Clark v. Marengo County Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the United States

    l 

-- .. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

) 
JAMES B. CLARK, ) 

) 
Plaintiff, ) 

) 
v. ) Civil Action No. 78-445-H 

) 
MARENGO COUNTY, ) 

) 
Defendant. ) 

) 
) 

UN I TED STATES OF AHERICA, ) 
) 

Plaintiff, ) 
) Civil Action No . 78-474-H 

v. ) 
) 

MARENGO COUNTY COMHISSION, ) (Consolidated Action) 
et a . ' 

Defendants. ) 
) 
) 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THE UNITED STATES 

J. B. SESSIONS, III 
United States Attorney 

WM. BRADFORD REYNOLDS 
Assistant Attorney General 

GERALD W. JONES 
PAUL F. HA.l\!COCK 
J. GERALD HEBERT 
CHRISTOPHER G. LEHMANN 
Attorneys, Voting Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
l Oth and Constitution Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20530 



<\ 

.. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAJ~ 

NORTHERN DIVISION .. 
) 

JAHES B. q .. ARK, ) .t 

) 
Plaintiff, ) 

) 
v. ) Civil Action No. 78-445-H 

) 
l1ARENGO COUNTY, ) 

) 
Defendant. ) 

) 
) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 
) 

Plaintiff, ) 
) Civil Action No. 78-474-H 

v. ) 
) 

l'1ARENGO COUNTY COHMISSION, ) (Consolida~ed Action) 
et a .. 

Defendants. ) 
) 
) 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THE UNITED STATES 

J. B. SESSIONS, III 
United States Attorney 

" . .. 

WM. BRADFORD REYNOLDS 
Assistant Attorney General 

GERALD W. JONES 
PAUL F. HANCOCK 
J. GERALD HEBERT 
CHRISTOPHER G. LEHMANN 
Attorneys, Voting Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
lOth and Constitution Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D. C. 20530 

.. 



,, 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY •••••.•••..••••••.•• 

I I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY • • • • • . • . • • • • • • • • • • . • . • . • • . 3 

III. FINDINGS OF FACT............................ 7 

IV. 

A. BaCkground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 

B. Efforts by Black Candidates to Achieve 
Elective Office ..•••......•••.••..•.•..• 8 

C. Participation by Black Voters .•....••.•. 11 

D. Maintenance of the At-Lar~e tlection 
Systems • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 1 5 

E. Existence of Racial Bloc Voting •.•.••••. 17 

F. Appointment of Black Poll Officials ...•• - 22 

G. The Socioeconomic Condition of Marengo 
County's Black Citizens . . •• . .. . . . •••.. .• 24 

H. The Effect of Socioeconomic Disparit~es 
on Black Political Participation •.•.••.• 29 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 
., ....•.......•. -.......... ~ .. 32 

• 



JAHES B. 

v. 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

) 
CLARK, ) 

) 
Plaintif-f, ) 

) 
) Civil Action No. 

tJ ) 
MARENGO COUNTY, ) II-

) 
Defendant. ) 

) 
) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ) 
) 

Plaintiff, ) 
) Civil Action No. 

v. ) 
) 

78-445-H 

78-474-H 

MARENGO COUNTY COMt1ISSION, ) (Consolidated Action) . , 
Defendants. ) 

) 
) 

PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW FOR THE UNITED STATES 

I. INTRODUCTION AND SUH~~RY 

In this litigation, the United States and private 

plaint iffs have challenged the at-large method of electing 

the Marengo County Commission and the Harengo County Board of 
., 

Education as violative of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 

as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Amendments. Plaintiffs allege essentially that the at-large 

· , electoral system denies black citi.zens of the County equal 

• 



·~ 

" 

- 2 -

opportunity to participate in the political process and 

to elect candidates of their choice to the respective County 

governing bodies. 

This case is currently on remand from the United States 

Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, United States v. 

Marengo County Commission, 731 F.2d 1546 (1984). which directed 

this Court to supplement the record with any evidence that 

m~ght · tend to affect the appellate court's findings of a 

violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as of 1978 

(when this case was originally tried). 

According to the court of appeals, the "defendants 

Pear the burden of establishing that circumstances have 

changed sufficiently to make our findings of discriminatory 

results in 1978 inapplicable in 1984." 731 F.2d 1575. On 

remand, ·this Court held two evidentiary hearings and, as 

explained below, defendants have failed to meet their burden. 

The same circumstances that were present in Marengo County 

in 1978 continue to the same or greater degree today: 

(1) there remains a dearth of black officials elected to 

· county-wide office; (2) th~re is a continued pattern of 

strong racial bloc voting; (3) there continues to be a stark 

socioeconomic disparity between the black and white populations 

which has been shown to affect adversely the ability of 

black citizens to participate effectively in the political 



. ' 
' 

! 

- 3 -

process; and (4) there is continued failure of elected and 

political party leaders to assimilate black citizens into the 

political process and local government.*/ Because all of 

these circumstances, taken together, operate to deprive the 

~ County's black citizens of equal political opportu~ities, 

there remains today the same need for the relief sought by 

0 

plaintiffs in 1978, namely, the formulation and implementation 

of racially fair election plans for the county school board 

and county commission. 

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 

The United States filed this case on August 25, 1978. 

The case was consolidated with ·a private class action filed 

in 1977 by 1>lack \Toters. A four day trial \las held on 

October 23-25, 1978 and January 4, 1979. On April 23, 1979, 

this Court issued an opinion and entered judgment for defendants. 

This Courrt determined that while intentional discrimination 

could be inferred from an aggregate of factors articulated in 

Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973) (en bane), 

aff'd on other grounds sub nom. East Carroll Parish School 

Board v. Harshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976) (per curiam), such an 

*/ Of course, the same history of official discrimination in 
the state and county, and the same electoral system, complete 
with such discriminatory enhancing procedures as county-wide 
balloting, majority vote requirements and anti-single-shot 
provisions, remain in place, just as they did in 1978. 



" 

- 4 -

inference was not warranted here; The court concluded that 

plaintiffs had not proved that the at-large system was enacted 

or being maintained with a racially discriminatory purpose. 

The United States appealed. While the appeal was 

pending, the . Supreme Court decided City of Mobile v. Bolden, 

446 U.S. 55 (1980), in which a plurality of the Court concluded 

that a showing of purposeful discrimination is a necessary 

ingredient of a violation of the Fifteenth Amendment, and a 

major i ty of the . Court held that the factors used in the Zimmer 

analysis were insufficient to show a violation of the 

Constitution. Thereafter, the court of appeals in this case, 
~ 

upon motion of the United States, vacated the judgment of 

this Court and rananded for further proceedings "tncludtng 

the presentation of such additional evidence as is appropriate, 

in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in City of Mobile 

v. Bolden." · 

While this case was pending on remand, the Fifth 

Circuit decided Lodge v. · Buxton, 639 F.2d 1358 (1981), aff'd 

sub nom. Rogers v. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (1982), holding that 

the Supreme Court's decision in Nobile did not require direct 

evidence of d iscrim ina tory intent, but stating, "an essential 

element of a prima facie case [of ,unconstitutional vote 

dilution] is proof of unresponsiveness by the public body 



- 5 -

in question to the group claiming injury." 639 F.2d at 1375. 

