Presley v. City of Monticello Brief of Appellant

    /

No. 95-1508

In  The

Supreme Court of tfje 3Hmteb States
October Term , 1995

George Price , e t a l .,
Appellants,

Bossier Parish School Boa rd ,
Appellee.

On Appeal from the 
United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia

RESPONSE OF GEORGE PRICE, ETAL., TO  
MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM

v.

Barbara R_ Arnwine 
Thomas J Henderson 
Brenda Wright 
Samuel L. Walters

Patricia A. Brannan* 
John w . Borkowski

Lawyers’ committee for 
Civil Rights Under Law

Hogan & Hartson l .l .p . 
555 Thirteenth Street N.W. 
Washington. D C. 20004 
(202)637-8686

1450 G Street N W , Suite 400
Washington, D C. 20005 
(202) 662-8322
Counsel of Record Counsel fo r Appellants 

George Price, et al.



In  The

ibuprtme Court of tfyz Hmtrb States
October Term , 1995

No. 95-1508

George Price, e t a l .,
Appellants,

v.

BOSSIER PARISH SCHOOL BOARD,
Appellee.

On Appeal from the 
United States District Court 
for the District of Columbia

RESPONSE OF GEORGE PRICE, ETAL., TO 
MOTION TO DISMISS OR AFFIRM

The Motion to Dismiss or Affirm ("Motion") is 
noteworthy for three things: (1) its scandalous disregard 
for the record: (2) its unsupported tirades against the 
Attorney General of the United States; and, most import­
antly. (3) its confirmation that the decision below raises 
important issues of law that this Court should resolve.

At this stage of the proceedings only the third pomt is 
significant. As to the first, the stipulations alone, see 
App 66a-153a.1 expose the Bossier Parish School 
Board's grave mischaractenzation of the facts of this

1 In this Response, filed on behalf of Defendant-Intervenors 
George Price, et a!., citations are to the Appendix (‘‘App.”) filed 
with "the Junsdicuonal Statement of Janet Reno, et al.. on March
11. 1996



2

case.2 As to the second, the School Board’s 
irresponsible attacks on the Voting Rights Act and those 
who enforce it do nothing to diminish the force of the 
arguments m favor of this Court's review made by these 
Appellants. The Board's rhetoric, however, does convey 
the same hostile indignation that has greeted the efforts 
of African-American voters to be heard in this electoral 
process and in School Board affairs.

As to the third point, the Motion makes clear that this 
case raises an important legal issue worthy of this 
Court's review. The School Board acknowledges that 
the majority of the three-judge court refused to apply the 
standards set forth by this Court in Village o f Arlington 
Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 
429 U.S. 252 (1977), in assessing discriminatoiy 
purpose under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 
Motion at 11. As explained in the Jurisdictional 
Statements, this legal error substantially departs from 
this Court's precedents, creates a split among the panels 
of the District Court for the District of Columbia, and 
undermines fair and effective enforcement of the Voting 
Rights Act.

2 We will not even attempt to catalogue here the free-wheeling 
falsehoods rampant in the Motion. An example may be instructive. 
On page 2, the School Board erroneously claims that "[bjecause the 
concentrations of black residences are so scattered, the Police Jury's 
cartographer was unable to draw any black-majonty districts that 
were contiguous and compact" and, on page 18, suggests that the 
Board could only have drawn a plan without twelve-of-twelve 
white-majority districts if it created "bizarre and outrageously 
gerrymandered black majority districts." On pages 13 and 14, 
however, the Board itself quotes stipulations establishing that Police 
Jurors and their cartographer were specifically aware that compact 
and contiguous majontv black districts could be drawn in Bossier 
Parish App. 76a, 82a-83a, and 114a(1H 36, 53, 148).



The Court should note probable jurisdiction.

Barbara R. arnwine 
Thomas J. Henderson 
Brenda Wright 
Samuel L. Walters

Lawyer’s committee for 
Civil Rights Under Law 
1450 G Street N.W., Suite 400 
Washington. D.C. 20005 
(202)662-8322

* Counsel of Record

Patricia a . Brannan* 
Jo h n w . Borkowski

Hogan & Hartson l .l .p . 
555 Thirteenth Street. N.W 
Washington. D.C. 20004 
(202) 637-8686

Counsel for Appellants 
George Pnce et al.

April 19, 1996