Landgraf v. USI Film Products Brief for Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners

    Namsnal Offace 
A A 

Suite 1600 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE - 99 Hudson Street 
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. New York, N.Y. 10013 (212) 219-1900 Fax: (212) 226-7592 

TELECOPIER COVER SEEET a eS Re Sr 

PLEASE DELIVER THE POLLOWING PAGES TO: 
J or SPEDE 0 / TO THE ATTENTION OF Ble. CP Coryo A 

  

  
  

LOCATION: 
  

PHONE: 
  

  

  

  

  

Telecopier phone # (212) 226-7592 

We are transmitting from a KH Pitney Bowes 8210 
  

IP YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL PAGES PLEASE CALL BACK AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. OUR PHONE HO IS (212) 219-1900 OR PICK OP PHONE AT END OP TRANSMISSION 

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: 

‘he information contained in ¢ rivileged and confidential in 
f the individual or entity n essage is not the intended re 
ny dissemination, distribu 
<rictly prohibited. 
lease immediately no 

his facsimile mess 
formation intended o 
amed above. 

Rapanal Ofuces The NAACP Legal Defense & Educauonal Fund, inc. 
Swe 30) of the Natoma) Amociancs for the Advancement of Colored Peopic 
1275 K Sereet, NW (NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares 1 
Washmgton, DC 20005 

commuament to equal ngha. LDF has had for over 30 years a separace 
(202) 682-1300 

Fax: (202) 682-1312  



  

HARTFORD METRO AREA EXPENDITURE ANALYSIS 

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN AID/EXPENDITURES AND INDICATORS OF POVERTY A 

  

    
  

  

0 
% Below % Below 

Tatal Local/Federal Connecticut Remedial Remedial 

Per Pupil Per Pupil State Aid 6th Grade 6th Grade | a 

» Expenditures Expenditures Per Pupil Reading Math % AFDC 

% Minority 0.26 -0.23 0.45% 0.84% 0.80 a78% 

% AFDC -0.05 -0.564 0.65% 0.914 0.884 

% Below 6th Read 0.06 —0.54* 0.707% 

o% Below 6th Math 0.06 —0.51 0.67% 
| 

    

*Significant at .05 or greater level 

1 ¢ : INTERPRETATION | i Wi 4 
| 

1. As shown in column 3, Connecticut state aid per pupil is strongly positively 

correlated with % minority, % AFDC, % below 6th grade remedial reading and math 

in the Hartford Metro Area. 

  

    
          

IR
D 

SH
ER
MA
HM
 

=   2. Localffederal per pupil expenditures are negatively correlated with % minority : 

| &.e. they are higher in higher % white, and wealthier and higher achieving districts) 

in the Hartford Metro Area.       pay "4 

3. The effect of Connecticut state aid is to reduce the significant negaiive relationship 

between localffederal per pupil expenditure and 9, AFDC, % below 6th grade remedial 

| reading level, and 6th grade remedial math level {column 2) to no relationship 

0 at all between total per pupil expenditures and indicators of poverty (column 1) in the 

Hartford Metro Area. 

24
: 
2
g
"
 

GE
N 

    
  

            

    
  

SE
P 

CF
 

“448/91 

 



    

  

LY AN I |S RN | ay | dda le 

RCY BY :MOLLER HORTON @ BERG: 9-24-02 © 3:21PM CCITT ECM-HARTEFORD CONNECTICUT: # 3 
dl =r - [=o Bl Sn J CL I I | hd Tt Un | ] i» ’ 

A CLASSIFICATION OF STATES BY STATE DESEGREGATION FUNDING ~~ 

x 
VOLUNTARY COURT ORDERED NO 
SPENDING SPENDING _ SPENDING 

  
  

    
  

  
  

States that States that Spend States that 
Voluntarily State Funds on Spend No State 
Spend State Funds Desegregation Per Funds on 
on Desegregation Court Order Desegregation 

    
  