Following the decision in Lodge v. Buxton, this Court, on 

July 30, 1981, again ordered judgment for defendants on the 

ground that this Court had previously concluded that plaintiffs 

had failed to prove defendants' unresponsiveness to the 

particularized needs and interests of Marengo County's black 

citizens. 

The United States again appealed and the court of 

appeals granted the government's motion to hold the appeal in 

abeyance pendirig the Supreme C~urt's review of Lodge v. 

Buxton. On July 1, 1982, the Supreme Court affirmed the 

result in Lodge, but contrary to the court of appeals' decision 
~ 

in Lodge, the Supreme Court found that unresponsiveness is 

not an essential element of a claim of unconst1tut1onal vote 

dilution. Rogers v. Lodge, supra, 458 U.S. at 625 ~ .• 9. 

In addition, two days prior to the Supreme Court's 

decision in Rogers v. Lodge, Congress amended Section 2 of 

the Voting Right Act. In amending Section 2, "Congress 

redefined the scope of Section 2 of the Act to forbid not . 

only those voting practices directly prohibited by the Fifteenth 

Amendment but also any practice imposed or applied in a 

manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right 

••• to vote on account of race •••• " United States v. Marengo 

County, supra, 731 F.2d at 1553. 

-----------------------



·. 

- 6 -

On May 14, 1984, the court of appeals decided this 

case, applying amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and 

concluding that there was a clear violation of Section 2. 

United States v. Marengo County Commission, supra, at 1574. 

The court of appeals held that Marengo County's at-large 

election system had the proscribed racially discriminatory 

"result" as of the time of the 1978 trial. 731 F. 2d at 

1574-1575. The court of appeals also concluded that in view 

of the convoluted procedural history of the case as well as 

the five years that had elapsed since trial, the case should 

be remanded to de.termine whether the current conditions in 

Marengo County had changed since 1978. The court of appeals 

refore remanded the case to this Court "to allow .the 

parties to update the record and to supplement the record 

with evidence that might tend to affect our f inding of dis­

criminatory results." 731 F.2d at 1574. That court further 

noted that "the defendants bear the burden of establishing. 

that circumstances have changed suff iciently to make our 

findings of discriminatory results in 1978 inapplicable in 

1984." 731 F.2d at 1575. 

An evidentiary hearing was held before this Court on 

August 6, 1984. The pur pose of the h earing wa s "to determine 

whether or not to grant the United States' motion for a 

preliminary injunction enjoining the defendants from holding 

a t l a r g e ele ctions [in Sep tember 1984] for positions on the 

}1arengo County Commission and the Harengo County Board of 



- 7 -

School Commissioners." (Findings of Fact and Conclusions of 

Law, August 20, 1984 at 1.) On the basis of the evidence 

presented by the United States at the Au~ust 6th hearing, 

and in view of the fact that "defendants offered virtually no 

evidence of ahy improvanent in conditions in Harengo County 

since 1978" (id. at 3), this Court granted the requested 

injunction. The Court also found that "the Government has 

provisionally demonstrated that little or no change has 

occurred in Harengo County [since 1978]" (id. at 5), and 

that "based upon the ~vidence presented by the plaintiff, it 

appears that there is a substantial likelihood that the 

plaintiff wi~l prevail on the merits." (Ibid.) 

A further evidentiary hearing was held on March 4-5, 

1985. On the basis of the evidence offered at that hearing, 

and all of the evidence of record, the Court now renders these 

findings of f~ct and conclusions of law. 

III. FINDINGS OF FACT 

A. Background 

1. Harengo County is a rural county located in the 

southwestern portion of the State of Alabama. The breakdown 

of the county's 1980 population and voting age population 

(VAP) by race is as follows: 

1980 
1980 VAP 

Total 

25,047 
16,534 

White (%) 

11,663 (46.6%) 
8,460 (51.3%) 

Black (%) 

13,346 '(53.3%) 
8,045 (48. 7%) 



.. 

,. 

- 8 -

(Gov't Ex. 7 . at 8-9.) According to records compiled by the 

county (Gov't Ex. 3), the breakdown of registered voters, by 

race, for 1984 is as follows: 

Reg. Voters 

Total 

18,437 

White (%) 

1o ; o51 (54.5%) 

Black (%) 

8,366 (45.5%) 

2. Both the Marengo County Commission and the Board of ~ 

Education continue to consist of five members elected at-large 

with a requirement that one member reside in each of four 

residency districts. Hembers are elected to four-year terms 

on a staggered term, majority vote basis. 

B. Efforts by Black Candidates to Achieve Elective Office 

3. Elective office in Marengo County has proved to be 

no more accessible to blacks in the years since 1978 than in 

the years preceding it. No black persons have won election 

to the l1arengo County Commission and only one black, elected 

without opposition, serves on the Harengo County School Board. 

No black candidate with white opposition has been elected 

to county-wide office or to the School Board in elections 

since 1978. Qualified black candidates made unsuccessful 

challenges for seats on the County Commission in 1980 and 

1982, for seats on the Board of Education in 1982, and for 

County Sheriff in 1982. (Ex. 7, Table 1 at 4; Ex. 10.) As 

noted e~rlier, the 1984 elections for the County Commission 

and the County Board of Ed ocation were enjoined by this Court. 



- 9 - .... 
'::· 

4. Although black candidates have continued to seek 

election - to the Marengo County Commission and the Marengo · 

County School Board since 1978, their repeated failures at 

obtaining elective office under the at-large system have 

spawned both discouragement and frustration. Lonnie Reaser, 

for example, is a black man who ran unsuccessfully for the 
.. 

County Commission in 1972. (Reaser Testimony at 116; Gov't 

Ex. 7 at Table 1, p. 2.) After the court of appeals' May 1984 
~ .... 

decision in this case, Mr. Reaser decided to run for the 

.. County Commission because he was "under the impression that 

the county h~~ been districted •••• '' (Reaser Testimony at 116.) 

Reaser then learned that the county was planning to conduct 

the 1984 election under the at-large system; consequently, 

he planned to drop out of the election. (Id at 116-117.) In 

Reaser's view, "the major reason we are not running county-wide 

is because we feel we would not have a chance." (Reaser 

Testimony at 129.) Candidate :Reaser further noted that his 

chances of obtaining elective office would he better under a 

district election system! (Id. at 119.) 

5. Reaser's campaign manager in 1984, Rev. James 

Clarke, expressed similar views (Clarke Testimony at 72 and 

75), and he added: 

••• I told Mr. Reaser if I had to canvass 
the whole county [,] I ••• [had] no faith 
in an at-large election because it always 
had been the same thing, we blacks run, we 
fail and that discouraged me. 

