United States of America v State of Georgia Brief for Appellant

    No. 96-9062

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellant 

and
CHARLES RIDLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees 
v .

STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,
(MERIWETHER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION)

Defendants-Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS APPELLANT

WILLIAM R. YEOMANS
Acting Assistant Attorney General

DENNIS J. DIMSEY 
MIRIAM R. EISENSTEIN 
Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice P.O. Box 66078 
Washington, D.C. 20035-6078 (202) 514-4707



United States of America
v. State of Georgia,
No. 96-9062 
C-l of 2

CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PARTIES AND 
CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT 

Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 26.1, appellant, United 
States of America, lists the following persons or entities which 
may have an interest in the outcome of this case.
Curtis Eugene Anderson 
Tommie Lee Bryant 
Martha L. Dean 
Dennis J. Dimsey 
Salliann Dougherty 
Lucille M. Durham 
Miriam R. Eisenstein 
Jeremiah Glassman 
Jennye Hardaway 
Phillip L. Hartley 
Robert Hawk 
Richmond Hill 
Elaine Jones
MERIWETHER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FIND, INC.
Dennis D. Parker



United States of America
v. State of Georgia, 
No. 96-9062 
C-2 of 2

Martha M. Pearson 
Brenda Phillips 
Charles Ridley 
STATE OF GEORGIA 
Robert Lee Todd IV 
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 
Joe D. Whitley 
William R. Yeomans
THE HONORABLE ROBERT L. VINING, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE



STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 
The United States believes that oral argument would be 

helpful to the Court in this case.

CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND STYLE 
This brief is typed in 12 point Courier.



TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE
CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS 
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT 
CERTIFICATE OF TYPE SIZE AND STYLE 
STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND

APPELLATE JURISDICTION ..................................  1
STATEMENT OF THE I S S U E ....................................... 2
STATEMENT OF THE C A S E ......................................... 2

A. Course Of Proceedings And Disposition Below ........  2
B. Facts............................................... 4

1. Historical Background.......................... 4
2. The 1995 P l a n ................................ 12
3. The Objections................................ 16
4. The Response.................................. 19

C. The District Court Decision And Opinion .........  21
STANDARD OF R E V I E W ........................................ 2 3
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT.......................................... 24
ARGUMENT:

I. INCORRECT LEGAL PREMISES SHAPED THE DISTRICT 
COURT'S DISCRETION TO APPROVE THE FIVE YEAR
P L A N ............................................ 26
A. It Is Legally Incorrect That The Board's

Facilities Plan Is Valid As Long As It Is 
Not Motivated By Racially Discriminatory 
P u r p o s e .................................... 2 6

- i -



TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued): PAGE

B. Nothing In Case Law Makes “Plus-or- 
Minus 20 Percentage Points” Into A
Universal Legal Standard ....................  27

II. THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY
BASING ITS DECISION ON SOME ERRONEOUS FINDINGS
AND IGNORING RELEVANT FACTS ......................  33

CONCLUSION................................................ 3 6

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES:
* Freeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467 (1992)................ passim
* Georgia State Conference of Branches of NAACP v.

Georgia. 775 F.2d 1403 (11th Cir. 1985) ..............  28
Green v. County Sch. Bd.. 391 U.S. 430 (1968) ........  22, 27
Harris v. Crenshaw Countv Bd. of Educ.. 968 F.2d 1090

(11th Cir. 1992).................................. 23, 26
Keyes v. School Dist. No. 1, Denver. Colo.. 413 U.S.

189 (1973)..........................................  31-32
Stall v. Board of Pub. Educ. for the City of Savannah 

& County of Chatham. 860 F. Supp. 1563
(S.D. Ga. 1994) ................................ 27-28, 29

* S w a n n  V. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.. 402 U.S. 1
(1971)........................................ 24, 26, 34

ii



CASES (continued): PAGE
United States v. Georgia. 19 F.3d 1388

(nth cir. 1994).............................   passim

STATUTES:
28 U.S.C. 1292 (a) (1)  2
28 U.S.C. 1345  1

RULES:
Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)...................................... 23

MISCELLANEOUS:
United States Department of Commerce, 1990 Census of

Population (1990 CP-2-12)   4

* Authorities chiefly relied upon are marked with asterisks.

- iii -



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-9062
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellant 
and

CHARLES RIDLEY, et al.,
Plaintiffs-Intervenors-Appellees 

v.
STATE OF GEORGIA, et al.,

(MERIWETHER COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION)
Defendants-Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES AS APPELLANT

STATEMENT OF SUBJECT MATTER AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
The district court had continuing jurisdiction of this 

school desegregation suit under 28 U.S.C. 1345. On June 28,
1996, the district court granted the Meriwether County School
Board's petition to approve a Five Year Facilities Plan
(RIO-147) ,1/ The United States filed a timely notice of appeal

17 "R" refers to the volumes and numbered documents listed on
the district court's docket. "PI. Exh." refers to the
Plaintiffs' exhibits at trial in 1990. "RS" refers to the

(continued...)



-2-
on August 23, 1996 (Rll-156). This Court has jurisdiction under 
28 U.S.C. 1292(a)(1) from the district court's order modifying an 
injunction.

STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Whether, based upon errors both of law and of fact, the 

district court abused its discretion in approving the defendants' 
Five Year Facilities Plan.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
A. Course Of Proceedings And Disposition Below

The United States filed this suit against the State of 
Georgia and 81 public school districts, including the Meriwether 
County Board of Education, on August 1, 1969 (United States v. 
Georgia. 19 F.3d 1388, 1390 (11th Cir. 1994)). On December 17, 
1969, the court entered a detailed injunction (see Order of July 
23, 1973, at 6).z/ In 1970, certain individuals representing 
black school children intervened as plaintiffs in the statewide 
case (19 F.3d at 1390). The district court lifted the detained

17 (. . . continued)
supplemental record volumes assigned by the court to the 
transcripts of the 1990 nonjury trial.
J The Order of July 23, 1973, no longer in the district court's 
office (see 19 F.3d at 1390 n.l), will be filed by agreement of 
the parties, together with the exhibits that are apparently 
missing from the district court as well, in a motion to 
supplement the record after the briefs are filed.