California Arkansas Alabama 
Connecticut | Delaware Alaska 
Massachusetts Michigan Arizona 
Minnesota Missouri Colorado 
New York Ohio Florida 

Washington Georgia 
Wisconsin Hawaii 

Idaho 

lllinois 
Indiana 

iowa 

Kansas 

Kentucky 
Louisiana 
Maine 
Maryland 
Mississippi 
Montana 
Nebraska 
Nevada 
New Hampshire 
New Jersey 
New Mexico 
North Carolina 
North Dakota 
Oklahoma 

Oregon 
Pennsylvania 
Rhode Island 
South Carolina 
South Dakota 
Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 
Vermont 
Virginia 
West Virginia 
Wyoming 

  

  

 



RCV BY :MOLLER HORTON FIQ@BERG: 9-24-92 : 3:29PM CITT ECM-HARTE 'ONNECT [CUT : # 
la ™ He RION ‘@ oa 73-02 i rh 22M CCITT ECM-HARTEQRD CONNECTICUT A 

A CLASSIFICATION OF STATES BY STATE LEGISLATION, REGULATION ~~ 
OR BOARD POLICY STATEMENTS ENCOURAGING OR REQUIRING i) 

SCHOOL DESEGREGATION OR SCHOOL RACIAL BALANCE 

  
  

eee E——— i, 
      

  

  

States with Specific States with 
Desegregation Non -Specific States with 

Goals Policies No Policies 
  

  
    

  
  

  

| Connecticut | Arkansas Alabama 
Michigan Ilinois Alaska 
Washington lowa Arizona 

Massachusetts California* 

Minnesota Colorado 

Nevada Delaware 

New Jersey Florida 
New York Georgia 
Ohio Hawaii 
Pennsylvania |daho 
Rhode Island Indiana 

Virginia Kansas 
Wisconsin Kentucky 

Louisiana 

Maine 

Maryland 
Mississippi 
Missouri 
Montana 

Nebraska 
New Hampshire 
New Mexico 

North Carolina 

North Dakota 

Oklahoma 

Oregon 
South Carolina 
South Dakota 

Tennessee 

Texas 

Utah 

Vermont 
Virginia 
West Virginia 
Wyoming 

  

* California continues to fund schoal desegregation plans out of the state budget although 

the law regulating school desegregation expired.  



    Tal 

WHITE NO-SHOW RATES AT MINORITY SCHOOLS 

IN SMALL* AND LARGE* AREA SCHOOL DISTRICTS 
1971, 1975, 1977, 1978, 1981 
  100% 

80% |- 

60% 

45% 
  

40% 

20% | 

% 
W
H
I
T
E
 
E
N
R
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
 
LO
SS
 

  
  

    

  

  
  

  

0% 46Sq.M. 56Sq.M. 455SqM. 459SqM. 710SqM. 

5% Boston {/] Stockton [ii] Sav-Chatham [J Baton Rouge Jl L.A. 
* Boston, 1975; Stockton, CA, 1977. 

* Chatham Co, GA, 1971; 

Los Angeles, CA, 1978; Baton Rouge, LA, 1981. 

  

S
i
a
f
t
l
 

12
1 
L
H
A
N
O
D
 

(
R
A
O
C
A
I
A
V
H
=
I
R
D
1
 

1.
1L

1I
DD

 
F
a
 

—
 

S
C
O
W
N
S
I
E
A
N
 Lf
 
N
O
L
N
O
H
 

A:
 

TT
10
I:
 

We
 

A
D
 

k r 

 



  

P
E
R
C
E
N
T
A
G
E
 

100% 

80% 

60% 

20% 

0% 

g%] SURVEY % [° ESTIMATED LOSS [7] SURVEY % || ACTUAL LOSS 

% OF WHITE PARENTS WHO WOULD DEFINITELY OR 

PROBABLY WITHDRAW CHILD FROM PUBLIC SCHOOL IF 

REASSIGNED TO MINORITY SCHOOL V. ACTUAL % LOSS 
  

    

HARTFORD METRO 
(568 Sq.M.) 