(Clarke Testimony at 72.) 



- 10 -

6. Marengo County covers 978 square miles. (731 F.2d 

at 1550.) The driving time from the southeast part of the 

county (near Dixon's Mills and Sweetwater) to the northeast 

part of the county (near Thomaston) is about 30 to 45 minutes. 

(Id. at 121.) · The geographic size of the county continues to 

be an encumbrance to black candidates as they campaign for 

county-wide office. (Reaser Testimony at 120-121 .) Black 

candidates, with limited financial resources, find it difficult 

to campaign throughout the entire county. (Reaser Testimony 

at 120.) 

7. Dr. Paul T. Murray, an expert witness called by 

the United States at the remand hearing, assessed the impact 

of the county's size on the ability of black candidates to 

get elected to county-wide office. Dr. Hurray explained: 

The at-large system of electing members 
of the County Commission and Board of Education 
f dr ther reduces the chances of a candidate 
being elected who is the choice of the black 
community. A major obstacle is the size of 
the county. · With a total area of 978 square 
miles, Marengo County is the tenth largest 
county in Alabama. The at-large requirement 
forces a candidate to campaign across the 
entire county. This works to the disadvantage 
of the black community who generally have less 
available ~e financial resources and/or more 
difficulty getting the time off from work. 
Both of these factors impact on the ability 
to mount a county-wide race. 

(Gov't Ex. 7 at 24.) 

8. On the basis of this uncontradicted testimony, as 

wel l as other evidence of re~ord, the court finds that the 

t 



- 11 -

at-large election system used to ~lect members of the Marengo 

Courtty Commission and the Marengo County School Board discoufages 

black voters and black candidates from participating in 

the political process. 

C. Participation by Black Voters 

9. With regard to the voter registration opportunities 

available to black ci-tizens in Marengo County, the court of 

appeals made these findings (731 F.2d at 1570) (footnotes and 

citations omitted): 

The plaintiffs also showed that the County 
Board of Registrars was open only two days a 
month except in election years; that, contrary 
to state law, the Board of Registrars met only 
in Linden, the county seat, and failed to visit 
outly1ng areas to register rural vot9rs; and 
that the Board had never acted on the offer of 
a black, Earnest Palmer, to serve as a deputy 
registrar. The court said it did not see how 
these policies discr\minated against blacks. 

~ 

These policies, ho~ever, unquestionably 
discriminated against blacks because fewer 
blacks were registered. If blacks are to 
take their rightful place as equal partici-
pants in the political process, affirmative 
efforts were and are necessary to register 
voters and to assist those who need assistance. 
By holding short hours the Board made it harder 
for unregistered voters, more of whom are black 
than white, to register. By meeting only in 
Linden the Board was less accessible to eligible 
rural voters·, who were more black than white. 
By having few black poll officials and spurning 
the voluntary offer of a black citizen to serve 
as a registrar, county officials impaired black 
access to the political system and the confidence 
of blacks in the system's openness. 



- 12 -

10. Between 1978 and 1984, the Harengo County Board 

of Registrars appears to ha~e done little to improve black 

access to the political process. Prior to 1984, the Board of 

Registrars never appointed a black _deputy registrar. t Aydelott 

Testimony at 106 and 122.) In 1983, when the black community 

requested that deputy registrars be appointed, the Board of 

Registrars took no action on the request. 
!;-

(Hayes Testimony 

at 169.) Only one deputy registrar was appointed prior to 

1984 and that deputy registrar was the Demopolis City Clerk, 

Dolly Ward, who is white. (Ibid.) 

11. In 1984, the sole black member of the three-member 

Marengo County Board of _ Reg is trar s ( Hr s. Hayes) went to rural 

Sweetwater in }~rengo County for two or three ~ays to conduct 

voter registration. (Aydelott testimony at 104-105.) 

Approximately fifty persons each day were registered by 

Mrs. Hayes, which Hrs. Aydelott acknowledged was a "very 

good" turnout. (I d. at 123.) This "very good" turnout is 

tangible evidence that there was an unfulfilled need prior 

to 1984 to appoint black deputy registrars to go out into 

rural Marengo County and register people to vote. (Id. at 

123-124.) 

12. Prior to 1984, Mrs. Hayes conducted registration 

at her home in the southern part of the county on an informal 

basis prior to the appointment of any deputies in that area. 

(Hayes Testimony at 170-172.) All of the persons registered 

by Mrs. Hayes at her home v.ere black. (Ibid.) She did this 



- 13 -

as a "convenience" to people because the 17-mile trip to 

Linden was burdensome. Mrs. Hayes was told to discontinue 

this practice by Hrs. Aydelott, the Board of Registrars 

chairperson. (Id. at 172.) 

13. In May 1984, the Alabama Legislature enacted Act 

Ne. 84-389. This legislation required the appointment of 

deputy registrars in ever.y county in the State of Alabama, 

including M~rengo County. This legislation also provided 

that "at least one or more deputy registrars [shall be appointed] 

in each precinct in [each] county for a four-year term •••• " 

(Declaration of Jerome Gray at 2.) The Board of Registrars 

has not fully complied with this law, as deputy registrars 

have not been appointed for each precinct. (Aydelott Testimony 

at 107.) Only one black deputy registar has been appointed 
F ~ 

in Demopolis (ibid.), which is the county's largest city and 

which is about 50% black. (Gov't Ex. H.) 

14. Pursuant to Act No. 84-389, deputy registrars 

were appointed in Marengo County in June/July of 1984. In 

1984, seven whites and twelve blacks were appointed deputy 

registrars by the Board of Registrars. (Aydelott Testimony 

at 107-108.) During the latte~ part of 1984, and with the 

aid of these deputy registrars, the following number of 

persons registered to vote in Marengo County: 

.. 



,, 

" 

- 14 -

1984 No. of Persons Registered 
Month Black White Total .., 

June 58 83 141 

July 93 54 147 

August 99 48 147 

September 69 47 1 1 6 
:. 

October 312 219 531 

(Declaration of Jerome Gray at 2.) 

15. This registration of over 600 black and 400 white 

voters in Marengo County within a five-month period of time 

is a clear indi~ation that there was a need for deputy registrars, 

par~icularly among unregistered black voters, prior to 1984. ~/ 

Because defendants ha11e failed to present any n~ason whatsoever 

for the failure of county officials to appoint deputy registrars 

prior to 1984, the court finds that the failure and refusal 

to appoint deputy registr~rs was done with an awareness that 

black access to the political process was being impaired as a 

result • 

• 16. Although black voters today are able to register 

and to vote in Marengo County, black citizens continue to 

express concern and fear that their public support of black 

candidates will result in some form of economic retaliation 

*I Pat Dixon, Chairman of the Marengo County Voter Registration 
Project, testified that surveys done in parts of the county 
by her group indicated that there were 6,000 unregistered 
persons in the county. (Dixon Testimony at 145.) 



