Williams v. Brown

    On March 8 , 1976, the f e d e r a l  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  

granted p l a i n t i f f s '  motion t o  r e j o i n  the sch oo l  

commissioners in t h i s  a c t i o n .  The commissioners 

d e c l i n e d  t o  f i l e  an answer u n t i l  July 12, 1976, 

and f i l e d  u n s u c c e s s fu l  motions t o  postpone  the 

t r i a l  on July 6 , 1976, July 12, 1976, September 2, 

1976, and September 9, 1976. The a c t i o n  was t r i e d  

on Septemer 9 -17 ,  1976. On December 9, 1976, the 

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  h e ld  that  the a t - l a r g e ,  system was 

u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  because i t  im perm iss ib ly  n u l l i ­

f i e d  t h e  v o t e s  o f  b l a c k  v o t e r s  in  M o b i l e  and 

b e c a u s e  t h e  sy s t e m  had b e e n  m a i n t a i n e d  by t h e  

L e g i s l a t u r e  with  "a presen t  purpose  to  d i l u t e  the 

b l a c k  v o t e " .  J . S .  3 7 b ;  A. 34a .  The c o u r t  o f  

appea ls  a f f i r m e d  in  a per curiam o p i n i o n  on July 

2, 1978 .  J .  S. l a ~ 2 a ;  A.  l a - 2 a .  P r o b a b l e  

j u r i s d i c t i o n  was n o t e d  on O c t o b e r  30,  1978 .

On September 5, 1978, pursuant to  the s i n g l e ­

member d i s t r i c t  p lan  ordered  i n t o  e f f e c t  by the 

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ,  b la c k  c an didates  won the primary 

e l e c t i o n s  in  two o f  those  d i s t r i c t s .  On O ctober ,  

1978, Mr. J u s t i c e  Powell  en tered  an o rder  s t a y in g  

t h e  h o l d i n g  o f  t h e  g e n e r a l  e l e c t i o n s  i n  t h o s e  

d i s t r i c t s ,  47 U . S . L . W .  33 1 4 ,  b u t  on O c t o b e r

- 4 -



I k  t h e

§>upnw (Eourt of %  Inifcii Btntea
October Term, 1978 

No. 78-357

R obert B . WnmiAMS, et al.,

V .

Appellants,

L eila  G. B r o w k , et al.,
Appellees.

OK APPEAL FBOM TH E UKITED STATES COURT OP APPEALS 

POE TH E FIF TH  CIRCUIT

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

J .U . B lack sh ee

L arry M ekefee

1407 Davis Avenue 
Mobile, Alabama 36603

E dward  S till  
Suite 400 
Commerce Center 
2027 First Ave., North 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

J ack  Greekberg

E ric S ch k a ppeb  
Suite 2030 
10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019

Counsel for Appellees



TABLE OF CONTENTS

Questions Presented  ......................................................  1

Statement ......................................................  3

Summary o f  Argument ......................................................  5

ARGUMENT .......................   H

I .  The At-Large  System For E l e c t i n g  
The M obi le  School  Board V i o l a t e s  
S e c t i o n  2 o f  the 1965 Voting  
Rights Act  ....................................................  11

I I .  The At-Large  System For E l e c t i n g  
The Mobi le  School  Board i s  
Maintained And Operated For The 
Purpose o f  D i s c r im in a t in g  on 
The Basis  o f  Race ..................................  15

I I I .  The Courts  Below C o r r e c t l y  
App lied The P r i n c i p l e s  o f  
White v .  Regester  and Whitcomb 
v .  Chavis ............................   35

PAGE

A. The Legal  Standard E s t a b l i sh e d
By White and Whitcomb ..............  36

B. The A p p l i c a t i o n  o f  White and 
Whitcomb to  the Facts  
o f  This Case ...................................  43

IV. The At-Large  System o f  E l e c t i n g  
The M obi le  Schoo l  Board V i o l a t e s  
The F i f t e e n t h  Amendment ....................  54

CONCLUSION ........................................................   58

- 1



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

C a s e s :

Anderson v .  Martin,  375 U.S. 399 (1964 )
(1964)  .............................................................  40

A r l i n g t o n  Heights v .  M e t r o p o l i t a n
Housing Development C o r p . , 429
U.S. 252 (1977)  ........................................ 8 , 19, 20 ,32 ,

35

PAGE

Board o f  School  Commissioners o f  
M ob i le ,  Alabama v .  John L.
Moore, C i v i l  A c t i o n
No. 96,204 ....................................................  2 2 ,2 3 ,2 4

Bolden v .  C i t y  o f  M ob i le ,  571
F . 2d 238 (5th  C i r .  1978) ...................  33 ,3 4 ,3 5

Brown v .  Board o f  Educati on ,
347 U.S. 483 (1954 )  ...............................  49 ,57

C ity  o f  Mobi le  v .  Bolden,
No. 77-1844 .................................................. 36 ,4 2 ,5 5

A l l e n  v .  Board o f  E l e c t i o n s ,
393 U.S. 544 (1969)  ...............................  6

Cooper v .  Aaron, 358 U.S. 1
(1958)  .............................................................  31

C i ty  o f  Richmond v .  United S t a t e s ,
422 U.S. 358 (1976)  ............................... 13-14

Cooley  v .  Board o f  School  Com­
m is s i o n e r s  o f  Mobi le  County,
No. 7100-72 (S.D. A l a . ) .........  50

Davis v .  Board o f  School  Com­
m is s i o n e r s  o f  Mobi le  County,
C i v i l  A c t i o n  No. 300-3-63 -H,
(S.D.  A l a . ) ...............................................  4 8 , 4 9 , 5 0

-  n



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Graver Mfg. Co. v .  Linde C o . ,  336
U.S. 271 (1949)  ........................................  16

Lane v.  W il son ,  307 U.S. 268
(1939)  .......................   11,55

Lou is ian a  v .  United S t a t e s ,  380 U.S.
145 (1965 )  ..................   56

Nevett v .  S ide s ,  571 F .2d 209
(5th C i r .  1978) .......................................   3 , 4 , 5 5

P le ssy  v .  Ferguson,  167 U.S.
537 (1896)  ..........................................   49

Spedtor Motor Co. v .  McLaughlin,
323 U.S. 101 (1944 )  . . ........................  12

United Jewish O rg an iz a t io n s  v .
Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1977)  ...............  37,56

Whitcomb v .  Chavis ,  403 U.S. 124
(1971)  .............................................................  2 ,3 6 , 3 7 ,

42 ,44

White v .  R egester ,  412 U.S. 755
(1973)  ........................................................  2 , 8 , 9 , 1 0 , 1 5 ,

3 3 ,3 4 , 3 6 , 3 7 ,
4 2 ,4 7 ,5 4

Wood v.  S t r i c k la n d ,  420 U.S. 308
(1975)  ............................................................   12

Wright v .  R o c k e f e l l e r ,  376 U.S.
52 (1964)  ..........................................   56

Zimmer v.  McKeithen, 485 F .2d
1297 (5th  C i r .  1973) .......................... . 33,34

PAGE

- iii -



TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

S ta tu te s  and C o n s t i t u t i o n a l

PAGE

P r o v i s i o n s

United Sta tes  C o n s t i t u t i o n ,  
Fourteenth  Amendment ........................ 3 ,54

United States C o n s t i t u t i o n ,  
F i f t e e n t h  Amendment . . . ........................ 3 , 1 1 , 5 4 - 5 7

Voting  Rights  Act  o f  1965,
§2 ............................................. ..............  1 , 3 , 5 , 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 3

Voting  Rights  Act  o f  1965,
S3 ................................. ........................ 12

Voting Rights Act  o f  1965,
§5 ............ : ............. .........................  5 ,6

Ala .  Code § 16 -8 -1  (1975 )  . . . .......................... 16

Ala .  A c t s ,  1977 Reg. S e s s . ,  
No. 355 ................................. 16

Ala .  A c t s ,  1977 Reg. S e s s . ,  
No . 254 ................... ..........................  17

Ala .  A c t s ,  1976 Reg. S e s s . ,  
No. 380 ............................... ..........................  17

Ala .  A c ts ,  1975 Reg. S e s s . ,  
No. 1150 ............................ ........................ 21 -24 ,25

Ala .  A c t s ,  1975 Reg. S e s s . ,  
No. 645 ............................... ..........................  16

Ala .  A c t s ,  1973 Reg. S e s s . ,  
No. 316 ............................... ..........................  17

Ala.  A c ts ,  1971 Reg. S e s s . ,  
No. 2268 ............................ ...................  17

-  iv -



A la .  A c t s ,  1971 Reg. S e s s . ,
No. 60 .............................................................  16

A la .  A c t s ,  1967 Reg. S e s s . ,
No. 298 ...........................................................  17

A la .  A c t s ,  1939 Reg. S e s s . ,
No. 222 ...........................................................  16

Ala .  A c t s ,  1936 Reg. S e s s . ,
No. 91 .............................................................  17

Other A u t h o r i t i e s

Federal  Rules o f  C i v i l  Procedure,
Rule 12 (e )  .......................   32

.121 Cong. R e c .......................................   13,14

S. Rep. No. 94-295,  94th
Cong. ,  1st S e s s ..........................   13

S t a t i s t i c a l  A b s t r a c t ,  1977 .... .........................  42

United Sta tes  Census, C i ty  County
Data Book, 1972 ..................     43

H. 1060, A la .  Reg. Sess.  (1976 )  .................  2 5 , 2 7 , 2 8 , 2 9

H. 1243, A la .  Reg. Sess.  (1975)  .................  20,21

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

- v



IN THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

October  Term, 1978 
No. 78-357

ROBERT R. WILLIAMS, e t  a l . ,  

A p p e l l a n t s , 

v .

LEILA G. BROWN, e t  a l . ,

A p p e l l e e s .

On Appeal From The United Sta tes  Coart 
o f  Appeals For The 

F i f t h  C i r c u i t

BRIEF FOR APPELLEES

QUESTIONS PRESENTED

1. Did t h e  a t - l a r g e  s y s t e m  f o r  e l e c t i n g  

the M obi le  s c h o o l  board v i o l a t e  s e c t i o n  2 o f  the 
1965 Voting Rights  A c t?

2. Should t h i s  Court o v e r tu rn  the c o n c u r ­

r e n t  f i n d i n g s  o f  f a c t  o f  the  two c o u r t s  b e l o w  

that  the a t - l a r g e  system f o r  e l e c t i n g  the Mobile  

s c h o o l  b o a r d  i s  m a i n t a i n e d  and o p e r a t e d  f o r  

t h e  p u r p o s e  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i n g  a g a i n s t  b l a c k  
v o t e r s ?



2

3.  Should t h i s  Court o v e r tu rn  the c o n c u r ­

r e n t  f i n d i n g s  o f  f a c t  o f  the  two c o u r t s  b e l o w  

that  the a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n  system f o r  e l e c t i n g  

t h e  M o b i l e  s c h o o l  b o a r d  o p e r a t e s  " t o  m i n i m i z e  
o r  c a n c e l  o u t  t h e  v o t i n g  s t r e n g t h "  o f  b l a c k s  

i n  v i o l a t i o n  o f  W h ite  v .  R e g e s t e r ,  412 U.S .  
755 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ,  and Whitcomb v .  C h a v i s , 403 U .S .  

124 (1971 )?

4 .  Did t h e  a t - l a r g e  s y s t e m  f o r  e l e c t i n g  

t h e  M o b i l e  s c h o o l  b o a r d  v i o l a t e  t h e  F i f t e e n t h  

Amendment 'l—

_1/ In t h e i r  J u r i s d i c t i o n a l  Statement a p p e l la n t s  
presente d  a q u e s t i o n  regard in g  the remedy ordered  
by t h e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t .  As was more f u l l y  s e t  
o u t  i n  t h e i r  A p p l i c a t i o n  f o r  S t a y ,  p p .  5 - 6 ,  
a p p e l la n t s  complained because  the single-member 
d i s t r i c t  e l e c t i o n s  w ere  t o  be p h a s e d  i n  o v e r  
se v e r a l  y e a r s ,  r a th e r  than a l l  beg inn ing  in  1978. 
As was note d  by the d i s t r i c t  ju d ge ,  the phasing in 
o f  s i n g l e - m e m b e r  d i s t r i c t  e l e c t i o n s  had be e n  
sought by the a p p e l la n t s  in the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  and 
d e f e n d e d  by them i n  t h e  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s .  The 
d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  o p i n i o n  o f  November 20, 1978, i s  
s e t  out  in the Appendix t o  t h i s  b r i e f ,  pp. App. 
l a - 1 9 a ;  see App. l l a - 1 2 a .  A pp e l lan ts  have appar­
e n t l y  abandoned t h i s  i s s u e  in  t h e i r  b r i e f .



3

STATEMENT

The c o m p l a i n t  i n  t h i s  a c t i o n  was f i l e d  on 
June 9, 1975, a l l e g i n g  that  the a t - l a r g e  system

f o r  e l e c t i n g  the M obi le  County Board o f  School  

Commissioners v i o l a t e d  the Fourteenth  and F i f ­

t een th  Amendments and s e c t i o n  2 o f  the 1965 Voting 

R i g h t s  A c t .  J . S .  75a.  On O c t o b e r  10, 1975 ,  

the Alabama L e g i s l a t u r e  adopted  an act  p r o v i d i n g  

f o r  t h e  u se  o f  s i n g l e - m e m b e r  d i s t r i c t s  in  t h e  

e l e c t i o n  o f  the Mobile  s c h o o l  board .  The d e f e n ­
dant s c h o o l  c o m m i s s i o n e r s  t h e n  asked  t h a t  th e  

a c t i o n  as a g a i n s t  them be  d i s m i s s e d  as m o o t ,  
and t h e  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  d i d  so  on November 21,

1975.
On F e b r u a r y  5,  1976,  t h e  s c h o o l  com m is ­

s i o n e r s  brought a s t a t e  co u r t  a c t i o n  c h a l le n g in g  
on s t a t e  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  grounds the new s i n g l e ­

member d i s t r i c t  p lan .  They named as de fendants 
on ly  the same e l e c t i o n  o f f i c i a l s  who were t h e i r  

c o - d e f e n d a n t s  in  the f e d e r a l  a c t i o n ,  and th ose  
e l e c t i o n  o f f i c i a l s  d e c l i n e d  t o  defend the v a l i d i t y  

o f  t h e  s i n g l e - m e m b e r  d i s t r i c t  p l a n .  The s t a t e  
co u r t  ru led  f o r  the s c h o o l  board and i n v a l i d a t e d  

the single-member d i s t r i c t  plan on February 17,

1976.



5

31, 1978, J u s t i c e  Powell  va c a te d  th at  stay  on the 

g r o u n d ,  i n t e r  a l i a , t h a t  t h e  a p p e l  l a n t s  had 
f a i l e d  t o  d i s c l o s e  that  the genera l  e l e c t i o n s  were 

u n c o n t e s t e d ,  47 U.S.L.W. 3324.
On October  11, 1978, the ou tgo in g  a l l - w h i t e  

c o m m i s s i o n e r s  v o t e d  t o  im pose  on t h e  i n c o m in g  

board a requirement that  no e x i s t i n g  s c h o o l  p o l i c y  

c o u ld  be changed except  by a v o t e  o f  f o u r  to  one. 
S i n c e  t h e  new b o a r d  has  t h r e e  w h i t e s  and two 

b l a c k  members,  t h e  e f f e c t  o f  t h i s  r u l e  was t o  
guarantee, that  no p o l i c y  c o u ld  be changed without 

the approva l  o f  a m a jo r i t y  o f  the white  commis­
s i o n e r s .  On November 24, 1978 ,  t h e  d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t  i n v a l i d a t e d  t h i s  new r u l e ,  h o l d i n g  that  i t  

was intended t o  d i s e n f r a n c h i s e  the newly e l e c t e d  

b la ck  s c h o o l  commissioners and to  f r u s t r a t e  the 
c o u r t ' s  prev iou s  o r d e r s .

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

I .  S e c t i o n  2 o f  the 1965 Voting  Rights  Act  

p r o h i b i t s  t h e  u s e  o f  e l e c t i o n  p r a c t i c e s  w h ich  
" d e n y  o r  a b r i d g e  t h e  r i g h t  . . .  t o  v o t e  on 

account o f  r a c e  or  c o l o r . "  This should  be con ­
s trued  in p a r i  mate r ia  with s e c t i o n  5 o f  th a t  A c t ,



6

which f o r b i d s  c e r t a i n  j u r i s d i c t i o n s  to  use new 

e l e c t i o n  p r a c t i c e s  which w i l l  have the "purpose  

. . . o r  . . . e f f e c t "  o f  so denying or  abr id g in g  

the r i g h t  t o  v o t e .  Both s e c t i o n s  are concerned 

w i t h  t h e  same t y p e  o f  d e n i a l  o r  a b r i d g e m e n t ;  

s e c t i o n  5 mere ly  e s t a b l i s h e s  s p e c i a l  procedures 

f o r  re v ie w in g  new p r a c t i c e s  in  p a r t i c u l a r  s t a t e s  

and s u b d i v i s i o n s .

