTION ("PEP )
BinoDts lor personal belongings el rant* and
the mombsrs ol ranter's family twaling wtlh
rintOT os sot torlh In Policy. By initialling, I
sccopt," rontir purehasos coverage wrmoit by
Independent Insufinco to. ind acknowledge!
roeolpt ol Synopsis.
j ___________ ■ per day or Inchon tborool.
THIS IS NOT LIABILITY INSURANCE.- .
35. SURCHARGE OR
SALES TAX
%
7 ACCEPT yIX .A
(T)ei.
ithoraation Data
RVATiON LD. NO. I T. NO
AID/TQUR
Amount Autnoozad By
r e f e r r a l s o u r c e
V
RENTAL AGREEMENT PREPARED BY ~
- r
D ECLir^.'"
C>» CON jiTiQW
36. PAI (PER DAY)
$
37. REFUELING CHARGE
i PEP (PER DAY)
$
38. DAMAGE CHG./
OTHER Ch GS.
C A « CONDITION W 40.
PREPATMENT (.»)
CASH j CHECK
v o u c h ER
CERTIFICATE NO.
DEPOSIT
S3 $
REFUND RECEIVED BV
D EPO SIT.
VOUCHER
65 $
TOTAL
41. LESS
TOUR VOUCHER
OR DEPOSIT
REFUNO
DUE I PAID ■
4 1
. AMOUNT
COLLECTED
“ BALANCED
./
V
• m p . s p
BLREELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES ♦ RIVERSIDE . SAN DIECO • SAN FRANCISCO
DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY, C-004
LA JOLLA. CALIFORNIA 92093
4 August 1987
Mr. Sam IssacharoffLawyers' Committee for Civil Righ5s Under Law
Suite 4001400 Eye Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20005
Dear Sam:
I'm enclosing a bill for time and expenses involved
in revising my report, preparing to testify, and participating
in the proceedings in Oxford. I'm also submitting copies
of receipts for airfare and car rental associated with
being in Mississippi. I held onto the car for a few extra
days in the event that you needed me back in Oxford.
Have a good summer. And regards to Cindy.
Best,
Steven Hahn
! May j.2, 1986
A ----- ^ 11,200. 0 O
See. Sec. Nc. 060-38-1842
Allan Lichtman
Accrues 9219 Villa Drive, Bethesda, Maryland 20817
Analysis of Voter Registration for the State of
Mississippi
PUSH v. Allain
=C2:
THF AMERICAN UNIVERSITY
WASHINGTON. D.C
BILL FOR SERVICES RENDERED ON THE ANALYSIS OF YOTER REGISTRATION
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI. MAY 19, 1935 - MAY 5, 1936
PUSH V. ALLAIN
1. ANALYSIS OF COUNTY-LEVEL REGISTRATION AND POPULATION STATISTICS.
2. ANALYSIS OF DISTRICT-LEVEL REGISTRATION AND POPULATION STATISTICS.
3. WORK ON DEVELOPING QUESTIONNAIRES FOR INTERROGATORIES.
4. ANALYSIS OF COUNTY-LEVEL VOTER TURNOUT STATISTICS.
5. DEVELOPMENT AND EXECUTION OF REGRESSION MODELS FOR PREDICTING
STATE-LEVEL TURNOUT AND REGISTRATION.
6. ANALYSIS OF OFFICIAL REGISTRATION STATISTICS AND SELF-REPORTED
CENSUS RESULTS, SOUTHERN STATES MAINTAINING REGISTRATION BY RACE.
7. DEVELOPMENT OF METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING MISSISSIPPI REGISTRATION
RATES BY RACE, USING JURY SELECTION PROCESS.
3. RESEARCH IN SOCIAL SCIENCE LITERATURE PERTAINING TO
SURVEYS OF REGISTRATION AND TURNOUT.
9. ANALYSIS OF OFFICIAL MISSISSIPPI REGISTRATION STATISTICS.
w-
10. ANALYSIS OF COMPARISON BETWEEN ACTUAL STATE-LEVEL TURNOUT
AND TURNOUT EXPECTED FROM CENSUS SURVEY.
11. MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF INFLUENCES ON STATE-LEVEL
DISPARITIES BETWEEN ACTUAL AND EXPECTED TURNOUT.
12. ANALYSIS OF MISSISSIPPI REGISTRATION RATES BY RACE USING
RESULTS OF JURY SELECTION PROCESS.
13. CORRELATION ANALYSIS OF UNRETURNED JURY SELECTION QUESTIONNAIRES.
14. PREPARATION OF REPORT ON CENSUS SURVEY, OFFICIAL STATE OF
MISSISSIPPI STATISTICS, AND ESTIMATION OF REGISTRATION RATES
USING JURY SELECTION STATISTICS.
15. MEETINGS WITH ATTORNEYS.
THIRTY-TWO WORKING DAYS AT $350 PER D A Y ........... $11,200
ALLAN J. LICHTMAN
College of Arts an d Sciences
O lliie of ilie IV .in
4400 M nss.-irhusetts A venue. N .W .. W ash ing ton . D .C . 20016 <202'! 885-2440
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE ANO EDUCATIONAL FUNO. INC.
M Hudson SIrMt • Now Yof*. N.Y. 10013 • (212) 210-1900
September 23, 1986
Prof. Allan Llchtman
College of Arts & Science
The American University
4400 Massachusetts Ave. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20016
Dear Allan:
Enclosed please find a check for
$3,850.00 representing payment for
services reflected in you last bill.
Sorry for any inconvenience that may
have been caused by the delay in getting
this to you.
cc: Samuel Issacharoff
Contributions are deductible {or U. S. income tax purposes
JUAWXKKti ■ UUMfU.'X"l'£.£i fUK C IV IL KXVjdXO UWL»r.« XiMn
REQUEST FOR CHECK
Date 1179/87
. . 1,590Amount $_______
52-1502234 Soc. Sec. No. ___________
Lichtman-Bradford Enterprises Payable To ______ __________________ _____
9219 Villa Drive, Bethesda, MD 20817 Address ■ —
Preparation for trial testimony, meeting w/attorney for
Purpose ___________________________ ____________________________
plaintiff, trial testimony
Charge PUSH v. Allain ___________________________________
CHECK APPROPRIATE BOX:
[ ] Direct Lobbying [ ] Grassroots Lobbying
[ ] Other Legislative Activity
Be sure to place a duplicate copy of this , form in the appropriate Project
file if you checked one of the legislative activity boxes above.
FOR ACCOUNTING DEPT. USE ONLY
Codes
TO:
FROM:
SAM ISSACHAROFF, ATTORNEY
iawyers0 committee for civil rights under law
SUITE 4001400 EYE STREETWASHINGTON, D. C. 20005
ALLAN J. LI CHINAN ___LICHTMAN-BRADFORD ENTERPRISES
a . j .
9219 VILLA DR. BETHESDA, MD 20817
DATE: OCTOBER 20, 1987
BILL FOR SERVICES, RE: PUSH V. ALIAIN
1. PREPARATION FOR TRIAL TESTIMONY
2. MEETING WITH ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFF
3. TRIAL TESTIMONY
ELEVEN PREPARATION HOURS AT $50 PER HOUR........ .
EIGHTEEN TRAVEL AND DEPOSITION HOURS AT $60 PER HOUR
TOTAL BILL .................................
..$550
$1,040
$1,590
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
___________________________________ X
MISSISSIPPI STATE CHAPTER
OPERATION PUSH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
yg t No. DC 84-35-GD-O
RAY MABUS, Governor of
Mississippi, et al.,
Defendants.
___________________________________ X
AFFIDAVIT OF JUDITH REED IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN
AWARD OF ATTORNEYS* 1 FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
STATE OF NEW YORK )) SS.
COUNTY OF NEW YORK )
JUDITH REED, after first being sworn, deposes and says as
follows:
1. I was counsel for plaintiffs in the above-entitled
action from 1984 to 1990. During that time I was employed as
assistant counsel at the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational
Fund, Inc. (the "Legal Defense Fund"). I make this affidavit
pursuant to Local Rule 15, in support of plaintiffs' supplemental
motion for an award of expenses including attorneys fees,
incurred in connection with the prosecution of an appeal in this
litigation. My experience is set forth in Exhibit 2 to
plaintiffs' motion for an award of attorneys fees and litigation
expenses, filed in September 1989.
2. The attached listing, Exhibit A, is an accurate
compilation from contemporaneous time records kept by me in the
ordinary course of business of the number of hours I have spent
on the preparation of the appeal briefs filed in this case. This
listing shows that I have spent 108 hours on the appeal and 55.1
hours on the cross-appeal, for a total of 163.1 hours. Pursuant
to 42 U.S.C. § § 19731(e) and 1988, I seek compensation at the
rate of $ 200 per hour as attorneys' fees for this time. The
costs incurred by the Legal Defense Fund from August 2, 1989 to
present are set forth in Exhibit B to this affidavit.
3. As noted in my earlier affidavit, the Legal Defense
Fund, as does the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law,
accepts cases on a non-fee generating basis and is dependent upon
court awards of attorneys' fees in appropriate cases for a
Sworn to and subscribed before me on
this the />? day of August, 1991.
JEAN MORTON
Commissioner of Deeds
City of New York - No. 2-6692
Certificate filed in Kings County
Commission £*p,re& Feb, 1, 1 9
2
PUSH v. ALLAIN - Judith Reed - Hours
Date Description of Service Rendered Time
1990
1/18 Talked w/ H. Saunders re briefing schedule (.2) .2
1/28 Review of record 5.0
1/30 Reading transcript; research 5.0
1/31 Reading of transcript 2.0
2/1 Transcript, record review 3.0
2/2 Record/transcript review; talked w/ Fifth
Circuit re extension 1.2
2/3 Transcript review 1.0
2/5 Transcript review 4.5
2/6 Transcript review 3.5
2/8 Record/transcript record; talked w/ F. Parker 5.0
2/9 Record review 1.0
2/13 Research 2.0
2/15 II 1.5
2/16 Talked w/ P. Karlan re brief (.3); drafting
fact statement o
•
in
2/21 Drafting brief fact statement; argument 6.0
2/27 Brief - revision of fact statement (1.5); talked
w/ P. Karlan (.3); research (2.0); talked w/
F. Parker (.2); talked w/ Fifth Circuit 4.1
3/5 Research 5.0
3/6 II 4.0
3/8 II 5.5
c/fwd. 64.5
EXHIBIT A
b/fwd. 64.5
3/12
3/13
3/14
3/15
3/16
3/17
3/19
6/5
6/6
6/11
6/15
7/2
7/5
7/9
7/11
7/12
7/14
7/15
7/16
" 6.0
Drafting brief 4.5
" " 6.0
Research, drafting for Fifth Circuit brief 6.0
Brief revision 5.0
Revisions to brief 6.0
Final preparation of brief, filing 10.0
Review deft's brief .5 /
Talked w/ F. Parker re brief .3
Meeting w/ law student re reply brief; talked
w/ P. Karlan .5
Meeting w law student re reply brief 1.0
Met w/ Julie Caskey (Law student) re reply
brief revisions and research .5
Meeting w/ July Caskey re brief; research .5
Review of reply brief draft; research 2.5
Revision of reply brief 4.3
Reply brief revision 5.0
Motion for extension of time 1.0
Reply brief revision 2.0
Reply brief revision; talked w/ Sam Issacharoff
of Lawyers' Committee 5.0
c/fwd.