  

45% 

LOS ANGELES 
(710 SQ.M.) 

  

  

  

  

        
  

"Y
u 

S
e
l
 

— 
T
E
E
 

T
i
 

f
y
.
 

y 

G
A
A
 

L
H
I
N
N
O
D
 
O
L
M
I
S
 

L
L
 
T
D
D
 

3 
R
E
 

WT
 

P
O
N
E
N
T
 

N
O
L
 

ii
n,
 

¥ 
i
d
 

tO 
me

 
{w
y 

§ 
| 
SL

 

E
R
 

V
T
 

OM
EN
 

TT
 
IO
IN
 : 

AS
E 

AD
DY
 

£3
 

oe 
34 

w
e
l
t
s
 

 



    

    

LE an Bl SUS) ' Tew! 1 JING J dN CUD 

=» ® 

PERCENTAGE OF WHITE PARENTS WHO RESPOND 

THEY WOULD DEFINITELY OR PROBABLY 

SEND CHILD TO PRIVATE SCHOOL OR MOVE AWAY 

IF MANDATORILY REASSIGNED TO MINORITY SCHOOL 

  
    

  
  

  

ACTUAL 
NO-SHOW 

HARTFORD LOS RATE~-LOS 
_ METRO ANGELES ANGELES 

YEAR 1991 1976 1978 
SQ.MILES 568 710 710 

% OF PARENTS | 51%] i 62% | | sem)   
  

  

  

RC) BY : MOLLER HORTON 1 NEBERG - 9-24-92 : 3:23PM CCITT ECM-HARTFORD CONNECTICUT: # 

  

PERCENTAGE OF PARENTS OF EACH RACE 

OPPOSING MANDATORY REASSIGNMENT OF STUDENTS 

FOR PURPOSES OF IMPROVING SCHOOL INTEGRATION 

  
  

  

ACTUAL 
NO-SHOW 

HARTFORD LOS RATE-LOS 
SMSA ANGELES ANGELES 

WHITE 71% 86% 356% 

NONWHITE 33% 31% 

 



  

TOTAL % CHANGE IN WHITE ENROLLMENT 

FROM TWO YEARS BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION TO T+11 

10% | - 

20% I 

-30% 

-50% 

  

  

    44% 

  

gg 

  
  

    

  

  

  
  

» IN LARGE AND SMALL AREA DISTRICTS < 35% MINORITY 
TOTAL % WHITE ENROLLMENT CHANGE - 

0% 0% 

-10% 

-20% 

~| -30% 

-40% 

50% 

Fo 
aT 

{aa
c 

Bo
 
TR
EE
 

SEF
 B
W 

VO 
y
i
 

t
=
 

-
 

S
P
E
 
O
N
I
N
 

A
N
O
L
O
N
 

M
T
T
 

JO
IN

: 
AS

E 
A
D
 

IB Small-Mand.Reass. [5] Large-Mand.Reass. || No Deseg. Plans 
(70Sq.M) (439 Sq.M) 

~ 
& 

~ 
- 

i 
- 
= 

— 
C 
= 
Net 

2 
Net 

bv. 

2 -Z 

1 — 
i 

Ne 
rs 

3 

ar 

 



  

TOTAL % CHANGE IN WHITE ENROLLMENT 

FROM TWO YEARS BEFORE IMPLEMENTATION TO T+11 

» IN LARGE AND SMALL AREA DISTRICTS > 35% MINORITY 
TOTAL % WHITE ENROLLMENT CHANGE 

% 
0% : 

7 i . 

li 
7 10% : 

YL
NO

H 
M
T
T
I
O
N
 :

 A
S 

AO
N 

1
M
)
 

a 
d
™
a
 

  
  

Go
 
O
M
E
N
 

TAT
 

NC 

  