The m eaning  o f  t h e  A c t  as a p p l i e d  t o  d i s ­

t r i c t i n g  p l a n s  i s  w e l l  e s t a b l i s h e d .  B l a c k s  

cannot be s u b je c t e d  t o  a d i s t r i c t i n g  system which 

would " n u l l i f y  t h e i r  a b i l i t y  to  e l e c t  the c a n d i ­

date o f  t h e i r  c h o i c e . "  A l l e n  v .  Board o f  E l e c -  

t i o n s , 393 U .S .  544,  569 ( 1 9 6 9 ) .  The c o u r t s  

b e l o w  c o r r e c t l y  f ou n d  t h a t  M o b i l e ' s  a t - l a r g e  

e l e c t i o n  s y s t e m  o p e r a t e d  i n  j u s t  t h a t  manner .

I I .  The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  f ou n d  t h a t  the  

a t - l a r g e  system has been r e t a i n e d  by Alabama f o r  

the purpose o f  d i l u t i n g  b l a c k  v o t e s .  The record  

b e f o r e  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  inc lu d ed  u n c o n t r a d i c t e d  

test imon y by members o f  the s t a t e  l e g i s l a t u r e  that  

h o s t i l i t y  t o  the e l e c t i o n  o f  b la ck  l o c a l  o f f i ­

c i a l s  is  a paramount c o n s i d e r a t i o n  in the o p p o s i ­

t i o n  t o  l e g i s l a t i o n  t o  a l t e r  e l e c t i o n  plans from



7

a t - l a r g e  t o  s ingle-member d i s t r i c t s .  There i s  

a l o n g  h i s t o r y  o f  i n t e n t i o n a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  
by Alabama o f f i c i a l s  aga inst  b l a c k  v o t e r s ,  and 

a t - l a r g e  p l a n s  a d o p t e d  by th e  l e g i s l a t u r e  f o r  
e l e c t i n g  the s t a t e  House and o f f i c i a l s  o f  o th er  

c i t i e s  h ave  be e n  i n v a l i d a t e d  by o t h e r  c o u r t  
d e c i s i o n s  as r a c i a l l y  m o t iva te d .

The r e c o r d  a l s o  sh ow ed ,  and t h e  d i s t r i c t  

judge  found,  that  s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s  had sought to 

i n t e r f e r e  with  any prompt j u d i c i a l  r e s o l u t i o n  o f  
t h i s  case  by pr o c u r in g  the i n t r o d u c t i o n  or  passage 

o f  d e l i b e r a t e l y  d e f e c t i v e  s t a t e  l e g i s l a t i o n  

pu r p o r t in g  to  c r e a t e  s ingle-member d i s t r i c t s .  In 

1975 the de fendants  ob ta ined  d i s m i s s a l  o f  t h i s  

a c t i o n  on the ground that  i t  had been mooted by 

the a d o p t i o n  o f  such a l e g i s l a t i v e  plan and then 

promptly a t tack e d  the v a l i d i t y  o f  th at  plan in an 

undefended s t a t e  c o u r t  a c t i o n .  In 1976, a f t e r  
be in g  r e j o i n e d  as p a r t i e s ,  the de fendants  procured 

the i n t r o d u c t i o n  in the L e g i s l a t u r e  o f  a second 

single-member d i s t r i c t  b i l l ,  and r e p e a t e d ly  asked 

that  t h i s  case  be s tayed o r  d ism issed  because o f  
the  pendency o f  t h i s  second b i l l .  The de fen dants  

i n s i s t e d  in  support  o f  th e se  motions th at  the b i l l  
was v a l i d ,  but  a f t e r  t h e i r  motions were r e j e c t e d



- 8 -

they conceded  that  they a c t u a l l y  b e l i e v e d  that  

the b i l l  would have v i o l a t e d  s t a t e  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

requirements .  This pa lp a b le  bad f a i t h  on the part  

o f  the board  members, who by t h e i r  own admiss ion  

e x e r c i s e d  e f f e c t i v e  c o n t r o l  o f  the L e g i s l a t u r e ' s  

d e c i s i o n s ,  supported  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  c o n c l u ­

s i o n  that  the f a i l u r e  o f  the L e g i s l a t u r e  to  enact  

a v a l i d  s ingle-member d i s t r i c t  plan  was r a c i a l l y  
m o t i v a t e d .

I I I . A .  In o u r  b r i e f  in  C i t y  o f  M o b i l e  

v .  B o lden , No. 78-1844,  we s e t  out  our a n a l y s i s  o f  

White v .  R e g e s t e r , 412 U.S. 755 (1973 ) ,  showing 

that  whj-t e  p r e c lu d e s  the use o f  a multi-member 

d i s t r i c t  system which so maximizes the weight o f  a 

b l o c - v o t i n g  w h i t e  m a j o r i t y  t h a t  t h e  v o t e s  and 

e l e c t o r a l  p r e f e r e n c e s  o f  the non-white m in o r i t y  

are c o n s i s t e n t l y  n u l l i f i e d .  We there  urge that  

such a system i s  the  f u n c t i o n a l  e q u iv a le n t  o f  one 

in which white  v o t e r s  r e s i d e ,  in a d i s t r i c t  with an 

e x c e ss  number o f  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s  and b l a c k  v o t e r s  

l i v e  i n  a d i s t r i c t  w i t h  no r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s  at
a l l .



- 9 -

W hite  b l o c  v o t i n g  i s  n o t ,  as a p p e l l a n t s  

su g g e s t ,  an " u n fo r tu n a te  p r a c t i c e "  o f  no c o n s t i ­

t u t i o n a l  s i g n i f i c a n c e ,  but the keystone o f  a White 

v .  Regester  v i o l a t i o n .  Here white  b l o c  v o t in g  has 

i t s  r o o t s  in  a centu ry  o f  r a c i a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  

open ly  p r a c t i c e d  and advocated by Alabama p u b l i c  

o f f i c i a l s .  In Mobi le  that  b l o c  v o t i n g  i s  d e l i b e r ­

a t e l y  in f lamed and manipulated by white  c a n d i ­

d a t e s ,  many o f  them incumbent p u b l i c  o f f i c i a l s .  

Campaign l e a f l e t s  and adverti sem ents  p o i n t e d l y  

d i s p l a y  photographs o f  b l a c k  opponents and a t t a c k  

white  opponents f o r  hav ing  r e c e i v e d  the v o t e s  o f  

b l a c k s .

B. The c o u r t s  be low c o r r e c t l y  found that  

M o b i l e ' s  a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n  s y s t e m  o p e r a t e s  t o  

e f f e c t i v e l y  d i s e n f r a n c h i s e  b l a c k  v o t e r s .  The 

ev idence  showed, and the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  found, 

t h a t  w h i t e s  v o t e  as a b l o c  a g a i n s t  b l a c k  c a n ­

d id a t e s  or  white  c an didates  who are supported  by 

b l a c k  v o t e r s ,  t h a t  no b l a c k  has  e v e r  won any 

a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n  in M ob i le ,  that  no b la ck  can ­

d i d a t e  c o u l d  do so  u n de r  th e  p r e s e n t  s y s t e m ,  

and that  the a l l - w h i t e  s c h o o l  board had d i s c r i m i ­

nated a g a in s t  i t s  b l a c k  c o n s t i t u e n t s .



10

A p p e l la n ts  c o n t e s t  o n ly  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  

f in d i n g  that  the s c h o o l  board was u nrespons iv e  t o  

the i n t e r e s t s  o f  the b la ck  community. They do not  

deny th at  the board members i n t r a n s i g e n t l y  r e fu s e d  

to  de se gre g ate  the de ju r e  s ch o o l  system u n t i l  

th rea tened  with p e r s o n a l  f i n e s  o f  $1,000  a day, 

but urge that  s i n c e  then the a t t i t u d e  o f  the  board 

has changed.  The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ,  however,  found 

no such change, and in  more recent years the board 

has been su b je c t e d  to  f e d e r a l  co u r t  de cre e s  f o r  

improperly  h i r i n g  and a s s ig n i n g  f a c u l t y  and s t a f f  

on the b a s i s  o f  r a c e ,  f o r  e x p e l l i n g  la r g e  numbers 

o f  b la c k  s tu d e n ts ,  and f o r  t r y in g  to  d i s e n f r a n ­

c h i s e  newly e l e c t e d  b la c k  members o f  the board .

The r e c o r d  i n  t h i s  c a s e  c o n t a i n s  t h e  same 

e v id e n c e  deemed s u f f i c i e n t  to  e s t a b l i s h  a c o n s t i ­

t u t i o n a l  v i o l a t i o n  in  W h ite ■ The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  

• f i n d i n g  o f  such a v i o l a t i o n ,  r e s t i n g  on "a 

bl en d o f  h i s t o r y  and an i n t e n s e l y  l o c a l  a p p r a i sa l  

o f  the des ig n  and impact o f  the [M obi le ]  m u l t i ­

member d i s t r i c t  i n  the l i g h t  o f  past  and presen t  

r e a l i t y ,  p o l i t i c a l  and o t h e r w i s e " ,  412 U.S.  at 

769-70,  should be upheld.



11

IV. The F i f t e e n t h  Amendment p r o h i b i t s  the 

use o f  e l e c t i o n  systems "which e f f e c t i v e l y  h a n d i ­

cap e x e r c i s e  o f  the  f r a n c h i s e  by the c o l o r e d  race  

although the a b s t r a c t  r i g h t  t o  v o t e  may remain 

u n r e s t r i c t e d  as  t o  r a c e . "  Lane v .  W i l s o n ,  

307 U. S. 268, 275 (1939 ) .  Lane does not  r e q u i r e  

any s h o w in g  t h a t  such  b a r r i e r s  are  r a c i a l l y  

m o t iva te d .  In view o f  the f a c t  th at  the F i f t e e n t h  

Amendment s i n g l e s  out the f r a n c h i s e  f o r  s p e c i a l  

p r o t e c t i o n ,  a broader  standard should be ap p l ie d  

to  e l e c t i o n  laws burdening b la c k s  than under the 

genera l  p r o h i b i t i o n  aga inst  r a c i a l  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s  

con ta in ed  in  the Fourteenth Amendment.

ARGUMENT

I. THE AT-LARGE SYSTEM FOR ELECTING THE 
MOBILE SCHOOL BOARD VIOLATES SECTION 
2 OF THE 1965 VOTING RIGHTS ACT

The c o m p l a i n t  in  t h i s  a c t i o n  a l l e g e s  t h a t  

t h e  a t - l a r g e  s y s t e m  f o r  e l e c t i n g  t h e  M o b i l e  

Schoo l  Board v i o l a t e s  s e c t i o n  2 o f  the 1965 Voting 

R i g h t s  A c t .  A. 75a .  S e c t i o n  2, c o d i f i e d  in  

42 U.S.C.  §1973, p r o v i d e s :



12 -

No v o t i n g  q u a l i f i c a t i o n  or  p r e r e q u i s i t e  
to v o t i n g ,  o r  standard ,  p r a c t i c e ,  or  p r o c e ­
dure s h a l l  be imposed or  a p p l ie d  by any Sta te  
o r  p o l i t i c a l '  s u b d i v i s i o n  t o  deny or  abr idge  
the r i g h t  o f  any c i t i z e n  o f  the United Sta te s  
t o  v o t e  on a c c o u n t  o f  r a c e  o r  c o l o r . . . .

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  noted the e x i s t e n c e  o f  t h i s  

s t a t u t o r y  c l a im ,  J .S .  2b -3b ,  but  n e i t h e r  co u r t  
below d ec ided  i t .  The p r a c t i c e  o f  t h i s  Court,  

however ,  i s  to  avo id  the d e c i s i o n  o f  c o n s t i t u ­
t i o n a l  i s s u e s  i f  i t  i s  p o s s i b l e  t o  r e s o l v e  a 

c a s e  on n o n - c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  g r o u n d s .  Wood v . 
S t r i c k l a n d , 420 U .S .  308 ,  314 ( 1 9 7 5 ) ;  S p e c t o r  

Motor Co. v .  McLaughlin,  323 U.S. 101, 105 (1 9 4 4 ) .
The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  c o r r e c t l y  h e l d  t h a t  

s e c t i o n  2 e s t a b l i s h e s  a p r i v a t e  cause o f  a c t i o n .  
A. 83a and n . 2 .  S e c t i o n  3 o f  the Voting  Rights

Act ,  which o r i g i n a l l y  au th o r i ze d  c e r t a i n  s p e c i a l
2 /  ' r e m e d i e s — i n  a c t i o n s  b r o u g h t  by t h e  A t t o r n e y

G e n e r a l  u n d e r  s t a t u t e s  p r o t e c t i n g  t h e  r i g h t  

t o  v o t e ,  was amended in  1975 t o  make th o s e  reme­

d i e s  a v a i l a b l e  as  w e l l  i n  a c t i o n s  under  any

2_/ These  r e m e d i e s  i n c l u d e  t h e  a p p o i n t m e n t  
o f  f e d e r a l  e x a m i n e r s  t o  r e g i s t e r  v o t e r s ,  t h e  
suspension  o f  " t e s t s  or  d e v i c e s " ,  and j u d i c i a l  
o r  a d m i n i s t r a t i v e  p r e - c l e a r a n c e  o f  new v o t i n g  
l a w s .



13

f e d e r a l  v o t i n g  s t a t u t e  brought by an "a g g r i e v e d
p e r s o n " .  42 U.S.C.  §1973a. The purpose o f  that

amendment was to  " a l l o w  a c o u r t ,  in  a s u i t  brought
by a p r i v a t e  p a r t y ,  t o  grant the A c t ' s  s p e c i a l

re m e d ie s " .  S. Rep. No. 94-295,  94th Cong . ,  1st
S e s s . ,  pp .  3 9 - 4 0 ,  4 9 .  The p r o p o n e n t s  o f  t h i s

amendment made i t  c l e a r  that  they understood such
a p r i v a t e  a c t i o n  was a v a i l a b l e  under s e c t i o n  2,

and that  s e c t i o n  3 remedies c o u ld  thus be prov ided
3 /m  p r i v a t e  s e c t i o n  2 a c t i o n s . —

In  our  b r i e f  i n  C i t y  o f  M o b i l e  v ,  B o l d e n , 
No. 77-1844 ,  we s e t  out  at l e n gth  our c o n t e n t i o n  

t h a t  s e c t i o n  2 p r o h i b i t s  e l e c t i o n  p r a c t i c e s  
with c e r t a i n  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  e f f e c t s ,  i n c l u d i n g  an 

a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n  s y s t e m  t h a t  " c r e a t e [ s ]  o r  
e n h a n c e [ s ] t h e  power o f  t h e  w h i t e  m a j o r i t y  to .  

e x c l u d e  N e g r o e s  t o t a l l y  f rom  p a r t i c i p a t i n g  i n  
the govern ing  o f  [a s c h o o l  board ]  through member­

ship  on the [ b o a r d ] " .  See C i ty  o f  Richmond v .

3 /  C ongressm an D r i n a n ,  f o r  e x a m p le ,  n o t e d  
t h a t  p r i v a t e  a c t i o n s  c o u l d  b e  " b a s e d  . . .  upon  
s t a t u t e s  pursuant to  [ the Fourteenth and F i f t e e n t h  
Amendments], such as 42 U.S.C.  §1971, 1973, 1983 ."  
121 Cong. Rec. H4734 ( D a i ly  ed .  June 2, 1975) .