- 15 -

against th,em. (Clarke Testimony at 82-91 and Rodgers 

Testimony at 210-211.) As Reverend Clarke explained, blacks 

who are employed by whites--particularly black teachers in 

the Marengo County school system--"truly cannot get involved 

in the campaign because of their fear of [losing] their 

jobs." (Id. at 86.) 
;---

Because blacks in Marengo County are 

economically dependent on whites, black candidates encounter 

reluctance in soliciting black persons to work publicly on 

the campaign. (Id. at 81 and 86.) 

17. Political experience in Harengo County shows that 

white voters do not vote in significant numbers for black 

candidates who face white opposition. (Hurray Testimony and 

Lichtman Testimony; Dixon Testimony at 174; Rodgers Testimony 

at 229; Foreman Testimony at 343, 351; see also 731 F.2d at 

1567.) Black candidates for county-wide office thus face an 

insuperable barrier in winning elections since blacks are in 

a voting minority. (Hurray Testimony and Lichtman Testimony.) 

That barrier is particularly insurmountable in Marengo County, 

where the County Probate Judge has suggested to black 

candidates that certain white residential areas are off 

1 im its to campaigning by blacks. (Clarke Th s t i<'llOny at 7 4.) 

D. Maintenance of the At-Large Election Systems 

18. After the court of appeals' May 1984 decision 

in this case, Marengo Cotmty Probate Judge Sammie Daniels 

told Rev. Clarke and Mr. Lonnie Reaser "that he had talked 



..... .. 

- 16 -

with some white[s] to put a black person in [county government] 

in order to get the Federal Government off their backs." 

(Clarke Testimony at 67-68 and Reaser Testimony at 119.) The 

Court construes this testimony to mean that some white political 

leaders in Marengo County belieyed that the election of a 

black candidate in 1984 might lead to a discontinuation of 

this legal challenge to the at-large election system by the 

United States. 

19. Although Probate Judge Daniels denied making the 

statement, his testimony is discounted for several reasons. 

First, there were two credible witnesses (Rev. Clarke and 

Mr. "R.eas9r) who gave unequivocal testimory that Judge Daniels 

made the statement. Secondly, as a defendant in this action, ~ 
~ 

Judge Daniels is an "interested witness" and thus his self-

serving denial of the statement before this Court must be 

considere~ in that context. Finally, the Court notes that in 

view of the long history of racial discrimination against 

black voters practiced by Marengo County officials, it is 

more likely than not that the white leadership in Marengo 

County would engage in such racial maneuvering to retain an 

election system that disadvantages black voters. 



./ 

: ! 

- 17 -

20. The Court finds that a plan to orchestrate the 

el ection of a black candidate by white leaders was apparently 

conceived and discussed in 1984. Because the 1984 elections 
.# 

were enjoined, the plan to elect a black candidate was not 

carried out. The Court also finds that discussion of such a 

plan suggests the presence of an informal slating process 

among white leaders, and, in any event, is evidence of 

defendants' racially discriminatory purpose to maintain the 

at-large election systems at issue in this case. 

E. Existence of Racial Bloc Voting 

21. The United States offered the testimony of two 

expe the .issue of racially polar r zed voting: 

Dr. Paul T. Hurray and Dr. Allan J. Lichtman. Althoug 

different a Ralytical methods •. */ both Dr. Murray and Dr. Lichtman 

analyzed pertinent election data and found consistent patterns 

of "extreme" racial bloc voting. (Hurray Testimony at 477 

and Lichtman Tes~imony at 588, 591, and Gov't Ex. 7 at 9.) 

*I Dr. Murray measured bloc voting using techniques of correlation 
coefficients and overlapping percentages. Dr. Lichtman used 
ecological regression analysis to measure voting behavior. 



- lR -

22. In county elections held since 1978, both of these 

experts found that black candidates for elective office who 

face white opposition garner meager support among white 

voters, while in every case these black candidates gained 

sup~ort from a clear majority of black votes. (Murray 

Testimony at 472-473 and Lichtman Testimony at 589-591.) 

In everv election studied, black voters strongly preferred 

black candidates over one or more of opposing white candidates, 

and white voters in overwhelming numbers preferred white 

candidates over black candidates. (Ibid.) As Dr. Murray 

conclude~: 

[T]here can be no doubt that voting in 
Marengo County elections is characterized 
by extreme racial polar1zat1on. Moreover, · 
the pattern of extreme racial bloc voting 
is especially - evident from the 1980 and 
1982 election analysis. Black can~idates 
consistently run well in largely black 
areas but they receive virtually no support 
in white areas of the county. The percentage 
of whites voting for black candidates has, 
with one exception, been too small to elect 
biack candidates to the county offices which 
they sought. 

(Gov't Ex. 7 at q.) 

23. A study of the 1980 and 1982 election results 

demonstrates that the conclusions of Drs. Murray and Lichtman 

are amply supported hy the . evidence in the record. */ In the 

1980 primary election, for example, a black candidate and a 

white candidate ran for County Commission (southeast residency 

*/ The election returns for 1980 and 1982 elections are 
contained in Gov't Ex. 10. 

• 



- 19 -

district). According to Dr. Lichtman's calculations, the 

black candidate received 30% of the black vote and a mere 3% 

of the white vote. (Lichtman Testimony at 589 and Gov't Ex. 9.) 

The black candidate lost the election, even though 22% of the 

black registered voters turned out to vote as compared to 

only 14% of registered whites. As Dr. Lichtman explained, 

even where black voters are abie to outturn white voters, 

they are unable to prevail in elections because of the near 

perfect racial solidarity among white voters. (Lichtman Testimony 

at 598.) In the 1980 runoff election, voting was even more 

racially polarized, with the black candidate receiving 79% 

of the black vote and only 1% of the white vote. (Gov't Ex. 8; 

Lichtman Testimony at 589.) Dr. Murray's analysis of the 1980 

elections precisely corroborates Dr. Lichtman's findings. 

(Murray Testimony at 473 and Gov't Ex. 7 at 

24. In the 1982 primary election, black candidates 

faced white opposition in two races for the County School 

Board and in one race for the County Commission. In each 
. ' 

election, hlack candidates received solid (over 80%) support 

from black voters. In each case, white voters gave less than 

10% of their votes to black candidates. (Gov't Ex. 8.) In 

the 1982 runoff election for County Commission (there were no 

runoff elections in the School Board races), 91% of the black 

voters cast their ballots for the black candidate and 3% of 

the white voters voted .for the black candidate. (Gov't Ex. 8.) 

lS. Defendants did not offer any evidence in rebuttal 

to the strong statistical analyses of Drs. Murray and Lichtman. 