    
-80% - ———| 30%   

    40% [tle 
  

hs -40%   
          

42% - 

50% | HR hE a I : 
: 51% 5 

! 
w» 60% la cade oh OE 

65% : Z 
“70% 70% 8 

Bl small-Mand.Reass. &J Large-Mand.Reass. No Deseg. Plans a 
(42 SQ.M.) (701 Sq.M.) be 

 



F
W
 

—
r
s
 

WHITE ENROLLMENT CHANGE AS % OF T-4 ENROLLMENT 
IN LARGE AND SMALL DISTRICTS < 35% MINORITY 

WHITE ENROLLMENT CHANGE AS % OF T-4 ENROLLMENT 

120% 

—_
——

 

N
O
I
 

A
T
 

KH
 

AS
E 

A
D
 

  

I
M
T
)
 
«
d
=
 

J
 

ON
 

H
O
M
I
C
E
I
N
T
 

110% 

0 

100% 

AE 
lh 
T
P
 

I
 

a
i
 J

 
| 

i
E
 

| a
k 

RL
 

a 
i
}
 

8 

      
90%   

    80%   
  70% 

    60%       
  50% 
B30 dH 0. + YI EE 44 45 +6 +7 F830 +10 +11 

YEARS BEFORE AND AFTER DESEG. IMPLEMENTATION 

  

(70 Sq.M.) (439 Sq.M.) 

r
a
 

04
 

# 
+ L
I
L
L
Y
 
I
N
N
O
 

N
O
L
N
Y
H
-
I
C
Y
H
 

L
L
 

3
D
 

 



  

WHITE ENROLLMENT CHANGE AS % OF T-4 ENROLLMENT 

IN LARGE AND SMALL DISTRICTS > 35% MINORITY 
WHITE ENROLLMENT CHANGE AS % OF T-4 ENROLLMENT 

» 120% 120%   

  100% i a SHE oR WER CR Ee aE Fo) 00% 

  

  80% | Nf 1 

        60% | 

  
  40% 

      

  

DE
SE
G.
 
YE
AR
 

      
  

20% | i i i | | | i { | J ; | 20% 

» 8 Zw Oh $2 AB 44 #5 +B T4800 +11 
YEARS BEFORE AND AFTER DESEG. IMPLEMENTATION 

(42 SQM) (701 Sq.M.) 

  

  

o
y
 

L
T
 

F
1
4
1
 

3
 

L
O
A
N
 

T 
HT 

N
O
L
A
O
H
 

N
I
T
I
O
N
:
 

AH
 

A
D
 

-6
 

{
j
m
 | 

I 
[o

d 
S
T
i
 

IF 

a
6
G
-
b
a
 

13
4 

L
a
 

In
 

ti 
P
e
l
t
a
e
 

C 
re 

~ 
— 

L = 
= 
~ 8 
z< 
< 

ro 

C 
ap 

i 

Z 5 
he 3 
bad 

£ 

—-
—



  

WH
IT

E 
E
N
R
O
L
L
M
E
N
T
 

(T
ho
us
an
ds
) 

  

WHITE ENROLLMENT TRENDS IN SAVANNAH 
  

  

  

  

      

i ne 

- Phases lI 

. Mandatory Plan 

4 
fone y 4 

f Actual % White : c 7 
a Se w/ Vol. Plan: 40% 

5 Mie. Implem. of Vol. Plan 
By o 3 “a oe 

S -—a _— 
- TE. WT 

- ® ? Si rE 

% a 
Predicted % White 

= wf Mand. Plan: 33% 

0 L = l f I ] 
1968 1970 1972 1974 1976 1978 1980 1982 1984 1986 1988 1990 

YEARS 

a
)
 

~
~
 

M
A
I
O
:
 

AL
L 

A
D
 

_
—
—
 

GR
 

O
R
 
a
 

:
D
N
A
T
A
N
 

LT
 
N
O
L
O
 

AE 
a 

ey)
 