14 -

United S t a t e s , 422 U.S.  358, 370 (1 9 7 5 ) ;  B r i e f
f o r  A p p e l l e e s ,  No. 77-1844 ,  pp. 11-17 .  We there  

e x p la in  that  the permanent p r o h i b i t i o n s  o f  s e c t i o n  
2 and th e  t e m p o r a r y  p r e - c l e a r a n c e  p r o c e d u r e s  

o f  s e c t i o n  5 o f  the Voting Rights  Act  e s t a b l i s h  

t h e  same s u b s t a n t i v e  s t a n d a r d  but  d i f f e r e n t  

pro c e d u r e s .  As Senator S c o t t  o f  V i r g i n i a  noted:

S u b s t a n t i a l l y  a l l  the  r i g h t s  t h a t  are  
in the temporary l e g i s l a t i o n  are in the 
permanent l e g i s l a t i o n  o f  the Voting Rights 
A c t .  The p r i n c i p a l  d i f f e r e n c e  r e f e r s  to  
the burden o f  p r o o f .  Under the permanent 
p r o v i s i o n  o f  the law,  the Government must 
p r o v e  i t s  c a s e .  U n d e r  t h e  t e m p o r a r y  
p r o v i s i o n  o f  the law t h ere  i s  a presump­
t i o n  o f  wrongdoing that  has t o  be overcome 
by t h e  s t a t e  c o v e r e d  by t h e  t e m p o r a r y  
p r o v i s i o n s . 4 /

The rec o r d  and f i n d i n g s  in  t h i s  c a s e ,  which 

we s e t  out  in d e t a i l  i n f r a  at  pp. 43-48 ,  demon­

s t r a t e  t h a t  the  a t - l a r g e  s y s t e m  f o r  e l e c t i n g  

the Mobile  s c h o o l  board had ju s t  such an im pact . 
The system p la c e d  103,000 b la c k s  in a d i s t r i c t  

with 214,000 w h i t e s ,  J . S .  6b,  en a b l in g  the white s

4 /  121 Cong .  R e c .  S135499  ( D a i l y  e d .  J u l y
24, 1975 ) ;  see a l s o  _id_. S13601 (remarks o f  Sen.
S c o t t )  ( s e c t i o n  2 i s  t h e  perm anent p r o v i s i o n  
r e f e r r e d  t o ) ,  S13376  ( r e m a r k s  o f  Sen.  B r o c k )  
( s e c t i o n  5 e s t a b l i s h e s  a d i f f e r e n t  " p r o c e d u re "  
than e x i s t s  in n o n -co ve re d  j u r i s d i c t i o n s ) .



15

by b l o c  v o t i n g  t o  exc lu de  from the s ch o o l  board 

not  only  b la c k s  but even white s  who had re v e a le d  

an i n t e r e s t  i n  s e r v i n g  th e  n e e ds  o f  t h e  b l a c k  

community. This  e v id e n c e  was s u f f i c i e n t  to meet 

p l a i n t i f f s '  burden o f  e s t a b l i s h i n g  a v i o l a t i o n  o f  

s e c t i o n  2 o f  the Voting Rights A c t .

I I .  THE AT-LARGE SYSTEM FOR ELECTING THE 
MOBILE SCHOOL BOARD IS MAINTAINED AND 
OPERATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISCRIMI­
NATING ON THE BASIS OF RACE

A l t h o u g h  t h e  J u r i s d i c t i o n a l  S t a t e m e n t  and 

B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l a n t s  d e a l  p r i m a r i l y  w i t h  t h e  

a p p l i c a t i o n  o f  th e  d i l u t i o n  r u l e  o f  White v .  

R e g e s t e r , 412 U .S .  755 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ,  the  a t - l a r g e
e l e c t i o n  system was a l s o  i n v a l i d a t e d  below based 

on a f i n d i n g  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  i n t e n t .  The 

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  found "a presen t  purpose t o  d i l u t e  

the b la c k  v o t e . . . . " ,  J .S .  37b; A. 34a (emphasis 

a d d e d ) ,  and t h e  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  u p h e l d  the  

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  f in d in g s  as "not  c l e a r l y  e r r o n e ­

o u s " .  J .S .  2a; A. 2a. The c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  p r o h i ­

b i t i o n  aga inst  such r a c i a l l y  m ot iva ted  laws i s  
w e l l  e s t a b l i s h e d ,  and i t s  a p p l i c a t i o n  pre s e n ts  a 

l a r g e l y  f a c t u a l  i s s u e .  T h is  Court  d o e s  no t  
o r d i n a r i l y  "undertake to  rev iew concurrent  f i n d ­



16

ings o f  f a c t  by two c o u r t s  below in  the absence o f  

a very  obv ious  and e x c e p t i o n a l  showing o f  e r r o r . "  

G raver  Mfg.  Co, v .  L in de  C o . ,  336 U .S .  271,  

275 ( 1 9 4 9 ) .  A p p e l l e e s  m a i n t a i n  t h a t  no such 

unusual c i rcum stances  are present h e re .

The meth od  f o r  e l e c t i n g  e ach  s c h o o l  bo a r d  

in Alabama i s  f i x e d  by s t a t e  l e g i s l a t i o n .  That 

method v a r i e s  i n  a c r a z y - q u i l t  p a t t e r n  a c r o s s

th e  s t a t e ;  a t  l e a s t  11 d i f f e r e n t  sy s te m s  a r e
5 /p r e s e n t l y  m  u s e . —'T h e  L e g i s l a t u r e  f r e q u e n t l y  

a l t e r s  the method o f  e l e c t i n g  t h e  b o a r d s  i n  

p a r t i c u l a r  c o u n t i e s ;  from 1975-1977,  f o r  example,

5 /  These in c lu d e  (1 )  f i v e  board members e l e c t e d  
a t - l a r g e  w i t h  no r e s i d e n c y  r e q u i r e m e n t ,  as 
in  Mobi le  County p r i o r  to t h i s  a c t i o n ,  c f .  Ala.  
Code § 1 6 - 8 - 1  ( 1 9 7 5 ) ;  ( 2 )  f i v e  members e l e c t e d
a t - l a r g e ,  but e x c lu d in g  r e s i d e n t s  o f  areas with 
independent boards o f  e d u c a t i o n ,  see e . g . ,  Ala.  
A c t s ,  1977 Reg. S e s s . ,  No. 355 (Houston County) ;
( 3 )  f i v e  members e l e c t e d  a t - l a r g e ,  b u t  o n l y  
one may l i v e  w i t h in  the j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  an in d e ­
p e n d e n t  c i t y  b o a r d ,  s e e  e . g . ,  A l a .  A c t s ,  75 
Reg. S e s s . ,  No. 645 ( J e f f e r s o n  County ) ;  (4 )  seven 
a t - l a r g e  members,  a t  l e a s t  two o f  whom must 
not r e s i d e  in  a m u n i c i p a l i t y ,  see e . g . ,  Ala .  A c ts ,  
1939 Reg. S e s s . ,  No. 222 (Montgomery County) ;  (5)  
seven a t - l a r g e  members from r e s i d e n c y  d i s t r i c t ,  
s e e  e . g . ,  A l a .  A c t s ,  1971 Reg.  S e s s . ,  No. 60 
(Etowah County ) ;  ( 6 ) f i v e  a t - l a r g e  members from



17

the  s y s t e m  was c h a n g e d  in  f i v e  c o u n t i e s . —^The 

Mobile  system, which predates  the a d o p t i o n  o f  the 

1965 V o t i n g  R i g h t s  A c t , —^ p r o v i d e s  f o r  t h e  a t -  

l a r g e  e l e c t i o n  o f  a l l  members o f  t h e  b o a r d .  

A p p e l l e e s  conte nd ,  and the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  found,  

that  M o b i l e ' s  system i s  be ing  maintained because 

o f  a " p r e s e n t  purpose"  to  d i s c r i m i n a t e  aga inst

5 /  Cont 'd

r e s id e n c y  d i s t r i c t s  ( e x c lu d in g  c i t i e s  with in de ­
pendent b o a r d s ) ,  see e . g . ,  Ala.  A c t s ,  1973 Reg. 
S e s s . ,  No. 316 (Blount County ) ;  (7 )  one a t - l a r g e  
p lus four  a t - l a r g e  from r e s i d e n c y  d i s t r i c t s ,  see 
e . g . ,  A l a .  A c t s ,  1971 Reg.  S e s s . ,  No. 2268 
(A utauga  C o u n t y ) ;  ( 8 ) one  a t - l a r g e  p l u s  f o u r  
s ingle-member d i s t r i c t s ,  see e . g . ,  Ala.  A c t s ,  1977 
Reg. S e s s . ,  No. 254 (Chambers County) ;  (9 )  seven 
members from single-member d i s t r i c t s ,  see  e . g . ,  
A l a .  A c t s ,  1 976 Reg. S e s s . ,  No. 380 (Morgan 
C o u n t y ) ;  ( 1 0 )  f i v e  members from s i n g l e - m e m b e r  
d i s t r i c t s ,  see e . g . ,  Ala.  A c ts ,  1936 Reg. S e s s . ,  
No. 91 (Marion County ) ;  (11 )  f ou r  members from 
single-member d i s t r i c t s ,  see e . g . ,  Ala .  A c ts ,  1967 
Reg. S e s s . ,  No. 298 (Cleburne County ) .

_6 /  J e f f e r  son, Chambers, Morgan, Houston, Geneva.

J ]  There i s  some d i s p u t e  as to  what l e g i s l a t i o n
e s t a b l i s h e d  the present  system. See J. S. 27b, A. 
26a. In our view i t  is  not  n ecessa ry  t o  d e t e r ­
mine when the  s y s t e m  was c r e a t e d ,  s i n c e  the 
d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  c o r r e c t l y  found i t  i s  be ing  main­
t a in e d  f o r  a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  purpose.



18

b lack  v o t e r s  and t o  prevent the e l e c t i o n  o f  b l a c k  

members o f  the board .  The r e c o r d  f u l l y  supports  
the f in d in g s  be low.

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  f o u n d  t h a t  r a c e  i s  a 
param ount c o n s i d e r a t i o n  when t h e  L e g i s l a t u r e  

p a s s e s  on any p r o p o s a l  t o  a l t e r  t h e  method o f  
e l e c t i n g  s t a t e  o r  l o c a l  o f f i c i a l s :

The e v id en ce  i s  c l e a r  that  whenever a r e d i s ­
t r i c t i n g  b i l l  o f  any type i s  proposed by a 
county  d e l e g a t i o n  member, a major  concern  has 
c e n t e r e d  arou n d  how many, i f  a n y ,  b l a c k s  
would be e l e c t e d .  These f a c t o r s  prevented 
any e f f e c t i v e  r e d i s t r i c t i n g  w h ic h  w ou ld  
r e s u l t  i n  any b e n e f i t  to  the  b l a c k  v o t e r s  
pass in g  u n t i l  the Sta te  was r e d i s t r i c t e d  by a 
f e d e r a l  c o u r t  o r d e r .  J . S .  3 5 b - 3 6 b ,  A. 
33a.

This d i r e c t  e v id e n ce  o f  r a c i a l  m o t iv a t io n ,  based

on the u n c o n t r a d i c t e d  test imony o f  members o f  the
8 /

L e g i s l a t u r e , — was " h i g h l y  r e l e v a n t " .  A r l in g t o n  

H e i g h t s  v .  M e t r o p o l i t a n  H o u s i n g  D ev e lop m en t  
C orp . , 429 U.S. 252, 268 (1 9 7 7 ) .

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  noted that  the undisputed 

impact o f  the a t - l a r g e  system in  Mobile  was to  

p r e c lu d e  the e l e c t i o n  o f  any b l a c k  to  the sch oo l

8 /  A. 233a-234a,  267a-269a,  309a-311a,  405a-406a.



19

b o a r d T h e r e  was d i r e c t  e v i d e n c e  t h a t  t h i s  
d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  impact o f  a t - l a r g e  systems was w e l l  

known t o  the L e g i s l a t u r e - ^  and to  the members o f  

the Mobile  s c h o o l  board .— ^Such p r o o f  that  the 

sy s t e m  b o r e  "m ore  h e a v i l y  on one r a c e  than  

another"  was a l s o  a s t r o n g  i n d i c a t i o n  o f  d i s c r i m i ­

natory  i n t e n t .  A r l in g t o n  Heights v .  M etr o p o l i ta n  

H o u s in g  D eve lopm en t  C o r p . , 429 U .S .  a t  266.

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  p r o p e r ly  r e l i e d  as w e l l  on

t h e  l o n g  h i s t o r y  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  in  Alabama
12 /ag a in s t  b l a c k  v o t e r s . —  We have d e s c r i b e d  that

9 /

9 /  J .S .  10b, 12b, 13b, 40b; A. 12a, 13a, 14a,
15a, 37a.

10/  See n .4 4 ,  i n f r a .

11/  Commissioner Alexander  t e s t i f i e d :

A. [ I ] n  my o p i n i o n ,  a b la c k  c o u ld  not be 
e l e c t e d  at t h i s  time on a county -w ide  
b a s i s .

Q. Have any o f  the o th er  s c h o o l  commis­
s i o n e r s  agreed with that  p o s i t i o n  
on the r e c o r d ?

A. I would say that  they g e n e r a l l y  agree 
with t h a t ,  yes s i r .

A. 372a.

12/ J .S 9b, 1 9 - 2 lb ,  43b; A. 11a, 20a-21a,  39a.



20

h i s t o r y  at  length  in our b r i e f  in C i ty  o f  Mobile  

v .  Bolden. B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l e e s ,  No. 77-1844, pp. 
25-33.  The use o f  a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n  systems to  

d i l u t e  b la c k  vo te s  has been a major  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

t a c t i c  in recent  years in Alabama. Id .  pp. 31-32 .  

This " s e r i e s  o f  o f f i c i a l  a c t i o n s  taken f o r  i n v i d i ­

ous purposes"  was a l s o  re l e v a n t  under A r l in g t o n  

H eights ,  429 U.S. at 267.
This e v id en ce  was compounded by two i n c i d e n t s  

which led the d i s t r i c t  judge t o  co n c lu d e  that  the 

de fendants  had ac te d  with  unc lean hands.

The f i r s t  such scheme i n v o lv e d  the "Kennedy 
1 3 /B i l l " , ----  a m easu re  t h a t  had o r i g i n a l l y  b e e n

p r o p o s e d  p r i o r  t o  t h e  commencement o f  t h i s  
a c t i o n .  A. 36a .  The Kennedy B i l l  mandated

the use o f  s ingle-member d i s t r i c t  e l e c t i o n s  f o r  
the M ob ile  s c h o o l  board .  The members o f  the board- 

o f f e r e d  to  support  the Kennedy B i l l  prov ided  that  

a s i n g l e  seemingly innocuous change was made.— ^At

13/  H . 1243, Ala .  Reg. Sess.  (1 9 7 5 ) .

14/ A. 234a-35a, 379a-382a.



21

the b o a r d ' s  i n s i s t e n c e  the dates on which the new

single-member d i s t r i c t s  were to be phased in  were

a l t e r e d ,  and with that  m o d i f i c a t i o n  the b i l l  was
15/

passed and signed in t o  law on October  10, 1975.—

A l t h o u g h  th e y  were  i n  c l o s e  c o n t a c t  w i t h  the

L e g i s l a t u r e ,  the board members never expressed  any
16/doubts about the v a l i d i t y  o f  the Kennedy B i l l . —

S h o r t ly  a f t e r  the b i l l  became law the defendant

board members requeste d  that  the in s tan t  a c t i o n  be

d i s m i s s e d  as a g a i n s t  them—  on th e  gr o u n d s  i t  
18 /was m o o t . ---- ' T h e  p l a i n t i f f s  a c q u i e s c e d  i n  t h i s

r e q u e s t ,  and the s c h o o l  board c la ims were d i s ­

missed without p r e j u d i c e  on November 21, 1975.

A. 80a.
On February 7, 1976, l e s s  than two and a h a l f  

months a f t e r  the s c h o o l  commissioners had ob ­

ta ined  d i s m i s s a l  o f  t h i s  f e d e r a l  a c t i o n  on the

15/ A la .  A c t s ,  1975 Reg. S e s s . ,  No. 1150.

Ib J  A. 384a -385a .

17/  The c o m p l a i n t  a l s o  c h a l l e n g e d  t h e  u se  o f  
a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n s  t o  choose  the County Commis­
s i o n .  T h i s  a s p e c t  o f  t h e  c a s e  rem ain ed  u n a f ­
f e c t e d  .

18/ Tr.  865.



22

ground that  the Kennedy B i l l  had enacted s i n g l e ­

member d i s t r i c t s ,  the same s ch o o l  board commis­

s i o n e r s  brought a s t a t e  co u r t  a c t i o n  a t ta c k in g  the 
v a l i d i t y  o f  th e  Kennedy A c t .  The s t a t e  c o u r t  

a c t i o n  was not  a meaningful  adversary  pro c e e d in g .  
The f e d e r a l  p l a i n t i f f s  were not named as p a r t i e s  

o r  s e r v e d  w i t h  t h e  c o m p l a i n t .  The o n l y  named 
de fendants  were the S h e r i f f ,  C i r c u i t  Clerk and

P r o b a t e  Judge  o f  M o b i l e  C o u n t y ,  who w ere  a l s o
19 /

d e f e n d a n t s  in  the  f e d e r a l  a c t i o n . ----  Thus the

s t a t e  a c t i o n  was a pro ce e d in g  between the f e d e r a l
de fendants  to  determine the v a l i d i t y  o f  the r e l i e f

o b t a i n e d  by members o f  the  f e d e r a l  p l a i n t i f f

c l a s s  through l e g i s l a t i v e  a c t i o n .  The defendant

S h e r i f f ,  C i r c u i t  Clerk and Probate Judge appeared
in the s t a t e  a c t i o n  but took  no p o s i t i o n  on the

20/
m e r i t s ; —  the Alabama Attorney  General  who was

19/ The complaint  and judgment in  the s t a t e  court  
a c t i o n ,  Board o f  Schoo l  Commissioners o f  Mobile  
C o u n t y ,  Alabama v .  John L. Moore, C i v i l  A c t i o n  
No. 9 6 , 2 0 4 ,  a r e  in  the  r e c o r d  in  t h i s  c a s e ,  
annexed  t o  p l a i n t i f f s '  M o t i o n  t o  Add P a r t i e s  
Defendant.  See A. 88a.

