Order on Pretrial Hearing; Stipulation

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE I~ | L. E i 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 
JUL 171985 

JOHN DILLARD, ET AL., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs. CA NO. 85-T-1332-N 

CRENSHAW COUNTY, ALABAMA, ET AL. 

Defendants. 

ORDER ON PRETRIAL HEARING 

A pretrial hearing was held in this case on Wednesday, 

July 16, 1986, wherein the following proceedings were held and 

actions taken: 

1. PARTIES AND TRIAL COUNSEL: 

For Etowah County: 

fen ts: Plaintiffs: 

All Black Citizens of 
Etowah County, Alabama, Etowah County, Alabama 
gua County, 

Named Plaintifs: 

Lee Wofford, Probate Judge Nathan Carter 
Roy McDowell, Sheriff Spencer Thomas  



  

Bllly Yates, Circuit Clerk Wayne Rowe 

Represented by: Jack Floyd, Esq. Plaintiffs’ Attorneys: 
James U.Blacksher, Esq. 
Larry T. Menefee, Esq. 
Wanda J. Cochran, Esq. 
Terry G. Davis, Esq. 
¥. Edward Still, Esq. 

For Pickens County: 

Defendants: Plaintiffs: 

Pickens County, Alabama All Black Citizens 
gua County of Pickens County, Alabama 

Named Plaintiffs: 

¥illiam H. Lang, Jr., Probate Judge Maggie Bozeman 
James E. Floyd, Circuit Clerk Julie VWilder 
Loule C. Coleman, Sheriff Bernard Jackson 

¥illie Davis 

Represented by: W. O. Kirk, Jr., Esq. (Pltfs’' Attorneys, supra) 

For Talledega County: 

Defendants: Plaintiffs: 

Talledega County, Alabama All Black Citizens 
qua, County of Talledega County 

Named Plaintiffs: 

Derrell Hann, Probate Judge Louis Hall, dr. 
Sam Grice, Circuit Clerk Ernest Easley 
Jerry Studdard, Sheriff Byrd Thomas 

Represented by: Barry D. Vaughn, Esq. (P1ltfs’' Attorneys, supra) 

For Lawrence County: 

Defendants: Plaintiffs: 

Lawrence County, Alabama All Black Citizens 
qua, County of Lawrence County 

 



  

Named Plaintiffs: 

Richard I. Proctor, Probate Judge Hoover White 
Larry Smith, Circuit Clerk Moses Jones, Jr. 
Dan Ligon, Sheriff Arthur Turner 

Represented by: David R. Boyd, Esq. (P1ltfs’' Attorneys, supra) 
David L. Martin, Esq. 

For Calhoun County: 

Defendants: Plaintiffs: 

Calhoun County, Alabama All Black Citizens 
qua, County of Calhoun County 

Named Plaintiffs: 

Arthur C. Murray, Probate Judge Earwven Ferrell 
Forrest Dobbins, Circuit Clerk Ralph Bradford 
Brice R. Paul, Sheriff Clarence J. Jairrels 

Represented by: H. R. Burnham, Esq. (P1ltfs’' Attorneys, supra) 
Herbert D. Jones, Esq. 

A proposed Consent Decree has been agreed upon by 

plaintiffs and defendant Coffee County and has been submitted to 

the court. Settlement agreements have previously been submitted 

to the court and approved concerning Crenshaw County, Escambia 

County and Lee County. 

2. JURISDICTION AND VENUE: 

Jurisdiction lies pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. sections 1331 

and 1343 and 42 U.S.C.A. section 1973]. Venue is in the Middle 

District of Alabama pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. section 1391(b) and 

1392(a). See the Court's Memorandum Opinion of May 28, 1986. 

 



Pickens County reserves all objections to the court's 

previous orders for appeal. 

3. PLEAD : 

The following pleadings and amendments were allowed: 

Plaintiffs’ Complaint of November 12, 1985, and the amendment 

thereto on December 13, 1985. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary 

Injunction of February 5, 1986. Responses to Plaintiffs’ requests 

for admissions and plaintiffs’ request for judicial notice. The 

answer of each defendant. 

4. CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES: 
  

(a) Plaintiffs 

The plaintiffs contend that the election systems used 

by the five counties for their county governing bodies were 

created with a racially discriminatory intent and that the 

systems have racially discriminatory results all in violation of 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 

U.8.C.A. section 1273. The plaintiffs further contend that the 

election systems for the county commissioners for these five 

counties also violate the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments of 

the United States Constitution by way of 42 U.S.C.A. section 

1083.  



  

Plaintiffs contend that at-large election schemes for 

county commissions in Alabama were instituted and maintained by 

the Alabama Legislature for the purpose of minimizing or 

cancelling out black electoral participation and that the 

Legislature's racial motives infect the election systems in these 

five counties. Plaintiffs further contend that the intended 

discriminatory result of this legislation continues to exist. 

Plaintiffs contend that the evidence presented at the hearing on 

preliminary injunction fully supports this contention. The 

court’s findings in the May 28, 1986, Memorandum Opinion, entitle 

plaintiffs in Etowah, Lawrence, Talledega and Calhoun counties to 

a final judgment in their favor. 

Plaintiffs further contend that the county commission 

election systems in these five counties violate amended Section 2 

of the Voting Rights Act according to the results standard. In 

county-wide voting, the block-voting white majority usually is 

able to defeat candidates supported by blacks, who constitute a 

politically cohesive, geographically insular minority group. 

Thornburg v. Gingles, 54 U.S.L.W. 4877, 4882 (June 30, 1986). 

The unlawful results of the at-large county commission election 

systems are further shown by: (1) an extensive history of 

official discrimination in Alabama and its political subdivisions 

that touches the right of members of the minority to register, to 

 



  

vote, and otherwise to participate in thé democratic process; (2) 

the inclusion of majority vote and numbered place requirements in 

the at-large election systems that enhance the ability of the 

white majority to submerge black voting strength; (3) the 

lingering effects of prior official discrimination in areas such 

as education, employment and health which hinder blacks’ ability 

to participate effectively in the political processes; (4) 

political campaigns that have been characterized by both overt 

and subtle racial appeals; and (5) the inability of blacks to 

elect candidates of their choice to the county commission. 

Additionally, plaintiffs contend that the evidence will 

show that there is a lack of responsiveness on the part of 

elected officials to the particularized needs of black citizens 

and that the state policy for use of at-large elections is 

tenuous. Plaintiffs contend that the totality of these 

circumstances conclusively proves that the at-large election 

systems as they operate in these five counties has the result of 

diluting, minimizing and cancelling the voting strength of black 

citizens. 

¥ith respect to Pickens County, Plaintiffs further 

contend that the combination of at-large elections in the general 

election and the use of four single-member districts in the 

 



primaries, none of which provides an effective black voter 

ma jority, operates effectively to dilute and minimize the voting 

strength of blacks in Pickens County in county commission 

elections and violates the one-person, one-vote requirement. 

(b) Defendants 

Pickens County contends that the election system does 

not violate the fourteenth and fifteenth amendments of the United 

States and that said election system does not violate 42 U.S.C 

sections 1973 and 1983 (Voting Rights Act). Also Pickens County 

contends that the third, fourth and fifth defenses in its answer 

are valid. 

5. STIPULATIONS BY AND BETWEEN THE PARTIES: 

Plaintiffs and defendants in Lawrence, Etowah, 

Talladega and Calhoun have entered into a stipulation which is 

attached hereto as Exhibit A. 

It is ORDERED that: 

(1) The trial as to the Pickens County defendants, which is to last 

two (2) days, is set for July 23, 1986, at 9:00 a.m. in the fourth floor 

courtroom of the federal courthouse in Montgomery, Alabamaj 

(2) The plaintiffs and the Pickens County defendants are DIRECTED to 

file their trial briefs by 12 o'clock noon on July 22. 1986;  



  

(3) A remedial hearing as to the defendants Etowah County, Talladega 

County, Lawrence County, and Calhoun County is set for September 2, 1986, 

at 9:00 a.m. in the fourth floor courtroom of the federal courthouse in 

Montgomery, Alabama; 

(4) A status conference as to Reavah County, Talladega County, 

Lawrence County, and Calhoun County is set for August 22, 1986, at 2:00 p.m. 

in chambers at the federal courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama; 

(5) Each party shall have available at the time of trial, for use by 

the court, two copies of the list of his exhibits and two extra copies of each 

photostatically reproducible exhibit; and 

(6) All understandings, agreements, and stipulations contained in hte 

Pretrial Order shall be binding on all parties unless an objection is noted and 

filed with the court within seven (7) days from the date of this Order. 

