Correspondence to Guinier; Buskey and Watkins v. Oliver Order; Opinion; Correspondence from Bradford Reynolds to Azar and Seay; from Bradford Reynolds to Nabors

    /en i,

ran 
r:*l *{w f;il;-t*,ilmf'

ffi ' r!:f 'F;' g*,Er s,!,2-,m U! 6*,
/xlo f rsSrt".,\ kB ore,(c tr- a0/tpvrrlq lfu /tna (

t/#!*:J ;;Y!';! W ), fi !i,*u"A

Ps gh;ru*ptrto
26- ggy-!,mo

a4/re 5t-



IN THE DISTRICT COURT

UIDDLE DISTRICT OT

DEFUJ\'CLEAK
JOUN BUSKEY, et aI.,

Plalntlffs,

mNALD V. I.JATKINS,

Plalntlf f -Intervenor,

v.

LIIftlER L. OLMR, .t 81.,

Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO. E1-557-N

ORDER

accordance wlth the memorandum oplnlon entered thle date and the
a

1983, etipulatlon of the parclee, lE ls the ORDER, JUDG!{ENT, and

court:

That the Ctty of llontgomeryts councll redlstrlctlng plan, Clty

56-83, be and lc ls hereby approved; and

That each party ehall bear lts orrn costs and that no attorney

claims for danagea or Donetary awards 6ha11 be made ln thla

DONE, thls the 30th day of Septenber, 1983.

In

SepteEber 30,

DECREE of the

(1)

Ordlnance No.

(2)

fees, expenaes,

actlon.

FILED
OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

Ar.aBAr'rA, NoRTuERN DrvrsroN SEP 3 0 831

THOT,{AS C. CA'IER, CLERK3Y--

DISTRICT



IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE F I L E D

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTTIERN

JOHN BUSKEY, et al.,

PIalntlffs,

DONALD V. WATKINS,

P lain tl f f - Intervenor,

v.

DIVISION
sEP 3 019ii

THOi,'ie.3 C. C/'\\"1I, Ci-EliK
i'r

' lRl(ULt.,] I I VLL

CML ACTION No. E1-557-t{

LUTHER L. OLMR, et al.,

DefendanEe.

OPINION

It appeare that wlEh thle oplnlon and accompanylng order thle

lawsult wlll come to an ena. On June 10, 19d3, thls court found that the Clty

of MontgomerytB redletrlctlng plan, Clty Ordlnance No. 47-81, uas a product of

purposeful discrlmlnatlon ln vlolatlon of eectlon 2 of the Votlng Rlghte Act

of 1965, aB anended ln 1982, 42 V.S.C.A. $ f973 (tlest S,rPP. 1983); and the

court enlolned funplenentatlon of the cityrs plan for electlons echeduled for

early October 1983. Buskev v. Ollver, 565 F. SuPP. 1473 (i{.D. Ala. 1983).

However, rather than fashlon a new and acceptable plan 1teelf, the court

afforded rhe clty an opport,unlty to do so. tllse v. Llpaconb' 437 U.S. 535'

539,98 S.Ct. 2493,2497 (I97d). The clty falled to subrntt a plan to the

court. on Aug,uBt 22, 19d3, tlre court afforded the clty a second opportunlty

to subnlt an acceptable plan, but cauEloned the clty that ln vlen of the

lmlnent, elecglone the court would reluctantly aeeuoe reeponatblllty, eubJect

to certaln atrlct llmltatlons, lf the clty agaln falled to Eubnlt an accePt-

able plan.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)



The city has now submltted a nel, redistrlcting plan, which ls as

follows:

DISTRICT DEVIATIOTT HHITE BLACK TOTAL

I +0.39 17, ggg 1,668 19,973
(90. sru ) (B.3ez)

2 -0.77 1d,689 727 L9,642
(9s.152) (3.702)

3 +O.gg 3,622 16,316 lg,gg0
(18.122) (81.632)

4 +0.02 6,4L7 13,179 Lg.7gg
(32.4L2' (66.562)

5 -0. E5 r , 236 lE, 338 19,629
( 6.302) (e3.422)

6 -O.20 3,963 15, 790 19, 755
(le. ssz) (7e .e3z)

J o +0. 65 19,151 60ts Lg,g24
(96.L22) (3.0s2)

I +0.76 17,566 2,183 19,945
(tsd. o7r) (1o. e5z)

g -0.75 18,452 978 L9,646
(93.927) (4. e8U )

The plalntlffs and the defendante, lncludlng the clty, have alao eubnlcted a

stlpulation, providlng ln part as follows:

3. That at the regular meetlng of the Montgonery
Clty Councll, August 22, 1983, the l,lonEgonery Clty
Councll unanloously adopted Ordlnance No. 56-83, belng
a redlstrlctlng plan for the Clty of llontgooery and
also unaninously adopted Ordlnance No. 57-83, belng an
Ordlnance deslgnatlng and establlshlng the polllng
places pursuant to said redistrlcting plan.

4. That Ordinance No. 56-83 and 57-83 have both
been gubnitted to the Unlted States Justlce Departnent,

' Clvll Rlghts Dlvlslon, for pre-clearance approval under
Sectlon 5 of the Votlng Rlghts Act.

5. That on September 20, 1983, the Unlted Statee
Departnent of Justlce, Clvll Rlghte Dlvlston, actlng

-2-



by and Ehrough the Unlted Statee Attorney General,
dld pre-clear Ordlnauce No. 5b-83 uud 57-ts3 pur-
suan[ to sectlon 5 of t,he votlng Rlghts Act of
L965, as amended, 42 USC 1973c, a copy of sald
letter belng atEaclred tlreret,o. That cald letEer
lnadvertently refers to the electlon as October 6,
uhen ln fact 1r ls October 11. The Attorney
General has advlsed that a correcled letter ls
belng sent to the partles.

