Letter from Still to Judge Pittman RE: Proposal as Amendment to Injunction
Public Court Documents
January 24, 1977

3 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Bolden v. Mobile Hardbacks and Appendices. Letter from Still to Judge Pittman RE: Proposal as Amendment to Injunction, 1977. 670e64c4-cdcd-ef11-b8e8-7c1e520b5bae. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d1c639fe-e41d-41a0-aa46-1f32772073c9/letter-from-still-to-judge-pittman-re-proposal-as-amendment-to-injunction. Accessed April 22, 2025.
Copied!
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.