-3-
injunction and entered a permanent injunction by Order of July 
23, 1973 (n.2, supra). In 1979, the district court placed the 
case on its inactive docket (19 F.3d at 1390) .

In 1986, the Board of Education (Board) adopted a Five Year 
Facilities Plan. When the Board voted to drop this plan, in 
1988, the Hill Intervenors moved to reopen the case (Rl-1), 
alleging noncompliance by the Board with the 1973 injunction.
The United States filed a Motion to Enforce the 1973 Order and 
for Supplemental Relief on October 16, 1989 (R5-47). On November 
13, 1989, the district court granted a motion by the Ridley 
Intervenors that inter alia, directed the State to hold onto 
certain funds allocated to the Board for construction (R5-53). 
After a bench trial in February, March, and May of 1990, the 
district court entered several orders closing one high school 
(RS3-521 to 522, ruling from the bench), ordering equalization of 
the high school curricula, and halting most interdistrict and 
intradistrict transfers of students (19 F.3d at 1391; R7-71).

In November 1992, a new Board voted to pursue the previously 
proposed high school consolidation (19 F.3d at 1391). The 
district court, upon joint motion of all the parties (R8-98), 
ordered the State to release the funds it had been holding in 
abeyance since November 1989 to help fund the plan (R8-99, 
modifying R5-53). A civic group opposed to the plan tried to 
intervene in this suit (R8-100), but the district court denied 
intervention (R8-108) and this Court affirmed (19 F.3d 1388).



-4-
The would-be intervenors, meanwhile, acquired a state court 
injunction on procedural grounds preventing release of the state 
funds and preventing the consolidation plan from being 
implemented (19 F.3d at 1392 n.5).

On January 23, 1996, the Board filed a petition for approval 
of a new Five Year Facilities Plan that called for two high 
schools (R9-130). The United States and the Intervenors objected 
to the Plan (RIO-132 and RIO-136) and moved for an evidentiary 
hearing (RIO-143 and RIO-144). On June 28, 1996, the district 
court entered an order granting the Board's petition and denying 
the motions for an evidentiary hearing (RIO-147). On August 22, 
1996, the district court filed a memorandum opinion (Rll-155) .
The United States and the Intervenors filed notices of appeal on 
August 23 and August 26, 1996, respectively (Rll-156 and Rll- 
157) .
B . Ea.c.ts

l. Historical Background
Meriwether County is in southwestern Georgia. As of 1990, 

it had a population of 22,411 people, the majority of whom were 
white (United States Department of Commerce, 1990 Census of 
Population (1990 CP-2-12), Georgia, Section 1, Table 6, at 27).

In 1969, Meriwether County's school population was over 
5,000 pupils, about 58% of whom were black (see n.3, infra). A 
formerly jure dual system, Meriwether had 11 schools in 1969,
6 of them attended entirely by African American children.



-5-
Schools in the City of Manchester, in the southern portion of the 
county, were attended predominantly by white children. The City 
of Greenville (in the central part of the county) had two schools 
housing grades 1-12. One, called "Greenville Consolidated," had 
824 black students; the other, smaller one, was called 
"Greenville High School" and was predominantly white.1 11 Figures 
furnished to the Department of Health, Education and Welfare for 
1970 reflect that desegregation in Greenville was achieved by 
having two single-sex schools housing grades 1-12. The single-

1 The following figures are from data furnished to the
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare for 1969:

School_________________
Luthersville Elem. 
Eleanor Roosevelt 
Greenville Consolidated 
McCrary Elem.
Woodbury Elem./Sec. 
Meriwether Co. Train. 
Greenville High 
Manchester Elem. 
Meriwether Elem.
Warm Springs Elem. 
Manchester High

Grades______No. b n o . w

1-8 286 0
1-6 144 0
1-12 824 0
1-8 326 0
1-12 568 0
1-12 672 0
1-12 26 575
1-7 45 619
1-8 22 239
1-8 20 181
8-12 18 476



-6-
sex structure of the Greenville schools was abandoned for the 
1971-72 school year. Instead, the schools were paired so that 
Greenville Consolidated (now Greenville Elementary) served 
children in grades 1-7 and Greenville High School, grades 8-12 
(Order of July 23, 1973, at 3).

In 1973, the district court lifted the detailed order and 
replaced it with a permanent injunction enjoining the State from 
taking any action that would "result in the reestablishment of 
the former dual school system" and from providing funds to any 
school district found in violation of the injunction (Order of 
July 23, 1973, at 5). The court also officially approved the 
pairing arrangement of the Greenville schools (id. at 6). Among 
other things, the permanent injunction provided that all future 
school construction, consolidation, and site selection would be 
done in a manner "which will prevent the reoccurrence of the dual 
school structure" (î L. at 7). The court also enjoined all the 
school districts in the statewide case from granting transfers in 
or out of the district that would have the cumulative effect of 
reducing desegregation in either the sending or receiving 
district (ibiiLJ . In 1979, as indicated at 3, the court
put this case on inactive status.

Meriwether had ten schools in the late 1980s: six element­
ary, one middle school, and three high schools (Stipulation



-7-
#1) While the school population was 60% black, the three 
Manchester schools were between 64%-67% white. The Greenville 
and Woodbury schools, by contrast, were between 72%-88% black 
(ibilLJ •

A census taken by the school district in May 1988 showed 
that 233 white students had transferred, within the system, to 
schools to which they were not assigned, most of them to the 
three predominantly white Manchester schools: 85 to Manchester
Elementary School, 61 to Manchester Middle School, and 29 to 
Manchester High School (Stipulation #10). These intradistrict 
transfers of white children were mainly transfers out of 
Greenville and Woodbury schools (PI. Exh. 10). In addition, as 
of October 1988, a large number of white children from 
predominantly black Talbot County School District were also 
attending those three schools: 37 in Manchester Elementary, 45
in Manchester Middle, and 46 in Manchester High School 
(Stipulation #3). According to Jerry Hicks, who was chairman of 
the School Board from the late 1970s until 1988 (and again since

- The stipulations of the parties were in an unsigned pretrial 
order that was never entered on the docket. They were forwarded 
to the district court for inclusion in the record by agreement of 
the parties, but they were never forwarded to this Court. 
Accordingly, they will be filed with a motion to supplement the 
record after the briefs are filed.