Instead, defendants presented testimony of two black persons 



- 20 - .1 
':'· 

~ who have been elected to local office in ~1arengo County: 

.. 

Mr. Moses Lofton and Hr. Charles Foreman. */ Mr. Lofton, 

who is 80 years old, was first appointed to the County School 

Board and he was then elected without opposition. (Lofton 

Testimony at 354.) Mr. Foreman, who is 68, was first appointed 

to the Demopolis City Council and he subsequently ran against a 

black opponent. (Foreman Testimo~y at 333.) Neither black . 
officeholder has ever faced white opposition in an election. 

Mr. Foreman gave generaliz~d testimony to thE!: effect that white 

voters vote for black candidates in Marengo County. (li. at 

333.) **/ Dr. Lichtman underscored the limited value of such 

anecdotal, subjective testimony concerning racially polarized 

voting where, as here, there is objective statistical evidence 

presented on that issue. (Lichtman Testimony at 602-603.) As 
., 

Dr. Lichtman correctly noted, a lay witness who proffers testimony 

that black candidates who faced white opposition get "some" 

white votes are not able to quantify their claims. (Foreman 

Testimony at 343; Lichtman Testimony at 602.) Thus, there was 

no quantitative dimension to their assertions. As noted above, .,. 

hoth expert witnesses called by the United States statistically 

quantified the precise extent of racial bloc voting and their 

*/ The county defendants also produced several black witnesses · 
who in<iicated that black people of Harengo County today do 
not suffer harassment when they register or when they vote. 
(See, e.g., Testimony of James Lofton at 355.) The Courtdoes 
not questton either the accuracy of this testimony or the 
honesty of the witnesses who rendered it. But such testimony 
sheds little illumination on the issue of whether black citi~ens 
have an equal opportunity to participate effectively in the the 
po l itical process. Black voters have voiced a clear preference 
for black candidates and yet such voters have not been successful 
in overcoming the white bloc vote. 

**/ However, Mr. Foreman conceded that "not many" white voters 
would vote for a black candidate with white opposition. (Foreman 
Testimony at 343, 350-351.) ~ 



- 21 -

analyses shm.vs an exceedingly small percentage of whites 

voting for black candidates. */ Not one witness on behalf of 

the county testified that eleq~ions under the at-large system 

in Marengo County were not racially polarized. 

26. Finallv, the Court notes that defendants attempted 

to show the absence of racially polarized voting by offering 

evidence that voters cast ballots on the basis of qualifications 

and not Qn the basis of race. **/ If such assertions are 

true, then it must also be true that black voters in Marengo 

County have determined that black candidates are better 

qualified than white candidates, and white voters have determined 

that white candidates are better qualified. In any e-vent, 

such considerations are irrelevant because voting patterns in 

Marengo County remain extremely polarized along racial lines. 

It is the extent of that polarization that is at the heart of 

the racial bloc voting inquiry • 
. • 

*I Of course, the fact that some -..1hite voters may have cast 
nallots on behalf of an uncontested black candidate (Lofton 
Testimony at 361) or a black candidate who has only black 
opposition (Foreman Testimony at 333) does not suggest the 
absence of racial bloc voting. It simply means that white 
voters, to vote at all in the election, had no choice but to 
vote for a black candidate who would have been elected with or 
without their vote. It is far more relevant, and indeed it 
happens consistently in Harengo County, that black candidates 
opposed by whites receive an exceedingly small percentage of white 
voter support. (See Findings of Fact, supra, at paras. 21-24.) 

**/ Dr. Lichtman discounted this testimony because the social . 
science studies that have been done show that when people are 
asked whether they vote for a candidate based on race or on 
socially acceptable reason (qualifications, issues, etc.), 
the voters are likely to provide the socially acceptable 
answer. (Lichtman Testimony at 603, 628-629.) Dr. Lichtman 
also pointed out that the likelihood of giving the socially 
acceptable answer is even greater when the voter is unable eo 
remain anonymous. (Ibid.) That is especially true here, where 
witnesses were asked such questions in a public forum. (Ibid.) 



- 22 -

?.7. Racially polarized voting occurs when the voting 

behavior of whites and blacks is both demonstrably different 

and politically consequential. (Lichtman Testimony at 583-604, 

633 and Murray Testimony at 470-477, 486-487, 532-534; Gov't 

Ex. 7 at 4) Using this definition, the Court finds that the 

extreme racially polari7.ed voting present in Marengo County 

in 1978 continues unabated today. The evidence of record 

demonstrates quite convincingly that from the time black 

citizens wer:e first allowed to vote in Harengo County to the 

present, race has remained a central issue in Marengo County 

politics. 

F. Appointment of Black Poll Offieials 

28. Black citizens made little progress from 1978 to 

1984 in obtaining appointments as poll officials in Marengo 

County. Although 48.7% of the citiz~ns of voting age in 

t~rengo County are black, only 10.6% (29 of 273) of the persons 

appointed to work at the polls in 1980 were black. (See 

Gov't Ex. 1.) */ In the 1982 elections, blacks again were 

underrepresented as poll workers, as only 12.6% (35 of 278) 

of the poll officials ~ere black. (Gov't Ex. 2.) 

29. On April 30, 1984, a lawsuit was filed in the 

United States District Court for the Hiddle District of Alabama, 

*! Appointment~ of ~poll officials are totally within the 
control of Marengo County officials. (Camp Testimony at 28-2Q.) 
The appointments are made by the County Appointing Board, 
which is comprised of the County Sheriff, the County Circuit 
Clerk and the County Probate Judge. (Ibid.) 

~ ------

-Vi 



- 23 -

styled Harris v. Graddick, -~iv. No. 84-T-595-N. (Gov't Ex. 4.) 

Plaintiffs alleged, in essence, that the appointment of poll 

officials throughout Alabama was racially discriminatory and 

violative of 42 U.S.C. 1983, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (Section 2 of 

the Voting Rights Act), and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Amendments. Named as a defendant class in the case were "the 

appointing authorities of each county of the State of Alabama 

~xcept Conecuh County •••• " (Ibid.) 

30. In June 1984, two months after the Harris v. 

Graddick case had been filed, Probate Judge Daniels asked the 

county's Democratic Executive Committee to submit the names 

of more black people to the Appointing Board for possible 

appointment as poll workers. (Daniels Testimony at 40-41.) 

Probate Judge Daniels made that recommendation because he 

felt that there had been an insufficient number of black persons 

serving as poll workers in the past. (lbid.) Judge Daniels 

agreed that appointing black poll officials would probably 

give some black voters more confidence in the election process, 

adding "it probably helped a black voter's feelings more to 

see more black poll workers in the [polling] place." (Ibid.) 



- 24 -

31. In response to an order in Harris v. Graddick, 

officials in Marengo County substantially increased the number 

of black persons working at the polls in the September 1984 

elections. According to Marengo County's report to the court 

filed in Harris v. Graddick, 41% of the poll workers were 

hlack in the 1984 elections. (Id. at Attachment 3.) 