DONE, this the 17th day of July, 1986. 

Ww Noyr—— 
  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE ——— 

 



  

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS: 

BLACKSHER, MENEFEE & STEIN, P.A. 
405 Van Antwerp Building 
P. O. Box 1081 
Mobile, AL 36633 
(205) 433-2000 

    

   

BY: 

ES/U. BLACKSHER 
RRY T. MENEFEE 

WANDA J. COCHRAN 

TERRY G. DAVIS 
SEAY & DAVIS 
732 Carter Hill Road 
P. O. Box 6215 
Montgomery, AL 361086 
(205) 834-2000 

DEBORAH FINS 
JULIUS L. CHAMBERS 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

EDWARD STILL 
REEVES & STILL 
714 South 20th Street 
Birmingham, AL 35233-2810 
(205) 322-6631 

REO KIRKLAND, JR. 
307 Evergreen Avenue 
P. O. Box 646 
Brewton, AL 36427 

(205) 867-5711 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS: 

BALCH & BINGHAM 

  

   



2. O. Box .78 
Montgomery, AL 36101 

Aen t R-Lnd 
David R. Boyd/ Esq. 
  

(LAWRENCE COUNTY, SMITH & LIGON) 

BURNHAM, KLINEFELTER, HALSEY, 

JONES & CARTER 
Pp. O..Boxz 1618 
Anniston, AL , 36202 

  

br Jones, Esq. 
H. R. Burnham! Esq. 
(CALHOUN COUNTY) 

FLOYD, KENNER & CUSIMANO 
816 Chestnut Street 

Gadesden, AL 35999 

HERR 
Jack~Ployd, Esq 
(ETOWAH OUNTYS 

  

215 South Main Street 
Moulton, AL 35650 

BY: KOK Thon 53 
D. L. Martin, Teg. 
(LAWRENCE COUNTY, SMITH & LIGON) 

  

SPEAKE, SPEAKE & REICH 

P. OO. Box 8B 

Moulton, AL 358650  



  

4 log con itis 

James &. Speake, Esq. 
(PROCYOR OF LAWRENCE COUNTY) 

BY: 
  

CURRY & KIRK 

P. O. Box A-B 

Carrollton, AL 3544% 

2S 77 2p ; r 

BY: lel 
¥. O. KIRK, Jr., Esq 
(PICKENS COUNTY) 

  

PROCTOR & VAUGHN 

121 North Norton Avenue 

Sylacauga, AL 35150 

— 
BY og Ty ea 
  

Barry D. ghn, Esq. 
(TALLA A COUNTY) 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

JOHN DILLARD, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

V. CASE NO. 85-T-1332-N 

CRENSHAW COUNTY, ALABAMA, 

el al., 

N
t
?
 

N
e
 

S
n
?
 

“
a
?
 

“
a
e
 

S
o
n
a
 

N
a
?
 

w
t
?
 

a
”
 

o
u
?
 

Defendants. 

STIPULATION 
  

The parties Plaintiff and Defendant in Calhoun, Etowah, 

Talladega and Lawrence Counties stipulate as follows: 

1. The Defendants stipulate that the present over-all 

form of county government, which includes election of associate 

commissioners and a commission chairman at-large, currently 

results in dilution of black voting strength in violation of 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 

U.S.C. §1973. Defendants further stipulate that a different 

form of government must be instituted to redress this viola- 

tion. Defendants do not admit or stipulate, however, that the 

at-large election of a county commission chairman, in and of 

itself, necessarily is violative of Section 2 or any other 

law. 

2 The Defendants reserve the right to demonstrate that 

the present Section 2 violation can adequately be remedied and 

black citizens afforded full and equal access to the political 

 



process by remedial election plans that may contain a chair, 

administrator or county executive elected at-large by voters of 

the entire county. 

Any such remedial plan presented by the Defendants shall 

be considered and evaluated by the ,Court without any presump- 

tion against the inclusion of a chairman elected at-large 

simply because the present systems, stipulated herein to be 

violative of the Voting Rights Act, contain a chairman elected 

at-large. In other words, the fact that the present form of 

government has as one component a chairman elected at-large 

shall not, in and of itself, constitute a basis for rejecting 

or accepting a proposed remedial plan which includes a chairman 

elected at-large. 