-8-
1992), the Manchester schools were perceived to be "white" 
schools while the Greenville and Woodbury schools were perceived 
to be "black" schools (RS4-731 (Hicks); see also RSI-105 to 106 
(Stekelenberg, former superintendent of schools) (Manchester High 
School perceived as the white school and Greenville High School 
as the black school)).

In 1986, the Board adopted a plan to replace the three high 
schools with one consolidated school. This proposal set off a 
prolonged conflict. None of the existing high schools -- 
Greenville, Woodbury, or Manchester -- had an adequate plant, but 
Woodbury was clearly the worst, followed by Greenville (RS2-246 
to 290 (Carroll McGuffey)). There were also serious disparities 
among the curricular offerings (PI. Exh. 109 and 111; RS4-770 to 
778 (testimony of former Board chairman Hicks)).

The State's Quality Basic Education (QBE) Act determines how 
much state assistance a school district can get to build or 
renovate facilities. A school district is eligible for the 
maximum "incentive" funding if it adopts a K-5, 6-8, and 9-12 
grade organization, and has schools that house either the 
prescribed minimum number of students or all the students in 
those grades (RS3-596 to 597 (Cloer, State Department of 
Education)). The minimum school sizes for new construction 
funding are 450 for an elementary school, 624 for a middle 
school, and 970 for a high school (RS3-589).



-9-
On November 4, 1986, the Board voted 3-2 (over the 

opposition of the Manchester and Warm Springs members) to locate 
a comprehensive high school at a central site east of Greenville 
(RS4-807 to 809 (Hicks)). Opposition to the plan was centered in 
the predominantly white southern portion of the county, spear­
headed by a group calling itself the Citizens for Community 
Schools. Some of the opposition was explicitly racial in 
character. See RS4-812 to 815, 819, RS5-837 to 839, 850 to 851 
(Hicks); RSI-156, 158 to 159, 161 (Stekelenberg). On April 14, 
1987, by a 3-2 vote, the Board approved the plan to build a 
comprehensive high school (RS5-841 to 843 (Hicks)). In 1988, 
Chairman Jerry Hicks was replaced on the Board (RS4-733 (Hicks)), 
and the Board voted in April 1988 to abandon the Five Year Plan 
(RS5-851 to 854 (Hicks)). While the Board was considering 
alternative plans, the Ridley and Hill Intervenors reactivated 
this case (Rl-1) (August 1988).

In July 1989, the Board adopted a resolution calling for a 
new, two-high school plan to be financed by a bond issue if it 
passed a referendum. The resolution kept the one high school 
plan as a default plan in case the referendum failed (RS5-855 to 
857 (Hicks); RS10-1742 to 1743 (Forehand); Pi. Exh. 107). At 
this point, the United States and the Intervenors filed their 
motions to enforce the 1973 desegregation order (R3-42 and R5-
47) .



-10-
The United States focused upon the transfers of students, 

intradistrict and interdistrict, arguing that they contributed to 
the perception that the Manchester schools are "white" schools 
and the Greenville schools are "black" schools. In addition, the 
United States argued that retention of Greenville High School and 
Manchester High School -- even if Woodbury were closed -- would 
undo whatever progress had been made in dismantling the dual 
system. The United States asked the court to order equalization 
of opportunity at the high school level by any means that would 
work, did not enhance segregation, and did not place an 
inordinate burden on black children. See R5-47.

In November 1989, upon motion of the United States and the 
Ridley Intervenors, the district court ordered the State to hold 
onto the entitlement money that had been set aside for Meriwether 
County pending the outcome of the renewed litigation (R5-53).
The bond issue referendum was defeated on October 3, 1989. 
Although the original resolution contemplated going back to the 
consolidated high school plan if the referendum failed, the Board 
then rescinded that resolution (RS5-857 to 859 (Hicks)). That 
left the entire matter in limbo while the parties went to trial 
on the motions by the United States and the Intervenors.

In 1990, after a bench trial, the district court entered 
several orders, but did not require the district to build a 
consolidated high school. The court ordered the Board to close 
Woodbury High School, to send the students in grades 9-12 to



-11-
Manchester High, and to distribute the eighth grade students 
between Greenville High School and Manchester High School. Among 
other things, the court enjoined all future transfers. Children 
who lived in the Talbot County part of the City of Manchester, 
however, were allowed indefinitely to transfer to schools in the 
Meriwether County part of the City of Manchester (R7-71 and R7- 
78). Finally, the court directed the Board to "offer the same 
courses above the core curriculum at both Manchester High School 
and Greenville High School" and to bring the faculties of all the 
schools into line with the district-wide ratio (R7-71; see also 
19 F.3d at 1391).

In 1992-1993, as indicated supra at 3, the Board went 
through another round of approving and then abandoning a plan to 
consolidate high schools. Shortly after a new Board was elected 
in November 1992, it voted to pursue the consolidation plan. The 
Board, State, and plaintiffs jointly moved the court to direct 
the State to release the funds it had been holding so that 
construction could begin. This time, members of the Citizens for 
Community Schools of Meriwether County moved to intervene to 
prevent the money from being distributed for this purpose. They 
claimed that the Board had bowed to pressure from the United 
States and no longer represented their interests. The district 
court disagreed, and denied the intervention. Meanwhile, how­
ever, the same group went to state court and got an injunction 
against release of the money on the ground that the Board had not



-12-
followed proper procedures (19 F.3d at 1391-1392 & n.5). This 
Court affirmed the district court's denial of the intervention on 
May 4, 1994 (19 F.3d at 1389). In September 1995, the district 
court authorized the State to reallocate the capital funds it had 
been holding for Meriwether County (R8-124).

2. The 1995 Plan
On November 8, 1994, the Board put the question of a 

consolidated high school to a referendum, and the voters rejected 
the proposal (R9-130-2 (Affidavit of Superintendent Hawk)). Con­
sequently, on November 15, 1994, the Board passed the first of a 
series of resolutions leading to the current Petition to Approve 
a Five Year Facilities Plan based, among other things, on the 
assumption that the county would continue to have two high 
schools (R9-130, Exh. 2; RIO-135, Exh. 15). The State Board 
approved a proposed two high school facilities plan on November 
9, 1995 (R9-130-5 (Hawk Affidavit)). On January 23, 1996, the 
Board filed its petition to the court for approval of a new Five 
Year Facilities Plan (R9-130).