32. The fact that black persons in Marengo County 

were able to obtain appointments as po~l officials in more 

than token numbers only as .a result of a federal court decree 

is strong eviden6e of a denial of an equality of opportunity 

for black citizens to participate in all phases of the political 

process. 

G. The Socioeconomic Cond1t1on of Mare&go County's 
Black Citizens 

33. There is extensive evidence in the record that 

Marengo County's black citizens are generally lower in every 

socioeconomic category or condition. The facts, as detailed 

below, show that in every category of measuring social status 

and standard of living--income, unemployment occupational 

status, education, infant mortality, the extent of poverty 

and the qua]ity of housing--blacks occupy a lower status and 

suffer inferior conditions in comparison to whites. (See Gov't 

Ex. 7 at 18.) "The [socioeconomic] gap between blacks and 



.. 

- 25 -

whites is great and these disparities pervade all areas of 
,.,. 

everyday life." (Ibid.) This uncontested socioeconomic 

disparity ~~versely affects the present ability of bl§ck 

citizens to participate in the political process on an equal 

footing with white persons. 

34. "Income is the most important measure of economic 

well-being." (Gov't Ex. 7 at 11 .) In Marengo County, more 

than half (54.9%) of white families had incomes of $20,000 or 

more, while only 12.4% of black families had incomes at this 

level. (Id. at 12.) According to the 1980 Census, the median 

income for white families was $21 ,449; the median income for 

black famil'ies was $7,182. (Ibtd.) Per capita tncmue among 

Marengo County whites is $7,184; for blacks in Harengo County, 

per capita i~~orne is $2,595. ~Ibid.) 

35. Employment condition is "an important source of 

social status and self-esteem, in addition to being essential 
< 

to maintain a decent standard of living for oneself and one's 

family~ Unemployment during the primary working years is 

generally associated with low social standing and a low 

standard of living." (~. at 13-14.) According to the 1980 

Census, the black unemployment rate is more than five times 

higher than the rate among whites • 

.. 



- 26 -

36. "The concentration of blacks in low paying, low 

status occupations is another sign of the extent of racial 

inequality in Marengo County." (.!,i. at 14.) Nearly half of 

Marengo County blacks are found in unskilled and semi-skilled 

jobs. (Id. at 15.) Another 22% of black workers are employed 

"in Service occupations." (Id. at 15.) Data on employees of 

the defendant Marengo County reveal additional evidence of 

blacks in low-level and low-paying jobs. According to the 

County's records, the County employed 87 persons in 1982, of 

whom 30 (or 34.5%). were black. Twenty-five of the thirty 

black employees (or 83.3%) were employed in low-skill positions. 

Less than 10% of the County's workers who earned salqries 

above $10,000 per year were black. <li· at 15.) • 

37. Dr. Murray pointed out that "[n]umerous sociological 

studies have established that education is the single most 

-importan_t variable in predicting a person's subsequent occupa­

tional attainment" (footnote omitted). (Gov' t Ex. 7 at 1 6.) 

The figures reported in the 1980 Census show that half of 

blacks age 25 and older had completed eight years. of school or 

less. For whites, only 14.1% were limited to an elementary 

education. Nearly two-thirds of all whites had~ completed 

high school in comparison to less than one-third of the 

blacks. Only 4% of blacks are college graduates as compared 

to 13% of the whites. (Id. at 16-17.) 



- 27 -

38. The low educational attainment levels among 

Marengo County blacks today are undoubtedly a product of the 

inferior and racially segreg~ted public education that existed 

for black children in the county until recently. Between 
.. 

1921 and 1963, the average annual expenditure per black pupil 

was $48.49; for white pupils, the average expenditure was 

$105.16 per pupil. In some years, public authorities in 

Marengo County spent ten times more to educate white children 

than black children. <.!i· at 16-17, and of Table 13.) 

39. Because the infant mortality rate is "widely 

regarded as a sensitive indicator of the health status of a 

population and the quality of health care received" (id. at 

17), the rate does provide a critical health statistic on 

blacks and whites in ~1arengo County. The statistics show 

that from 1980 to 1982, "21 infant deaths were recorded in 

Marengo County. Of this number, two were white infants and 

nineteen were h lack infants.·" (.!i. at 1 7.) The infant 

mortality rate among blacks is five times higher per thousand 

births than the mortality rate for white infants. (Ibiq.) 

40. Marengo County's population is relatively rural 

and poor. But the level of poverty among the county~s black 

population is staggering. The 1980 Census reports that 



r•, 

0 

- 28 -

nearly half (47.1%) of Marengo County's black families live 

below .the poverty level (meaning their income is insufficient 

to supply an adequate diet and other basic essentials). 

(Id. ·~ at 12-13.) For white families, the comparable figure is · 

7.1%. Poverty figures for individual black citizens reveal a 

similar situation: 53.8% of Marengo County blacks live below 

the poverty level as compared to 10.1% of Marengo County 

whites. (Ibid.) If the poverty standard is extended to 

include those persons living within 125~ of the poverty 

level, then nearly two-thirds of Harengo County's black 
'~~ 

citizens live near or below the poverty line, while one in 

seven whites in the county are similarly situated. 

41. Marengo County's blaek population is considerably 

more crowded in their housing than are whites. One-fifth of 

black housing is in the most crowded category (more than one 
J 
;,. 

person per room) while 2. 4% ·of white housing is comparably 

crowded. (Id. at 18.) The crowded housing inhabited by 

blacks in Marengo County is more likely to be substandard. 

Nearly one-fourt~ of black occupied housing units have no 

plumbing at all. One-third of black occupied housing lacks 

complete plumbing as compared to 2.1% of white occupied housing. 



- 29 -

H. The Effect of Socioeconomic Disparities on Black 
Political Participation 

42. There is uncontradicted evidence that the 

socioeconomic disparity described in paragraphs 33 through 

41, above, affects the present ability of black citizens to 

participate in the political process. Ur. Paul Murray, who 

the government called ·as an expert witness on race relations 

and sociology, reviewed in detail the scholarly literature 

on the relationship between social status and electoral 

participation. (}~~rray Testimony at 481-486; Gov't Ex. 7 

at 19-23.) The scholarly works cited by Dr. Murray conclude 

that less educated, less affluent persons have lower rates of 

political participation than persoris of higher social status, 

higher educational attainment levels and higher income. (Ibid.) 

43. To assess whether the depressed socioeconomic 

condition of Marengo County blacks affected their political 

participation rates, Dr. Hurray reviewed election data and 

voter registration data in Marengo County. (Murray Testimony 

at 468-471 and Gov't Ex. 7 at 22.) Dr. Murray's study of voter 

turnout rates among blacks and whites revealed that white voter 

turnout usually exceeds black voter turnout. Dr. Murray noted, 

for example, that "[i]n the primary election of September 7, 

1982, 48.5% of the black VAP [voting age population] voted in 



"1. 