2
131.1
b/fwd. 131.1
7/17
7/18
7/19
7/20
7/23
7/24
7/25
Meeting w/ law student (J. Caskey) and P. Karlan
to discuss reply brief (1.0); revision to
same (2.0)
Reply brief
Reply brief drafting
Reply brief revision; talked w/ P. Karlan
re brief
Reply brief revisions
ii it it
i i n i i
3.0
2.5
4.0
8.0
10.0
3.0
1.5
163.1
) o'/
5 ̂ • /
3
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND
SUMMARY OF CASE: PUSH V
AS OF AUGUST 1, 1991
PAYEE
FEDERAL EXPRESS
US DIST CT CLERK
BUDGET RENT A CAR
RICHARD M BUMPUS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDREAL EXPRESS
TOTAL 1989
FEDERAL EXPRESS
JUDITH REED
PETTY CASH
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
JUDITH REED
JUDITH REED
FEDERAL EXPRESS
FEDERAL EXPRESS
PERRY CASH
TOTAL 1990
GRAND TOTAL
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
ALLAIN (0825-08)
7166-01 7167-01 7169-01 7170-01
TRAVEL COURT MISC TRAVEL
CHECK # DATE TOTAL COOP ATTY COST EXPENSES STAFF ATTY
18549 07.27.89 54.25 54.25
18709 08.02.89 105.00 105.00
18738 08.08.89 84.28 84.28
19152 09.06.89 1,800.00 1,800.00
19740 10.24.89 29.25 29.25
19741 10.24.89 25.75 25.75
20191 12.04.89 9.75 9.75
20283 12.07.89 25.25 25.25
20301 12.08.89 15.00 15.00
2,148.53 1,905.00 159.25 84.28
20667 01.12.90 9.75 9.75
20911 02.09.90 32.05 32.05
21331 03.23.90 36.00 9.50 26.50
21503 04.11.90 19.50 19.50
21502 04.11.90 18.25 18.25
21501 04.11.90 28.00 28.00
21500 04.11.90 28.25 28.25
22298 06.21.90 8.00 8.00
22443 07.04.90 40.25 40.25
22442 07.04.90 156.45 156.45
22676 07.30.90 10.50 10.50
22763 08.06.90 31.50 31.50
23066 08.22.90 27.70 27.70
446.20 190.95 255.25
2,594.73 1,905.00 350.20 339.53
EX
HI
BI
T
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.
SUMMARY OF OVERTIME FOR CASE: PUSSH V ALLAIN (0825-08)
AS OF AUGUST 1, 1991
DATE PAYEE HOURS AMOUNT
03.31.90 VANESSA THOMPSON 15.00 377.09
03.31.90 CHARLES ANDREWS 10.50 286.24
03.31.90 EARL CUNNINGHAM 8.50 238.82
03.31.90 AYLMER AHJOHN 6.50 166.22
TOTAL 1990 40.50 1,068.37
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
MISSISSIPPI STATE CHAPTEROPERATION PUSH, et al.,
x
vs.
Plaintiffs, No. DC 84-35-GD-O
RAY MABUS, Governor of
Mississippi, et al.,
Defendants.
---------------------------------------------------- -
CHARLES STEPHEN RALSTON affirms the following to be true under
penalty of perjury:
1. I hold the position of Deputy Director-Counsel with the
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., (LDF) and have been
engaged in the practice of law for 27 years. Attached hereto as
Exhibit A is my current resume setting out my experience in the
area of civil rights law and federal court litigation.
2. In my present position I am responsible for supervising
the litigation program of the LDF and the work of its staff of 25
attorneys in New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, D.C. One of
my primary areas of responsibility and expertise is the recovery
of attorneys' fees, which account for between 16-20% of the Fund's
budget. I have been involved in many of the leading cases dealing
with attorneys' fees under the civil rights statutes, both as
counsel for a party (e.g.. Johnson v. Georgia Highway Express, 488
F.2d 714 (5th Cir. 1974); Bradley v. School Board of the City of
Richmond. 416 U.S. 696 (1974); Hutto v. Finney, 437 U.S. 678
(1978); Missouri v. Jenkins. 109 S.Ct. 2463 (1989); Webb v. Board
&MiT ?
of Ed. of Dver County, 471 U.S. 234 (1985) (argued) ; Library of
Congress v. Shaw. 478 U.S. 310 (1986)(argued)) and as counsel for
amicus curiae (e. g.. Hensley v. Eckerhart. 461 U.S. 424 (1983);
Blum v. Stenson. 465 U.S. 886 (1984); City of Riverside v. Rivera.
477 U.S. 561 (1986)). I have written on the subject and have
participated in seminars and training seminars on a number of
occasions.
3. On numerous occasions I have prepared and litigated
attorneys fees applications and have obtained fee awards in cases
handled by our office based on current market hourly rates. Most
recently, in 1989 in Missouri v. Jenkins. I was awarded fees at New
York market rates in the amount of $27 0 per hour. Attached as
Exhibit B is a copy of the order of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which finds that appropriate hourly
rates for attorneys practicing in New York are $390 per hour for
a senior partner in a major firm, $270 per hour for myself, $260
per hour for a senior associate in the firm, and $120 per hour for
a junior associate in the firm.
4. Based on the information I obtained in Missouri v.
Jenkins. as well as my general knowledge of prevailing market rates
in the New York area, it is my considered professional opinion that
the prevailing hourly market rate for legal services in contested
litigation rendered by attorneys with more than 15 years at the bar
is a minimum of $200 and that an hourly rate of $200 is fair,
reasonable, and consistent with prevailing market rates in New
York.
2
5. Similarly, an hourly rate for legal interns of $55.00 per
hour is well within the range of rates charged by firms in the New
York area.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true
and c----
3
R E S U M E
C H A R L E S S T E P H E N R A L S T O N
B u s in e s s A d d re s s :
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10013
(212) 219-1900
H o m e A d d re s s :
2166 Broadway, Apt. 14D
New York, N.Y. 10024
(212) 877-3435
E d u c a t io n :
Undergraduate: University of California, Berkeley
B.A., 1959, Honors in History
Law School: Boalt Hall School of Law
University of California, Berkeley
J.D., 1962, Order of the Coif
Notes & Comments Editor,
California Law Review
Post-Law School: Graduate work at Columbia
University School of Law, 1963-64.
L e g a l E x p e r ie n c e :
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
1964 to present.
Assistant Counsel - 1964-68
Director, San Francisco Office - 1968-70
First Assistant Counsel - 1971-1988.
Deputy Director-Counsel - 1988 - .
Trial experience in the federal courts, including preparation of
pleadings, conduct of discovery, pretrial motion practice, trials and
post-trial briefing in complex class actions.
Extensive appellate experience developed through briefing and arguing
over 75 cases in various United States Courts of Appeals and briefing
more than 40 and arguing 5 cases in the United States Supreme
Court.
In-depth substantive knowedge of employment discrimination and
school desegregation law, poverty law, a variety of First Amendment
issues, housing discrimination, jury discrimination, attorneys’ fees, and
capital punishment law.
In charge of litigation program of Legal Defense Fund: assists and
supervises staff of 25 staff attorneys with regard to procedural and
substantive issues; supervises trial litigation docket and reviews all
appellate work.
T e a c h in g a n d L e c t u r in g E x p e r ie n c e :
Associate at Law, Columbia University School of Law, 1963-64.
Lecturer - American Bar Association Committee on Litigation, 1983
conference.
Lecturer - Third Conference of the Eastern District (N.Y.) Civil
Litigation Fund.
Lecturer - District of Columbia Bar lawyer training programs, 1977,
1978, 1984.
Lecturer - Georgia Conference on Labor Law, 1977.
Lecturer/Panelist - Lawyer Training Conferences given by the NAACP
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 1965-1988.
Lecturer - Federally Employed Women National Training Programs,
1980, 1981, 1983, 1984.
Lecturer - Variety of federal government agencies, including Boston
Regional Office of the Office of Personnel Management, Appeals
Review Board of the Civil Service Commission, Export-Import Bank,
Department of Commerce, Denver and Houston Regional Offices of
the Merit Systems Protection Board, 1977-1982.
P u b l ic a t io n s :
Court v. Congress: Judicial Interpretation of the Civil Rights Acts and
Congressional Response. _8 Yale Law & Policy Review 205 (1990).
The Federal Government As Employer: Problems and Issues In
Enforcing the Anti-Discrimination Laws, 10 Ga. L. Rev. 717 (1976).
Drafter of Chapter 33, "Federal Employee Litigation," Schlei and
Grossman, Employment Discrimination Law (2nd Ed. 1983).
2
Counsel Fees in Public Interest Litigation, Report by the Committee
on Legal Assistance of the Association of the Bar of the City of New
York, 39 The Record of the Association of the Bar of the City of New
York 300 (1984)(Principal author).
Student notes and comments:
Note: Applicability of Felony-Murder Rule Where Bystander
Killed by Person Other Than the Felon. 48 Cal. L. Rev.
847 (1960).
Note: Discovery: Propriety of Written Interrogatories
Requesting Factual Bases for Allegation, 48 Cal. L. Rev.
864 (1960).
Note: California Law as to Scope of Attorney-Client Privilege
Held Applicable in Federal Non-Diversity Proceeding,
49 Cal. L. Rev. 382 (1961)
Comment: Inspection of Public Records Under California Law, 50
Cal. L. Rev. 79 (1962).
O rg a n iz a t io n s :
Member, Association of the Bar of the City of New York: Member
of Committee on Legal Assistance, 1981-1984; Member, Committee
on Civil Rights, 1984-1987; Member, Committee on Federal
Legislation, 1989- .
Member, Board of Directors, Federally Employed Women Legal and
Education Fund, Inc., 1984-1988.
B a r M e m b e rs h ip s :
California State Bar.
Supreme Court of the United States
United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth,
Sixth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, and District of Columbia Circuits.
United States District Courts for the Northern District of California
and the Southern District of Alabama.
3
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
No. 87-2075
No. 87-2076
No. 87-2077
Kalima Jenkins, et al., ★
*
Plaintiffs/ *
Cross-Appellants, ★* Appeal from the United States
* District Court for theV • * Western District of Missouri.
State of Missouri, et al., *
*
Defendants/ ★
Appellees. ★
Submitted: July 18, 1989
Filed: September 21, 1989
Before LAY, Chief Judge, HEANEY,* Senior Circuit Judge, and JOHN
R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge.
Now that the issue of attorney and paralegal fees in the
Kansas City school desegregation case has been decided by the
Supreme Court, Missouri v. Jenkins, 57 U.S.L.W. 4735 (U.S. June
19 1989), the Jenkins Class moves for an award of fees with
respect to the Supreme Court litigation. The State opposes the
request in certain specifics, arguing that there was needless
duplication of effort, that the reasonable prevailing rates for
♦The Honorable Gerald W.
Judge when these cases were
January 1, 1989.
Heaney, who was an active Circuit
argued, assumed senior status on
attorney services in Kansas City should be used as the standard
for all Jenkins Class counsel, and that no award should be made
to the Jenkins Class for fees incurred in its unsuccessful peti
tion for certiorari. In all, the Jenkins Class requests fees of
$175,904.00 and expenses of $15,080.46.1 We award fees to the
Jenkins Class counsel as we will presently explain.
With respect to the Jenkins Class certiorari petition chal
lenging the denial of fee enhancement to compensate for risk,
plaintiffs have discounted the request for fees by 35%, as the
petition was not granted. Attorney Arthur Benson spent 9.4 hours
and attorney Russell Lovell spent 82.4 hours on this petition.
The Jenkins Class argues that this work was interrelated to the
issues which were argued and prevailed upon before the Supreme
Court. The State takes the position that none of this time is
"̂The following is the breakdown of Jenkins Class Request for
Fees and Expenses
Hours
Person Claimed Rate
Arthur Benson 65.7 $160
Russell Lovell 237.0 140
Charles Ralston 33.0 270
Jay Topkis 84.4 390
Topkis Assoc.
Leffell 219.2 260
Topkis Assoc.
Lobell 256.2 120
Topkis Para
legal Assts. 36.0 70
Total for Topkis
TOTAL FEES
TOTAL EXPENSES
GRAND TOTAL
Fees Expenses Total
$ 10,512 $ 803.93 $ 11,315.93
33,180 -0- 33,180.00
8,910 2,310.84 11,220.84
32,916 11,965.69 44,881.69
57,122 -0- 57,122.00
30,744 -0- 30,744.00
2,520 -0- 2,520.00
$ 135,267.69
$175,904
$15,080.46
$190,984.46
- 2 -
compensable. Although we accept that the
work in drafting the petition was in some
other efforts before the Supreme Court,
this time is more properly compensated at
expended. This results in a reduction of
the amount of $1,736.00 and Benson's fee
Jenkins Class counsel's
measure interrelated to
we are satisfied that
50% of the actual hours
Lovell's fee request in
request in the amount of
$224.00.
We reject the State's argument that all Jenkins Class coun
sel should be restricted to Kansas City rates for their work in
preparing and presenting their case before the United States
Supreme Court. While we have earlier so limited the fee re
covery, we feel it is inappropriate to do so when the Supreme
Court grants certiorari. As the case then proceeds to a truly
national arena, we have no hesitation in awarding fees based on
the rates prevailing in the several communities where the lawyers
performed their work, namely, Des Moines, Kansas City, and New
York City.
The State also objects to attendance by five lawyers at the
Supreme Court oral argument, claiming that this was excessive.