Po
 

SN 
To
 

LAT 
LE
E 

r
a
e
 

H
Y
 

h
e
 
OR

 

4 
T
g
 g

e 

~ 
~ 

a 
=z 
i 
= 

x 

~~ 

= 

> 
~~ 

ing 
z 
Z 

p= 
ln 
:--2 
yu 

| 

81 
i 

& 

 



  

   + 
WHITE ENROLLMENT TRENDS 

7-2 

SCHOOL DIST DESEG % MIN. 1-4 1-3 1-2 7-1 T+0 T+1 T+2 

SMALL DISTRICTS <35X% MIN. --MAND.REASS. 
ST. PAUL, MN 1973 11.1 43432 44378 44130 42476 40234 35313 35369 

DES MOINES, IA 1977 11.9 37546 36306 34872 33435 31823 30305 29756 

AMARILLO, TX 1972 14.2 26083 25361 24683 23915 22890 23094 22876 

TULSA, OK 1971 17.1 66413 66413 65943 64077 61390 56859 53312 

RACINE, WI 1975 18.7 26160 25586 24902 24279 22678 21802 19901 

SPRINGFIELD, MA 1974 32.4 22501 21547 20631 19220 17946 17327 16559 

WACO, TX 1971 32.5 13178 12842 12506 12027 11435 10802 9591 

AVERAGE 1973 19.7 33616 33205 32524 31347 29771 27929 26766 

LARGE DISTRICTS <35X MIN. --MAND.REASS. 
MONTGOMERY CO, MD 1976 11.3 113795 112990 110299 106900 97575 93278 88040 

FAYETTE CO., KY 1972 17.7 28836 29429 29814 29599 29100 28703 28538 

JEFFERSON CO., KY 1975 20.5 117613 115934 112443 105538 93263 88782 84902 

NEW CASTLE CO., DE 1978 23.5 64679 61843 57070 53162 47008 42307 38980 

NASHVILLE, TN 1971 26.3 69515 71039 72563 71603 64114 61402 59322 

MECKLENBURG CO. ,NC 1970 29.5 57079 57079 58623 59530 56819 54926 53629 

AVERAGE 1974 21.1 75253 T4719 T3469 T1055 64647 61566 58902 

<35X MIN. NO DESEG. PLANS 
AVERAGE 5.8 25603 25865 26126 25994 25861 26906 27950 

SMALL DISTRICTS >35% MINORITY-MANDATORY REASSIGNMENT PLANS 

BOSTON, MA 1974 40.4 62014 59390 57405 53593 44937 37479 32477 

STOCKTON, CA 1975 43.2 18568 17970 17036 16163 13920 12426 11545 

DAYTON, OH 1976 47.9 28698 26111 24502 23065 19039 17897 16398 

AVERAGE 1975 43.8 36427 34490 32981 30940 25965 22601 20140 

LARGE DISTRICTS >35% MINORITY-MANDATORY REASSIGNMENT PLANS 

E.BATON ROUGE, LA 1981 40.4 41376 39649 39379 35945 32974 27920 27779 

DALLAS, TX 1971 40.6 97888 97888 96480 94393 85782 78214 72688 

CHATHAM CO., GA 1970 61.1 25367 25167 24967 24767 22782 19370 16894 

MOBILE CO. ,AL 1970 41.7 44542 44542 44023 42620 38677 35548 35943 

CADDO PARISH, LA 1970 43.9 31117 32513 33909 31989 27298 26677 26044 

MONTGOMERY CO., AL 1976 48.1 19823 19217 18325 18491 18656 17555 17458 