Nothing in this paragraph or stipulation shall be con- 

strued to change the allocation of the burden of proof at the 

remedy stage of this litigation under applicable law or pro- 

cedure, and nothing in this paragraph or stipulation shall be 

understood to allow or require the Court, at the remedy stage, 

to deviate from applicable law or procedure regarding defer- 

ence, if any, which must be given a remedial plan submitted by 

the Defendants. 

3. It is understood that the Plaintiffs reserve the 

right, and intend, to present evidence of the dilutive effect 

of at-large voting with respect to all positions, including 

associate commissioner positions as well as the chairman 

position, when challenging any remedial plan submitted by the  



  

Defendants which includes as a component a chairman elected by 

the voters of the county at-large. 

4, The Defendants shall submit their proposed remedial 

election plans for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act no later than August 1, 1986, and shall submit to 

the Court and counsel for the Plaintiffs at the same time. 

5. The following schedule for special elections under 

approved remedial election plans is agreed on: 

(1) first primary election -- November 4, 1986; 

(2) runoff elections -- November 25, 1986; 

(3) general election -- December 16, 1986. 

6. If by September 30, 1986, the preclearance submission 

of any county Defendant is still pending, the district court 

should take action to approve an interim remedial election plan 

to be used for the special elections referred to in the preced- 

ing paragraph. Once such an interim plan has been approved by 

the Court, the scheduled special elections will take place 

under that plan regardless of the outcome of preclearance pro- 

ceedings. If the Court adopts as an interim plan one that is 

denied preclearance subsequently, the Court will give the part- 

ies an opportunity to obtain preclearance of another plan 

before determining what election plan it will approve as a 

final remedy. 

7 The submitting authorities will request expedited 

consideration of their Section 5 submissions for preclearance. 

 



  

- w - s 

8S. It is agreed that, upon approval by the Court, the 

evidentiary hearing presently scheduled for July 23, 1986, be 

continued as to these Defendants. At such time after August 

1,1986 as the Court may order, the Court shall receive evidence 

regarding the parties' proposed remedial plans, in anticipation 

of the possibility that the Court may be required to approve an 

interim plan pending Section 5 preclearance. However, the 

Court shall defer a ruling based on the evidence received at 

such hearing until after September 30, 1986, to provide an 

opportunity for the preclearance process to be completed. 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS: 

Blacksher, Menefee & Stein, P.A. 
405 Van Antwerp Building 
P. O. Box 1051 
Mobile, AL 36633 

    
BY: 

   mes U. Blacksher 

arry T. Menefee 
wanda J. Cochran 

Terry G. Davis 
Seay & Davis 
732 Carter Hill Road 
2. OO. Box. 6215 
Montgomery, Alabama 36106 

Deborah Fins 
Julius L. Chambers 
NAACP Legal Defense Fund 

99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
‘New York, New York 10013 

Edward Still 
Reeves & Still 
714 S. 229th Street 
Birmingham, AL 35233-2810 

Reo Kirkland, Jr. 

307 Evergreen Avenue 
P..O. BOX 645 
Brewton, AL 36427 

dw 

 



  

ATTORNEYS FOR CALHOUN COUNTY 

DEFENDANTS: 

Burnham, Klinefelter, Halsey, 

Jones & Carter 

P. O. Box 1618 
Anniston, AL 36202 

rt lr = BY: fa a ST 

gl D. jones, Jr. 

  

  

ATTORNEYS FOR LAWRENCE COUNTY 

DEFENDANTS: 

Da Tie Martin 

215 8S. Main Street 

Moulton, AL 35650 

BY: AZ That / ong 

D. L. Martin 
  

Balch & Bingham 

P. O. Box 78 
Montgomery, AL 36101 

(205) 834-6500 

BY: Rana RHEBzA_— 
David R. BoyaV 
  

ATTORNEYS FOR ETOWAH COUNTY 

DEFENDANTS: 

Floyd, Kenner & Cusimano 

816 Chestnut Street 

Gadsden, AL 35999 

BY: 

Jack oyd 

ATTORNEYS FOR TALLADEGA COUNTY 

DEFENDANTS: 

 



Proctor & Vaughn 
121 N. Norton Avenue 

Sylacauga, AL 35150 

RD mt 
Barty Pe Vaugim