- 30 -

comparison to 63% of the whi.te VAP." (Gov't Ex. 7 at 22.) 

Dr. Murray examined the voter turnout data in light of the 

national studies which documented that persons of inferior 

socioeconomic status are less likely to participate in 

politics. (~. at 19-21.) On the basis of his study, 

Dr. Murray concluded: 

.. 
••• [I]t is hardly surprising that blacks in 
Marengo Countv register and vote less fre­
quentiy than do whites • 

* * * * * 
The lower participation of blacks in 

Harengo County elections can be explained 
by looking to their lower educational 
attainments and occupational status. 
Cons1der1ng their deprived status in the 
community, the long history of electoral 
discrimination, and the consistent lack 
of success experienced hy black candidates, 

_.-. the po lit ical ~--part icipat ion of Marengo 
County hlacks is ~emRrkabl[yl high. 

(Gov't Ex. 7 at 21-23.) 

44. Dr. Allan Lichtman also conducted a detailed voter 

turnout analysis. (Lichtman Testimony at 593-598 and Gov't. 

Ex. 8.) After studying the relevant data, Dr. Lichtmrn's findings 

were consistent with Dr. Murray's: in general, black voters have ,,. 
lower turnout rates than whites. (Ibid.) In the 19R2 primary 

and runoff elections, Dr. Lichtman estimated that whites comprised 

n2% of those voting, whereas blacks comprised only 38% of the 

voters on election dav. (Gov't Ex. 8 at 10.) In recent 1984 

presidential elections, Marengo County whites were 57% of 



. , 

- 31 -

those voting whereas blacks comprised 43% of the voter turnout 

(Id. at 11.) */ 

45. On the basis of the foregoing facts, and other 

evidence of record previously reviewed by the court of appeals 

(see 731 F.2d at 1567-1569), the Court finds that the black 

community of Marengo County suffered from, and continues. to 

suffer from, the results and effects of invidious discrimination 

and treatment in the fields of education, employment, economics, 

health, housing and politics. The court also finds that the 

low socioeconomic conditions of Marengo County's black population 

depresses minority political participation today. 

*/ Dr. Lichtman also noted that black voters who cast ballots 
on election day actually vote in greater numbers for local 
offices (~, County Commission and County School Board) than 
for higher state-wide offices (~, State Treasurer, State 
Public Service Commissioner). (Lichtman Testimony at 594-597 
and Gov't Exs. 8 and 9.) In the 1982 primary election, for 
example, less than 25% of the black -registered voters cast 
ballots for .two positions on the Alabama Supreme Court, for 
Alabama Secretary of State, State Treasurer and State Auditor; 
whereas 28% of the black registered voters cast ballots on 
the very same day in the County Commission race. (Gov't Ex. 
8 at 5). Similarly, in the 1982 runoff, 30% of the black 
registered voters cast ballots for State Auditor and State 
Commissioner of Agriculture, whereas 33% of the black registered 
voters cast ballots in the County Commission race. (Ibid.) 

Dr. Lichtman's analysis also found that voter turnout was 
significantly higher among black voters when black candidates 
were involved in the race, as compared to those contests 
where only white candidates were vying for office. (Lichtman 
Testimony at 594-595 and Gov't Ex. 8 at 10.) Dr. Lichtman 
found that the pattern of such voting behavior illustrated a 
greater interest among black voters in elections for county 
offices where black candidates were involved, than in elections 
for certain state-wide offices. (Lichtman Testimony at 594-597 
and Gov't Ex. 8 at 3 and 5.) 



<; 

- 32 -

IV. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, 

provi des as follows: 

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to 
voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall 
be imposed or applied by any State or political 
subdivision in a manner which results in a denial 
or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the 
United States to vote on account of race or color, 
or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in 
section 4(f)(2) of this title, as provided in 
subsection (b). 

(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established 
if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is 
shown that the political processes leading to 
nomination or election in the State or political 
subdivision are not equally open to participation 
by members of a class of citizens protected by 
subsection (a) in that its members have less 
opportunity than other members of the electorate 
to participate in the political process and to 
elect representatives of their choice. The extent 
to which members of a protected class have been 
elected to office in the State or political sub­
division is one circumstance which may be consid­
ered: Provided, That nothing in this section 
e-stablishes a right to have members of a protected 
class elected in numbers equal to their proportion 
in the population. 

2. As nofed above, see page 6, supra, the Eleventh 

Circuit Court of Appeals determined that "the record shows a 

clear violation of the results test adopted by Congress in 
'J 

section 2 of the Voting Rights Act." 731 F.2d at 1574. That 

determination was based on the conditions that prevailed in 

Marengo County in 197R when this case was originally tried. 

Under the court of appeals' decision, "the defendants bear the 



.. , 

,) 

- 33 -

burden of establishing that circumstances have changed suffi-

ciently to make [the] finding of discriminatory results in 

1978 inapplicable in 1984." United States v. Harengo County 

Commission, supra, 731 F2d at 1575. In accordance with the 

instructions from the court of appeals, this Court has evaluated 

the political opportunities for Marengo County's black citizens 

as of today and rende·rs these conclusions of la\-1. 

3. At the outset, the Court notes that there has been 

a dearth of black candidates elected to the Marengo County 

Commission and the Marengo County School Board. While ' 

Section ?. contains an explicit disclaimer that "nothing in 

this section establishes a right to have members of a protected 

class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the 

population'' (42 U.S.C. 1973(b)), there is a disparity between 
,. 

the black population percentat Harengo County (53% black) and 

the black population percentage on the governing bodies 

(0% black on the County Commission and 20% black on the County 

School Board). In Marengo County, qualified black candidates 

before and after 1978 have repeatedly sought election to the 

county governing bodies and have failed to win election. This 

fact is relevant to the vote dilution inquiry for, as the 

language of Section 2 explicitly states, "[t]he extent to which 

members of a protected class have been elected to office in the 

State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be 

·f 
considered[.]" 42 U.S.C. 1973(b). 



.. 

.. " 
·, 

- 34 -

4. In deter~ining whether black voters in Marengo 

County "have less opportunity than other members of the 

electorate to parttcipate fn the political process and to 

elect representatives of their thoice" (42 ·u.s.c. 1973), 

the Court has considered the "totality of circumstances" 
j 

in Marengo County. The Court has given particular attention 

to the following issues: (1) the extent to which voters 

cast ballots along racial lines; (2) the difficulty of black 

persons to assimilate themselves into the M~rengo County 

political process, including tbe continuing failure to appoint 

qualified black persons to work at the polls on election day; 

and (3) the extent to which black citizens of Marengo County 

. bear the effects of past discrimination in such areas as 

education, employment, housing and health, and the impact of 

those effects on the current political opportunities of 

minority voters. In compliance with instructions from the 

court of appeals ·-, this Court has not conducted "a retrial of 

any issues already tried and reviewed by [the court of appeals]."._ 

United States v. Marengo County Commission, supra, · 731 F.2d 

at 1574. 