LOS ANGELES, CA 1978 63.5 252446 240787 219775 194808 165315 146535 128387 

AVERAGE 1974 45.6 73223 71395 68123 63288 55926 50260 46456 

>35% MIN. - NO DESEG. PLANS 
AVERAGE 11974’ 60.4 34990 31806 33061 32033 30105 29506 28906 

T+3 

31820 
27575 
22384 
50462 
19221 
15846 
8773 

25154 

82446 
27833 
81021 
35764 
57662 
51928 
56109 

26924 

30558 
10060 
15357 
18658 

25750 
66515 
15785 
35222 
24099 
17054 

120729 
43593 

27135 

16138 
119726 
42436 

25364 

40346 

24304 

25673 
25287 
20975 
43301 
16444 
12428 
7394 

21643 

68855 
26609 
70686 
33429 
51843 
50656 
50346 

25688 

23681 
8396 
13243 
15107 

25566 
48454 
15199 
36326 
23299 
14839 

111184 
39267 

23244 

27514 
25080 
20431 
40141 
16033 
11718 
7046 

21138 

66496 
25933 
65973 
33836 
50021 
49244 
48584 

25851 

19479 
7845 

12528 
13284 

25222 
45050 
14308 
36996 
22506 
14752 

107216 
38007 

22367 21490 

T+9 T+10 

20850 
24901 
19848 
33060 
14848 
10316 
5997 

18546 

63211 
23763 
64331 
34807 
43805 
44795 
45785 

24326 

16602 
7752 

11703 
12019 

26619 
35406 
13220 
36235 
20087 
15115 
94161 
34406 33382 

19736 19046 

 



% WHITE ENROLLMENT CHANGE TRENDS T+11-7-2 

1-2 Sq. % WH.ENR.Lg. 

SCHOOL DIST DESEG X MIN. M. 7-3 1-2 T-1 T+1 T+2 T+3 T+5 T+6 T+7 T+11 CHANGE SIZE 

SMALL DISTRICTS <35X MIN.--MAND.REASS. 
ST. PAUL, MN 1973 11.1 105 102.2% 101.6% 97.8% . 81.3% 81.4% 73.3% . 61.7% 59.1% 63.3% 47.2%  -53.5% 

DES MOINES, IA 1977 11.9 63 96.7% 92.9% 89.1% . 80.7% 79.3% 73.4% . 69.2% 67.3% 66.8% . 64.5% -30.6% 

AMARILLO, TX 1972 14.2 61 97.2% 94.6% 91.7% 88.5% 87.7% 85.8% . 82.2% 80.4X 78.3% 764.9% -20.9% 

TULSA, OK 1971 17.1 49 100.0% 99.3% 96.5% 85.6% 80.3% 76.0% . 69.1% 65.2% 60.4% 48.4%  -51.2% 

RACINE, WI 1975 18.7 75 97.8% 95.2% 92.8% . 83.3% 76.1% 73.5% . 65.8% 62.9% 61.3% 55.8% -41.4% 

SPRINGFIELD, MA 1974 32.4 75 95.8% 91.7% 85.4% . 77.0% 73.6% 70.4% 60.4% 55.2% 52.1% 44.9% -51.0% 

WACO, TX 1971 32.5 59 97.5% 94.9% 91.3% . 82.0% 72.8% 66.6% . 58.7% 56.1% 53.5% 43.2%  -54.5% 

AVERAGE 1973 19.7 70 98.2% 95.7% 92.1% 82.6% 78.7% 74.1% . 66.7% 63.8% 62.3% 54.1%  -44.3% 

LARGE DISTRICTS <35X MIN.--MAND.REASS. 
MONTGOMERY CO, MD 1976 11.3 495 99.3% 96.9% 93.9% . 82.0% 77.4% 72.5% . 64.0% 60.5% 58.4% 55.9% -42.3% 