At this point, there were slightly over 4,000 students in 
the system (R9-190, Exh. 4), and blacks accounted for about 65% 
of the students. The racial proportions in the schools for the 
1995-96 school year were as follows (RIO-135-21 (Report of United 
States' Expert William M. Gordon)):^

L/ A slightly different set of figures are presented in the Brief
(continued...)



-13-
School Grades *B %W Total
Luthersville Elem. Pre-K-7 57%B 43%W 547
McCrary Elem. Pre-K-7 90%B 10%W 211
Greenville Elem. Pre-K-7 84%B 16%W 552
Woodbury Elem. Pre-K-5 79%B 21%W 248
Greenville High 8-12 80%B 20%W 672
Warm Springs Elem. Pre-K-5 46%B 54%W 311
Manchester Elem. Pre-K-5 50%B 5 0%W 546
Manchester Middle 6-8 58%B 42%W 448
Manchester High 9-12 53%B 47%W 649

Under the Board's proposed plan, which would have two distinct 
phases, the six elementary schools would all eventually be 
replaced by three new ones: North, Central, and South. Each of
these would serve grades Pre-K to 5. North Meriwether Elementary 
would combine the populations of Luthersville and McCrary,^ and 
would feed into a "new" North Middle School (using old Greenville 
High School) that would serve grades 6-8, and then into a newly 
built North Meriwether High School (grades 9-12) that would

- (...continued)
supporting the Petition at 6, 12 & n.7. That brief is not 
separately entered on the docket but was attached to the
Petition.
£/ Under the original resolution, the North Elementary School 
would have combined the Pre-K to 5 populations of Greenvil1e and 
Luthersville (R9-130, Exh.2; RIO-135, Exh. 15).



-14-
replace the existing Greenville High School. The Board would 
refurbish the old Greenville High School to make it into a middle 
school. These changes, and the building of a new South Element­
ary (combining the populations of Manchester and Warm Springs) 
would complete Phase I of the plan. State "entitlement" funds 
amounting to $6.6 million would cover a portion of the elementary 
school construction; all the rest of the funds for Phase I would 
have to be raised through a planned $13 million bond issue and 
through local taxes (R9-130-4 to 5; Brief in Support at 10-11).

The proposed Phase II of the plan would involve construction 
of Central Meriwether Elementary (to serve the populations of 
Greenville and Woodbury) and renovations of Manchester Middle, 
Manchester High, and old Greenville High. See Brief in Support 
of Petition at 7-12. Each of the new schools would use the 
attendance zones and feeder patterns of the schools they replaced 
(id. at 7-8).2/ The Board anticipated that a bond referendum 
(which it hoped to call for September 1996) would pass because it 
believed that there was considerable support for Phase I of the

-x Since there will be only two middle schools and two high 
schools, the "central" elementary group would divide those 
previously assigned to Greenville elementary going north and 
those assigned to Woodbury going south. Indeed, those assigned 
to Woodbury elementary have been going south for middle school 
and high school since the 1990 order to close Woodbury High.



-15-
plan (id. at 11) .fi/

No funding arrangements were proposed for the second phase 
of the plan. No exact sites were selected for any of the new 
schools^7 though, the Board claimed, the locations of the schools 
would not require significantly longer trips for anyone.
However, even without having selected the exact sites, the Board 
anticipated that seventh and eighth graders newly assigned to 
North Meriwether Middle School, and all the children who now 
attend McCrary Elementary School, would have at least slightly 
longer rides than before (Brief in Support at 13-14).

The Board anticipated that the racial proportions in the new 
schools would be as follows (Brief in Support at 9): * 11

School Grades No. (%)B NO.(%)W Other Total
North Elem. Pre-K-5 385(62%) 227 (37%) 9 (2%) 621
North Middle 6-8 321(74%) 112(26%) l 434
North High 9-12 471(80%) 118 (20%) — 589
Middle Elem. Pre-K-5 574(83%) 116 (17%) 2 692
South Elem. Pre-K-5 429 (49%) 437 (50%) 5 871
South Middle 6-8 261(56%) 205 (44%) — 466
South High 9-12 335 (50%) 331 (50%) 2 668

y The United States is informed that the referendum in fact 
passed.
11 Tentative alternative sites had been explored. See, e .o ..
R10-135-2, 5.



-16-
Defending the plan, the Board argued that the populations of 

the new schools would deviate from the district-wide ratio of 
about 64%B-36%W by no more than twenty percentage points, no 
school would be majority white (Brief in Support at 12-13), and 
the staff of every school would be 62% white (based on the 1995- 
96 figures) (id. at 14-15). According to the Board, there would 
be no reduction in staff as a result of the consolidation of 
schools (id. at 15).

3. The Objections
The United States objected to the plan (RIO-137), basing the 

objections on a report filed by the United States' expert William 
M. Gordon (RIO-135).lfi/ First, the United States took the 
position, based on 4̂ of the 1973 Order, that the Meriwether 
School Board still had an obligation (when building or moving 
schools) to further desegregation (R10-137-3 to 4). The United 
States also observed that financing for the plan was (at the 
time) speculative as to Phase I and nonexistent as to Phase II 
(R10-137-5 to 7). In addition, the United States registered the 
following objections:

a. The proposed grouping of schools into north, central, 
and southern schools (and feeder patterns) locks in a system of

Because the United States is not raising here every issue it 
raised below, this recital of objections and the responses to 
them cover only those points pursued on appeal.