20 /  Their  Answer admitted a l l  a l l e g a t i o n s  o f  the 
B oard 's  complaint  except  i t s  c o n c l u s i o n  that  the 
s ingle-member plan was i n v a l i d ,  and as t o  that



23

a l s o  s e r v e d  n e v e r  a p p e a r e d  at  a l l .  A. 240a .
The gravamen o f  t h e  s c h o o l  b o a r d ' s  s t a t e

c o u r t  c o m p l a i n t  was t h a t  the  la n g u a g e  o f  the

Kennedy Act as f i n a l l y  adopted d i f f e r e d  from the

l a n g u a g e  o f  the  B i l l  as o r i g i n a l l y  a d v e r t i s e d
in M ob i le .  This was c la imed to  v i o l a t e  a s t a t e

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  requirement that  such " l o c a l  laws"
be a d v e r t i s e d  p r i o r  to  passage .  But the board

o b j e c t e d  t o  the very  change in  language which the

board i t s e l f  had demanded, the a l t e r a t i o n  o f  the

d a t e s  f o r  i m p l e m e n t i n g  s i n g l e - m e m b e r  d i s t r i c t
, • 2 1 /e l e c t i o n s . —  The s t a t e  co u r t  entered  judgment m

20/  Cont 'd

c o n c l u s i o n  a s s e r t e d  only that  the "de fendants  are 
without s u f f i c i e n t  knowledge to  admit o r  deny the 
a l l e g a t i o n . . . . "  Answer, p.  1. The s t a t e  c o u r t  
de fen dants  f i l e d  no o th e r  p l e a d in g s ,  b r i e f s ,  or  
o th e r  papers.

21 /  In support  o f  i t s  a c t i o n  the board f i l e d  an 
a f f i d a v i t  o f  G eorg e  E. S t o n e ,  J r . ,  D i r e c t o r  
o f  L e g a l  S e r v i c e s  o f  t h e  M o b i l e  County  S c h o o l  
System, dated February 12, 1976. The a f f i d a v i t  
a s s e r t e d  t h ere  was a " s u b s t a n t i a l  d i f f e r e n c e  o f  
substance between the pub l i shed  n o t i c e  and Act  
No. 1150 as enacted by the L e g i s l a t u r e .  The B i l l  
o f  which n o t i c e  by p u b l i c a t i o n  was g iv en  c r e a t e s



24

fa v o r  o f  the s c h o o l  board h o l d i n g  the Kennedy Act 
i n v a l i d  on February 17, 1976, twelve  days a f t e r  

the s t a t e  co u r t  a c t i o n  was commenced. None o f  the 
nominal de fendants in that  a c t i o n  appea led.  J .S .  

22b-23b;  A. 23a.

On March 1, 1976 ,  t h e  f e d e r a l  p l a i n t i f f s  

moved t o  r e j o i n  the  s c h o o l  c o m m i s s i o n e r s  as 
d e f e n d a n t s ,  a m o t i o n  w h ic h  t h e  d i s t r i c t  j u d g e  

p r o m p t l y  g r a n t e d .  A. 65a,  8 8 a - 8 9 a .  A l t h o u g h  

the commissioners were thus back in  f e d e r a l  c o u r t ,  

they had succeeded in de la y in g  those  proceed in gs

21/  C o n t ' d

f i v e  geographic  d i s t r i c t s  numbered one through 
f i v e .  I t  p r o v id e s  f o r  the e l e c t i o n  o f  members o f  
the Board from d i s t r i c t s  one, two and three  in 
November 1976 to  take o f f i c e  in January, 1977 and 
f o r  e l e c t i o n  o f  members from d i s t r i c t s  f o u r  
and f i v e  t o  be e l e c t e d  in November 1978 to  take 
o f f i c e  in  January 1979. Whereas, A c t .  No. 1150 as 
passed by the L e g i s l a t u r e  p r o v id e s  f o r  the e l e c ­
t i o n  o f  members from d i s t r i c t s  three  and four  in 
November 1976 to  take o f f i c e  in January 1977, f o r  
t h e  e l e c t i o n  o f  a member from d i s t r i c t  one  in  
November, 1978 to  take o f f i c e  in January 1979 and 
f o r  e l e c t i o n  o f  members from d i s t r i c t s  two and 
f i v e  in 1980 t o  take o f f i c e  in January 1981. Thus, 
there  is  a s u b s t a n t i a l  and m a te r ia l  d i f f e r e n c e  
between the p u b l i sh e d  n o t i c e  o f  the b i l l  that  was 
to  be in tr oduced  and Act No. 1150 as passed by 
the L e g i s l a t u r e . "  P. 5.



25

by over  three  months, which was probab ly  s u f f i ­

c i e n t  t o  a s s u r e  t h a t  the  c a s e  c o u l d  n o t  be  

dec ided  p r i o r  to  the 1976 s c h o o l  board e l e c t i o n s .  

The de fendants  guaranteed that  r e s u l t  by r e f u s i n g  

to  f i l e  an Answer u n t i l  July 12, 1976, A. 95a-99a, 

106a,  118a,  and t h e n  f i l e d  f o u r  m o t i o n s  f o r  

cont inuances  p r i o r  to the September 1976 t r i a l .  

A. 92a, 100a, 144a, 166a.

F o l lo w in g  t h e i r  j o i n d e r  as de fendants ,  the 

s c h o o l  commissioners prepared a second b i l l .  This 

new p rop osa l  was c a s t  as a " g e n e r a l  law o f  l o c a l  

a p p l i c a t i o n " ,  a form o f  l e g i s l a t i o n  which does not 

r e q u i r e  any a d v e r t i s e m e n t  un der  t h e  Alabama 

C o n s t i t u t i o n .  The c o m m i s s i o n e r s  ask ed  b l a c k  

R e p r e s e n t a t i v e  Gary C o o p e r  t o  i n t r o d u c e  t h i s  

measure, but Cooper, s u s p i c i o u s  o f  the b o a r d ' s  

m o t iv e s ,  r e fu s e d  to  do so .  Tr. 400-0-1. On July 

8 , 1976, white  R e pre s e n ta t iv e  Nat Sonnier ,  a c t i n g

f o r  the  d e f e n d a n t s ,  i n t r o d u c e d  the  b i l l .  A. 

101a-102a,  146a. Four days l a t e r  the de fendants

moved to  delay  f u r t h e r  pro ce e d in g s  in  t h i s  a c t i o n
2 2 /because o f  the pendency o f  the "Sonnier  B i l l " —

22_/ H. 1060, Ala.  Reg. Sess.  ( 1976) .



26

A. 100a. The de fendants  r e p e a t e d l y  i n s i s t e d  they

f a v o r e d  th e  use  o f  s i n g l e —member d i s t r i c t s ,

r e f e r r e d  t o  the  f a t a l  d e f e c t  o f  the  Kennedy
2 3 /

A ct  as " u n f o r t u n a t e " , —  and s t a t e d  t h e y  were

do ing  a l l  they c o u ld  to  o b t a in  enactment o f  the 
24/Sonnier  B i l l . —  The requested  cont inuances  were 

d e n i e d .

In view o f  the misuse o f  the Kennedy Act  by 

t h e  s c h o o l  b o a r d ,  l e g i s l a t i v e  p r o p o n e n t s  o f  

s i n g l e - m e m b e r  d i s t r i c t i n g  o p p o s e d  t h e  S o n n i e r  

B i l l ,  f e a r f u l  th at  i t  too  was a c o n t r iv a n c e  to 

p erp etu ate  the a t - l a r g e  system. R e pre s e n t a t iv e  
Cooper e x p la in e d :

I f e l t  th at  i t  was a p loy  be in g  used by the 
Mobile  County School  Board so that  they cou ld  
come back and t e l l  the Judge here  in  Mobile  
that  we were t r y in g  to. get  a b i l l  passed.  Of 
c o u r s e ,  we knew that  i f  the b i l l  passed . . . 
i t  c o u l d  be  c h a l l e n g e d ,  and i t  w ou ld  mean 
another two or  t h ree  years  b e f o r e  any r e s u l t  
c o u ld  come to  t h i s  problem. A. 272a.

23 /  A. 101a, 115a.

24/  A. 101a, 111a, 115a, 145a-146a, 168a, 172a-  
173a, 178a, 179a.



27

R e p r e s e n t a t i v e  C o o p e r  e x p r e s s e d  r e s e r v a t i o n s  
a b o u t  w h e t h e r ,  i n  l i g h t  o f  t h e  s p e c i a l  s t a t e  

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  s ta t us  o f  the M obi le  s c h o o l  board,  
i t  c o u ld  be r e d i s t r i c t e d  by a genera l  law o f  l o c a l  

a p p l i c a t i o n .  A. 2 3 8 a - 2 3 9 a ,  2 4 9 a - 2 5 1 a .  The 
de fen dants  then made repeated  motions t o  d ismiss  

t h i s  a c t i o n ,  c la im in g  the p l a i n t i f f s  d id  not  have 

" c l e a n  hands" because  the Sonnier  B i l l  was b e in g  

b l o c k e d  by b l a c k  l e g i s l a t o r s  a l l e g e d l y  a c t i n g  on 
b e h a l f  o f  the p l a i n t i f f s .  A. 144a-148a, 168a-  

172a. These motions were den ied .

In c o n n e c t i o n  with th ese  motions f o r  c o n t i n u ­

ances and d i s m i s s a l ,  a q u e s t i o n  n a t u r a l l y  ar ose  
a b o u t  w h e t h e r  t h e  S o n n i e r  B i l l  w o u ld  be v a l i d  

un der  s t a t e  l a w .  C o u n s e l  - f o r  p l a i n t i f f s  were 

concerned that  i t  t o o  was d e l i b e r a t e l y  d e f e c t i v e ,  

and that  the board would a t t a c k  the l e g a l i t y  o f  

the Sonnier  B i l l ,  as i t  had the Kennedy B i l l ,  once 

d i s m i s s a l  or de lay  o f  the f e d e r a l  a c t i o n  had been 

a c h ie v e d .  The d e fen d an ts ,  however ,  i n s i s t e d  in  

t h e i r  September 2, 1976, m oti on  that  the Sonnier  

B i l l  would meet " a l l  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  s t a n d a r d s " ,  A. 

148a, and o f f e r e d  proposed Findings  o f  Fact and 

C onc lus io ns  o f  Law s t a t i n g  the b i l l  was " c o n s t i ­

t u t i o n a l l y  sound" .  J .S .  25b; A. 25a. Counsel f o r



28

t h e  s c h o o l  b o a r d ,  a t  the  Se p te m be r  9,  1976 ,
h e a r i n g  on the  l a s t  m o t i o n  f o r  d i s m i s s a l  o r  

c o n t i n u a n c e ,  u n e q u i v o c a l l y  i n s i s t e d  t h a t  the  

Sonnier  B i l l  "would have met a l l  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

t e s t s  and r e q u i r e m e n t s "  and " w o u ld  meet e v e r y  

C o n s t i t u t i o n a l  t e s t " .  A. 171a, 173a. Once these  

mot ions were denied and the case  went to  t r i a l ,  

c o u n se l  f o r  the board took  p r e c i s e l y  the o p p o s i t e  

p o s i t i o n .  In urg ing  that  M o b i l e ' s  a t - l a r g e  system 

was o f  l o n g  s t a n d i n g ,  c o u n s e l  f o r  the  b o a r d  

contended i t  dated from a 1919 s t a t u t e ,  not  a more 

re c e n t  1939 law, because  the l a t t e r  was a "g e n e r a l  

law o f  l o c a l  a p p l i c a t i o n "  and such laws cou ld  not 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  apply to  M ob i le .  The d i s t r i c t  

judge r e a l i z e d  th at  the Sonnier  B i l l  had a l s o  been 

a g enera l  law o f  l o c a l  a p p l i c a t i o n ,  and . c ounse l  

f o r  de fendants a s s e r t e d  that  i t  too  would have 
been i n v a l i d .

THE COURT: So, i f  that  i s  true  an Act  passed
as a general  Act . . .  would be u n c o n s t i ­
t u t i o n a l  ?

MR. PHILIPS: I th ink  i t  would.

THE COURT: So, the proposed Act t h i s  l a s t
time was, t h e r e f o r e ,  u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ?

MR. PHILIPS: I think it was.



29

THE COURT: Okay.

MR. PHILIPS: There never was any doubt in
my mind about t h a t .

A. 441a-442a (emphasis added) .  This was the same 

a t t o r n e y  who had r e p r e s e n t e d  at  t h e  b e g i n n i n g  

o f  t r i a l  that  the Sonnier  B i l l  was v a l i d  and thus 

j u s t i f i e d  d i s m is s a l  o f  t h i s  a c t i o n .

In the f a c e  o f  th ese  i n c o n s i s t e n t  r e p r e s e n t a ­

t i o n s  the d i s t r i c t  judge found that  the de fen dants  

w ere  a c t i n g  w i t h  u n c l e a n  h a n d s ;  t h e  b o a r d ' s  

t a c t i c s ,  he w rote ,  were s i m i la r  t o  t h e i r  " l a c k  o f  

c o o p e r a t i o n  and d i l a t o r y  p r a c t i c e s "  in  o b s t r u c t i n g  

s c h o o l  d e s e g r e g a t i o n .  J . S .  2 6 b ;  A. 26a.  The 

d i s t r i c t  c ourt  l a t e r  noted that  the purpose o f  

" t h e  d e fe n d a n t s '  d i f f e r e n t  p o s i t i o n s  on l e g i s ­

l a t i v e  p r o p o s a l s  t o  p r o v i d e  f o r  s i n g l e - m e m b e r  

d i s t r i c t  [ s ]  . . . h a [ s ]  been to  de lay  and d e fe a t

t h e i r  a l l e g e d  s u p p o r t  o f  the  l e g i s l a t i v e  a c -

t i o n s " -----  Th is  p a l p a b l e  a tt empt  to  p e r p e t r a t e

y e t  a n o t h e r  r u s e  on the  f e d e r a l  c o u r t  was o f  

o b v i o u s  i m p o r t a n c e  in  a s s e s s i n g  t h e  m o t i v e s

25/  Appendix to  t h i s  b r i e f ,  App. 12a-13a.



30

u n d e r l y i n g  t h e  m a i n t e n a n c e  o f  t h e  a t - l a r g e
_ 26/  system.—

The s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s  whose d e c i s i o n s  produced 

the d e l i b e r a t e l y  d e f e c t i v e  l e g i s l a t i o n  o f  1975 and 

1976T and who c o n t r o l l e d  the L e g i s l a t u r e ' s  f a i l u r e  

to  enact  s ingle-member d i s t r i c t s  b e f o r e  or  a f t e r  
that  p e r i o d ,  were the defendant s c h o o l  commis­

s i o n e r s ,  and thus i t  i s  t h e i r  motives which are 

c r i t i c a l .  Under the " c o u r t e s y  r u l e "  in f o r c e  in 

the Alabama l e g i s l a t u r e ,  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y  f o r  any 

l e g i s l a t i o n  a f f e c t i n g  o n ly  M obi le  was l e f t  en­

t i r e l y  in the hands o f  the Mobile  County l e g i s l a ­

t i v e  d e l e g a t i o n ,  J .S .  35b; A. 32a-33a.  In t h i s  

i n s ta n c e  the  d e l e g a t i o n  was a c t i n g  at the behest  

o f  t h e  d e f e n d a n t  s c h o o l  b o a r d  members and t h e  

board i t s e l f  i n s i s t e d  i t  c o u ld  c o n t r o l  the passage

_26/ A. 169a, 172a-173a.  R e g r e t ta b ly  such t a c t i c s  
d id  not end a f t e r  the t r i a l  o f  t h i s  a c t i o n .  In 
t h i s  Court ,  f o r  example, the a p p e l la n t s  attacked  
the s ch ed ule  f o r  phasing in  the use o f  s i n g l e ­
member d i s t r i c t s  even though they had sought such 
a sched ule  in the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  and de fended i t  
in  t h e  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s .  App. l l a - 1 2 a .  The 
a p p e l la n t s  a l s o  sought to  d i s e n f r a n c h i s e  any new 
b la c k  members o f  the s c h o o l  board by r e q u i r i n g  a 
v o t e  o f  4 t o  1, and thus a m a jo r i t y  o f  the  white  
members, t o  a l t e r  any e x i s t i n g  p o l i c y .  App. 7a-  
9a, 1 3 a - 1 4 a .  " A p p . "  c i t a t i o n s  r e f e r  t o  t h e  
Appendix t o  t h i s  b r i e f .