While we believe that this argument has some force, the prepara
tion of the appeal was a joint effort, Topkis argued the case,
and it is to be expected that he would desire to bring to argu
ment several of his affiliated attorneys. We believe that the
attendance of Topkis, Benson and Ralston was justifiable and that
Topkis was entitled to have at least one other attorney present
for consultation, whether that be Lovell or Leffell. We feel it
appropriate to reduce the fees an additional $750.00 for dupli
cation and reduce expenses by $100.00. We think it entirely
proper that all counsel participated in preargument activities in
New York City.
As for the duplication claim, we have no quarrel with the
efforts expended by other lawyers to assist the Jenkins Class
-3-
attorney Jay Topkis and two associates of the firm of Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison. Russell Lovell had been
involved in litigating the fee issue before this court. Benson
is appointed counsel for the Jenkins Class, and is a major recip
ient of the fee award in the litigation. S. Charles Ralston, who
is affiliated with the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund,
represented another beneficiary of the fee award. These attor
neys contributed directly to the effort in the Supreme Court.
Our study does not convince us that there was substantial dupli
cation in services rendered, but acquaintanceship with the re
alities of such work indicates that a reduction of 5% for such
duplication is reasonable. This results in a total attorney fee
award of $164,502.00
The issue raised in the Supreme Court was a difficult one,
and the Jenkins Class and their counsel achieved substantial
success. Counsel are entitled to be fully compensated. See
Blanchard v. Bergeron, ___ U.S. ___, 109 S. Ct. 939 (1989);
Riverside v. Rivera, 477 U.S. 561 (1986); Blum v. Stenson, 465
U.S. 886 (1984); Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983).
Attorney fees are thus awarded in the amount of $164,502.00 and
expenses in the amount of $14,980.46.
A true copy.
Attest:
CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
- 4 -
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
---------------------------------- X
MISSISSIPPI STATE CHAPTER
OPERATION PUSH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. DC 84—35—GD—0
RAY MABUS, Governor of
Mississippi, et al.,
Defendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------ x
DECLARATION OF CATHERINE BENDOR IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN
AWARD OF ATTORNEYS/ FEES AND LITIGATION EXPENSES
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, I make the following
declaration:
1. My name is Catherine Bendor. I have performed legal
work for the plaintiffs in the above-styled action during the
Summer of 1990, fulfilling tasks assigned to me by Frank Parker,
co-counsel for the plaintiffs.
2. During the summer of 1990, I have been employed as a
legal intern with the Voting Rights Project of the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, 1400 I Street, N.W., Suite
400, Washington, D.C. 20005.
3. Time and labor required. The appended contemporaneous
time sheets are an accurate itemization, to the best of my
personal knowledge, of the time I have spent in contributing to
the preparation of this litigation.
4. Hourly Rate. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights
Under Law accepts voting rights cases on a non-fee generating
basis. As such, we do not bill our clients for legal services
performed, and any fees we receive are contingent upon our
clients prevailing and the court awarding fees. We are dependent
upon court awards of attorneys' fees in appropriate cases for a
substantial portion of our budget. The wages paid to legal
interns at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law are
less than the fair market value of the work which they perform.
5. Experience and Ability. I graduated Magna Cum Laude
and Phi Beta Kappa from Cornell University in June of 1988. I
currently attend Harvard Law School, where I have completed my
first year, and will graduate in 1992.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed on August J0_, 1990.
CATHERINE BENDOR
2
Time RecordsCathy Bender, Intern (1990)
Case No. 315
Push, et al. vs. Mabus, et al.No. DC 84—35—GD—0
Date Description Hours
6/5/90 Research at Georgetown Library forLaw Review Articles 4.5
6/6/90 Library research and reading briefs 6.1
6/7/90 Reading law review articles on voterregistration 5.5
6/8/90 Reading law review articles on voterregistration 6.0
6/11/90 Reading Law Review articles 6.5
6/12/90 Reading Law Review articles and briefs 5.5
6/13/90 Writing memo on voter registration 3.0
6/14/90 Writing memo on voter registration 8.0
6/15/90 Writing memo on voter registration 8.5
6/18/90 Reading depositions (for memo) 4.0
6/19/90 Reading depositions (for memo) 6.5
6/20/90 Reading depositions (for memo) 5.5
6/21/90 Reading depositions (for memo) 6.0
6/22/90 Writing memo on precinct registration 4.5
6/25/90 Wrote memo on contents of depositions 3.5
6/26/90 Wrote memo on depositions; gatheredvoter registration figures 5.5
6/27/90 Gathered voter registration figures;examined interrogatories 6.5
6/28/90 Examined and xeroxed interrogatories 7.0
6/29/90 Compiled set of figures frominterrogatories/case research 7.5
Time RecordsCathy Bender, Intern (1990)
Case No. 315
Push, et al. vs. Mabus, et al.No. DC 84—35—GD—0
Date Description Hours
7/2/90 Case research on proper court remedy 6.0
7/3/90 Case research 6.0
7/5/90 Case research 5.0
7/6/90 Wrote memo on court remedies 7.5
7/9/90 Wrote memo on court remedies 1.5
7/11/90 Reading testimony of expert witness 1.5
7/12/90 Reading testimony of expert witness 3.0
7/16/90 Shepardizing for reply brief 8.0
7/17/90 Shepardizing, editing reply brief 6.0
7/18/90 Shepardizing, editing reply brief 3.6
7/19/90 Shepardizing, editing reply brief 4.5
7/23/90 Editing cross-appellee brief 5.0
7/26/90 Editing brief 3.0
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
----------------------------------- X
MISSISSIPPI STATE CHAPTER
OPERATION PUSH, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs. No. DC 84-35-GD—O
RAY MABUS, Governor of
Mississippi, et al.,
Defendants.
----------------------------------- X
DECLARATION
JULIE A. CASKEY declares as follows:
1. I have performed legal work for the plaintiffs in the
above-styled action, fulfilling tasks assigned to me by Judith
Reed, co-counsel for the plaintiffs in this matter, which have
involved researching issues raised by defendants' cross-appeal
and drafting briefs.
2. I was employed as a summer associate with the NAACP
Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., (the "Legal Defense
Fund") in its New York office from June 4 to August 10, 1990.
3. Time and labor required. Exhibit A to this affidavit
is an accurate itemization, based on contemporaneous time sheets
of the time I have spent in contributing to the preparation of
the brief on the cross-appeal of this case. The total hours I
have spent amount to 222.
r
4. Hourly Rate. The Legal Defense Fund accepts voting
rights cases on a non-fee generating basis. As such, the Legal
Defense Fund does not bill its clients for legal services
performed, and any fees received are contingent upon the
prevailing and the court awarding fees. The Legal Defense Fund
is dependent upon court awards of attorneys' fees in appropriate
cases for a substantial portion of its budget.
This court has ruled in a number of cases that time expended
by summer associates is recoverable under the appropriate
attorneys' fees statute.
The wages paid to summer associates at the Legal Defense
Fund are less than the fair market value of the work which they
perform. Nevertheless, plaintiffs in this case should be
compensated for summer associates expenses according to the
hourly rates equal to the reimbursed rates for summer associates
in fee awards granted by courts in this circuit.
Based upon information from local counsel regarding
prevailing rates, the previous experience of the Legal Defense
Fund in recovering for summer associates time, and my personal
experience and credentials (as set forth infra), I believe that
an hourly rate of $55 is an appropriate recovery for my time.
5. Experience. Reputation, and Ability. I graduated from
Barnard College, Columbia University, in January 1988. From June
1987 to July 1988, I was employed as a legislative assistant with
the New York City Council, the legislative body for the City of
New York. I served as Executive Director of the National Women's
2
Political Caucus of New York State, from August 1988 to March 1989,
and from April to August of 1989, I was the Deputy Director of a
New York City Council campaign.
At the time I performed the services for which the Fund seeks
compensation, I had completed my first year at Columbia Law School,
where I was a member of the Columbia Human Rights Law Review and
the Columbia Journal of Gender and Law. Through the combination of
my academic work and political experience, I have gained training
and expertise in legal research and writing.
6. My lodestar fee for work performed amounts to 222 hours
x $ 55/hour = $ 12,210.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is
true and correct. Executed August 9, 1990.
3
Exhibit A
PUSH v. ALLAIN - Julie A. Caskey - Hours
Date______Description of Service Rendered_________________ Time
1990
6/11 Read background cases; read record and cross
appellants brief 8
6/12 Research on Rule 52(a). Read cases cited byappellees/cross-appellants in brief 9
6/13 Read cases cited by appellees/cross
appellants, on Rule 52(a). Read study prepared by plaintiffs' expert on determination of race
of registered voters. Review of record. 8
6/14 Review testimony of plaintiffs' experts, casescited by cross-appellants; outline R.52
argument. 8
6/18 Writing brief Rule 52(a) section 8
6/19 Writing brief on cross appeal argument II -
Rule 52(a) 6
6/20 Editing main section of brief, research onacceptance of statistical evidence, census figures 8
6/21 Research on census statistics to refute crossappellants argument on impeachability; drafting
argument. Met with J. Reed to discuss brief 8
6/22 Finishing research; writing of brief and editing 8
6/24 Finished writing argument on Rule 52(a) 8
6/25 Research re cross-appellants' county-by-county
argument; further research on statistical evidence 8
6/26 Further research into county-by-county argument;
legislative history 8
6/27 Research into whether state's interest in localized
assessment of vote dilution claim as applicable
to voter registration; vote dilution cases 8
6/28 Research into "district specific" review cited
by defendants; formulated arguments for brief 8
6/29 Wrote argument on county-by-county statistics 6
Push v. Mabus
J. Caskey - Hours
Page 2
7/2 Finished writing Section I, met with supervisor
to discuss argument and further research 9
7/3 Research on expert testimony 8
7/5 Lexis search on issues at Columbia 8
7/6 Edited entire brief; wrote new section 8
7/13 Conference with Frank Parker; researched record 8
7/16 Wrote up research for incorporation into brief.Additional research. Wrote additional parts of
brief 8
7/17 Met with P. Karlan to discuss brief; edited brief 8
7/18 Research on collateral estoppel effects on non
central issues; wrote up addition to brief 8
7/19 Redrafting county-by-county argument; editing 8
7/20 Went over entire completed brief with J. Reed;
wrote additional arguments 8
7/23 Completed editing and cite checking of brief 8
7/24 Make corrections, edits, changes in draft, sent
to Lawyers' Committee for review 8
7/25 Made changes, etc. from draft sent by J. Reed
on disk and sent copy to Lawyers' Committee 8
TOTAL HOURS: 222
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
X
MISSISSIPPI STATE CHAPTER
OPERATION PUSH, et al. ,
Plaintiffs,
vs. NO. 84-3 5-WR-O
WILLIAM A. ALLAIN, Governor of
Mississippi, et al.,
Defendants.
x
PLAINTIFFS' FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS
AND GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS
Plaintiffs, by their attorneys, request the defendants
pursuant to Rule 36, Fed. R. Civ. P., within 30 days after
service of this request to admit the truth of the following facts
and the genuineness of the following documents for purposes of
this action and subject to all pertinent objections to admis
sibility which may be interposed at trial.
Pursuant to Rule 36, all written answers shall be addressed
to the matter. Any answer shall be deemed inadequate which
merely states with regard to any facts or documents set forth
herein that they are matters of public record and speak for
themselves, or which states that any facts set forth have
previously been litigated. If any objection is made to any of
frih t t r *
the facts or documents set forth herein, the specific reasons for
each such objection shall be stated fully in writing. Each
answer to each of the facts and documents set forth shall
specifically admit the matter, deny the matter, or set forth in
detail the reasons why the answering party cannot truthfully
admit or deny the matter.
If defendants qualify their answer or deny only a part of
the matter of which an admission is requested, defendants shall
specify which part of the request is true and qualify or deny the
remainder. If defendants plead lack of information or knowledge
as a reason for their failure to admit or deny, they must state
in detail that they have made reasonable inquiry and state
specifically what inquiries have been made to ascertain the
requested information or the genuineness of each document. If
any fact stated herein is deemed by the defendants to be incor
rect in whole or in part, or any document set forth herein is
deemed by the defendants to be not a true and correct copy of
that document, defendants are requested to supply the correct
facts or the correct document to which each such request refers.
These requests shall be deemed continuing and defendants
shall be under a continuing duty to supplement their responses as
required by Rule 26(e), Fed. R. Civ. P.
To the extent that facts and documents herein are responsive
to Defendants' First Set of Interrogatories and Requests for
Production of Documents to Plaintiffs, defendants shall consider
the facts and documents contained herein supplemental responses
2
to defendants' first set of interrogatories and requests for
production of documents.