6, That att.ached hereto are coples of
Ordlnance No. 56-d3 and 57-83, rrhlch all of the
partles to this actlon, by and through thelr
attorneys of record, submit to the Court for
approval. Ihar a copy of the population and com-
posltlon by race of each dlstrlct ls atrached
hereto.

7. That all partles to thls actlon, acttng
by and through thelr attorneys of record, stlpu-
late and agree that aald Ordlnancea ere ln conplete
compllance of all provlslons of the UnlEed States
Constltutlon, and all Anendmenca EhereEo, and wlth
the Voting Rights Acc of 1965, and all Amendmente
thercto, and all other Federal and St.ate lawe
appllcable to vottng rlghce and prlvlleges.

8. That all partles to thls actlon, actlnB
by and through thelr attorneys of record, requeat
the Court to enter an Order declarlng Ordlnance
No. 56-E3 and 57-d3 of the Clty of Montgonery,
Alabana, to each be ln full and complete com-
pllance wlth all of the provlslona of the Unlted
SEates ConsEltutlon, and all Aroendments thereto,
and the Votlng Rlghte Act of 1965, and all
Amendments thereto, and all other Federal and
State laws appllcable to votlng rlghte and
prlvileges.

The court flnds the clty's new redlstrlctlng plan acceptable:

DlsErlct 3 ls treated the same as Ehe other dtstrlcts; the plan has been

precleared by

retrogresslon

the Unlted States Justlce Department and does not, evldence any

ln black votinB strength; and the requlrenente of one-pereon

one-vote have been net.

-3-



oplnlon.

An approprlate order w111 be entered 1n accordance wlth thle

DONE, thls the 30th day of Seprenber, 1983.



U.S. Departmerrt of Justice

CivilRights Division

Oflicr ol the Asistant Attomcy Gcneml tlath in gton, D.C. 205 30

September 20, -1983

George B. Azar I Esg.
Azar, Campbell & Azar
P. O. Box 2028
ltontgomeryl Alabama 35197-1101

Solomon S. Seayz Jf,.7 Esq.
Grayr Seay & Langford

Dear Messrs. Azar and SeaY:

This is in reference to ordinance No. 56-83 which
provides for the redistricting of councilmanic districts; the
iealignment of voting precincts; the establishment of fourteen
polling places; the renumbering of five polling places; and
Lne oc[ober 6.1983, special election for the City of Montgomery
in Montgomery County, Alabama, submitted to the Attorney
General-pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965r 6s amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received your submission
on September I, 1983.

The Attorney General does noL interpose any objeg!i9?s
to the changes in Question. Howeverr w€ feel a responsibility
to point out that Section 5 of the Voting Rights_Act expressly
pro-vides that the failure of the Attorney General to object
does not bar any subsequent judicial action to enjoin the
enforceroent of iuch changes. fn addition, as authorized by
Section 5, the Attorney General reserves the right. to reexamine
this sub,mission if additional information that would otherwise
require an objection comes to his attention during the remainder
of the sixty-day review period. See the Procedures for the
Administration of Section 5 (28 C.F.R..51.42 and 5I.48).

. ...:
Submissions under Section 5 should be addressed to the

Assistant. Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, Department
of Justice, Washington, D.C. 20530. The envelope and first
page should be marked: Submission under Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act. See also 28 C.F-R- 51.22.

1(
il.J
l{m.

Assistant AttorneY General
Civil Rights Division

Sincerely,



v Civil Righls Div' 'on,v

Olficc of thc Attlilcn, Arroraey Gcacrcl

Dennls Nabors, EEg.
City Attorney
F. O. Box llf l
llontgom€Ey, Alabama l6Lg2

Dear Mr. Nabors:

Uothinfion, D.C. 20510

fto ' 
i,r tg8z

Attorney General
Rlghte Dlvlalon

This ls ln reference to the reclistrlctlng plan adoptedon Jury 28, 1981, for the city of Hontgornery ln-it6ntgomer!
county, Al.abama, submltted to the Attorney General pureuant tosection 5 of the votlng Rlght,6 Act pf 1965r oE amen-cled, 42
U.-S.-'C. 1973c.

On January 5, !g82r I sent you a Letter advlslng that
an objection was belng lnterposed but that we were contlnulng
our consl.deratlon of the plan ln ltght of lnformaElon we had-recently recelved and that whlch was provlded by you durlng atelephone conversatlon that day. That lnformatl.on was proitaea
ln wrltten forn by you on January 1I, 1942.

Iile have completed our analysls of thls matter, havlng
consldered carefurly the tranemltted materlars, l9B0 census
data, informablon provided by other lnterested partles and
relevant court decisions. Pursuant to the reconsideratlon
guidellnes pronrulgated ln the Procedures for the Adminlstratlon
of Sectlon 5 (Sect,ion 5L.47, 46 Fed. Reg. 879), the obJectlon
lntetposed to the redlatrlcting plan is hereby wtthdrawn.
Howeverr we feel a responglbility to prcint, out that Sectlon 5of the Votlng Rights Act expressly provldes that'the fallure
of the Attorn.ey General to obJect does not bar any eubsequent
Judtclal actlbn to enjoln the enforcernent ol Euch change.

Slncerelyp

ord
Aseistant

'Ctvll