-17-
student assignment that reinforces racial identifiability by- 
maintaining the traditional north-south division while altern­
ative plans could alleviate the identification of schools as 
"white" and "black" (R10-137-8 to 12). The United States' expert 
Dr. Gordon did not take issue with the consolidation of 
Luthersville and McCrary. He recommended, however, that if 
historically black Greenville Elementary School were consolidated 
with Warm Springs (rather than with 79% black Woodbury), the 
resulting combined school would be about 68% black and the oldest 
school in the system, Warm Springs, could still be scheduled for 
replacement as part of Phase I. This approach would address both 
problems -- racial identifiability and the poor condition of both 
of the existing schools. Similarly, Dr. Gordon recommended that 
Manchester Elementary be consolidated with Woodbury Elementary, 
with the resulting consolidated elementary school being 58% 
black. Instead, the Board proposed a pattern of consolidations 
that would make two new schools (Middle Elementary and South 
Elementary) 83% black and 51% white (RIO-137-11 to 15 and RIO-135 
- Option 1). In addition, the United States suggested (as 
recommended by Dr. Gordon) that the boundaries for the middle 
schools be modified so that both middle schools would be about 
equal in size and racial composition (RIO-137-16 to 17).

b. The Board planned Middle Meriwether Elementary School, 
to replace Woodbury and Greenville Elementary Schools, for the 
second phase. There is not even a hypothetical funding plan for



-18-
Phase II. Both Greenville and Woodbury are former jure 
segregated schools. Of all the facilities, historically black 
Greenville Elementary is either the second or third school most 
in need of repair or replacement (R10-135-4, 6, 8) (Luthersville 
clearly most in need; Greenville and Warm Springs are next). The 
United States noted that, instead of making historically black 
Greenville a high priority, the district has designated histori­
cally white Manchester and Warm Springs Elementary schools to be 
replaced during Phase I of the plan (RIO-137-11 to 12).

c. The United States also argued that the plan for the high 
schools violates the 1990 court order to equalize Greenville and 
Manchester High Schools. Greenville High School, though it was 
not a jure black school, is perceived as "black" if for no 
other reason than that location, history, and a record of 
unlawful white transfers caused Manchester High to be perceived 
as the white school. Greenville High School has had fewer 
advanced courses than Manchester High School (RIO-135-38 and Att. 
27 & 28; RIO-138 (Deposition of Georgia Drake) at 26-28). Yet 
nothing in the Board's plan will correct that situation. The new 
North Meriwether High School, scheduled to replace Greenville 
High, will still be undersized by state standards, and will still 
be likely to have offerings inferior to those at Manchester 
(South Meriwether) High n/ (RIO-138 (Deposition of W. Jerry

n/ Although the chart proffered by the Board in its brief
(continued...)



-19-
Rochelle) at 34, 73; RIO-135-37 to 38). It will not have the 
trade clusters, auditorium, or stadium, now found at existing 
Manchester High School (RIO-135-37 and Attachments 19, 31, 16 & 
23). The population, moreover, will be at least 80% black the 
day it opens (RIO-137-17 to 18). Consequently, the United 
States' expert suggested some alternatives that would mitigate 
the disparities between the "white" and "black" high schools such 
as building a northern school containing grades 6-12, or 
renovating the existing Greenville High School into a 6-12 
facility (R10-135-0ptions 3 & 4), or simply redrawing the middle 
and high school attendance zones (RIO-137-17 to 18; R10-135- 
Option 2; RIO-135-58). ̂

4. The Response
The Meriwether Board of Education responded (RIO-140), 

claiming that the the United States' expert did not consider 
whether his proposed alternatives would have any support in the

li/ (. . . continued)
anticipated a North High School enrollment of over 500 for 1996- 
1997 (Brief at 9), the anticipated enrollment for 1999-2000 was 
465, and the construction plan was based on that figure (R10-135- 
13 & Exh. 19).
w  Dr. Gordon suggested that a northern 6-12 school could have a 
combined population of over 1,000 and a high school population of 
well over 500, thus enabling the district to become eligible for 
some state "QBE" funds (R10-135-Option 2 & Table 9).



-20-
Meriwether County community (R10-140-2, 5), and whether the 
funding for these options could be raised in referendum (R10-140- 
3). Raising the millage would not be a popular move, and local 
voter approval would be necessary to increase local sales taxes 
(RIO-140-6). In addition, because the Warm Springs Elementary 
School is the oldest school in the county, the Board argued, the 
southern part of the county probably would not support any plan 
that did not make its replacement a top priority (R10-140-5) .
The Board also took issue with the contention that Greenville and 
Woodbury Elementary Schools were significantly more in need of 
replacement than Warm Springs and Manchester Elementary (whose 
replacement would be built first) (R10-140-16 to 20).

Second, the Board argued that, under what it construed to be 
the relevant legal definitions, no school would be racially 
identifiable (R10-140-6 to 9). The Board questioned whether it 
had any desegregation obligation beyond bringing each school 
within the 20 percentage points of the system-wide racial ratio 
(id. at 8-10) . According to the Board, moreover, it is 
irrelevant how the schools were perceived in 1990 before Woodbury 
High School was closed and its students distributed to the other 
high schools (R10-140-7 n.8).

Third, the Board took issue with some of Dr. Gordon's 
factual assertions regarding the alleged inequalities between the 
existing Greenville High and Manchester High, and alleged pro­
jected inequalities in the plans for North and South High Schools



-21-
with respect to plant and course offerings (R10-140-9 to 21).
The Board noted that neither high school would have the State's 
recommended baseline population of 900-1000 (as opposed to the 
minimum population for receiving state aid), and therefore the 
plaintiffs' objections with respect to size could only mean that 
they were holding out for a single comprehensive high school 
(R10-140-12 to 13). The Board noted that Manchester High School 
does not have a gymnasium of its own,11'' and one is planned for 
North High School (though neither an auditorium nor a stadium is 
planned for North High School) (id. at 14). In addition, the 
Board noted that some of the courses that Dr. Gordon said were 
not offered at Greenville High School in fact had been offered, 
though not at the levels originally planned (R10-140-14 to 15 & 
n.23). Moreover, the electronic interactive television system 
planned for the new high school would, the Board argued, make 
classes given at one school available to the other (id. at 16) .
C. The District Court Decision And Opinion

On June 28, 1996, the district court entered an order 
approving the Board's petition, and denied the requests by the 
United States and the Intervenors for a hearing (R10-147). On

n/ But see PI. Exh. 121 at 101-111 (McGuffey's Report). 
Manchester High School has had the use of the nearby and 
excellent gymnasium at the Callaway Center.



-22-
August 22, 1996, the court entered its findings and conclusions 
in support of that decision (Rll-155).