1. Mississippi has a past history of official discrimina
tion that touched the right of black citizens to register, to
vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process.
2. The primary purpose of the Mississippi Constitutional
Convention of 1890 was to disenfranchise Mississippi's black
citizens and to secure white supremacy in Mississippi politics.
3. The Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1890 met in
August, 1890. The following statements of the purpose of that
convention were made by elegates:
(a) "Sir, it is no secret that there has not been a
full vote and a fair count in Mississippi since 1875 — that we
have been preserving the ascendency of the white people by
revolutinary methods. In plain words, we have been stuffing
ballot boxes, committing perjury and here and there in the State
carrying the elections by fraud and violence until the whole
machinery for elections was about to rot down.
Judge J.B. Chrisman, quoted in the (Jackson) Clarion Ledger,
Sept. 11, 1980, p. 1, col. 1.
(b) "The avowed purpose of calling [this] Convention
was to restrict the negro vote . . . "
Mr. McLaurin of Sharkey County, quoted in the (Jackson) Cl a
Ledger. Sept. 25, 1890, p. 3, col. 3.
(c) "I will agree that this is a government of the
people, by the people, and for the people; but what people? When
this declaration was made by our forefathers it was for the Anglo
Saxon people. That is what we are here for today — to secure
the supremacy of the white race."
Mr. McGehee of Franklin County, quoted in the (Jackson) ClflriO.P
Ledger. Sept. 18, 1890, p. 3, col. 3.
(d) "We want them [the Negroes] here, but their own
3
good and our own demands that we shall devise some means by which
they shall be practically excluded from the government control."
Judge S.S. Calhoun, president of the Convention, quoted in the
(Jackson) Clarion Ledger. Sept. 18, 1890, p. 3, col. 2.
(e) "But, sir, this Constitution is not for the
Democrats, but is for . . . the white people of this State
regardless of their party affiliations."
Mr. Edward Mayes, delegate at-large, quoted in the (Jackson)
Clarion Ledger. Sept. 18, 1890, p. 1, col. 3.
(f) "The white people of the State want to feel and
know that they are protected not only against the probability but
the possibility of negro rule and negro domination."
Mr. W.S. Eskridge of Tallahatchie County, quoted in the (Jackson)
Clarion Ledger. Sept. 18, 1890, p. 1, col. 3. 1965 Report of the
United States Commission on Civil Rights, Voting in Mississippi
(hereinafter "Voting in Mississippi"), p. 3, a true and correct
copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
4. Because the Fifteenth Amendment of the United States
Constitution prohibited an express denial of the franchise to
black citizens, the 1890 Constitutional Convention adopted
indirect and seemingly neutral qualifications and procedures to
deny black citizens the right to register and vote.
5. The Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1890
adopted the Mississippi Constitution of 1890. This Constitution
of 1890 included provisions for (1) a poll tax, (2) a literacy
test for voter registration, (3) a durational residency require
ment of two years in the state and one year in the election
district, and (4) a disfranchising crimes provision, all
designed to exclude black citizens from participation in the
4
electoral process. Miss. Const, of 1890, Art. 12, §§ 241 244;
Voting in Mississippi, pp. 4-6; Rati iff v. geaje, 74 Miss. 247 ,
266-68, 20 So. 865, 868-69 (1896). True and correct copies of
Sections 241 through 244 of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890
are attached hereto as Exhibit 2 (original provisions of Sections
241 and 244 are in italics).
6. A true and correct copy of the Mississippi Code of 1892,
chapter 93, pertaining to municipalities, and chapter 113,
pertaining to registration and elections, is attached hereto as
Exhibit 3.
7. In 1892, the Mississippi Legislature in its next regular
session following the adoption of the Mississippi Constitution of
1890 adopted statutes to codify and implement the voting and
voter registration provisions of the Constitution of 1890.
Miss. Code of 1892, ch. 113, §§ 3612, 3613, 3614, 3631.
8. The Mississippi Legislature in the Code of 1892 also
adopted Sections 3028 and 3029 providing for separate voter
registration in municipalities and for the appointment of
municipal registrars of voters to register voters to vote in
municipal elections. Exhibit 3, attached.
9. By 1892, only an estimated 5.7 percent of the black
voting age population of Mississippi was registered to vote.
Voting in Mississippi, p. 8.
10. In 1902 the Mississippi Legislature adopted a statute
authorizing political parties to exclude any person from partici
pation in party affairs, including primary elections. Miss.
5
Laws, 1902, ch. 66.
11. In 1907 the Mississippi State Democratic Executive
Committee adopted a "white primary" rule limiting voting in
Democratic primary elections to "white democrats." Voting in
l̂ issisgjppi, p. 7.
12. In 1951 the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit in Peay v. Cox. 190 F.2d 123 (5th Cir. 1951),
cert, deni ed. 342 U.S. 986 (1951), reversed the District Court's
dismissal of a lawsuit challenging the alleged practice of the
Registrar of Forrest County, Mississippi, of requiring black
applicants for voter registration but not white applicants to be
able both to read and to interpret to the satisfaction of the
registrar any section of the Mississippi Constitution. In its
opinion the Fifth Circuit in dictum construed the state statute
only to require an ability to read or to interpret any section of
the constitution, not both. 190 F.2d at 126.
13. The following year the Mississippi Legislature passed a
resolution to amend Section 244 of the Mississippi Constitution
to require all applicants for voter registration to be able to
read and interpret any section of the Mississippi Constitution.
Miss. Laws, 1952, ch. 454. This proposed constitutional amend
ment was defeated in a referendum in the November, 1952 elec
tion. Voting in Mississippi, p. 5.
14. A true and correct copy of Miss. Laws, 1952, ch. 454 is
attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
15. In 1954 the United States Supreme Court prohibited
6
state-sponsored public school segregation in Btoyp v. po^rfl pf
Education. 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
16. In its 1954 regular session the Mississippi Legislature
adopted a resolution to amend section 244 of the Mississippi
Constitution to require applicants for voter registration to
demonstrate "a reasonable understanding of the duties and
obligations of citizenship under a constitutional form of
government." Miss. Laws, 1954, ch. 427. The proposed constitu
tional amendment exempted all persons registered to vote before
January 1, 1954. In the campaign for its ratification, propo
nents of the amendment stated that its purpose was "solely to
limit Negro registration." Jackson Daily News, Oct. 28, 1954.
The amendment was adopted by referendum in November, 1954. This
constitutional amendment was then implemented by the Mississippi
Legislature in its extraordinary session in January, 1955.
Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess., ch. 104. VQtinq in Mjssi S S iP B l>
p. 6.
17. True and correct copies of Miss. Laws, 1954, ch. 427,
and Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess., ch. 104 are attached hereto as
Exhibit 5 and 6.
18. Also during this 1955 extraordinary session of the
Mississippi Legislature, the state legislature enacted a compan
ion statute, Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess., ch. 103.
19. Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess., ch. 103 amended Miss.
Code of 1942, § 3211. Prior to the amendment, Section 3211
required county registrars in regular county election years to
7
register voters up to four months before the election at their
several polling places, spending not less than one whole day at
each polling place, and to publish for three consecutive weeks
notice of the times and places of such visits.
20. Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra Sess. , ch. 103 amended Section
3211 to provide:
The registration books shall not be removed from the
office of the county registrar; provided, however,
during the year of the regular county andgeneral
election, or in the event a new registration be ordered
by the board of supervisors, as provided by law, the
board of supervisors, by proper order entered upon its
minutes, may order the registrar to visit and^spend not
exceeding one day at any voting precinct in his county,
and not less than four (4) months before said election,
for the purpose of registering voters, after having
given notice by publication of the times and places of
such visits.
21. A true and correct copy of Miss. Code of 1942, § 3211
prior to the 1955 amendment is attached hereto as Exhibit 7.
22. A true and correct copy of Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra.
Sess., ch. 103 is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
23. Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess., ch. 103 was enacted for
the purpose of limiting the opportunities of black citizens to
register to vote.
24. In 1960, the Mississippi Constitution was amended to
require "good moral character" as a qualification for voting
(Miss. Const. § 241a). In 1962, the Mississippi Legislature also
repealed a statute which had provided that voter application
forms be retained as permanent public records, and substituted a
new rule which allowed registrars to dispose of application forms
(Miss. Laws, 1962, ch. 44, § 2).
8
25. In 1962, a number of other provisions relating to voter
registration were enacted by the Mississippi Legislature,
including laws that an applicant demonstrate "good moral charac
ter," (Miss. Laws, 1962, ch. 569, § 1) that applicants fill in
all blanks on the application form "properly and responsively"
without assistance (Miss. Laws, 1962, ch. 570, § 1), that
registrars to be prohibited from telling an applicant why they
were rejected (Miss. Laws, 1962, ch. 571, § 2), that all appli
cants' names be published in the newspaper (Miss. Laws, 1962,
ch. 572, § 1), that any applicants' qualifications could be
challenged by any voter (Miss. Laws, 1962, ch. 573, § 2), and
that all designation of race be eliminated from county poll books
(Miss. Laws, 1962, ch. 574, S 1).
26. According to the 1961 Report of the United States
Commission on Civil Rights, Voting, Tables 8 and 8A, true and
correct copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibit 9, as of
1961 only 6.1 percent of the black voting age population in
Mississippi was registered to vote.
27. In 1965 in the House Report on the Voting Rights Act of
1965, H. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965), 1965
U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2437, a true and correct copy of
portions of which are attached hereto as Exhibit 10, the House
Judiciary Committee determined (p. 2441) that in 1964 only 6.4
percent of the voting age Negroes in Mississippi were registered
to vote.
28. Exhibit 11, attached, is a true and correct copy of the
9
Justice Department Status Report on Mississippi voter registra
tion cases contained in the Hearings on the Voting— Rjrflhtg Act—
1965 Before the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong.,
1st Sess., Part 2, pp. 1176-1323.
29. In 1965f a unanimous Supreme Court, in an opinion
written by Justice Black, described Mississippi's past history of
discrimination as "a long-standing, carefully prepared, and
faithfully observed plan to bar Negroes from voting in the State
of Mississippi, a plan which the registration statistics . . .
would seem to show had been remarkably successful." Unit^d
States v. Mis si ssiooi. 380 U.S. 128, 135-136 (1965).
30. The State of Mississippi since 1965 has been and is
covered by the suspension of tests provision (Section 4) and the
Federal preclearance of voting law changes provision (Section 5)
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
31. According to exhibits presented by William Bradford
Reynolds, who was the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the
Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice,
in his testimony in 1982 on extension of the Voting Rights Act,
Voting Rights Act; Hearings Before the Subcommittee on thf?
Constitution of the Senate Committee on the Judici ary.r 97th
Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 1, Attachments K and L, pp. 1806-17 (1982),
true and correct copies of which are attached here to as Exhibit
12, since the Voting Rights Act was passed 42 Mississippi
counties — more than in any other state -- have been designated
for Federal examiners (registrars) under the Voting Rights Act,
1 0
and between 1975 and 1981 Federal observers have been sent to
observe elections in numerous Mississippi counties.
32. Exhibit 13, attached hereto, is a true and correct copy
of the United States Department of Justice Complete o£
phi potions Pursuant to Section 5 of the voting Rights ftct of
as of September 30, 1983.
33. Exhibit 14, attached hereto, is a true and correct copy
of Justice Department Section 5 objections to voting law changes
enacted by the Mississippi Legislature from 1965 to 1982.
34. In Jordan v. Winter, Civil Nos. GC82-80-WK-0 and
GC82-81-WK-O (N.D. Miss. April 16, 1984), a true and correct copy
of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 15, the three—juoge
District Court made the following findings:
(a) "That Mississippi has a long history of de jure
and de facto race discrimination is not contested. That history
has been often recounted in judicial decisions and includes the
use of such discriminatory devices as poll taxes, literacy tests,
residency requirements, white primaries, and the use of violence
to intimidate blacks from registering for the vote. The State is
a covered jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The
Attorney General has designated 42 of the counties in Mississippi
for federal registrar enforcement of the right to vote." (p. 9)
(footnote omitted)
(b) "We find that the effects of the historical
official discrimination in Mississippi presently impede black
voter registration and turnout. Black registration in the Delta
1 1
area is still disproportionately lower than white registration.
No black has been elected to Congress since the Reconstruction
period, and none has been elected to statewide office in this
century. Blacks hold less than ten percent of all elective
offices in Mississippi, though they constitute 35% of the state's
population and a majority of the population of 22 counties.