- 31

o f  s c h o o l  board r e d i s t r i c t i n g  l e g i s l a t i o n . —  For 
f e d e r a l  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  purposes the members o f  the 

Mobi le  s c h o o l  board are s t a t e  o f f i c e r s  as much as 

are the members o f  the s t a t e  L e g i s l a t u r e .  The bad 

f a i t h  o f  e i t h e r  f a t a l l y  t a i n t s  any r e s u l t i n g  
l e g i s l a t i o n .  C f . C o o pe r  v .  A a r o n , 358 U. S.

1 (1958) .

The a p p e l la n t s  do not q u e s t i o n  o r  address any 

o f  th e se  f i n d i n g s .  They a t t a c k  the f i n d i n g  o f  
pu r p o se fu l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  on somewhat d i f f e r e n t  t 

g rou nd s .

The o n l y  p o r t i o n  o f  t h e  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l ­

lan ts  d e a l in g  d i r e c t l y  with t h i s  i s su e  a s s e r t s  

that  the a t - l a r g e  system d id  not  o r i g i n a t e  as a 

" d e v i c e  to . d i s c r i m i n a t e " .  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l la n t s ,  

pp .  6 0 - 6 1 .  But a p p e l l e e s '  c o n t e n t i o n  and the  

f i n d i n g  below are that the a t - l a r g e  system has 
been maintained in o p e r a t i o n  in o rde r  to  d i s e n ­

f r a n c h i s e  b l a c k s ,  and i s  thus  t a i n t e d  by "a

27/  A. 148a, 172a-173a.  Notwithstanding  t h e i r  
r epea ted  p r e t r i a l  a s s e r t i o n s  o f  a d e s i r e  to p r o ­
cure  t h e i r  own single-member d i s c t r i c t  plan in 
the L e g i s l a t u r e ,  the de fendants  did  not do so at 
the  1977 o r  1978 s e s s i o n s  o f  t h e  L e g i s l a t u r e .



32

presen t  purpose"  t o  d i s c r i m i n a t e .  J .S .  37b; A. 

34a .  I f  s t a t e  o f f i c i a l s  c o n t i n u e  a p o l i c y  o r  

p r a c t i c e  f o r  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  reason s ,  th at  p o l i c y  

or  p r a c t i c e  i s  u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r e g a r d l e s s  o f  the 

m o t i v e  w h ich  l e d  t o  i t s  o r i g i n a l  a d o p t i o n .  

A r l i n g t o n  H e i g h t s  i t s e l f  r e c o g n i z e d  t h a t  a 

r a c i a l l y  m ot ivated  d e c i s i o n  to  mainta in  the  zoning 

c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  o f  a p a r t i c u l a r  l o t  would v i o l a t e  
the Fourteenth Amendment r e g a r d l e s s  o f  the o r i g i n  

o f  t h a t  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  429 U .S .  a t  2 5 7 - 5 8 ,  
268-71 n . 17.

A p p e l l a n t s  a s s e r t  t h a t  " [ p ]1 a i n t i f f s  ' 
c h a l l e n g e  to  the  a t - l a r g e  manner o f  e l e c t i n g  

s c h o o l  board members was premised on the a l l e g e d  

e f f e c t s  o f  t h i s  s y s t e m ,  n o t  on i t s  p u r p o s e " .  

B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l a n t s ,  p.  6. The c o m p l a i n t  i s  

p h r a s e d  w i t h  s u f f i c i e n t  b r e a d t h  t o  encom pass  

e i t h e r  c l a i m .  The d e f e n d a n t s  i n  t h e  d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t  did not  move f o r  a more d e f i n i t e  statement 

under Rule 1 2 ( e ) ,  F . R . C . P . ,  and n e i t h e r  in t h i s  
Court nor at  any o t h e r  s tage  in  t h i s  proceed ing  

h ave  t h e y  s u g g e s t e d  t h e y  were  m i s l e d  by t h e  
com pla int .  P l a i n t i f f s '  Proposed P r e t r i a l  F in d ­

in gs ,  f i l e d  s e v e r a l  months p r i o r  to  t r i a l ,  made 

c r y s t a l  c l e a r  that  p l a i n t i f f s  c laimed  the a t - l a r g e  

system had a d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  m o t iv e ;  i t  asked the



33

t r i a l  c o u r t  to f i n d  " t h a t  the S ta te  o f  Alabama,

through i t s  l e g i s l a t o r s  and o f f i c e r s ,  has used the

a t - l a r g e  s y s t e m  . . .  w i t h  an a c t i v e  m o t i v e  o r

purpose to  d i s c r i m i n a t e  ag a in st  the b l a c k  c i t i z e n s
28/

o f  M o b i l e " , —  and t h a t  t h i s  was th e  " c o n s c i o u s

l e g i s l a t i v e  and p o l i t i c a l  purpose in the mainten-
2 9 /

ance  o f  t h e  c u r r e n t  a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n . . . . " ----

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  e x p r e s s ly  noted the e x i s t e n c e  

o f  t h i s  c la im .  J .S .  5b; A. 8a.

F i n a l l y ,  a p p e l la n t s  suggest  that  the c o u r t  o f  

a p p e a l s  i m p r o p e r l y  e q u a t e d  p r o o f  o f  d i l u t i o n  

under  White v .  R e g e s t e r ,  412 U .S .  755 ( 1 9 7 3 ) ,  

and Zimmer v .  McKeithen, 485 F . 2d 1297 (5th  C i r .  

1 9 7 3 ) ,  w i t h  p r o o f  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  p u r p o s e .  

B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l a n t s ,  pp. 36-42 .  This argument i s  

grounded on a somewhat n ov e l  approach t o  rev iew ing  

a c o u r t  o f  appeals  d e c i s i o n .  Not a word in the 

F i f t h  C i r c u i t  d e c i s i o n  in t h i s  case even d i s c u s s e s  

t h e  r e l a t i o n  o f  W h ite  and Zimmer t o  p r o o f  o f  

purpose .  A pp e l lan ts  r e l y  e n t i r e l y  on the f o l l o w ­

in g  p a s s a g e .  " S e e  B o l d e n  v .  C i t y  o f  M o b i l e , 

571 F . 2d 238 (5th  C ir .  1 9 7 8 ) . "  B r i e f  f o r  A pp e l -

28/  P l a i n t i f f s '  Proposed P r e t r i a l  F in d in g s ,  p. 
26.

29/  Id .  p. 29.



34

l a n t s ,  p. 37. They suggest  that  t h i s  i n c o r p o r a t e s  
by r e f e r e n c e  not on ly  a l l  the reason in g  o f  Bolden, 

but a l s o  the reason in g  o f  " t h e  three o th er  cases 

t h a t  th e  c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  c o n s o l i d a t e d  w i t h  

B o l d e n " . The o n l y  e x t e n d e d  d i s c u s s i o n  o f  t h e  

r e l a t i o n  between White and Zimmer and i n t e n t  i s  to 

be f o u n d ,  n o t  i n  B o l d e n , but  in  one  o f  t h o s e  

c o n s o l i d a t e d  c a s e s ,  Nevett  v .  S i d e s , 571 F .2d 209 

(5th  C i r .  1978 ) ,  p e t i t i o n  f o r  c e r t ,  pending No. 

78-492.  Nevett ,  which was not  c i t e d  o r  r e l i e d  on 

by the panel  be low ,  h o lds  o n ly  t h a t  "under proper  
c i r c u m s tan c e s "  e v id e n c e  s u f f i c i e n t  to  e s t a b l i s h  

d i l u t i o n  might a l s o  be s u f f i c i e n t  to e s t a b l i s h  a 

prima f a c i e  case o f  i n t e n t i o n a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  

571 F . 2d at 223. What th ose  c i rcu m stan ces  might 

be N e v e t t  d i d  n o t ,  and t h i s  C o u r t  n e e d  n o t ,  

d e c i d e .  It  seems somewhat f a r - f e t c h e d  to  read 

in t o  the o p i n i o n  below an e r r o r  on an i ssu e  which 

i t  never d i s c u s s e d  because i t  c i t e d  Bolden, which 

in  turn  c i t e d  Nevet t ,  which in  turn  r e c o g n i z e d  but 

did  not  d e c i d e  that  i s s u e .  We suggest  th a t  the 
c o u r t  o f  appea ls  c i t e d  Bolden merely as an i l l u s ­

t r a t i o n  o f  a n o t h e r  f i n d i n g ,  b a s e d  on s i m i l a r  

d i r e c t  and c i r c u m s t a n t i a l  e v id e n c e ,  o f  "a present 

purpose to  d i l u t e  the b la c k  v o t e "  r e s u l t i n g  in



35

" i n t e n t i o n a l  s t a t e  l e g i s l a t i v e  i n a c t i o n " .  Bolden 
v .  C i ty  o f  M o b i l e , 571 F .2d at  246.

T h is  a s p e c t  o f  t h i s  c a s e  th u s  p r e s e n t s  no 

l e g a l  i s su e s  o f  broad i m p l i c a t i o n .  I t  r e s t s  on a 

f a c t u a l  f i n d i n g ,  o f  r e l e v a n c e  to  t h i s  case  a lone ,  

t h a t  Alabama has c h o s e n  t o  m a i n t a i n  a t - l a r g e  

e l e c t i o n s  f o r  the Mobile  sch oo l  board ,  r a t h e r  than 
u se  s i n g l e - m e m b e r  d i s t r i c t s ,  b e c a u s e  o f  "a  

presen t  purpose to  d i l u t e  the b l a c k  v o t e . . . . "  J .S .  
37b; A. 34a. The .record on which that  f i n d i n g  

was based c o n t a in s  p r e c i s e l y  the so r t  o f  e v id en ce  
contemplated  by A r l i n g t o n  Heights :  d i r e c t  t e s t i ­

mony a b o u t  the  m o t i v e s  o f  t h e  L e g i s l a t u r e ,  a 
w i d e l y  known a d v e r s e  im pact  on b l a c k  v o t e r s  

and c a n d id a t e s ,  a long  and c l o s e l y  r e l a t e d  h i s t o r y  

o f  i n t e n t i o n a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n ,  and p a lp ab le  bad 

f a i t h  on t h e  p a r t  o f  t h e  w h i t e  s c h o o l  c om m is ­
s i o n e r s  who e x e r c i s e d  e f f e c t i v e  c o n t r o l  o v e r  

w h e t h e r  and i n  what form a s i n g l e - m e m b e r  p l a n  
would be adopted.  The c o u r t  o f  appeals  c o r r e c t l y  

upheld the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  f i n d i n g s  as not  c l e a r l y  

e r r o n e o u s ,  and t h e  f i n d i n g  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

purpose should be upheld by t h i s  Court.



36

I I I .  THE COURTS BELOW CORRECTLY APPLIED 
THE PRINCIPLES OF WHITE v .  REGESTER 
AND WHITCOMB v .  CHAVIS

A- The Legal  Standard E s t a b l i sh e d  By 
White and Whitcomb

In o u r  b r i e f  in  C i t y  o f  M o b i l e  v .  B o ld e n  

we d i s c u s s  at  l e n g t h  th e  o r i g i n  and r a t i o n a l e  

o f  the d i l u t i o n  r u l e  o f  White v .  R egester ,  412 
U.S. 755 (1 9 7 3 ) ,  and Whitcomb v.  C hav is , 403 U.S. 

124 (1 9 7 1 ) .  We there urge th at  a p l a i n t i f f  may 

prove a c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  v i o l a t i o n  comparable to  

g eographic  malapportionment by demonstrating that 

the o v e r a l l  s t r u c t u r e  o f  a multi-member d i s t r i c t  

system o p e r a te s  to  so maximize the weight o f  a 

b l o c  v o t i n g  w h i t e  m a j o r i t y  t h a t  the  v o t e s  and 

e l e c t o r a l  p r e f e r e n c e s  o f  the non-white m in o r i t y  

are c o n s i s t e n t l y  n u l l i f i e d .  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l e e s ,  

No. 77-1844,  pp. 37 -53 .  That b r i e f  se t s  out in  

d e t a i l  our arguments that  p r o o f  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

mot ive i s  not n ecessa ry  under White and Whitcomb, 

_ifL', PP- 53 -61 ,  and that  th ose  d e c i s i o n s  are  not 

l i m i t e d  t o  c a s e s  o f  a w h i t e - d o m i n a t e d  s l a t i n g  
p r o c e s s .  _Id_,, pp. 4 5 -48 .

A p p e l l a n t s  i n  the  i n s t a n t  c a s e  u rg e  t h a t  
w h i t e  b l o c  v o t i n g  a g a i n s t  b l a c k  c a n d i d a t e s  

and b l a c k  i n t e r e s t s  i s  m e r e l y  an " u n f o r t u n a t e  
p r a c t i c e "  o f  no p a r t i c u l a r  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  s i g n i f i -



- 37

cance ,  r e l y i n g  on the o p i n i o n  o f  three  members 

o f  t h i s  C o u r t  i n  U n i t e d  Je w ish  O r g a n i z a t i o n s  

v .  Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (1 9 7 7 ) .  B r i e f  f o r  A ppe l ­

l a n t s ,  p .  43 .  P r i o r  d e c i s i o n s  o f  t h i s  C o u r t ,  

howe.ver ,  make c l e a r  t h a t  w h i t e  b l o c  v o t i n g  i s

t h e  k e y s t o n e  o f  a d i l u t i o n  c a s e  under  White  
3 0 /and W h i t c o m b . —  UJO e x p r e s s l y  n o t e d  t h a t  i t  

i s  on ly  when v o t i n g  " f o l l o w [ s ]  r a c i a l  l i n e s "  that  

a v o t e r  i s  in ju r e d  by be in g  p la c e d  in a d i s t r i c t  

dominated by another  r a c e .  430 U.S. at 166, n .24 .  

The o p i n i o n  in  UJO h o ld s  that  under the c ircum­

stan ces  o f  that  case p r o o f  o f  b l o c  v o t i n g  d id  not 

e s t a b l i s h  a cause  o f  a c t i o n .  430 U.S. at 166-67.  

But there  w hi te  v o t e r s ,  who c o n s t i t u t e d  65% o f  the 

county p o p u la t i o n ,  were c h a l le n g in g  a p lan  which 

l e f t  w hite  m a j o r i t i e s  in 70% o f  the d i s t r i c t s .  

The o p i n i o n  h e l d  t h a t  t h e  e l e c t i o n  o f  b l a c k  

candidates  in the o ther  30% o f  the d i s t r i c t s  o f  

because o f  b l a c k  b l o c  v o t i n g  would not  v i o l a t e  the 

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  r i g h t s  o f  whites  "as l on g  as whites  

in Kings County, as a group,  were prov ided  with 

f a i r  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . "  430 U .S .  a t  166.  That

3 0 /  See B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l e e s ,  No. 7 7 - 1 8 4 4 ,  
pp. 40 -45 .



38

system was p r e c i s e l y  the o p p o s i t e  o f  the system in 

the in s t a n t  c a s e ,  which p r o v id e s  the 35% b lack  

p o p u la t i o n  with 0% o f  the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .

This case ,  m oreover ,  p r o v i d e s  no o c c a s i o n  f o r  

examining a l l  the v a r i e t i e s  o f  v o t i n g  pat tern s  

that  might be c h a r a c t e r i z e d  as " b l o c  v o t i n g " .  It  

c o n c e r n s  o n l y  th e  s p e c i f i c  h a r s h  r e a l i t i e s  o f  

M ob i le ,  Alabama. As we s e t  out  at le n gth ,  i n f r a ,  

the r e c o r d  shows and the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  found that  

whites  v o t e  as a b l o c  not only  ag a in s t  any b la c k  

candidate  r e g a r d l e s s  o f  q u a l i f i c a t i o n ,  but a lso  

aga inst  any whi te  candidate  who i s  known to  have 

b l a c k  s u p p o r t .  See p p .  4 4 - 4 5 ,  i n f r a . Th is  

p r a c t i c e ,  f a r  from fading  away, has become i n ­

c r e a s i n g l y  v i r u l e n t ;  the d e fe n d a n t s '  own ex per t  

conc lu ded  that  white  h o s t i l i t y  to  b la ck  vote rs ' ,  

i n t e r e s t s  and candidates  in M obi le  had in c re a s e d  

s in c e  1960, and tnat  " w h i le  the numbers o f  b la c k s  

v o t in g  in  M obi le  has in c re a s e d  sharp ly  s i n c e  1960, 

t h e  power  o f  b l a c k s  t o  p o s i t i v e l y  i n f l u e n c e  

e l e c t i o n s  has d e c r e a s e d .  " ^ ^ P l a i n t i f f s  e x p r e s s ly

31/  A. 502a; see a l s o  A. 472a, 500a.