The district court began with the assumption that, without 
evidence of discriminatory intent, there could be no legitimate 
objection to the plan. The plaintiffs, however, had "presented 
no evidence to show that racial motives played any part in the 
school board's decision making process" (Rll-155-4) (emphasis in 
original). Thus, as far as the court was concerned, there was no 
legal basis to prefer the plaintiffs' alternative recommendations 
over the school board's proposal (ibid.).

Second, the court noted that the United States and the 
Intervenors had failed to give adequate weight to the fact that 
it is very difficult to get a bond referendum passed in Meri­
wether County, and that the school board's recommendation is 
grounded on political necessities (Rll-155-5 to 6). According to 
the district court, a board is obliged only to adopt a plan that 
will succeed politically. In support of this proposition, the 
court cited v. County School Board. 391 U.S. 430, 439
(1968) ("The burden on the school board today is to come forward 
with a plan that promises realistically to work....") (Rll-155-
6) .

Third, the district court took the position that, at least 
from the point of view of pupil attendance, none of the schools 
would be "racially identifiable" under the proposed plan (Rll- 
155-7). The court reserved judgment, however, stating that, if



-23-
the new schools in fact turn out to be racially identifiable 
(however defined), the court can take action to remedy it later 
(ibid.). Similarly, the district court was prepared to take a 
"wait and see" posture with respect to faculty assignments and 
transportation (iiL_ at 8-9) —  except that the court was sure 
that if any greater burden is ultimately placed on black students 
than on white students, it will have been because of demographic 
patterns (id. at 9).

Finally, the district court did not credit the testimony of 
Dr. Gordon that the Greenville High School had course offerings 
inferior to those at Manchester High, and therefore had never 
been equalized as required by the 1990 order (Rll-155-7 to 8). 
Without making specific subordinate findings, the court accepted 
the Board's explanation that some of the plaintiffs' numbers were 
"simply incorrect" (id. at 8).

Finding no reason to disapprove of the plan, the district 
court therefore approved it.

STANDARD OF REVIEW
Approval or disapproval of a proposed facilities plan is 

reviewed for abuse of discretion. Harris v. Crenshaw Gonnty Bd, 
of Educ.. 968 F.2d 1090, 1098 (11th Cir. 1992). To the extent 
that the court's discretion was shaped by an error of law, 
however, it is reviewable novo. To the extent that it is 
based upon factual findings, the findings are reviewed for clear 
error under Rule 52(a), Fed. R. Civ. P.



-24-
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

The district court based its consideration of the Board's 
petition on the incorrect legal premise that a facilities plan is 
acceptable as long as it is not discriminatorily motivated.
School districts that have not achieved unitary status have an 
on-going duty. They must ensure that construction and 
replacement of facilities furthers desegregation rather than 
freezing the status quo or reestablishing racially identifiable 
schools. Freeman v. Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 485 (1992); Swann v. 
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Educ.. 402 U.S. 1, 21 (1971). The 
district court further erred, as a matter of law, by declaring 
that the schools in Meriwether County would not be racially 
identifiable under the new plan. The ratio of black to white 
students at each school would be within 20 percentage points of 
the system-wide ratio, but there is no absolute rule that this 
ratio qualifies the school district as having unitary status for 
purposes of school attendance. The Middle Elementary School 
would unnecessarily combine two former iifi. jure black schools, 
Woodbury and Greenville, into an 83% black school. The South 
Elementary and High Schools would still be disproportionately 
white, and continue to function as a haven for white students 
from Talbot County. Greenville High School would still be at 
least 80% black, reinforcing its image as the "black high 
school." None of these problems, moreover, is an inevitable
result of demographic patterns. There are viable alternatives



-25-
that would be more desegregative. The Board has made a conscious 
decision to freeze the north-south division of the county. The 
district court has permitted the Board to avoid its continuing 
duty.

In addition, the district court ignored salient facts in 
summarily granting the Board's petition. The court ignored the 
history of school transfers that had reinforced the racial makeup 
and images of certain schools as "black" or "white" schools. The 
court paid no attention to the fact that the Board has chosen to 
give first priority to replacing the elementary school that 
houses the largest proportion of white students in this majority- 
black school system. The court also summarily dismissed the 
contention that Greenville High School has been maintained as 
both black and inferior. Thus, the district court failed to 
appreciate the degree to which the Board has not yet dismantled 
its dual system. The court did this, moreover, without holding 
the hearing requested by the United States and the Intervenors. 
Accordingly, the district court abused its discretion in granting 
the petition.



-26-
ARGUMENT

I
INCORRECT LEGAL PREMISES SHAPED THE DISTRICT 
COURT'S DISCRETION TO APPROVE THE FIVE YEAR PLAN 

A. It Is Legally Incorrect That The Board's Facilities 
Plan Is Valid As Long As It Is Not Motivated By
Racially Discriminatory Purpose____________________

"The duty and responsibility of a school district once seg­
regated by law is to take all steps necessary to eliminate the 
vestiges of the unconstitutional de jure system." Freeman v. 
Pitts. 503 U.S. 467, 485 (1992). Local authorities and the 
district courts must "see to it that future school construction 
and abandonment are not used and do not serve to perpetuate or 
re-establish the dual system." v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg
Bd. of Educ.. 402 U.S. 1, 21 (1971) (emphasis added). See also 
Order of July 23, 1973, in this case. The board's "duty to 
desegregate is violated if [it] fails to consider or include the 
objective of desegregation in decisions regarding abandonment 
[and construction] of school facilities." Harris v. Crenshaw 
County Bd. of Educ.. 968 F.2d 1090, 1095 (11th Cir. 1992). It is 
an abuse of discretion, therefore, for the district court to 
approve a plan that is inconsistent with the Board's continuing 
duty, and it is not relevant that the Board may have had no 
affirmative intent to discriminate when it promulgated the plan.