The evidence of socio-economic disparities between blacks
and whites in the Delta area and the state as a whole is also
probative of minorities' unequal access to the political process
in Mississippi. Blacks in Mississippi, especially in its Delta
region, generally have less education, lower incomes, and more
menial occupations than whites. The State of Mississippi has a
history of segregated school systems that provided inferior
education to blacks. See United States Commission on Civil
Rights, Voting in Mississippi, pp. 3-4 (1965). Census statistics
indicate lingering effects of this past discrimination: the
median family income in the Delta Region (Second District) for
whites is $17,467, compared to $7,447 for blacks; more than half
of the adult blacks in the Second District have attained only 0
to 8 years of schooling, while the majority of white adults in
this District have completed four years of high school; the
unemployment rate for blacks is two to three times that for
whites; and blacks generally live in inferior housing." (pp. 9-
10) (footnote omitted)
(c) "Plaintiffs have established that voters in
Mississippi have previously voted and continue to vote on the
1 2
basis of the race of candidates for elective office. The state
defendants had conceded as much prior to the 1982 elections, but
attempted to show a trial that the 1982 campaign in the Second
District was not characterized by racial bloc voting. The
evidence defendants presented was that the black Democratic
candidate, Robert Clark, received approximately 15% of the white
vote in the 1982 general election and that Clark won the Demo
cratic nomination in a primary contest against white opponents.
The primary election in the Second District conducted under our
prior plan was characterized by confusion and low voter turnout
due to a variety of factors, including uncertainty about election
dates, the recent realignment of the district, and the lack of an
incumbent. The race was additionally atypical because of a court
order allowing Republican voters to participate in the Democratic
primary. Clark's victory in the primary was followed by defeat
in the general election — a defeat we find was caused in part by
racial bloc voting. Plaintiffs' proof, also based on analysis of
these election returns, demonstrated a consistently high degree
of racially polarized voting in the 1982 election and previous
elections. From all of the evidence, we conclude that blacks
consistently lose elections in Mississippi because the majority
of voters choose their preferred candidates on the basis of
race. We therefore find racial bloc voting operates to dilute
black voting strength in Congressional districts where blacks
constitute a minority of the voting age population." (p. 11)
35. The above-stated facts set forth in Request No. 34
13
found by the District Court in Jordan v. Wint5J. are true.
36. The following facts are true:
(a) The Mississippi State Board of Election Commis
sioners, who are the defendants in this case, were also defend
ants in Jordan v. Winter, SUPJL§, and represented the interests of
the State of Mississippi. The defendant Circuit Clerks and
Municipal Clerks in this case were not named defendants in Jordan
v. Winter but are agents of the State of Mississippi and agents
of the Mississippi State Board of Election Commissioners and were
and are in privity with the Mississippi State Board of Election
Commissioners.
(b) Plaintiffs Samuel McCray and Robert Jackson were
plaintiffs in Jordan v. Winter/Brooks v. Winter and also are
plaintiffs in this case.
(c) The facts found by the District Court set forth in
Request No. 34 were actual issues in Jordan v. Winter, were
litigated by the parties, were necessary to the cause of action
and to the District Court's decision in that case, and were
decided adversely to the defendants' position.
(d) The Mississippi State Board of Election Commis
sioners, who are the same defendants as in this case, filed a
Jurisdictional Statement in the United States Supreme Court
contesting the findings of the District Court in Jordan v.
Winter. set out above, that political participation and voter
registration by blacks in the Delta region and in the State as a
whole were depressed and that voting in Mississippi elections and
14
in the 1982 congressional election in the Second District was
racially polarized. Jurisdictional Statement, f t l l a j p v. Propkg,
No. 83-2053, pp. 10-13, a true and correct copy of which is
attached as Exhibit 16. The United states Supreme Court sum
marily affirmed the decision of the District Court, thus reject
ing the challenges of the Mississippi State Board of Election
Commissioners to those findings. Mississippi Republican Exe_<m-
tive Committee v. Allain. ____ U.S. ____, 83 S.Ct. 343 (1984).
37. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel/issue
preclusion, and in light of the above-stated facts, the above-
stated findings of the District Court in Jordan v. Al 1 a in > SURI.£,
are binding on the defendants in this case, defendants precluded
from relitigating them in this case, and defendants in this case
are collaterally estopped from denying the facts set forth in
those findings and from contesting them in this case.
38. Mississippi law requires for state, county, and
municipal elections a majority vote for candidates to win a party
primary election and to win any special election to fill a
vacancy in office and prohibits single-shot voting in elections
for public bodies or positions for which there are two or more
positions to be filled. Miss. Code Ann. § 23-3-69 (1972);
Miss. Code Ann. § 23-5-203 (1972); Miss. Code Ann. § 3110 (1972)
(1984 Cum. Supp.); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 21-11-5, 21-11-9, and
21-11-15 (1972).
39. According to the 1980 Census, in the State of Missis
sippi the median family income for whites (all current dollars)
15
is $17,264 and the median family income for blacks is $9,013,
which is 52.21 percent of the median family income for whites.
Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population! General Social
and Economic Characteristics. Mississippi, No. PC80-1-C26, Table
61, p. 40 (1983), a true and correct copy of which is attached as
Exhibit 17.
40. According to the 1980 Census, in the State of Missis
sippi of the 587,450 persons whose income in 1979 was determined
to be below the poverty level, 383,971 were black, which is 65.36
percent of the total. Id. 44.4 percent of all black persons
whose poverty status was determined had incomes below the poverty
level, as compared with 12.6 percent of all white persons. Id.
41. According to the 1980 Census, in the State of Missis
sippi for adults (persons 25 years old and over) the median years
of school completed for whites is 12.4 years and the median years
of school completed for blacks is 9.4 years. Id., Table 76,
p. 58, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 18. 3.5 percent of all adult whites have less than 5
years of elementary school, as compared with 16.7 percent of all
adult blacks. 13. 63.9 percent of all adult whites are high
school graduates, as compared with 32.7 percent of all adult
blacks. 13. 14.4 percent of all adult whites have four or more
years of college, as compared with 7.1 percent of all adult
blacks. Id.
42. According to the 1980 Census, in the State of Missis
sippi as of 1980, 2.8 percent of all whites 16 years of age and
1 6
over were unemployed, as compared with 6.2 percent of all blacks
16 years of age and over. I£. , Table 61, p. 39.
43. According to the 1980 Census, in the State of Missis
sippi of the 181,216 persons employed in managerial and profes
sional speciality occupations, 149,860 (82.70 percent) are white
and 30,050 (16.58 percent) are black. Id., Table 61, p. 40. Of
the 241,786 persons employed in technical, sales, and administra
tive support positions, 206,645 are white (85.47 percent) and
33,838 are black (13.99 percent). Id. Of the 115,426 persons
employed in service occupations, 55,275 are white (47.89 percent)
and 59,043 are black (51.15 percent). Id. 22.9 percent of all
employed blacks 16 years of age and over are employed in service
occupations. Id.
44. According to the 1980 Census, in the State of Missis
sippi the median value of white-owned occupied housing units is
$35,400 and the median value of black-owned occupied housing
units is $20,500. Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Housing^
General Housing Characteristics. Mississipm, No. HC80-1-A26,
Tables 2 and 3, pp. 13, 17, true and correct copies of which are
attached hereto as Exhibit 19. 1.7 percent of all white-occupied
housing units lack complete plumbing for exclusive use, as
compared with 15.7 percent of all black-occupied housing units.
Id. 3.1 percent of all white-occupied housing units have 1.01 or
more persons per room, as compared with 19.3 percent of all
black-occupied housing units. Id.
45. Exhibit 20 attached is a true and correct copy of
1 7
Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Housing. Detailed Housing
Characteristics. Mississippi. No. HC80-1-B26, Tables 61, 63, and
64, pp. 26, 28 , 29 (1983) .
46. Exhibit 20 shows as follows: According to the 1980
Census, in the State of Mississippi there were 576,306 occupied
housing units occupied by white householders, and 38,931 (6.76
percent) had no vehicle available for exclusive use of members of
the household. Id.r Table 63, p. 28. There were 246,151 housing
units occupied by black householders, and 68,390 (27.78 percent)
had no vehicle available for exclusive use of members of the
household. Id., Table 64, p. 29. Of a total 107,968 occupied
housing units in Mississippi with no vehicle available for
exclusive use of members of the household, id* r Table 61, p. 26,
68,390 (63.34 percent) are occupied by blacks, id., Table 64,
p. 29.
47. Exhibit 21, attached, is a true and correct copy of the
Mississippi Statistical Abstract, I 9 M > compiled by the Missis
sippi State University College of Business and Industry, Division
of Research, pp. 114 and 117.
48. According to the Mississippi Statistical Abstrec.,L»,
1984. the Mississippi State Board of Health reported for 1982
that the infant mortality rate for whites was 10.4 per 1,000 live
births and for nonwhites was 20.9 per 1,000 live births. Exhibit
21.
49. Exhibit 22, attached, is. a true and correct copy of an
official state document, Guidelines for the Imple m e n t e t i b n .Of
18
Voter Registration Procedures Under House B i l l s 73-3 ?nd 5.2£ » 1984
Regular Session, issued by the Mississippi Secretary of State in
conjunction with the Office of the Attorney General.
50. Exhibit 23, attached, is a true and correct compilation
of voter registration by county compiled by the Mississippi
Secretary of State's office for June and November, 1980, based
upon information supplied by county Circuit Clerks.
51. Exhibit 24, attached, is a true and correct compilation
of the number of registered voters by county compiled by the
Mississippi Secretary of State's office for October, 1982, and
July, 1983, based upon information supplied by county Circuit
Cl erks.
52. Exhibit 25, attached, is a true and correct compilation
of voter registration estimates by congressional district and by
county compiled by the Mississippi Secretary of State s office
19
for March and October, 1984, based upon information supplied by
county Circuit Clerks.
Respectfully submitted,
FRANK R. PARKER
WILLIAM L. ROBINSON
PATRICIA M. HANRAHAN
Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law
1400 I Street, N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 371-1212
JULIUS L. CHAMBERS
LANI GUINIER
JUDITH REED
NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund
99 Hudson Street
New York, New York 10013
(212) 219-1900
JOHNNIE WALLS
Walls, Buck
Post Office
Greenville,
Attorneys for
& Irving, Ltd.
Box 634
MS 38702-60634
Plaintiffs
2 0
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I have this date caused to be mailed,
via United States Postal Service, first-class postage prepaid, a
copy of the Plaintiffs' First Request for Admission of pacts and
Genuineness of Documents to the following counsel:
R. Lloyd Arnold
Special Assistant
Attorney General
Post Office Box 220
Jackson, Mississippi 39205
Hubbard T. Saunders,
Special Counsel Crosthwait, Terney &
Post Office Box 2398
Jackson, Mississippi
IV
Nobl e
39205-2398
Andrew Carr
Luckett Law Firm, P.A.
Post Office Box 306
Clarksdale, Mississippi 38614
This the ___ day of May, 1985
Frank R. Parker
2 1
LIST OF DOCUMENTS
Exhibit
Exhibi t
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibi t
Exhibit
Exh ibi t
Exhibi t
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibi t
Exhibit
1. 1965 Report of the United States Commission on Civil
Rights, voting in Mississippi
2. Miss. Const, of 1890, §§ 241-244.
3. Miss. Code of 1892, chs. 93 and 113.
4. Miss. Laws, 1952, ch. 454.
5. Miss. Laws, 1954, ch. 427.
6. Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess., ch. 104.
7. Miss. Code of 1942, § 3211.
8. Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess., ch. 103.
9. 1961 Report of the United States Commission on Civil
Rights, Voting. Tables 8 and 8A.
10. H. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess. (1965),
repr in ted in 1965 U. S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2437
(portions).
11. United States Department of Justice, Status Report,
from Hearings on the Voting Rights Act; Before
Senate Committee on the Judiciary. 89th Cong., 1st
Sess., Part 2, pp. 1176-1323.
12. Attachments K and L, testimony of William Bradford
Reynolds, from Voting Rights Act:__Rearing? Befg^e
thP subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate
Judiciary Committee. 97th Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 1,
pp. 1806-17.
13. United States Department of Justice, CoiPPl T.istina of Objections Pursuant to SegtiQr) 5 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, September 30, 1983.
14. Justice Department Section 5 objection letters
15. District Court decision, Jordan v. Winter.
16. Jurisdictional Statement, Allain v. ErpcRs, No. 83-
17. 1980 Census, General Social and Economic Char?Cte.£r
istics. Mississippi, Table 61.
