Letter from Still to Judge Pittman RE: Proposal as Amendment to Injunction

    pA : 1% 

  

Cable Address 

Edward Still “VOTELAW" 

attorney at law 601 Title Building 
Birmingham, AL 35203 

January 24, 1977 205/ 323-3434 

Honorable Virgil Pittman 
United States District Judge 
Federal Courthouse 
Mobile, Alabama 36602 

RE: Bolden v. City of Mobile, 
CA 75-297-P 

Dear Judge Pittman: 

At our conference on 30 December you asked for a 
proposal to 

~ retain jurisdiction for dilution questions only; 
- provide for no pre~clearance by the Court; 
- provide a number of years of retained Jurisdiction 

(more than 2 and less than 50). 

The enclosed proposal as an amendment to the injunction 
e proposed in early December does exactly that in paragraph 
6. Please note that we do not prohibit the establishment 

of any other form of city government. We acknowledge that 
there may be other forms of city government which meet the 
requirements set out in the Court's opinion -- that is, they 
yan utilize single-menber districts. One such form which 
does not utilize single-member districts is the commission 
system, as the Defendants have pointed out so vigorously. 

   
   

Paragraph 37 provides for retained jurisdiction to 
interpret the order of this Court in instances where there 
is a disagreement over the interaction of the injunction and 
state law. For example, there might arise a controversy 
over whether the council or the mayor appointed the members 
of a particular board. This Court would interpret its 
injunction or state law if need be, to resolve the contro- 
vexrsy. This would be similar to the three-judge panel in 
Weissinger v., Boswell retaining jurisdiction over contract 
  

disputes if they could affect the progress of the court- 
ordered state-wide property reappraisal program. Thus this 

 



  

Page 2 
Hon. Virgil Pittman 
24 January 1977 

Court would continue to be the final authority on the mean- 
ing of its own order, rather than leaving the interpretation 
to state judges. This will avoid any problems of federal- 
state interference. 

Paragraph 38 is an "escape clause" which would be an 
incentive to the Legislature to adopt a comprehensive plan. 
If they did, there would be no further need for this Court 
to monitor the enforcement of its decree. We envision that 
this paragraph would be activated by the Defendants re- 
questing the dissolution of the Injunction; the Plaintiffs 
could oppose the request if they felt that the act diluted 
black voting strength. 

We hope that this proposal meets the Court's approval. 

Sincerely, 

Edward Still 

ES: im 

ce: harles B. Arendall 
J. U. Blacksher 
S. R. Sheppard 
Charles Williams III 

 



® » 

  

36. Nothing in this order shall prevent the Legislature 

of Alabama, or any other body possessing legislative jurisdiction 

over the City of Mobile, from changing the powers,dduties, 

» responsibilities, or terms of office of city officials, or from 

changing the boundaries or number of wards or districts; 

provided however, that the Court retains jurisdiction for a 

period of six years from the date of this order to hear any 

petition by the Plaintiffs alleging such a change dilutes the 

voting power of black citizens. 

37. The Court also retains jusmisdiction for a veriod of 
ey 

8x years to modify or interpret this order in cases in which 

it shall appear that a conflict exists between the requirements 

of this order and those of state law. Such review may be 

initiated by the parties or by any person affected by such 

conflict. 

38. The retained jurisdiction of this Court under the 

two prededing paragraphs shall be dissolved upon motion of 

either party when and if (a) the Legislature of Alabama adopts 

a comprehensive act establishing a form of government for 

the City of Mobile or (b) the City of M bile, acting under 

n home rule" powers, adopts such a co mprehensive act.