-27-
The district court's reliance on Green v. County School 

Board. 391 U.S. 430, 439 (1968), as a basis for approving the 
plan, is misplaced. It is true that Green calls for plans that 
"work." A desegregation plan that "works," however, is one that 
desegregates. Nothing in Green holds that it is the court's role 
to accommodate the local white citizens' determination to have 
their schools replaced ahead of any other schools. "[A] school 
board that is properly subject to continuing court supervision 
may be required to relinquish its political autonomy to the 
extent that its decisions are shown to adversely impact the 
objective of alleviating the unconstitutional conditions that 
justified the court's initial intervention." United States v. 
Georgia (Meriwether County). 19 F.3d 1388, 1392 (11th Cir. 1994).

B. Nothing In Case Law Makes "Plus-or-Minus 20
Percentage Points" Jinto A Universal Legal Standard

Without asking to be declared partially unitary, the Board 
has taken the position that the Five Year Facilities Plan will, 
in effect, create a school district that is unitary with respect 
to pupil attendance. The district court apparently concurred in 
the defendants' theory that the facilities plan cannot be faulted 
as long as the result will be schools whose populations meet the 
benchmark of plus-or-minus twenty percentage points from the 
systemwide ratios of 65%B-35%W. This figure has appeared as an 
analytic tool in Pitts. 503 U.S. at 476, and in Stell v. Board of 
Pub. Educ. for the City of Savannah & County of Chatham. 860



-28-
F. Supp. 1563 (S.D. Ga. 1994). It does not follow, however, that 
this formula in the abstract represents the limits of a school 
district's obligation in every instance.

A formerly jure segregated school district is required to 
achieve the maximum practical desegregation. Pitts. 503 U.S. at 
480. The Board incorrectly assumed, however, that there is some 
absolute cut-off or legal benchmark after which it is no longer 
under any obligation to take the more desegregative alternatives 
-- even though they exist and are practicable. The Board based 
that assumption, in part, on an assertion in Georgia State 
Conference of Branches of NAACP v. Georgia. 775 F.2d 1403, 1413 
(llth Cir. 1985), taken out of context, that a school district 
need not take the most desegregative alternative in every 
instance.

In Georgia Branches, the court of appeals held that school 
districts were not absolutely barred from using ability groupings 
even though heterogeneous groupings would have been more desegre­
gative. In context, the court was holding only that some 
practices could be justified educationally even though they might 
not be the most (intra-school) desegregative alternative.
Georgia Branches does not suggest that a school board can, 
generally and without either a practical problem or an 
educational justification, decide that it is free to take a less 
desegregative alternative.



-29-
A school district is not free of its obligation to desegre­

gate, when further desegregation is practicable, merely because 
it has reached a numerical benchmark used in a case involving 
some other school district. Pitts and Stell concern the huge 
urban school districts of DeKalb and Chatham Counties, Georgia. 
DeKalb County had some 74 elementary schools by the time Pitts 
was decided, dozens of them in large areas populated overwhelm­
ingly by African Americans. A twenty percentage point benchmark 
for "racial identifiability" makes some sense in that context.
It has no universal legal significance, however.

What the courts made clear, in both Pitts and Stell. is that 
"unitariness" in school attendance patterns has less to do with 
the numbers than with the reasons for them. A school district is 
obliged to strive to reach that point at which school attendance 
patterns, even if racially identifiable, are "attributable nei­
ther to the prior de jure system nor to a later violation by the 
school district but rather to independent demographic forces." 
Pitts. 503 U.S. at 493.̂  Meriwether County has not reached

^ In Pitts. the system was found to have achieved "unitary- 
status " with respect to pupil attendance patterns even though a 
large number of the schools did not meet the criterion of having 
a student body balanced within 20 percentage points of the 
district-wide racial proportion.



-30-
that point now, nor will it be closer to that point if the pro­
posed plan is put into effect.

Meriwether County has only 4,000 students and nine schools. 
At this time, six of those schools have populations that are 15 
percentage points or more away from the district-wide norm: 
McCrary Elementary, Greenville Elementary, Woodbury Elementary, 
Greenville High, Warm Springs Elementary, and Manchester 
Elementary. The Five Year Plan (if it ever is completely funded) 
will result in a system having only seven schools, and two of 
those schools will be just as racially identifiable as ever:
North Meriwether High (80%B), and Central Meriwether Elementary 
(83%B). A third school, South Meriwether Elementary (49%B), 
while technically desegregated, would still be very dispropor­
tionately white. These patterns, moreover, will not have 
occurred by chance or by virtue of demographic change alone.

School boards can contribute to racial segregation either by 
directly causing the racial imbalance or by doing things that 
contribute to demographic change that segregates people by race. 
Pitts. 503 U.S. at 507-508 (opinion of Souter, J.); id. at 510- 
513 (opinion of Blackmun, J.). The Meriwether Board has done, 
and continues to do, both of these things.

First, it cannot be ignored that the Meriwether schools were 
jure segregated, and that the Greenville and Woodbury Element­

ary Schools are vestiges of that system. The fact that sie. jure 
segregation officially ended a long time ago is irrelevant.



-31-
These schools are as identifiable as black schools as they were 
thirty years ago; to this extent, the Board has not yet dis­
established the original dual system.

Second, the Board has contributed to the racial identi- 
fiability of Greenville High School. Racial identifiability in a 
system that has both black and white students is a matter of 
contrasts: a school can be perceived to be the "black school" if 
there are only two schools serving these grades and, over a long 
period of time, the Board has permitted one of them to serve as a 
haven for white students. Throughout the 1980s, whites were 
allowed to flee from the Greenville High School and Woodbury High 
School attendances zones and attend Manchester High School.
Whites were and still are permitted to flee Talbot County 
majority-black schools to attend Manchester schools. When the 
district court closed Woodbury High School, it did distribute 
some black students to Manchester High -- but it also distributed 
black students to the already majority-black Greenville High. To 
this day, Manchester High School is disproportionately white. If 
allowed to proceed as planned, the Board will entrench the 
attendance patterns that identify the South High School as the 
white school and the North High School as the black school.
"[T]he practice of building a school * * * to a certain size and 
in a certain location, with conscious knowledge that it would be 
a segregated school * * * has a substantial reciprocal effect on 
the racial composition of other nearby schools." Keyes v. School



-32-
Dist. No. 1. Denver. Colo.. 413 U.S. 189, 201-202 (1973)
(internal quotation marks omitted).