2 2
Exhibit
Exhibi t
Exhibit
Exhibi t
Exhibit
Exhibit
Exhibi t
Exhibit
18. 1980 Census, General Social and Economic Character
istics. Mississippi, Table 76.
19. 1980 Census, General Housing—CharacteriStieSf
Mississippi, Tables 2 and 3.
20. 1980 Census, Detailed Housing CharacteElStlg.S-i_
N[i ssi ssippi. Tables 61, 63, and 64.
21. Mississippi Statistical_AbstraciLi— liLM- pp. 114.
117.
22.
23.
24.
Office of the Secretary of State, Guidelines fQJl— £Jl§
Implementation of Voter Registration Procedures .
finder House Rills 713 and 596 , 1984 Regular Session
Office of the Secretary of State, Number Qf— Regis
tered Voters (1980).
Office of the Secretary of State, Nupber of— Regis~
tered Voters (Oct. 1982, July, 1983).
25 Office of the Secretary of State. MississippiCongressional District Voter Reg j s t r a t i b n Estimates.
October, 1984, and County Voter Registration
Estimates. March, 1984 and October, 1984.
23
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
DELTA DIVISION
MISSISSIPPI STATE CHAPTER, OPERATION
PUSH, INC., et al..
Plaintiffs,
v . NO. DC 84-35-WK-O
WILLIAM A. ALLAIN, Governor of
Mississippi, et al.,
Defendants.
RESPONSES AND OBJECTIONS OF ALL DEFENDANTS (EXCEPT
DEFENDANT ROBERT L. CARTER) TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS AND GENUINENESS OF
____________________ DOCUMENTS_____________________
Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 36 and hereby reserving
any and all objections to the admissibility of any of
these responses into evidence in this action, all defen
dants (except Defendant Robert L. Carter), by and through
their attorneys, hereby respond and/or object to the
Plaintiffs' First Request for Admission of Facts and
Genuineness of Documents (served by mail on May 10, 1985).
These defendants respond and/or object as follows:
These defendants object generally to the request to
the extent that it requests specific identification of the
inquiries made by these defendants and specific correct
answers if the requests are incorrect. Such requests are
unduly burdensome, oppressive, and annoying. Further,
such requests constitute interrogatories which exceed the
limitations on the number of interrogatories imposed by
the local rules of court and which improperly seek to
require the defendants to prove a negative.
REQUEST NO. 1: Mississippi has a past history of
official discrimination that touched the right of black
citizens to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate
in the democratic process.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that
there are court decisions which have ruled that specific
practices discriminated against black citizens on the
basis of race.
REQUEST NO. 2; The primary purpose of the
Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1890 was to dis
enfranchise Mississippi's black citizens and to secure
white supremacy in Mississippi politics.
RESPONSE: Denied.
REQUEST NO. 3: The Mississippi Constitutional Con
vention of 1890 met in August, 1890. The following state
ments of the purpose of that convention were made by
elegates [sic]:
(a) "Sir, it is no secret that there has not been a
full vote and a fair count in Mississippi since 1875 —
that we have been preserving the ascendency of the white
people by revolutionary methods. In plain words, we have
been stuffing ballot boxes, committing perjury and here
and there in the State carrying the elections by fraud and
violence until the whole machinery for elections was about
to rot down.
Judge J. B. Chrisman, quoted in the (Jackson) Clarion
Ledger, September 1 1, 1980, p. 1, col. 1.
-2-
(b) "The avowed purpose of calling [this] Convention was to restrict the negro vote . . . "
Mr. McLaurin of Sharkey County, quoted in the (Jackson)
Clarion Ledger, Sept. 25, 1890, p. 3, col. 3.
(c) "I will agree that this is a government of the
people, by the people, and for the people; but what
people? When this declaration was made by our forefathers
it was for the Anglo Saxon people. That is what we are
here for today — to secure the supremacy of the white race."
Mr. McGehee of Franklin County, quoted in the (Jackson) Clarion Ledger, Sept. 18, 1890, p. 3, col. 3.
(d) "We want them [the Negroes] here, but their own
good and our own demands that we shall devise some means
by which they shall be practically excluded from the government control."
Judge S. S. Calhoun [sic], president of the Convention,
quoted in the (Jackson) Clarion Ledger, Sept. 18, 1890, p.3, col. 2.
(e) "But, sir, this Constitution is not for theDemocrats, but is for . . . the white people of this
State regardless of their party affiliations."
Mr. Edward Mayes, delegate at-large, quoted in the
(Jackson) Clarion Ledger, Sept. 18, 1890, p. 1, col. 3.
(f) "The white people of the State want to feel and
know that they are protected not only against the proba
bility but the possibility of negro rule and negro domination . "
Mr. W. S. Eskridge of Tallahatchie County, quoted in the (Jackson) Clarion Ledger, Sept. 18, 1890, p. 1, col. 3.
1965 Report of the United States Commission on Civil
Rights, Voting in Mississippi (hereinafter "Voting in Mississippi"), p. 3~, a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit the
Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1890 convened on
-3-
August 12, 1890, and that Exhibit 1 is a true and correct
copy of the 1965 Report of the United States Commission on
Civil Rights, Voting in Mississippi.
REQUEST NO. 4: Because the Fifteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitution prohibited an express
denial of the franchise to black citizens, the 1890 Con
stitutional Convention adopted indirect and seemingly
neutral qualifications and procedures to deny black
citizens the right to register and vote.
RESPONSE: Denied.
REQUEST NO. 5; The Mississippi Constitutional Con
vention of 1890 adopted the Mississippi Constitution of
1890. This Constitution of 1890 included provisions for
(1) a poll tax, (2) a literacy test for voter registra
tion, (3) a durational residency requirement of two years
in the state and one year in the election district, and
(4) a disfranchising crimes provision, all designed to
exclude black citizens from participation in the electoral
process. Miss. Const, of 1890, Art. 12, §§ 241-244;
Voting in Mississippi, pp. 4-6; Ratliff v. Beale, 74 Miss.
247, 266-68, 20 So. 865, 868-69 (1896). True and correct
copies of Sections 241 through 244 of the Mississippi
Constitution of 1890 are attached hereto as Exhibit 2
(original provisions of Sections 241 and 244 are in italics).
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that the
Mississippi Constitutional Convention of 1890 adopted the
Mississippi Constitution of 1890 which as adopted in 1890
included provisions for a poll tax, Miss. Const. Art. 12,
§ 243 (1890); a requirement that an elector be able to
read any section of that Constitution; or that he be able
to understand the same when read to him, or give a reason
able interpretation therefore, _id̂. § 244; a requirement
that to qualify as an elector an inhabitant must reside in
-4-
the state for two years and in the election district for
one year, _id_, § 241; and a requirement that an inhabitant
to qualify as an elector never have been convicted of
bribery, theft, arson, obtaining money or goods under
false pretense, perjury, forgery, embezzlement or bigamy,
id. § 241.
REQUEST NO. 6: A true and correct copy of the
Mississippi Code of 1892, chapter 93, pertaining to munic
ipalities, and chapter 113, pertaining to registration and elections, is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
RESPONSE; Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 7: In 1892, the Mississippi Legislaturein its next regular session following the adoption of the
Mississippi Constitution of 1890 adopted statutes to codi
fy and implement the voting and voter registration pro
visions of the Constitution of 1890. Miss. Code of 1892, ch. 113, §§ 3612, 3613, 3614, 3631.
RESPONSE; Denied. These defendants admit that in
1892 the Mississippi Legislature adopted sections 3612,
3613, 3614, and 3631 of the Annotated Mississippi Code of
1892.
REQUEST NO. 8; The Mississippi Legislature in the
Code of 1892 also adopted Sections 3028 and 3029 providing
for separate voter registration in municipalities and for
the appointment of municipal registrars of voters to reg
ister voters to vote in municipal elections. Exhibit 3, attached.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that the
Mississippi Legislature enacted Sections 3028 and 3029 of
the Annotated Mississippi Code of 1892, Exhibit 3.
-5-
REQUEST NO. 9: By 1892, only an estimated 5.7
percent of the black voting age population of Mississippi
was registered to vote. Voting in Mississippi, p. 8.
RESPONSE: Denied.
REQUEST NO. 10: in 1902 the Mississippi Legislature
adopted a statute authorizing political parties to exclude
any person from participation in party affairs, including primary elections. Miss. Laws, 1902, ch. 66.
RESPONSE; Denied. These defendants admit that in
1902 the Mississippi Legislature adopted 1902 Miss. Laws
ch. 66.
REQUEST NO. 11; in 1907 the Mississippi State Demo-
cratic Executive Committee adopted a "white primary" rule
limiting voting in Democratic primary elections to "white democrats." Voting in Mississippi, p. 7.
RESPONSE: Denied.
REQUEST NO. 12: In 1951 the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in Peay v. Cox, 190 F.2d 123
(5th Cir. 1951), cert, denied, 342 U.S. 896 (1951), re
versed the District Court's dismissal of a lawsuit chal
lenging the alleged practice of the Registrar of Forrest
County, Mississippi, of requiring black applicants for voter registration but not white applicants to be able
both to read and to interpret to the satisfaction of the
registrar any section of the Mississippi Constitution. In
its opinion the Fifth Circuit in dictum construed the
state statute only to require an ability to read or to
interpret any section of the constitution, not both. 190 F.2d at 126.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 13: The following year the MississippiLegislature passed a resolution to amend Section 244 of
the Mississippi Constitution to require all applicants for
voter registration to be able to read and interpret any
section of the Mississippi Constitution. Miss. Laws,
1952, ch. 454. This proposed constitutional amendment was
defeated in a referendum in the November, 1952 election. Voting in Mississippi, p. 5.
-6-
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that in
1952 the Mississippi Legislature adopted a resolution
which proposed an amendment to Section 244 of the
Mississippi Constitution of 1890 to require that electors
be able to read and write any section of the Constitution
and give a reasonable interpretation thereof. These de
fendants further admit that this resolution was defeated
at an election in November, 1952.
REQUEST NO. 14: A true and correct copy of Miss.
Laws, 1952, ch. 454 is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 15: In 1954 the United States Supreme
Court prohibited state-sponsored public school segregation
in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954).
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that in
1954 the United States Supreme Court held that segregation
of children in public schools solely on the basis of race,
even though the physical facilities and other tangible
factors may be equal, deprive children of the minority
group of equal educational opportunities in violation of
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution. Brown v. Board of Educa
tion, 373 U.S. 483, 493-95 (1954).
REQUEST NO. 16: In its 1954 regular session the
Mississippi Legislature adopted a resolution to amend
Section 244 of the Mississippi Constitution to require
applicants for voter registration to demonstrate "a rea
sonable understanding of the duties and obligations of
citizenship under a constitutional form of government."
-7-
Miss. Laws, 1954, ch. 427. The proposed constitutional
amendment exempted all persons registered to vote before
January 1, 1954. In the campaign for its ratification,
proponents of the amendment stated that its purpose was
"solely to limit Negro registration." Jackson Daily News,
Oct. 28, 1954. The amendment was adopted by referendum
in November, 1954. This constitutional amendment was then
implemented by the Mississippi Legislature in its
extraordinary session in January, 1955. Miss. Laws, 1955
Extra. Sess., ch. 104. Voting in Mississippi, p. 6.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that in
1954 at its regular session the Mississippi Legislature
adopted a resolution proposing an amendment to Section 244
of the Mississippi Constitution of 1890 which provided in
part that an elector shall demonstrate "a reasonable
understanding of the duties and obligations of citizenship
under a constitutional form of government. . . . ", and
that new or additional qualifications imposed by that
section shall not be required of any person who was a duly
registered and qualified elector of this state prior to
January 1, 1954, 1952 Miss. Laws ch. 427; that the amend
ment was ratified at an election in November, 1954; and
that this amendment was placed into effect by the
Mississippi Legislature at its extraordinary session in
1955, 1955 Miss. Laws (Extra. Sess.) ch. 104.
REQUEST NO. 17: True and correct copies of Miss.
Laws, 1954, ch. 427, and Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess.,
ch. 104 are attached hereto as Exhibit 5 and 6.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 18: Also during this 1955 extraordinary
session of the Mississippi Legislature, the state legisla
-8-
ture enacted a companion statute, Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra.
Sess., ch. 103.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 19: Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess., ch.