39

a l l e g e d  th at  the white  b l o c  v o t i n g  was the r e s u l t
o f  o f f i c i a l l y  p r a c t i c e d  and a d v o c a t e d  r a c i a l

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  by Alabama a u t h o r i t i e s ,  A. 127a,
and t h e  d i s t r i c t  j u d g e  a p p a r e n t l y  s h a r e d  t h a t  

3 2 /
v i e w . ----  The d i f f e r i n g  a b i l i t i e s  o f  b l a c k  c a n ­

d i d a t e s  to win white  v o t e s  in  Mobile  and Massa­

c h u s e t t s  have t h e i r  r o o t s  in  d i f f e r e n c e s  i n  
past  o f f i c i a l  p o l i c i e s  and p r a c t i c e s .

White b l o c  v o t in g  in  M ob i le ,  moreover ,  does 
not  l i n g e r  i n e x p l i c a b l y ;  i t  i s  d e l i b e r a t e l y  and 

e x p r e s s l y  e n c o u r a g e d  by w h i t e  o f f i c i a l s  and 
c a n d id a t e s .  The campaign adverti sements  r e p r o ­

duced at pages 523a to 536a o f  the Appendix,  a l l  
u sed  w i t h i n  the l a s t  d e c a d e ,  o v e r t l y  s e e k  t o  

i n f l a m e  r a c i a l  p a s s i o n s .  Not o n l y  do w h i t e

c a n d i d a t e s ,  c i r c u l a t e  l e a f l e t s  wh ich  p o i n t e d l v
33 /

d i s p l a y  photographs o f  t h e i r  b la c k  o p p o n e n ts ,—  

but they a l s o  p la c e  photographs o f  b la c k s  next  to 

photographs o f  t h e i r  white  opponents to  " i l l u s -

3 2 /  "The r a c i a l  p o l a r i z a t i o n  e x i s t i n g  i n  the  
c i t y  and c o u n t y  e l e c t i o n s  has b e e n  d i s c u s s e d  
h e r e i n .  The co u r t  f in ds  that  the e x i s t e n c e  o f  
p a s t  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  has h e l p e d  p r e c l u d e  t h e  
e f f e c t i v e  p a r t i c i p a t i o n  o f  b la c k s  in  the e l e c t i o n  
system today in  the a t - l a r g e  system o f  e l e c t i n g  
s c h o o l  co m m is s i o n e r s . "  J .S .  21b; A. 21a.

33/  A. 403a-404a.



- 40

t r a t e "  the nature o f  the o p p o n e n t ' s  support .  A.
523a, 533a, 536a. Cf_. Anderson v .  M art in , 375

U.S. 399 (1964 ) .  Whites are c o n s i s t e n t l y  at tacked
f o r  r e c e i v i n g  what i s  e u p h e m i s t i c a l l y  d e s c r i b e d  as 

34 /"t he  b l o c  v o t e " , —  and advert isem ents  in  r u n o f f  

e l e c t i o n s  emphasize the support  won by opponents 

in "predom inantly  b l a c k  wards " .  A. 524a (emphasis 

in o r i g i n a l ) . ----  In the 1972 s c h o o l  board e l e c ­

t i o n ,  Homer S e s s i o n s ,  then an incumbent member o f  

the s c h o o l  board and a defendant  in  t h i s  a c t i o n ,  

s u g g e s t e d  h i s  w h i t e  o p p o n e n t  f a v o r e d  " r a c i a l  
amalgamation" .  A. 528a. S e s s i o n s '  sup por ters  

c i r c u l a t e d  a l e a f l e t ,  r e p r i n t e d  on the o p p o s i t e  
page, denouncing that  opponent f o r  hav ing  " e n t e r ­

t a in e d  b la c k s  in  her home" and having "been  seen 

and photographed in company o f  b l a c k  m a l e s . "  A. 

523a. Candidates are e n t i t l e d  t o  a t tack  t h e i r

34 /  A. 523a, 525a-526a,  531a, 534a. 

35 /  See a l s o  A. 523a, 525a-526a.



- 4 1 -

G ERRS K C F F L E R

WHO W ILL  RUN YOUR SCHO O LS?

RUNNING  FOR P L A C E  NO. 2, SCHOOL BO ARD  CO M M ISS IO N , M A Y  3Cih.

1. S IG NED  A G R E E M E N T  W ITH N A A C P  TO A C H IE V E  T O T A L  
IN TEG R AT IO N  W ITH  TG TAL  BUSING.

2. V E R Y  A C T IV E  IN TH E  M IL IT A N T  O RG A N IZA T IO N S ACT, N A A C P , 
NOW, N O N -P A R T IS A N  V O T ER S  LEAG U E, LE A G U E  O F  W O M EN  
VO TERS.

3. HAS E N T E R T A IN E D  B L A C K S  IN HER HOME.

4. HAS B E E N  SE E N  AN D  PH O TO G RAPH ED  IN C O M PA N Y  C F  B L A C K  
M A LES .

5. U N D ER  IN STRU C T IO N  OF A L B E R T  J. F O L E Y  IN T H E  C IV IL  RIGHTS. 
SCHO O L C U R R EN TLY .

6. P O L L E D  92?o O r  B LA C K  V O T E  IN 'M A Y  2, PR IM A R Y .

M A Y  2
W ARDS " Kofflsr

B LO C K  VO 7 
Sessions

E
Lanosn M cConnell

3
STANTO N  ROAD 74S 170 1,071 49

10
D A V IS  AVE. 529 123 S20 37

31
PL  A T E  A ’J 270 22 232 10

32
T R IN IT Y  GARDENS *-r i

1  r s  .t  - j
:1 ; j  . « 'i  : a
A 3  : :i  ,u "A  L a

n  ~  r \  ^

. E. I



- 42

opponents on any b a s i s  they may p l e a s e ,  i n c lu d in g  
that  o f  r a c e ,  but  they are not e n t i t l e d  t o  have 

t h e  s t a t e  m axim ize  t h e  e f f e c t i v e n e s s  o f  such 

r a c i a l  t a c t i c s  by means o f  a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n s .

A p p e l l a n t s  urge  t h a t  d i f f e r e n t  and l e s s  

s t r i n g e n t  d i l u t i o n  standards should be app l ied  

to  a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n s  f o r  a l o c a l  government un i t  

than f o r  a s t a t e  l e g i s l a t u r e .  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l -  

ants ,  pp. 64-69.  This  i ssue  was never  r a i s e d  in 

the lower c o u r t s ,  and any o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  do so was 

abandoned lon g  ago.  I d . ,  p. 64. We se t  out in 

our b r i e f  in C i ty  o f  Mobile  v ,  Bolden our c o n t e n ­

t i o n  t h a t  W hite  and Wh i  t c omb a r e  e q u a l l y  and 

f u l l y  a p p l i c a b l e  to  l o c a l  e l e c t i o n s .  B r i e f  f o r  

A p p e l l e e s ,  No. 77-1844 ,  pp. 61-67 .

A pp e l lan ts  suggest  that  there  are p a r t i c u ­

l a r l y  c l o s e  and a c t i v e  r e l a t i o n s h i p s  between the 

p u b l i c  and l o c a l  e l e c t e d  o f f i c i a l s .  While that  

may be t r u e  in some towns, i t  i s  c e r t a i n l y  not 

t ru e  in large  urban areas.  Mobile  County, f o r  

e x a m p l e ,  w i t h  a p o p u l a t i o n  o f  3 1 7 , 0 0 0 ,  has  a 

l a r g e r  p o p u l a t i o n  than  A1 aska 119 o t h e r

35/  In 1970 the p o p u la t i o n  o f  Alaska was 304 ,000.  
S t a t i s t i c a l  A b s t r a c t ,  1977, p. 11.



- 43 -

c o u n t i e s  and 47 c i t i e s  in the United S t a t e s ,  are  

one la r g e r  than at l e a s t  one s t a t e . —  The popu­

l a t i o n  o f  the Mobile  a t - l a r g e  d i s t r i c t  i s  10 times 

l a r g e r  than an Alabama House d i s t r i c t ,  3 times 

l a r g e r  than an Alabama Senate d i s t r i c t ,  and l a r g e r  

th an  any s i n g l e - m e m b e r  d i s t r i c t  u se d  t o  e l e c t
OO /

l e g i s l a t o r s  in  almost any s t a t e  in the c o u n t r y . —  

The f u n c t i o n s  o f  l o c a l  government b o d i e s  do vary 

w i d e l y ,  but some are c e r t a i n l y  e n t i r e l y  l e g i s l a ­

t i v e  in nature.  Even where those  l o c a l  b o d i e s  

per form a d m in i s t r a t i v e  fu n c t i o n s  as w e l l ,  that 
h ard ly  makes i t  l e s s  important that  b la c k s  have 

meaningful  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  on the board or  c o u n c i l  
i n v o l v e d .

The A p p l i c a t i o n  o f  White and Whitcomb 
To The Facts  Of This Case

A f t e r  an unusual ly  d e t a i l e d  a n a l y s i s  o f  the 

e v i d e n c e  the  d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  c o n c l u d e d  t h a t :

37/  See United Sta tes  Census, C i ty  County Data 
Book, 1972, pp. 800, 814.

38/  Of the 49 s t a t e  senates  and 50 s t a t e  assem­
b l i e s  or  houses ,  on ly  the s t a t e  senate d i s t r i c t s  
i n  New York  and C a l i f o r n i a  a p p e a r  t o  e x c e e d  
300,000 in  p o p u la t io n .



- 44 -

the a t - l a r g e  d i s t r i c t s  o p e r a t e  to  minimize or  
c a n c e l  out the v o t i n g  s t r e n g th  o f  r a c i a l  or  
p o l i t i c a l  e lements o f  the v o t i n g  p o p u l a t i o n . "  
W h it c o m b , 403 U .S .  a t  143,  and F o r t s o n  
[v .  D o rse y , 379 U.S 4 3 3 , ]  439, and ' o p e r a t e s  
im perm iss ib ly  t o  d i l u t e  the v o t i n g  s t r e n g th  
o f  an i d e n t i f i a b l e  e l e m e n t  o f  t h e  v o t i n g  
p o p u l a t i o n .  D a l l a s  [ v .  R e e s e ,  421 U .S .  
4 7 7 , ]  480. J .S .  4 5 b - 4 6 b ; A. 41a.

The c o u r t  o f  a p p e a l s  e x p r e s s l y  u p h e l d  t h i s  

c o n c l u s i o n .  J . S .  2a ;  A.  2a.  Th e se  f i n d i n g s ,  

which are e s s e n t i a l l y  f a c t u a l  in  natu re ,  are f u l l y  

supported by the r e c o r d  and should be upheld by 

t h i s  Court.

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  f ou n d  t h a t  t h e r e  was

r a c i a l l y  p o l a r i z e d  v o t in g  in M o b i le ;  white s  voted

as a b l o c ,  not  only  a g a in s t  b la c k  c a n d id a t e s ,  but

ag a in st  "any white  candidate  with a fa v o r a b le  v o t e

in  the b l a c k  wards, or  i d e n t i f i e d  with spon sor ing
3 9 /p a r t i c u l a r i z e d  black-  n e e d s " . ---- I t  n o t e d  t h a t

t h i s  "w hite  back lash "  aga inst  b l a c k  support had 

led  t o  the d e f e a t  o f  white  c a n d id a t e s .  The r e c o r d  

f u l l y  supported t h i s  f i n d i n g  o f  white  b l o c  v o t in g

39 /  J .S .  10b, l i b ,  12b; A. 12a, 13a, 14a.



- 45 -

ag a in st  both  b la c k  candidate 40 / and white  can­
d i d a t e s  c o n n e c t e d  w i t h  b l a c k  v o t e r s  o r  i n t e r -  

4 1 /
e s t s . ----  D e t a i l e d  a n a l y s e s  o f  e l e c t i o n  r e t u r n s

made by ex p e r ts  f o r  both p a r t i e s  conf irm ed t h i s  
42 /

p a t t e r n . —  The d e fe n d a n t s '  own expert  d e s c r i b e d

b la c k  support  as the " k i s s  o f  death"  f o r  a white  
4 3 /

c a n d i d a t e . ----  A p p e l l a n t s  do n o t  c h a l l e n g e  t h i s
f i n d i n g .  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l a n t ,  p. 13.

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  a l s o  found that  no b la ck  

had ever  won an a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n  in Mobile  County 

f o r  the s ch o o l  board ,  the c i t y  commission, the 

county  commission, or  the l e g i s l a t u r e ,  and that  

" i t  is  h ig h ly  u n l i k e l y  th at  anytime in  the f o r s e e -  

a b le  f u t u r e ,  under the a t - l a r g e  system, that  a

b l a c k  Can b e  e l e c t e d  a g a i n s t  a w h i t e .
, , 44 /

The

4 0 /  A. 1 8 4 a - 1 9 la , 229a, 240a, 243a, 256a, 261a,
2 7 2 a - 2 7 3 a , 2 8 3 a - 2 8 4 a ,  2 8 5 a - 2 8 6 a ,  300a,  324a ,
484a.

4 1 /  A. 221a, 222a, 229a, 244a, 294a-295a,  297a, 
301a ,  302a ,  305a ,  320a ,  3 6 4 a - 2 6 5 a ,  3 6 6 a - 3 6 8 a ,
411a, 417a, 418a, 492a, 498a-499a,  502a.

42 /  A. 480a-484a,  488a, 504a-520a;  P. Ex. 10-52.

4 3 /  A. 492a.

4 4 /  J .S .  10b, 12b, 13b, 40b; A. 12a, 14a, 15a,
37a.



- 46 -

co u r t  noted that  four  " w e l l  educated  and h i g h l y  

r e s p e c t e d "  b la cks  had run f o r  the M obi le  s c h o o l  

b o a r d ,  i n c l u d i n g  two d o c t o r s ,  J . S .  10b,  and a 

former p r e s id e n t  o f  the s t a t e  P.T .A .  A. 328a-30a,  

"They a l l  r e c e i v e d  good support  from the b la ck  

v o t e r s  and v i r t u a l l y  no support  from w h i t e s .  They 

a l l  l o s t  to w h i t e  o p p o n e n t s  i n  r u n o f f  e l e c ­
t i o n s .  "J .  S. 10b; A. 13a. Both b l a c k  and white  

Mobile  p o l i t i c i a n s ,  in c lu d in g  the de fendant  s c h o o l

board p r e s i d e n t ,  t e s t i f i e d  that  no b la ck  c o u l d  be
45 /e l e c t e d  under the a t - l a r g e  system.—

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  f u r t h e r  found that  Alabama

had a l on g  h i s t o r y  o f  o f f i c i a l l y  p r a c t i c e d  and
advocated r a c i a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  aga inst  p o t e n t i a l  

, 4 6 /
b l a c k  v o t e r s , ----  p r e c i s e l y  t h e  s o r t  o f  h i s t o r y
l i k e l y  t o  engender r a c i a l  b l o c  v o t i n g  by. w h i te s .  

The r e c o r d  f u l l y  s u p p o r t s  t h i s  f  i n d i n g ^ a n d

45 /  A. 230a-231a,  231a-232a,  272a-273a,  308a-309a,  
321a, 325a, 340a-341a,  355a, 359a-360a,  369a-370a, 
378a. The test imony o f  defendant  Alexander  is  
q u o t e d  s u p r a , p .  19.  See a l s o  A.  4 0 6 a - 4 0 7 a .

4 6 /  J . S .  19 b -21b , 43b;  A. 20a-21a, 39a.

4 7 /  A. 195a~203a, 207a~210a. That h i s t o r y  i s  se t  
out at length  in the B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l lees  in C i ty  
o f  M o b i l e  v .  B o l d e n , No. 7 7 - 1 8 4 4 ,  pp .  2 5 - 3 3 .



- 47

a p p e l la n t s  concede  i t s  c o r r e c t n e s s . —

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  a l s o  noted the e x i s t e n c e

o f  s e v e r a l  e l e c t i o n  r u le s  not e s s e n t i a l  t o  a t -

l a r g e  e l e c t i o n s  t h a t  a g g r a v a t e d  t h e  d i l u t i v e

e f f e c t  o f  M o b i l e ' s  a t - l a r g e  system. The system,

l i k e  that  in White v .  R eg ester ,  in c lu d e s  m a jo r -
. 49/l t y  r u n o f f  and numbered p l a c e  re qu ire m e n ts ,—  

which "enhanced the o p p o r t u n i t y  f o r  r a c i a l  d i s ­

c r i m i n a t i o n "  by p r e c l u d i n g  th e  e l e c t i o n  o f  a 

b l a c k  b a s e d  on a mere p l u r a l i t y .  White  v .  
R eg ester ,  412 U.S. at 766. A l s o ,  as in  White,  

t h ere  was no r e s i d e n c e  requiremen t,  so th at  " a l l  
c an d idates  may be s e l e c t e d  from o u t s i d e  the Negro 

r e s i d e n t i a l  a r e a " .  White v .  R e g e s t e r , 412 U.S. at

766 n . 1 0 .  A pp e l lan ts  acknowledge the c o r r e c t -
,  . . 50/ness  o f  t h i s  f i n d i n g . —

The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  f o u n d  t h a t  the  " a t -  

l a r g e  county board members have not been respon ­

s i v e  to the m i n o r i t i e s '  n e e d s " —̂ as might have

48/

48 /  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l a n t s ,  p.  49.