While it may be true that the present population of the high 
schools as well as that of the elementary schools reflects 
residential patterns in the county, it is not written in stone 
that this relatively small county must be divided on a north- 
south axis for school attendance purposes. Traveling from north 
to south and vice versa to attend school is not impossible. In 
fact, the record reflects that people did so for years to avoid 
going to "black" schools. In the process of approving the Five 
Year Plan, the district court has approved the Board's choice of 
schools to combine when the system goes from six to three 
elementary schools. Though no sites have been selected yet, the 
sites would be selected based on the Board's assumptions about 
which schools' populations are to feed into them. The Board, 
therefore, will actively contribute to fixing attendance patterns 
that are unnecessarily racially identifiable for generations to 
come .ii/

^  The district court took at face value the Board's assurances 
that black children would not be disproportionately burdened 
before sites had been selected.



-33-
II

THE DISTRICT COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION BY BASING 
ITS DECISION ON SOME ERRONEOUS FINDINGS AND IGNORING 
RELEVANT FACTS

The district court did not address the issue of the Board's 
priorities reflected in the plan. Although deploring the sad 
condition of the Meriwether schools, the district court paid no 
attention to the plaintiffs' contention that leaving the new 
Middle Elementary School for the unfunded second phase of the 
plan burdens black children disproportionately and without any 
justification except, perhaps, that a plan putting white children 
first is easier to sell to the citizenry that must vote for the 
bond issue.

The Middle Meriwether Elementary School anticipated by the 
Board for Phase II would combine Greenville and Woodbury Element­
ary Schools -- two historically black schools that had also been 
affected by illegal transfers out of white students. Postponing 
the building of the substitute school to Phase II means that the 
predominantly black student body in the dilapidated Greenville 
school will again be handicapped --by having to stay in a 
substandard school longer than will other students in the system. 
"Independent of student assignment, where it is possible to 
identify a 'white school' or a 'Negro school' simply by reference 
to * * * the quality of school buildings or equipment, * * * a 
prima facie case of violation of substantive constitutional



-34-
rights under the Equal Protective Clause is shown." Swann. 402 
U.S. at 18. In this case, in addition, when the substitute 
school is finally built (if it is built), it will open as a 
school disproportionately attended by African American children.

South Meriwether Elementary will be the successor to a pair 
of historically white elementary schools,- the district court has 
expressly allowed continued interdistrict transfers into one of 
them (Manchester Elementary). By contrast to the Middle 
Elementary School, this school will be built early in the 
schedule. Thus, the school will be identifiably "white" both 
because of its disproportionately white population and because it 
will be brand new, while the predominantly black Greenville and 
Woodbury Schools await the unspecified funding of Phase II.

The district court also made factual errors and abused its 
discretion in its treatment of the high school question (Rll-155- 
7 to 8). The proposed North Meriwether High would be, literally, 
the successor to Greenville High. Contrary to the court's find­
ing, Greenville High School has offered fewer advanced courses 
than the other high school. See PI. Exh. 109 & 111. In fact, 
Secondary Curriculum and Vocational Education Director Georgia 
Drake indicated that she does not recall advanced placement 
courses being given at Greenville at any time since 1988 (RIO-138 
(Drake Deposition) at 26-27). Nor, contrary to the court's 
finding, has Greenville High offered every course requested by



-35-
ten or more students.1̂  Greenville High also has acquired the 
reputation of being a black school partly because, in the past, 
the Board permitted white pupils to transfer into increasingly 
white Manchester High School. Thus, Greenville has in fact been 
perpetuated as both the black school and the inferior school.
The district has not equalized the education at the two high 
schools as required by the district court's 1990 order. Nor has 
the district fulfilled its ongoing duty to see to it that there 
are not black or white schools that can be identified as such.

The new North Meriwether High School, successor to Green­
ville High School, will be built with fewer typical high school 
features (like an auditorium and a ballfield with grandstands) 
than the old school it will replace (which will be used as a 
middle school). There is no excuse for opening a new high school 
with these shortcomings -- and with a population at least 80% 
black. The United States' expert suggested that, instead of 
building a new high school, the district could build a new 6-12 
school. Alternatively, it could repair and improve the old plant 
of Greenville High School and turn it into a facility housing

Dr. William M. Gordon's Report On Two High School Local 
Facilities Plan (R10-135-40), shows that there were a number of 
subjects offered at Manchester High -- sometimes when fewer than 
ten students requested the course -- and not given at Greenville 
High even though 20-27 students requested that it be offered.



-36-
grades 6-12. This would make the facility eligible for some 
state money and would enable the school to make optimum use of 
its combined middle school/high school faculty. Indeed, if the 
county has abandoned the idea of having a single comprehensive 
high school, it could have two schools serving grades 6-12 and 
have attendance zones on some basis other than a north-south 
division. In short, there are a number of ways in which the 
county could use the building of new facilities as a way to 
dismantle what is left of the dual system. Instead, it has 
chosen the path of least resistance, and the district court has 
let it do so. In addition, the court has denied the plaintiffs a 
hearing in which more options could have been offered and spelled 
out.

The judgment of the district court should be vacated and the 
cause remanded for a hearing and decision consistent with the 
correct facts and legal principles.

CONCLUSION

Respectfully submitted,
WILLIAM R. YEOMANS
Acting Assistant Attorney General

DENNIS J. DIMSEY
MIRIAM R. EISENSTEIN 
Attorneys
Department of Justice 
P.0. Box 66078 
Washington, D.C. 20035-6078



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on July 11, 1997, I served all parties 
to this case with two copies of the attached Brief for the United 
States as Appellant and one copy of the Record Excerpts, at the 
following addresses:

Philip L. Hartley, Esq.
Martha M Pearson, Esq.
P.0. Box 2975 
Gainesville, GA 30503
Robert Lee Todd IV, Esq.
Todd and Todd 
P.0. Box 663
Greenville, GA 30222-0663
Kathryn L. Allen, Esq.
Senior Assistant Attorney General 
Suite 229, State Judicial Building 
40 Capital Square, S.W.
Atlanta, GA 30334-1300
Dennis D. Parker, Esq.
Elaine R. Jones, Esq.
NAACP Legal Defense and 
Education Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, NY 10013

MIRIAM R. EISENSTEIN 
Attorney



4