103 amended Miss. Code of 1942, S 3211. Prior to the
amendment, Section 3211 required county registrars in
regular county election years to register voters up to
four months before the election at their several polling
places, spending not less than one whole day at each polling place, and to publish for three consecutive weeks
notice of the times and places of such visits.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that 1955
Miss. Laws (Extra. Sess.) ch. 103 amended Miss. Code Ann.
§ 321 1 ( 1942) .
REQUEST NO. 20: Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra Sess., ch.
103 amended Section 3211 to provide:
The registration books shall not be removed from the
office of the county registrar; provided, however,
during the year of the regular county and general
election, or in the event a new registration be
ordered by the board of supervisors, as provided by
law, the board of supervisors, by proper order
entered upon its minutes, may order the registrar to
visit and spend not exceeding one day at any voting
precinct in his county, and not less than four (4)
months before said election, for the purpose of
registering voters, after having given notice by publication of the times and places of such visits.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that 1955
Miss. Laws (Extra. Sess.) ch. 103 amended Miss. Code Ann.
§ 321 1 ( 1942) .
REQUEST NO. 21: A true and correct copy of Miss.
Code of 1942, § 3211 prior to the 1955 amendment is at
tached hereto as Exhibit 7.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
-9-
REQUEST NO. 22: A true and correct copy of Miss.
Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess., ch. 103 is attached hereto as Exhibit 8.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 23: Miss. Laws, 1955 Extra. Sess., ch.103 was enacted for the purpose of limiting the opportu
nities of black citizens to register to vote.
RESPONSE: Denied.
REQUEST NO. 24 ; In 1960, the Mississippi Constitution was amended to require "good moral character" as
a qualification for voting (Miss. Const. § 241a). In
1962, the Mississippi Legislature also repealed a statute
which had provided that voter application forms be re
tained as permanent public records, and substituted a new
rule which allowed registrars to dispose of application forms (Miss. Laws, 1962, ch. 44, § 2).
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that the
Mississippi Constitution of 1890 was amended in 1960 by
insert of a section which provided that qualified electors
"shall be of good moral character," Miss. Const. Art. 12,
§ 241-A, and that this section was repealed in 1965.
REQUEST NO. 25: In 1962, a number of other provisions relating to voter registration were enacted by the
Mississippi Legislature, including laws that an applicant
demonstrate "good moral character," (Miss. Laws, 1962, ch.
569, § 1) that applicants fill in all blanks on the appli
cation form "properly and responsively" without assistance
(Miss. Laws, 1962, ch. 570, § 1), that registrars to [sic]
be prohibited from telling an applicant why they were re-
jected (Miss. Laws, 1962, ch. 571, § 2), that all appli
cants' names be published in the newspaper (Miss. Laws,
1962, ch. 572, S 1), that any applicants' qualifications
could be challenged by any voter (Miss. Laws, 1962, ch.
573, § 2), and that all designation of race be eliminated
from county poll books (Miss. Laws, 1962, ch. 574, §
-10-
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that in
1962 the Mississippi Legislature enacted several statutes
which dealt with voter registration, 1962 Miss. Laws chs.
569, 570, 571, 572, 573 & 574.
REQUEST NO. 26: According to the 1961 Report of the
United States Commission on Civil Rights, Voting, Tables 8
and 8A, true and correct copies of which are attached
hereto as Exhibit 9, as of 1961 only 6.1 percent of the
black voting age population in Mississippi was registered to vote.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that Ex
hibit 9 is a true and correct copy of Tables 8 and 8A from
the 1961 Report of the United States Commission on Civil
Rights, Voting.
REQUEST NO. 27: In 1965 in the House Report on the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, H. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong.,
1st Sess. (1965), 1965 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 2437, a
true and correct copy of portions of which are attached
hereto as Exhibit 10, the House Judiciary Committee
determined (p. 2441) that in 1964 only 6.4 percent of the
voting age Negroes in Mississippi were registered to vote.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that Ex
hibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the title page and
pages 2437-2444 of Volume 2 of the 1965 U.S. Code Cong. &
Ad. News.
REQUEST NO. 28: Exhibit 11, attached, is a true and
correct copy of the Justice Department Status Report on
Mississippi voter registration cases contained in the
Hearings on the Voting Rights Act of 1965 Before the
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., Part 2, pp. 1176-1323.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 29: In 1965, a unanimous Supreme Court,
in an opinion written by Justice Black, described Mis
sissippi's past history of discrimination as "a long
standing, carefully prepared, and faithfully observed plan
to bar Negroes from voting in the State of Mississippi, a
plan which the registration statistics . . . would seem
to show had been remarkably successful." United States v.
Mississippi, 380 U.S. 128, 135-136 (1965).
RESPONSE; Denied.
REQUEST NO. 30: The State of Mississippi since 1965
has been and is covered by the suspension of tests pro
vision (Section 4) and the Federal preclearance of voting
law changes provision (Section 5) of the Voting Rights Act
of 1965.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 31: According to exhibits presented by
William Bradford Reynolds, who was the Assistant Attorney
General in charge of the Civil Rights Division of the
United States Department of Justice, in his testimony in
1982 on extension of the Voting Rights Act, Voting Rights
Actt: Hearings Before the Subcommittee on the Con
stitution of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th
Cong., 2d Sess., Vol. 1, Attachments K and L, pp. 1806-17
(1982), true and correct copies of which are attached here
to as Exhibit 12, since the Voting Rights Act was passed 42 Mississippi counties — more than in any other state —
have been designated for Federal examiners (registrars)
under the Voting Rights Act, and between 1975 and 1981
Federal observers have been sent to observe elections in
numerous Mississippi counties.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 32: Exhibit 13, attached hereto, is a
true and correct copy of the United States Department of
Justice Complete Listing of Objections Pursuant to Section
5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as of September 30,
1983.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 33: Exhibit 14, attached hereto, is a
correct copy of Justice Department Section 5 objections to
-1 2-
voting law changes enacted by the Mississippi Legislature
from 1965 to 1982.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 34: In Jordan v. Winter, Civil Nos.
GC82-80-WK-0 and GC82-81-WK-0 (N.D. Miss. April 16, 1984),
a true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as
Exhibit 15, the three-judge District Court made the following findings:
(a) "That Mississippi has a long history of de jure
and de facto race discrimination is not contested. That
history has been often recounted in judicial decisions and
includes the use of such discriminatory devices as poll
taxes, literacy tests, residency requirements, white
primaries, and the use of violence to intimidate blacks
from registering for the vote. The State is a covered
jurisdiction under the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The
Attorney General has designated 42 of the counties in
Mississippi for federal registrar enforcement of the right
to vote." (p. 9) (footnote omitted)
(b) "We find that the effects of the historical
official discrimination in Mississippi presently impede
black voter registration and turnout. Black registration
in the Delta area is still disproportionately lower than
white registration. No black has been elected to Congress
since the Reconstruction period, and none has been elected
to statewide office in this century. Blacks hold less
than ten percent of all elective offices in Mississippi,
though they constitute 35% of the state's population and a
majority of the population of 22 counties.
The evidence of socio-economic disparities between
blacks and whites in the Delta area and the state as a
whole is also probative of minorities' unequal access to
the political process in Mississippi. Blacks in
Mississippi, especially in its Delta region, generally
have less education, lower incomes, and more menial
occupations than whites. The State of Mississippi has a
history of segregated school systems that provided
inferior education to blacks. See United States
Commission on Civil Rights, Voting in Mississippi, pp. 3-4
(1965). Census statistics indicate lingering effects of
this past discrimination: the median family income in the
Delta Region (Second District) for whites is $17,467,
compared to $7,447 for blacks; more than half of the adult
blacks in the Second District have attained only 0 to 8
-13-
years of schooling, while the majority of white adults in
this District have completed four years of high school;
the unemployment rate for blacks is two to three times
that for whites; and blacks generally live in inferior
housing." (pp. 9-10) (footnote omitted)
(c) "Plaintiffs have established that voters in
Mississippi have previously voted and continue to vote on
the basis of the race of candidates for elective office.
The state defendants have conceded as much prior to the
1982 elections, but attempted to show a [sic] trial that
the 1982 campaign in the Second District was not charac
terized by racial bloc voting. The evidence defendants
presented was that the black Democratic candidate, Robert
Clark, received approximately 15% of the white vote in the
1982 general election and that Clark won the Democratic
nomination in a primary contest against white opponents.
The primary election in the Second District conducted
under our prior plan was characterized by confusion and
low voter turnout due to a variety of factors, including
uncertainty about election dates, the recent realignment
of the district, and the lack of an incumbent. The race
was additionally atypical because of a court order al
lowing Republican voters to participate in the Democratic
primary. Clark's victory in the primary was followed by
defeat in the general election — a defeat we find was
caused in part by racial bloc voting. Plaintiffs' proof,
also based on analysis of these election returns, demon
strated a consistently high degree of racially polarized
voting in the 1982 election and previous elections. From
all of the evidence, we conclude that blacks consistently
lose elections in Mississippi because the majority of
voters choose their preferred candidates on the basis of
race. We therefore find racial bloc voting operates to
dilute black voting strength in Congressional districts
where blacks constitute a minority of the voting age population." (p. 11)
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 35: The above-stated facts set forth in
Request No. 34 found by the District Court in Jordan v. Winter are true.
RESPONSE; Denied.
REQUEST NO. 36; The following facts are true
- 1 4 -
(a) The Mississippi State Board of Election Com
missioners, who are the defendants in this case, were also
defendants in Jordan v. Winter, supra, and represented the
interests of the State of Mississippi. The defendant Cir
cuit Clerks and Municipal Clerks in this case were not
named defendants in Jordan v. Winter but are agents of the
State of Mississippi and agents of the Mississippi State
Board of Election Commissioners and were and are in
privity with the Mississippi State Board of Election
Commissioners.
(b) Plaintiffs Samuel McCray and Robert Jackson were
plaintiffs in Jordan v. Winter/Brooks v. Winter and also
are plaintiffs in this case.
(c) The facts found by the District Court set forth
in Request No. 34 were actual issues in Jordan v. Winter, were litigated by the parties, were necessary to the cause
of action and to the District Court's decision in that
case, and were decided adversely to the defendants' posi
tion .
(d) The Mississippi State Board of Election Com
missioners, who are the same defendants as in this case,
filed a Jurisdictional Statement in the United States
Supreme Court contesting the findings of the District
Court in Jordan v. Winter, set out above, that political
participation and voter registration by blacks in the
Delta region and in the State as a whole were depressed
and that voting in Mississippi elections and in the 1982
congressional election in the Second District was racially
polarized. Jurisdictional Statement, Allain v. Brooks,
No. 83-2053, pp. 10-13, a true and correct copy of which
is attached as Exhibit 16. The United States Supreme
Court summarily affirmed the decision of the District
Court, thus rejecting the challenges of the Mississippi
State Board of Election Commissioners to those findings.
Mississippi Republican Executive Committee v. Allain, ____
___ U.S._____ , 83 S. Ct. 343 ( 1984).
RESPONSE: (a) Denied. These defendants admit that
the Mississippi State Board of Election Commissioners, who
are defendants in this case, were also defendants in
Jordan v. Winter and represented the interests of the
State of Mississippi.
- 1 5 -
RESPONSE: (b) Admitted.
RESPONSE: (c) & (d) These defendants object to these
requests for admission on the grounds that they improperly
seek the admission of pure questions of law.
REQUEST NO. 37: Under the doctrine of collateral
estoppel/issue preclusion, and in light of the above-
stated facts, the above-stated findings of the District
Court in Jordan v. Allain, supra, are binding on the
defendants in this case, defendants precluded from
relitigating them in this case, and defendants in this
case are collaterally estopped from denying the facts set
forth in those findings and from contesting them in this
case.
RESPONSE: These defendants object to this request
for admission on the grounds that it improperly seeks the
admission of a pure question of law.
REQUEST NO. 38: Mississippi law requires for state,
county, and municipal elections a majority vote for candi
dates to win a party primary election and to win any spe
cial election to fill a vacancy in office and prohibits
single-shot voting in elections for public bodies or posi
tions for which there are two or more positions to be
filled. Miss. Code Ann. § 23-3-69 (1972); Miss. Code Ann.
§ 23-5-203 (1972); Miss. Code Ann. § 3110 (1972) (1984
Cum. Supp.); Miss. Code Ann. §§ 21-11-5, 21-11-9, and
21-11-15 (1972).
RESPONSE: These defendants object to this request
for admission on the grounds that it improperly seeks the
admission of a pure question of law.