4 9 /  J .  S.  2 l b - 2  2 b , 4 4 b - 4 5 b ;  A. 22a,  3 9 a - 4 0 a .  

50/  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l a n t s ,  pp. 44-45  n .2 1 .

51/ J. S. 13b; A. 15a.



- 48

been expected where the e l e c t i o n  system e f f e c ­

t i v e l y  d i s e n f r a n c h i s e s  b l a c k s .  The co u r t  r e l i e d  

in p a r t i c u l a r  on the s c h o o l  b o a r d ' s  pro lon ged  and 

o b s t i n a t e  r e f u s a l  to  di sm ant le  i t s  de jure  s e g r e ­

gated s c h o o l  system. D e seg reg at ion  on ly  o c c u r r e d  

u n de r  c o u r t  o r d e r  a f t e r  e x t e n d e d  l i t i g a t i o n ,

i n c lu d in g  15 appeals ,  in Davis v .  Board o f  School
527C o m m i s s i o n e r s  o f  M o b i l e  County .—  The d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t  h e l d :

The l e n g t h y  r e c o r d  in  D a v i s ,  s u p r a ,  i s  
d e v a s t a t in g  e v id en ce  o f  the complete  unre­
s p o n s i v e n e s s  and r e s i s t a n c e  on the p a r t  
o f  t h e  Board t o  the  p a r t i c u l a r  n e e d s  and 
a s p i r a t i o n s  o f  the b l a c k  communty.

The r e c o r d  . . .  i s  r e p l e t e  with d i l a t o r y  
a c t i o n s  by the Board attempting  to  f o r e s t a l l  
implementation o f  a dese gre g ate d  s c h o o l  sy s ­
t e m . . .  . [T]he Board adamant[ ly]  r e f u s [ e d ]  to  
respond v o l u n t a r i l y  t o  b la ck  community i n t e r ­
e s t s  and the p r e v a i l i n g  law o f  the l a n d . 53/

The Board had r e f u s e d  t o  a c k n o w le d g e  t h a t  i t s  

co n c e d e d ly  se g re g ate d  system was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ,  
had w i t h h e l d  from t h e  c o u r t s  i n f o r m a t i o n  n e c ­

essary  t o  r e s o l v e  the l i t i g a t i o n ,  and had c o n -

52/  C i v i l  A c t i o n  No. 3003-63-H,  S.D. Ala.

53/ J.S. 14b, A. 15a-16a.



- 49

s i s t e n t l y  d i so be y e d  f e d e r a l  co u r t  d e c r e e s . — 'On 

appeal  o f  the in s t a n t  a c t i o n  in 1977, the board 

d e f e n d e d  i t s  c o n d u c t  b e t w e e n  1963 and 1970 

with an apparent r e l i a n c e  on P le s s y  v.  Ferguson,  
167 U.S. 537 ( 1 8 9 6 ) ;  they urged that  " t h e  manner 

o f  o p e r a t i o n  d e c l a r e d  u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  was, u n t i l  

a p a r t i c u l a r  d e c i s i o n  o f  the Supreme Court ,  f u l l y  

c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  and supported by a p r i o r  l i n e  o f  

d e c i s i o n s  o f  the C ourt " .

The a p p e l l a n t s  c h a l l e n g e  t h i s  f i n d i n g  o f  
un respon s iven ess ,  c h a r a c t e r i z i n g  Davis as " u n r e ­

l a t e d  l i t i g a t i o n " .  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l a n t s ,  pp .  

50-51 .  We submit t h e r e  i s  no form o f  unrespon­

s i v e n e s s  more r e l e va n t  to a case  such as t h i s  than 

the r e f u s a l  o f  an a l l - w h i t e  s ch o o l  board  to  permit  

a b l a c k  c h i l d ,  b e c a u s e  o f  h i s  o r  h e r  r a c e ,  t o  

a t t e n d  a d_e j u r e  a l l - w h i t e  s c h o o l .  In t h i s  

c a s e  t h o s e  s c h o o l  o f f i c i a l s  p e r s i s t e d  i n  t h a t  

i n t r a n s i g e n t  b e h a v i o r  15 y e a r s  a f t e r  Brown v .  

Board o f  E d u c a t i o n , 347 U.S 483 ( 1 9 5 4 ) ,  and

54/  J .S .  16 b -1 8 b ; A. 16a-18a.

55/  B r i e f  f o r  Defendants-Adp e l l a n t s , No. 77-1583, 
5th C i r . ,  pp. 38-39.



50

aggravated i t  by the assignment o f  f a c u l t y  on the

b a s i s  o f  r a c e .  A pp e l lan ts  o b j e c t  that  the l a s t

s p e c i f i c  o r d e r  in  D av is  c i t e d  by the  d i s t r i c t

co u r t  was in 1970. B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l la n t s ,  p. 51.

T h i s  i s  c o r r e c t  but  m i s l e a d i n g .  In 1972 the

sc h o o l  board summarily e x p e l l e d  a la r g e  number o f

b la c k  high  sch o o l  s tu d e n ts ,  and on ly  agreed to

r e i n s t a t e  them a f t e r  be in g  again sued in f e d e r a l  
5 6 /

c o u r t .   When t h e  i n s t a n t  c a s e  was t r i e d  in

1976, as the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  n o t e d ,— ^proceedings

in  Davis were s t i l l  pending in  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t .

Those proceed in gs  r e s u l t e d  in a d e c i s i o n  by Judge

Hand in 1977 f i n d i n g  that  the s c h o o l  board was

s t i l l  v i o l a t i n g  c o u r t - o r d e r e d  and c o n s t i t u t i o n a l

r e q u i r e m e n t s  i n  th e  h i r i n g  and a s s ig n m e n t  o f

f a c u l t y  and s t a f f ,  and o r d e r in g  a d d i t i o n a l  i n j u n c -
5 8 /

t i v e  r e l i e f . ---- In 1978 ,  a f t e r  two b l a c k s  had

56/  Cooley  v .  Board o f  School  Commissioners o f  
Mobile  County , No. 7100-72 (S.D. A l a . ) .

57 /  J. S. 18b; A. 19a.

58/  Davis v .  Board o f  Schoo l  Commiss ioners, No. 
3003-63-H ( S . D. A l a . , O c t . 2 7, 1977) .  Representa ­
t i v e  Gary Cooper t e s t i f i e d  at t r i a l  in 1976 that 
he had r e c e i v e d  compla ints  o f  employment d i s c r i m i ­
n a t i o n  by the board .  A. 264a, 265a-66a.



51

b e e n  e l e c t e d  t o  t h e  M o b i l e  s c h o o l  b o a r d  from 

s i n g l e - m e m b e r  d i s t r i c t s ,  t h e  o u t g o i n g  w h i t e  

c o m m i s s i o n e r s  v o t e d  t o  r e q u i r e  a f o u r - t o - o n e  
m a jo r i t y  to  a l t e r  any e x i s t i n g  board  p o l i c y ,  a 

r u l e  which would have guaranteed that  no change o f  
p o l i c y  c o u l d  o c c u r  w i t h o u t  th e  s u p p o r t  o f  a 

m a j o r i t y  o f  t h e  r e m a i n i n g  w h i t e  members.  The 

d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  s t r u c k  down t h i s  new r e q u i r e ­

ment on the ground that  i t  was " c o n c e iv e d  t o " ,  

" d e v i s e d  t o  and w i l l  f u n c t i o n  t o  encumber  the  

attempts o f  new b l a c k  Board members t o  p l a c e  on 
the agenda and se cu re  s u f f i c i e n t  v o t e s  . . . f o r

p a s s a g e  o f  p r o p o s a l s  prom pte d  by and i n  the
59/

i n t e r e s t s  o f  t h e i r  c o n s t i t u e n t s . " —^

Even i f  the sch oo l  board had a f t e r  1970 r e ­
m ained  i n  c o m p l i a n c e  w i t h  o u t s t a n d i n g  f e d e r a l  

c o u r t  d e c r e e s ,  that  would not have s u b s t a n t i a l l y  

attenuated  the re l e v a n c e  o f  i t s  e a r l i e r  conduct .  

A 1970 decree  had imposed on each board  member

p e r s o n a l l y  a f i n e  o f  $1,000 a day i f  the court
6 0 /d e c r e e s  w e r e  not  o b e y e d ; —  f u r t h e r  r e s i s t a n c e

5 9 /  A p p e n d ix  t o  t h i s  b r i e f ,  App.  13a,  14a.

60/ J.S. 16b; A. 17a.



52

was h a r d l y  l i k e l y  i n  f a c e  o f  t h a t  d r a s t i c  but  

n ecessa ry  measure. Of the f i v e  w h i tes  who were 

s c h o o l  commissioners when t h i s  case  went to  t r i a l ,  

two,  Sess ion s  and Berger,  had been commissioners 

in  1970. A pp e l lan ts  do not in  t h i s  Court a s s e r t ,  

and d i d  n o t  at  t r i a l  p r o v e ,  t h a t  e i t h e r  the  

n onrespons iveness  o f  the board or  the d i l u t i v e  

e f f e c t  o f  the a t - l a r g e  system had d im in ished s i n c e  

1970. The conduct  o f  the de fendants  in c o n n e c t io n  

with the Kennedy and Sonnier  b i l l s  i n d i c a t e d  that  

the o l d  a t t i t u d e  toward b la c k s  continued  unabated.

A ppe l lan ts  urge t h a t ,  even i f  b la cks  cannot 

e l e c t  a b l a c k  to  the s c h o o l  board ,  they have an 

o p p o r t u n i t y  to  a f f e c t  which white  w i l l  be e l e c t e d .  

The d i s t r i c t  judge •p r o p e r ly  d id  not c r e d i t  the 

e v id e n c e  o f f e r e d  by the defendant on t h i s  i s s u e .  

A s i n g l e  d e f e n s e  w i t n e s s  t e s t i f i e d  t h a t  the 

o v e r a l l  winners in 19 o f  27 c o n t e s t s  s i n c e  1960 

had a l s o  r e c e i v e d  a m a jo r i t y  o f  the v o t e s  o f  the 

predominantly b l a c k  wards. A. 389a. A d e t a i l e d  

a n a l y s i s  o f  e l e c t i o n  re tu rns  r e v e a le d ,  however,  

that  the b la ck  wards had never been the swing v o t e  

i n  any e l e c t i o n ;  i n  e v e r y  c a s e  t h e  s u c c e s s f u l  

w hi te  can d ida te  had a m a jo r i t y  o f  the white  v o t e ,  

and would have won even i f  the l o s i n g  candidate



53 -

had c a r r i e d  t h e  b l a c k  w a r d s .  A. 2 8 8 a - 2 9 0 a ,  

540a.

F i n a l l y ,  a p p e l l a n t s  u rg e  t h a t  t h e r e  i s  a 

" l o n g s t a n d in g  and continuous  commitment to the 

p e o p l e  o f  M o b i l e  and the  S t a t e  o f  A labama"  t o  

using a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n s  f o r  the Mobi le  s c h o o l  

board .  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l a n t s ,  pp. 51-54 .  But the 

most recent  l e g i s l a t i v e  e x p r e s s i o n  o f  p r e f e r e n c e  

on t h i s  i s s u e  was t h e  a d o p t i o n  i n  1975 o f  t h e  

Kennedy Act ,  which a b o l i s h e d  a t - l a r g e  e l e c t i o n s  

and mandated the use o f  s ingle-member d i s t r i c t s .  

While t h i s  case  was pending in  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ,  

m o r e o v e r ,  t h e  members o f  t h e  s c h o o l  b o a r d  r e ­

p e a t e d ly  announced t h e i r  support  o f  s ingle-member
J • • 61/  „ , . , d i s t r i c t s . —  The r e c o r d  r e f l e c t s  not the s l i g h t ­

e s t  p u b l i c  o p p o s i t i o n  to  these  p r o p o s a l s .  What­

ever  t a c t i c a l  purposes th ese  p r o f e s s e d  p o l i c i e s  

may have served  in 1976, a p p e l la n t s  cannot now 

disavow them.

The r e c o r d  in  t h i s  case  re v e a ls  the type  o f  

e v id en ce  found s u f f i c i e n t  t o  e s t a b l i s h  a c o n s t i t u -

_61/ A. 101a, 111a, 115a, 145a-46a,  168a, 177a-
173a, 178a.



54 -

t i o n a l  v i o l a t i o n  in White:  r a c i a l  b l o c  v o t i n g  by 

white s  th at  c o n s i s t e n t l y  d e f e a t s  b la c k  and b l a c k -  
supported c a n d id a t e s ,  r a c i a l  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  by the 

a t - l a r g e  w h i t e  o f f i c i a l s  a g a i n s t  t h e i r  b l a c k  

c o n s t i t u e n t s ,  a long  h i s t o r y  o f  o f f i c i a l  d i s c r i m i ­

n a t i o n ,  and the e x i s t e n c e  o f  laws which aggravate 

the r a c i a l  e f f e c t  o f  the a t - l a r g e  system. That 

s y s t e m  i s  t h e  f u n c t i o n a l  e q u i v a l e n t  o f  one  in  
which whites  r e s i d e  in  a d i s t r i c t  which has f i v e  

s c h o o l  c o m m i s s i o n e r s  w h i l e  b l a c k s  r e s i d e  i n  a 
d i s t r i c t  which has none. The d i s t r i c t  c o u r t ' s  

f i n d i n g  o f  d i l u t i o n  r e p r e s e n t s  " a  b l e n d  o f  
h i s t o r y  and an i n t e n s e l y  l o c a l  a p p r a i s a l  o f  the 

d e s ig n  and impact o f  the [M obi le ]  multi-member 
d i s t r i c t  in  the l i g h t  o f  past and present  r e a l i t y ,  

p o l i t i c a l  and o t h e r w i s e " ,  412 U.S. at 769-70,  and 
should be upheld.

IV. THE AT-LARGE SYSTEM FOR ELECTING 
THE MOBILE SCHOOL BOARD VIOLATES 
THE FIFTEENTH AMENDMENT____________

The c o m p l a i n t  i n  t h i s  a c t i o n  a l l e g e d  t h a t  
t h e  a t - l a r g e  s y s t e m  f o r  e l e c t i n g  t h e  M o b i l e  

s c h o o l  board v i o l a t e d  the F i f t e e n t h  Amendment as 
w e l l  as the Fourte enth .  A. 75a. The d i s t r i c t  

c o u r t  noted the e x i s t e n c e  o f  t h i s  c la im ,  J .S .  2b,



- 55

but  d id  n o t  d i s c u s s  i t .  A p p e l l e e s  m a i n t a i n  t h a t  

th e  F i f t e e n t h  Amendment p r o v i d e s  an a l t e r n a t i v e  

grou nd  f o r  a f f i r m a n c e .

In o u r  b r i e f  i n  C i t y  o f  M o b i l e  v .  B o l d e n , 

we s e t  o u t  at  l e n g t h  our  c o n t e n t i o n  t h a t  th e  

F i f t e e n t h  Amendment p r o h i b i t s  not  only  e l e c t i o n  

p r a c t i c e s  which are intended t o  d i s c r i m i n a t e  on 

the b a s i s  o f  r a c e ,  but a l s o  th o se  which " i n h e r e n t ­

l y  o p e r a t [ e ]  d i s c r i m i n a t o r i l y " . Lane v.  W i l s o n , 

307 U.S 268, 274 (1939) .  We there  e x p l a i n  that  

t h e  paramount p u r p o s e  b e h i n d  t h a t  Amendment 

was to  guarantee to  b la c k s  an e f f e c t i v e  f r a n c h i s e  

by which they c ou ld  p r o t e c t  themselves aga inst  

governmental  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n .  B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l l e e s ,  

No. 7 7 - 1 8 4 4 ,  p p .  8 2 - 9 1 .  Judge  Wisdom so  c o n ­

s t r u e d  the  F i f t e e n t h  Amendment i n  a c o m pan io n  

c a s e  b e l o w .  Nevet  t v . S i d e s  , 571 F . 2d 209,  

231-36 (5th  C ir .  1978) .
A p p e l l a n t s  u r g e  t h a t  s e v e r a l  d e c i s i o n s  

o f  t h i s  Court h o ld  that  p r o o f  o f  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  

p u r p o s e  i s  e s s e n t i a l  t o  e s t a b l i s h  a v i o l a t i o n  

o f  t h e  F i f t e e n t h  Amendment. B r i e f  f o r  A p p e l ­

l a n t s ,  p p .  3 2 - 3 5 .  But th e  d e c i s i o n s  c i t e d  by



56

a p p e l l a n t s  do n o t  s u p p o r t  t h e i r  c o n t e n t i o n .  