FAYETTE CO., KY 1972 17.7 280 102.1% 103.4X 102.6% . 99.5% 99.0% 96.5% . 93.2% 92.3% 89.9% 81.6X -21.1% 

JEFFERSON CO., KY 1975 20.5 375 98.6% 95.6X 89.7% . 75.5% 72.2% 68.9% . 64.1% 60.1% 56.1% 54.2% -43.3% 

NEW CASTLE CO., DE1978 23.5 429 95.6% 88.2% 82.2% . 65.4% 60.3% 55.3% 51.5% 51.7% 52.3% 53.8% -39.0% 

NASHVILLE, TN 1971 24.3 527 102.2% 104.4% 103.0% 88.3% 85.3% 82.9% . 77.2% 74.6% 72.0% 61.2%  -41.4X 

MECKLENBURG CO.,NC1970 29.5 530 100.0% 102.7X 104.3% . 96.2% 94.0% 91.0% . 88.9% 88.7X 86.3% 76.4% -25.6% 

AVERAGE 1974 21.1 439 99.6% 98.5% 96.0% 84.5% 81.3% 77.8% 73.1% 71.3% 69.2% 63.9% -38.3% 

<35X MIN. NO DESEG. PLANS 
AVERAGE 5.8 101.0% 102.0% 101.5% 101.0% 105.1% 109.2% 105.2% 101.2% 100.7% 100.3% 101.0% 89.1% -12.7X 

SMALL DISTRICTS >35X MINORITY-MANDATORY REASSIGNMENT PLANS 
BOSTON, MA 1974 40.4 46 95.8% 92.6% 86.4% 72.5% 60.4% 52.4% 49.3% 45.5% 39.1% 38.2% 31.4% 25.2% -72.8% 

STOCKTON, CA 1975 43.2 46 96.8% 91.7% 87.0% 75.0% 66.9% 62.2% 54.2% 51.1% 45.9% 45.2% 42.3% 41.0%  -55.4% 

DAYTON, OH 1976 47.9 34 91.0% 85.4% 80.4% 66.3% 62.4% 57.1% 53.5% 50.3% 4B.4X 46.1% 43.7X 39.0%  -54.4% 

AVERAGE 1975 43.8 42 94.5% 89.9% 84.6X 71.3% 63.2% 57.2% 52.3% 49.0% 44.5% 43.2% 39.1% 35.0% -65.2% 

LARGE DISTRICTS >35X MINORITY-MANDATORY REASSIGNMENT PLANS 
E.BATON ROUGE, LA 1981 40.4 459 95.8% 95.2% 86.9% 79.74 67.5% 67.1% 62.2% 66.2% 62.6% 61.8% 61.0% 64.0% -32.7% 

DALLAS, TX 1971 40.6 351 100.0% 98.6% 96.4X 87.6% 79.9% 68.0% 60.9% 54.1% 49.5% 46.0% 34.2%  -65.3% 

CHATHAM CO., GA 1970 41.1 455 99.2% 98.4% 97.6% B89.8X 76.4% v 62.2% 60.1% 58.9% 59.9% 56.4% 51.8%  -47.4% 

MOBILE CO.,AL 1970 41.7 1240 100.0% 98.8% 95.7% 86.8% 79.8% ‘ 79.1% 78.4% 78.3% 81.6X 83.1% 82.0% -17.1% 

CADDO PARISH, LA 1970 43.9 899 104.5% 109.0% 102.8% 87.7% 85.7% . 77.4% 77.3% 76.1% 74.9% 72.3% 64.8%  -40.5% 

MONTGOMERY CO., AL1976 48.1 790 96.9% 92.4% 93.3% 94.1% 88.6% 86.0% 81.4% 81.2% 74.9% 74.4% 74.4% -19.5% 

LOS ANGELES, CA 1978 63.5 710 95.4X 87.1% 77.2% 65.5% 58.0% . 47.8% 47.4% 45.1% 44.0% 42.5% 35.3%  -59.4% 

AVERAGE 1974 45.6 701 98.8% 97.1% 92.8% 84.5% 76.6% 69.0% 67.4% 65.2% 63.8% 62.2% 58.1% -51.0% 

>35X MIN. - NO DESEG. PLANS 
AVERAGE "1974 60.4 90.9% 94.5% 91.5% 86.0% 84.3% 77.6% 72.5% 69.5% 66.4% 63.9% 54.4% -42.4%