REQUEST NO. 39: According to the 1980 Census, in the
State of Mississippi the median family income for whites
(all current dollars) is $17,264 and the median family in
come for blacks is $9,013, which is 52.21 percent of the
median family income for whites. Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population, General Social and Economic
-16-
Characteristics, Mississippi. No. PC80-1-C26, Table 61, p.
40 (1983), a true and correct copy of which is attached as Exhibit 17.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that ac
cording to the 1980 Census estimates based upon samples in
the State of Mississippi the median family income (ex
cluding, among others, the value of income "in kind" from
food stamps, public housing subsidies, and medical care)
for whites (all current 1980 dollars) was $17,264, and the
median family income (excluding, among others, the value
of income "in kind" from food stamps, public housing sub
sidies, and medical care) for blacks was $9,013, which was
52.21 percent of the median family income for whites.
Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of Population, General
Social and Economic Characteristics, Mississippi, No.
PC80-1-C26, Table 61, p. 40 (1983), a true and correct
copy of which is attached to the plaintiffs' requests as
Exhibit 17.
REQUEST NO. 40: According to the 1980 Census, in the
State of Mississippi of the 587,450 persons whose income
in 1979 was determined to be below the poverty level,
383,971 were black, which is 65.36 percent of the total.
_I<3. 44.4 percent of all black persons whose poverty status
was determined had incomes below the poverty level, as
compared with 12.6 percent of all white persons. Id.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that ac
cording to the 1980 Census estimates based upon samples,
in the State of Mississippi of the 587,450 persons whose
income (excluding, among others, the value of income "in
- 1 7 -
kind" from food stamps, public housing subsidies, and
medical care) in 1979 was determined to be below the
poverty level, 383,971 were black, which is 65.36 percent
of the total, id., and that 44.4 percent of all black per
sons whose poverty status was determined had incomes (ex
cluding, among others, the value of income "in kind" from
food stamps, public housing subsidies, and medical care)
below the poverty level, as compared with 12.6 percent of
all white persons whose poverty status was determined.
Id.
REQUEST NO. 41: According to the 1980 Census, in the
State of Mississippi for adults (persons 25 years old and
over) the median years of school completed for whites is
12.4 years and the median years of school completed for
blacks is 9.4 years. _I(3., Table 76, p. 58, a true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 18.
3.5 percent of all adult whites have less than 5 years of
elementary school, as compared with 16.7 percent of all
adult blacks. _I<3. 63.9 percent of all adult whites are
high school graduates, as compared with 32.7 percent of
all adult blacks. _Id_. 14.4 percent of all adult whites
have four or more years of college, as compared with 7.1
percent of all adult blacks. Id.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that, ac
cording to the 1980 Census estimates based upon samples,
in the State of Mississippi for persons 25 years old and
over the median years of school completed for whites was
12.4 years and the median years of school completed for
blacks was 9.4 years. _Id̂ ., Table 76, p. 58, a true and
correct copy of which is attached to the plaintiffs' re
- 1 8 -
quest as Exhibit 18. These defendants further admit that
according to the same census table 3.5 percent of the
white persons 25 years of age and older had less than 5
years of elementary school, as compared with 16.7 percent
of black persons 25 years of age and older, _id̂. ; 63.9 per
cent of white persons 25 years of age and older were high
school graduates, as compared with 32.7 percent of black
persons 25 years of age and older, _ic[. ; and 14.4 percent
of white persons 25 years of age and older had 4 or more
years of college, as compared with 7.1 percent of black
persons 25 years of age and older. Id.
REQUEST NO. 42; According to the 1980 Census, in the
State of Mississippi as of 1980, 2.8 percent of all whites
16 years of age and over were unemployed, as compared with
6.2 percent of all blacks 16 years of age and over. Id.,
Table 61, p. 39.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that, ac
cording to the 1980 Census estimates based upon samples,
in the State of Mississippi as of 1980, 2.8 percent of
whites 16 years of age and over were unemployed, as com
pared with 6.6 percent of blacks 16 years of age and over.
Id., Table 61, p. 39.
REQUEST NO. 43: According to the 1980 Census, in the
State of Mississippi of the 181,216 persons employed in
managerial and professional speciality occupations,
149,860 (82.70 percent) are white and 30,050 (16.58 per
cent) are black. _I<3., Table 61, p. 40. Of the 241,786
persons employed in technical, sales, and administrative
support positions, 206,645 are white (85.47 percent) and
33,838 are black (13.99 percent). _Id. Of the 115,426
persons employed in service occupations, 55,275 are white
- 1 9 -
(47.89 percent) and 59,043 are black (51.15 percent). Id.
22.9 percent of all employed blacks 16 years of age and
over are employed in service occupations. Id.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that, ac
cording to the 1980 Census estimates based upon samples,
in the State of Mississippi of 181,216 persons 16 years
and over employed in managerial and professional specialty
occupations, 149,860 (82.70 percent) were white and 30,050
(16.58 percent) were black, _ic[., Table 61, p. 40; of
241,786 persons 16 years and over employed in technical
sales, and administrative support occupations, 206,645
(85.47 percent) were white and 33,838 (14.0 percent) were
black, id.; of 115,426 persons 16 years and over employed
in service occupations, 55,275 (47.89 percent) were white
and 59,043 (51.15 percent) were black, _id_. ; and 22.9 per
cent of employed black persons 16 years and over were em
ployed in service occupations. Id.
REQUEST NO. 44: According to the 1980 Census, in the
State of Mississippi the median value of white-owned oc
cupied housing units is $35,400 and the median value of
black-owned occupied housing units is $20,500. Bureau of
the Census, 1980 Census of Housing, General Housing Char
acteristics, Mississippi, No. HC80-1-A26, Tables 2 and 3,
pp. 13, 17, true and correct copies of which are attached
hereto as Exhibit 19. 1.7 percent of all white-occupied
housing units lack complete plumbing for exclusive use, as
compared with 15.7 percent of all black-occupied housing
units. Id. 3.1 percent of all white-occupied housing
units have 1.01 or more persons per room, as compared with
19.3 percent of all black-occupied housing units. Id.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that, ac
cording to the 1980 Census, in the State of Mississippi
-20-
the median value of white-owned occupied housing units was
$35,400 and the median value of black-owned occupied
housing units was $20,500, Bureau of the Census, 1980
Census of Housing, General Housing Characteristics,
Mississippi, No. HC80-1-A26, Tables 2 and 3, pp. 13-20,
true and correct copies of which are attached to the
plaintiffs' request as Exhibit 19; that 1.7 percent of
white-occupied housing units lacked complete plumbing for
exclusive use, as compared with 15.7 percent of black-
occupied housing units, _id. ; and that 3.1 percent of
white-owned housing units had 1.01 or more persons per
room, as compared with 19.3 percent of black-occupied
housing units. Id.
REQUEST NO. 45; Exhibit 20 attached is a true and
correct copy of Bureau of the Census, 1980 Census of
Housing, Detailed Housing Characteristics, Mississippi,
No. HC80-1-B26, Tables 61, 63, and 64, pp. 26, 28, 29
( 1983) .
RESPONSE; Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 46: Exhibit 20 shows as follows;
According to the 1980 Census, in the State of Mississippi
there were 576,306 occupied housing units occupied by
white householders, and 38,931 (6.76 percent) had no
vehicle available for exclusive use of members of the
household, ^d^., Table 63, p. 28. There were 246, 151
housing units occupied by black householders, and 68,390
(27.78 percent) had no vehicle available for exclusive use
of members of the household. _I<3., Table 64, p. 29. Of a
total 107,968 occupied housing units in Mississippi with no vehicle available for exclusive use of members of the
household, id., Table 61, p. 26, 68,390 (63.34 percent)
are occupied by blacks, id., Table 64, p. 29.
-21-
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit Exhibit 20
shows that, according to the 1980 census estimates based
upon samples, in the State of Mississippi of 576,306
white-occupied housing units 38,931 (6.76 percent) had no
vehicle available at home for the use of the members of
the household, _id̂ ., Table 63, p. 28; of 246, 151 black-
occupied housing units 68,390 (27.78 percent) had no
vehicle available at home for the use of the members of
the household, _id̂ ., Table 64, p. 29; and of a total of
107,968 occupied housing units in Mississippi with no
vehicle available at home for the use of members of the
household, ., Table 61, p. 26, 68,390 (63.34 percent)
were occupied by blacks, _ic3., Table 64, p. 29.
REQUEST NO. 47: Exhibit 21, attached, is a true and
correct copy of the Mississippi Statistical Abstract,
1984, compiled by the Mississippi State University College
of Business and Industry, Division of Research, pp. 114
and 117.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 48: According to the Mississippi Statis
tical Abstract, 1984, the Mississippi State Board of
Health reported for 1982 that the infant mortality rate
for whites was 10.4 per 1,000 live births and for non
whites was 20.9 per 1,000 live births. Exhibit 21.
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 49: Exhibit 22, attached, is a true and
correct copy of an official state document, Guidelines for
the Implementation of Voter Registration Procedures Under
House Bills 713 and 596, 1984 Regular Session, issued by
the Mississippi Secretary of State in conjunction with the
Office of the Attorney General.
-22-
RESPONSE: Admitted.
REQUEST NO. 50: Exhibit 23, attached, is a true and
correct compilation of voter registration by county
compiled by the Mississippi Secretary of State's office
for June and November, 1980, based upon information
supplied by county circuit clerks.
RESPONSE: Denied.
REQUEST NO. 51: Exhibit 24, attached is a
correct compilation of the number of registered
county compiled by the Mississippi Secretary of
office for October, 1982, and July, 1983, based
information supplied by county Circuit Clerks.
true and
voters by
State ' s
upon
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that
Exhibit 24 is a true and correct copy of a list concerning
registered voters in October, 1982, and July, 1983,
prepared by the Secretary of State's office based upon
information supplied by the county circuit clerks.
REQUEST NO. 52: Exhibit 25, attached, is a true and
correct compilation of voter registration estimates by
congressional district and by county compiled by the
Mississippi Secretary of State's office for March and
October, 1984, based upon information supplied by county
Circuit Clerks.
RESPONSE: Denied. These defendants admit that
Exhibit 25 is a true and correct copy of the document
entitled "Mississippi Congressional District Voter
Registration Estimates" prepared by the Secretary of
State's office based upon information supplied by county
circuit clerks.
This, the day of June, 1985.
Respectfully submitted,
-23-
WILLIAM A. ALLAIN, Governor of
Mississippi, EDWIN L. PITTMAN,
Attorney General of Mississippi,
DICK MOLPUS, Secretary of State of
Mississippi, in their official
capacities and as members of the
STATE BOARD OF ELECTION
COMMISSIONERS; LILLIE B. BROWN,
Circuit Clerk and County Registrar
of Quitman County; MARTHA SELLERS,
City Clerk and City Registrar of
Crenshaw, Mississippi; BILLIE JONES, City Clerk and City Registrar of
Sledge, Mississippi; and ROYLIENE C.
GRIFFIN, City Clerk and City
Registrar of Crowder, Mississippi,
Defendants
BY: EDWIN LLOYD PITTMANATTORNEY GENERAL
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
R. Lloyd Arnold
Special Assistant Attorney General
p". 0. Box 220
Jackson, MS 39205
601-359-3680
/ >
Special Counsel
Crosthwait, Terney & Noble
P. O. Box 2398
Jackson, MS 39225-2398
601-352-5533
Attorneys for Defendants (except
Defendant Robert L. Carter)
-24-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Hubbard T. Saunders, IV, one of the attorneys for
these defendants, hereby certify that I have this day
mailed via United States Postal Service, first-class
postage prepaid, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
Responses and Objections of All Defendants (Except
Defendant Robert L. Carter) to Plaintiffs' First Request
for Admission of Facts and Genuineness of Documents to
each of the following attorneys of record at their last
known mailing address:
Frank R. Parker, Esq.Patricia M. Hanrahan, Esq.
Lawyers' Committee for Civil
Rights Under Law
1400 Eye St., N.W., Suite 400
Washington, D.C. 20005
Julius L. Chambers, Esq.
Lani Guinier, Esq.
Judith Reed, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor
New York, New York 10013
Johnnie E. Walls, Jr., Esq.
Walls, Buck & Irving, Ltd.
P.O. Box 634
Greenville, MS 38702-0634
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
W. O. Luckett, Jr., Esq.
Andrew R. Carr, Jr., Esq.
Luckett Law Firm, P.A.
P.O. Box 306
Clarksdale, MS 38614
Attorneys for Defendant Robert L. Carter
n (This, the / - W day of June, 1985.
HUBBARD T. SAUNDERS, IV