- 35 -

5. The inability of black persons to obtain appointment 

"' as poll officials in anything but token numbers was manifested 
. ;:w:· 

just last year. Black leaders were repeatedly ignored by 

county officials and Democra~ic Party leaders in their requests 

for ~ appointment of black poll officials. */ Such requests were 

' ignored even though Marengo County officials knew full well 

that the appointment of b.lack poll officials would give black 

voters more confidence in the electoral process. The potential 

for meaningful black political participation is less than 

twenty-years old in Marengo County. It is important that 

blacks gain both the knowledge of and confidence in the 

election process if, as the court of appeals envisioned, 

"blacks are to take their rightful place as equal participants 

in the political process[.]" 731 F.2d at 1570. The facts 

d ~ . ~ bl 1 emonstrate qu1te convincingly that effective ack po itical 

participation in Marengo County has been impaired substantially 

by defendants and other county officials. 

6. The long history of racial discrimination in 

Marengo County, including official discrimination aimed 

*/ Black leaders were also unable to obtain appointments as 
deputy registrars until 1984, when state law mandated the 
appointment of deputy registrars in each and every precinct. 
See Findings of Facts, paras. 10 to 15, supra. The fact that 
the deputy registrars were so successful once appointed is 
evidence that the .pre-1984 resistance to appoint deputy 
registrars had adverse consequences for black voters. 

•· 



·, 

- 36 -

particularly at preventing and discouraging black persons from 

registering anJ voting, is undisputed. See United States v. 

Marengo County Commission, supra, 731 F.2d at 1567-1568. This 

historical record of discrimination has two present-day effects 

in Marengo County: first, it causes blacks to register ·and to 

vote in ! ower numbers than whites (see Findings of Fact, 

para. 1, supra); second, it leads to present socioeconomic 

disadvantages (id. at paras. 33 to 41), which in turn reduces 

black participation and influen·ce in political affairs. 

·. United States v. Marengo County Commission, supra, 731 F.2d 

at 1567. 

7. The socioeconomic condition of the black community 

finds a substantially disproportionate number of black 

citizens with low-grade jobs, low social status, low-income and 

low-educational attainment levels. Because such educational 

and economic rteficiencies contribute to the present lack of 

participation in the election process, they are highly 

probative in assessing whether the at-large election systems 

at issue here violate Section 2 of the Voting ~ights Act. 

8. In determining whether election practices and 

procedures (such as the at-large systems here) deprive black 

voters of an equal opportunity to participate in the political 

process and to elect candidates of their choice to office, 

the Court must weigh the total evidence of record. In this 



.. 

I , 

- 37 -

case, there is very little balance, however, in the scale of 

evidence before the Court, for the great weight of the evidence 

points in the direction of ~a violation. Indeed, nearly all 

of the circumstances relevant to a Section 2 determination 

are present here: the widespread history of official discrimi-

nation, extreme racially polarized voting, the existence of 

an informal slating process that can be used to manipulate 

black political access, the marked disparity in socioeconomic 

status between blacks and whites, the virtual nonexistence of 

black electoral successes at the polls, and an election 

system characterized by an unusually large election district, 

a majority vote requirement, and residency districts which 

pt"ec]ud e s j ngle-shot r.or bullet voting. :1 
9. In view of these observations, the Court concludes 

that defendants have failed to show that . the "circumstances 

have changed" since 1978. Indeed, the evidence of record 

shows a sweeping and pervasive denial of access to the 

political process that continues to this day. ~fuere, as 

here, the at-lar~e election systems have been shown to deprive 

black voters of equal political opportunity, a violation of 

*! The Court makes this observation mindful of the fact that 
Congress has cautioned "there is no requirement that any 
particular number of factors be proved, or that a majority of 
them point one way or the other." S. Rep. No. 97-417, 97th 
Cong. , 2 d Sess. 2 9 (1982) (footnote omit ted) • 



·, 

- 38 -

Section 2 is shown. The at-large method of electing the 

Marengo County Commission and the Marengo County School Board 

continues to violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 

42 U.S.C. 1973. See United States v. Marengo County, supra. 

10. Because the at-large election schemes have been 

found violative of Section 2, "it is unnecessary for the 

Court to reach the constitutional claims presented. That is 

especially true here, where the court of appeals indicated 

that "[t]he purpose of the remand is to allow the parties to 

update the record and to supplement the record with evidence 

that might tend to affect [the] finding of discriminatory 

results." United States v. Marengo County Commission, supra, 

'' at 1574 (emphasis added). 
. ... 

,. 
11. The defendants shall immediately prepare fair 

·election plans for the County Commission and County School 

Board and file those plans with the Court. These filings 

shall be made no later than thirty days from entry of this 

decision. Simultaneous with defendants' filings in this 

Court, defendants shall seek preclearance of said plans under 

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973. See 
~· 

McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130 (1981.) Once the 

Section 5 process has been completed, this Court will then 

undertake its review of said plans. (Ibid.) 



12. Defendants were enjoined in 1984 by this Court 

from holding scheduled elections under the at-large system, 

and certain of the defendants are holding over in off ice 

beyond their terms. The defendants shall also prepare a 

schedule for holding el~ctions at the earliest possible date 

under the proposed plans and shall submit the proposed election 

schedule for Section 5 preclearance at the same time said 

plans are submitted. 

The Court retains jurisdiction of this matter for 

P pu~poses of issuing additional orders as may be appropriate. 

J. B. SESSIONS, III 
United States Attorney 

Respectfully submitted, 
~i 

HM. BRADFORD REYNOLDS 
Assistant Attorney General 

.&~- J4__ 
RALD W. JONES 

AUL F. HA.NCOCK 
. GERALD HEBERT 

CHRISTOPHE~ G. LEHMANN 
Attorneys, Voting Section 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
lOth and Constitution Ave., N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20530 
(202) 724-6292 

.. 



"\, 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that a copy of the Proposed Findings 

of Fact and Conclusions of Law for the United States was 

mailed, postage prepaid, on this ~O~day of June, 1985 t-:; th~ 
following counsel of record: 

Cartledge W. Blackwell, Jr., Esq. 
Blackwell and Keith 
Post Office Box 592 · 

' Selma, Alabama 36701 

Hugh A. Lloyd, Esq. 
Lloyd, Dinning and Bo.ggs 
Post Office Drawer Z 
Demopolis, Alabama 36732 

J. L. Chestnut, Jr., Esq. 
Chestnut, Sanders, and Sanders 
P. o. Box 773 
Selma, Alabama 36701 

Gerald Hebert 
torney, Voting Section 

¢ivil Rights Division 
_/bepartment of Justice 

lOth and Constitution Ave., N. W. 
Washington, D. C. 20530