Wright v .  R o c k e f e l l e r , 376 U.S. 52 (1964 ) ,  empha­

s i z e d  the absence o f  ev id ence  o f  e i t h e r  d i s c r i m i n a ­

t o r y  purpose or  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  e f f e c t ,  n o t in g  that  

the p l a i n t i f f s  had " f a i l e d  t o  prove that  the New 

York L e g i s l a t u r e  was e i t h e r  motiva ted by r a c i a l  

c o n s i d e r a t i o n s  o r  in f a c t  drew the d i s t r i c t s  on 

r a c i a l  l i n e s . "  376 U .S .  a t  46.  L o u i s i a n a  v .  

United S t a t e s , 380 U.S. 145 (1 9 6 5 ) ,  s t ruck  down 

L o u i s i a n a ' s  " i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  t e s t "  u n d e r  the  

F i f t e e n t h  Amendment not  o n ly  because  i t  was "part  

o f  a s u c c e s s f u l  plan to de p r iv e  L ou is ian a  Negroes 

o f  t h e i r  r i g h t  t o  v o t e " ,  380 U.S. at 152, but a l s o  

because i t  was " c o m p le t e ly  devo id  o f  standards and 

r e s t r a i n t s " .  380 U.S. at 153. Mr. J u s t i c e  Stew­

a r t ' s  o p i n i o n  i n  U n i t e d  Je w ish  O r g a n i z a t i o n s  

v .  Carey , 430 U.S. 144, 179-80 (1970 ) ,  does use

the term " c o n t r i v a n c e " ,  but does not  purport  to  be 
an e x h a u s t i v e  l i s t i n g  o f  the  p r a c t i c e s  w h ic h  

v i o l a t e  the F i f t e e n t h  Amendment. The i s su e  in  UJO 
was whether the type o f  r a c i a l  m o t i v a t i o n  in vo lved  

was u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l ,  and J u s t i c e  S t e w a r t ' s  

o p i n i o n  purports  to d e s c r i b e ,  not  a l l  the p r a c ­

t i c e s  which the Amendment f o r b i d s ,  but only  the 
types o f  m o t i v a t i o n  i t  p r o h i b i t s .  Each o f  these



- 57

c a s e s  i n d i c a t e s  t h a t  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y  i n t e n t  i s  

s u f f i c i e n t  to prove a v i o l a t i o n  o f  the F i f t e e n t h  

Amendment, but  none s u g g e s t s  i t  i s  n e c e s s a r y .

The e l e c t i o n  system in  o p e r a t i o n  in Mobi le  

u t t e r l y  f r u s t r a t e s  the purpose o f  the F i f t e e n t h  

Amendment. In form b la c k s  are ab le  to mark and 

c a s t  b a l l o t s ,  but in substance  they are d i s e n ­

f r a n c h i s e d .  They c a n n o t  e l e c t  any b l a c k  to  

t h e  s c h o o l  b o a r d .  They c a n n o t  e l e c t  t o  th e  

board any white  known to support  f a i r  treatment 

f o r  the b l a c k  community. And they cannot p r o t e c t  

themselves aga inst  p o l i c i e s  o f  s e g r e g a t i o n  and 

d i s c r i m i n a t i o n  by the a l l - w h i t e  board.  D esp ite

the Voting Rights  A c t ,  and although at l e a s t  one 

out  o f  four M ob ile  v o t e r s  i s  b l a c k ,  Brown v .  Board 

o f  Education cou ld  not  be implemented by r e s o r t  

to  t h e  b a l l o t ,  bu t  r e q u i r e d  i n s t e a d  r e s o r t  to  

the f e d e r a l  c o u r t s .
On r e p e a t e d  o c c a s i o n s  t h i s  C o u r t  h a s  i n ­

s i s t e d  t h a t  a v a r i e t y  o f  g r i e v a n c e s  a g a i n s t  

s t a t e  and l o c a l  g o v e r n m e n t s ,  many i n v o l v i n g  

p r o b l e m s  w i t h  a p a r t i c u l a r  im pact  o n  r a c i a l  

m i n o r i t i e s ,  should  be r e s o l v e d  by e l e c t e d  p u b l i c  

o f f i c i a l s .  The r e m i t t in g  o f  such i s su e s  to  e l e c t e d



58

o f f i c i a l s  r e q u i r e s ,  we s u g g e s t ,  c o n s i s t e n t  J u d i ­
c i a l  v i g i l a n c e  to  assure  that  the e l e c t o r a l  system 

a f f o r d s  th ose  m i n o r i t i e s  a r e a l i s t i c a l l y  equal  
o p p o r tu n i ty  to  advance t h e i r  i n t e r e s t s  through the 

e l e c t o r a l  p r o c e s s .

CONCLUSION

For  t h e  a b o v e  r e a s o n s  t h e  judgment o f  the  
co u r t  o f  appeals  should be a f f i r m e d .

R e s p e c t f u l l y  submitted ,

J.U. BLACKSHER 
LARRY MENEFEE

1407 Davis Avenue 
M ob i le ,  Alabama 36603

EDWARD STILL
Suite  400 
Commerce Center 
2027 F i r s t  A v e . ,  North 
Birmingham, Alabama 35203

JACK GREENBERG 
ERIC SCHNAPPER 

Suite  2030 
10 Columbus C i r c l e  
New York,  New York 10019

Counsel f o r  A p p e l l e e s



APPENDIX



la

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

SOUTHERN DIVISION 
CIVIL ACTION 
No. 75-298-P

LEILA G. BROWN, e t  a l . ,

P l a i n t i f f f s ,  

-  v -

JOHN L. MOORE, et  a l . ,

D e fendants .

ORDER ON SELECTION OF SCHOOL BOARD 
CHAIRMAN AND ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 
TO ENJOIN NEW BOARD POLICIES, ETC.

The p l a i n t i f f s  f i l e d  a motion  to show cause 
why the de fendants  should not be h e ld  in  contempt.  

In t h e i r  motion  the p l a i n t i f f s  sought the f o l l o w ­

in g  r e l i e f :  ( 1 )  show c a u s e  c o n t e m p t  c i t a t i o n s  

aga inst  the de fendants  Schoo l  Board (Board)  and 

i t s  member commissioners f o r  f a i l u r e  to  e l e c t  a 

P res iden t  o r  Chairman pursuant to  t h i s  c o u r t ' s  

1976 O p i n i o n  and O r d e r .  Brown v .  M o o r e , 428 

F.Supp. 1123, 1145 (S.D.  Ala .  1976) ,  a f f ' d . 575 

F . 2d 298 ( 5 t h  C i r .  1 978 ) ;  ( 2 )  an i n j u n c t i o n



2a

aga inst  implementation o f  newly adopted in t e r n a l  

p o l i c i e s  o f  the Board; and (3 )  d e s ig n a t i o n  by the 

co u r t  o f  e i t h e r  Commissioner Drago or  Commissioner 

Alexander as Chairman or  Pres iden t  o f  the Board.

A f t e r  a h e a r i n g  on t h e  m a t t e r  o f  c o n t e m p t  

t h i s  court  is sued  an order  on October  20, 1978 

(amended on October  25) in  which Commissioners 

B o s a r g e ,  S e s s i o n s  and A l e x a n d e r  w ere  fou n d  in  

contempt.  Furthermore,  the Board and i t s  members 

were ordered  t o  meet the f o l l o w i n g  day and e l e c t  a 

Chairman o r  P r e s i s e n t  i n  c o n f o r m i t y  w i t h  t h i s  

C o u r t ' s  o r i g i n a l  decree  in t h i s  o rde r .  The Board 

f a i l e d  to  do so and ap p l ie d  to  J u s t i c e  Lewis F. 

Pow el l ,  J r . ,  o f  the United Sta te s Supreme Court 
f o r  r e l i e f .

On O c t o b e r  27, 1978,  Mr. J u s t i c e  P o w e l l  

i s su ed  an or der  s t a y in g  both the November e l e c ­

t i o n s  o f  the two new Board members and the c i v i l  

c o n t e m p t  o r d e r  p e n d i n g  t h e  Supreme C o u r t ' s  

d e c i s i o n  on n o t in g  probable  j u r i s d i c t i o n  o f  the 

c a s e .  On October  30, 1978, the Supreme Court did 

n o t e  p r o b a b l e  j u r i s d i c t i o n .  47 U . S . L . W .  3301 

(October  30, 1978) .  The next  day,  Mr. J u s t i c e  

Powel  v a c a t e d  h i s  O c t o b e r  27 s t a y  o r d e r  w i t h  

regard  t o  the November e l e c t i o n s ,  maintained the 

s tay  o f  the contempt o r d e r  and added:



3a

"With r e s p e c t  to  the s e l e c t i o n  o f  Chairman o f  
the School  Board, the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  may take 
su ch  o t h e r  a c t i o n  n o t  i n c o n s i s t e n t  w i t h  
t h i s  o rder  as i t  deems a p p r o p r i a t e . "

Moore v .  Brown, 47 U .S .L .W .  3314 ( O c t o b e r  31, 

1978) .
On November 14, 1978, a h ear in g  was h e l d  f o r  

t h e  p u r p o s e  o f  s e l e c t i n g  a Chairman o f  th e  
Board pursuant to  the Supreme Court order  and o f  

t a k i n g  a d d i t i o n a l  e v i d e n c e  on the  p l a i n t i f f s '  
motion  f o r  i n j u n c t i v e  r e l i e f  with regard to  the 

new Board p o l i c i e s .
November 15, 1978 was the date se t  f o r  the 

new ly  e l e c t e d  Board members t o  take  o f f i c e .  

A l l  members o f  the Board as i t  would be c o n s t i ­

t u t e d  November 15, 1978 ,  w ere  i n v i t e d  t o  be 
p r e s e n t .  A l l  appeared with the e x c e p t i o n  o f  Board 

member Bosarge who was h o s p i t a l i z e d .
A f t e r  asking the p l a i n t i f f s '  and d e f e n d a n t s ' 

a t t o r n e y s  i f  there  were any recommendations as to 
the procedure  the c o u r t  should employ in  s e l e c t i n g  

a chairman, the court  s ta t e d  that  over  the next 

two years de fendant Dan C. A lexander ,  Jr.  should 

serve  f o r  a one year  p e r i o d  in  the c a p a c i t y  o f  
n o n - v o t in g  Charirman and that  de fendant  Ruth Drago



4a

should serve f o r  one year in the same c a p a c i t y .  

The i n i t i a l  C h a i r m a n 's  term was t o  commence 

November 15, 1978, and the o t h e r  term was to  b e g in  

on the one -year  anniversary  School  Board meeting 
d a t e .

A f t e r  t h i s  d e c i s i o n  was announced, a d v i c e  was
sought from each o f  the new Board members as to

t h e i r  p r e f e r e n c e  b e t w e e n  t h e  t w o ,  Drago and
Alexander ,  as to  who should serve the f i r s t  term

b e g i n n i n g  November 15, 1978 .  Board members
A l e x a n d e r ,  G i l l i a r d ,  B e r g e r ,  and Drago each

expressed  a p r e f e r e n c e  f o r  defendant Alexander.
Board member Cox ab s ta in e d .  The court  took the

a d v i c e  o f  the m a jo r i t y  o f  the Board and appointed

Alexander as n o n -v o t in g  chairman t o  take o f f i c e

November 15, 1978, who would then be succeeded by
Drage as n o n - v o t i n g  c h a irm an  on the  o n e - y e a r

a n n i v e r s a r y  m e e t i n g  d a t e  o f  t h e  S c h o o l  B o a r d .

The two d e s ig n ate d  chairman, Alexander f o r

t h e  November ,  1978 t o  November,  1979 p e r i o d ,
and Drago f o r  the November, 1979 t o  November, 1980

p e r i o d ,  w i l l  not  have a v o t e  except  as se t  out in
t h i s  C o u r t ' s  o r i g i n a l  d e c r e e :

"For t h i s  two year  p e r i o d  o f  time o n l y ,  1978 
t o  1980, the Chairman w i l l  have the  r i g h t  to  
v o t e  only in  the event o f  a t i e  v o te  which 
c o u l d  be o c c a s i o n e d  by a b s t e n t i o n ,  absence,  
o r  any o th er  r e a s o n . "



5a

Brown v .  Moore, supra at 1145-46 .—^

I f  e i t h e r  o f  these  two chairman dur ing  t h e i r  
r e s p e c t i v e  terms o f  o f f i c e  are not p r e s e n t ,  or  

r e f u s e  to  serve ,  o r  cannot serve  f o r  any reason ,  
as Chairman, the r e g u l a r l y  e l e c t e d  v i c e - c h i a r a a n  

w i l l  serve  and have a l l  v o t i n g  r i g h t s ,  e t c .  that  
such Board member o r d i n a r i l y  has.  Alexander and 

Drago dur ing  t h e i r  r e s p e c t i v e  terms as Chairman 
w i l l  not  have the r i g h t  to v o t e  because o f  t h e i r  

not s e rv in g  as chairman during  t h e i r  r e s p e c t i v e  
ch a irm an sh ips .

A f t e r  r e s o l u t i o n  o f  the Chairman s e l e c t i o n  
i s s u e ,  t h e  c o u r t  t o o k  a d d i t i o n a l  e v i d e n c e  and 

heard arguments on the i s s u e  o f  i n j u n c t i v e  r e l i e f .  

The p l a i n i f f s  had amended t h e i r  moti on  invoking  

A l l  Writs A c t ,  28 U.S.C.  §1651, as a b a s i s  f o r  
e n j o i n i n g  enforcement o f  the new Board p o l i c i e s .

l_/ A t i e  v o t e  means e x a c t l y  t h a t .  I t  would  
n e c e s s a r i l y  have t o  be a 2-2 or  a 2 -2 -1  v o t e .  I f  
three  c o n s t i t u t e s  a quorum, there  c o u ld  be a 1-1 
( i f  an a b s t e n t i o n )  o r  a 1 -1 -1  v o t e .  E i th er  would 
be c o n s id e r e d  a t i e  v o t e .  The n o n - v o t in g  Chairman 
cannot use h i s  presence  to  c o n s t i t u t e  a v o t i n g  
quorum o r  to  c o n s t i t u t e  a quorum f o r  any o th e r  
purpose .  A quorum would have t o  be c o n s t i t u t e d  
from the r e g u lar  v o t i n g  members. A 2—1—1—1 v o t e  
i s  not a t i e  v o t e .



- 6a

The f o l l o w i n g  f i n d i n g s  o f  f a c t  and c o n c l u ­
s i o n s  o f  law a r e  a d d r e s s e d  t o  t h e  q u e s t i o n  o f  

the p r o p r i e t y  o f  the new p o l i c e s .

FINDINGS OF FACT

In the o r i g i n a l  o p i n i o n  and o r d e r ,  as amend­

ed ,  in  t h i s  a c t i o n ,  the remedial  measures p r e ­

s c r i b e d  by the co u r t  in c lu d ed  the 1978 e l e c t i o n  o f  

two Board Commissioners from two predominantly 

b la c k  ar eas ,  D i s t r i c t s  3 and 4.  In compliance 

with t h i s  d i r e c t i v e ,  primary e l e c t i o n s  were he ld  

f o r  the two seats  in  September o f  t h i s  year .  Two 
b lack  c i t i z e n s ,  Mr. Norman G. Cox and Dr. R. W. 

G i l l i a r d ,  won t h e i r  r e s p e c t i v e  primary r ace s  f o r  
the Board and were e l e c t e d  wi thout o p p o s i t i o n  in 

the gen era l  e l e c t i o n  o f  November 7, 1978. Eight 
days l a t e r  they were sworn in as members o f  the 

Board .

On October 11, 1978, more than a month b e f o r e  

the new b l a c k  Board members took o f f i c e ,  the Board 
a d o p t e d  a new s e t  o f  i n t e r n a l  p o l i c i e s  at  i t s  

r e g u la r  meeting [see minutes o f  meeting ( P l a i n ­

t i f f s ’ E x h ib i t  No. 2 from October  20, 1978 h e a r ­

in g )  and new p o l i c i e s  ( f i l e  i tem No. 216, A t t a c h ­



7a

ment B) ]  which supplanted the p o l i c i e s  adopted in  

August o f  1974 ( se e  f i l e  i tem No. 216, Attachment 

A) .  A comparison by the co u r t  o f  the two s e t s  o f  

p o l i c i e s  r e v e a le d  su b s t a n t iv e  changes enhancing 

t h e  p o s i t i o n  o f  P r e s i d e n t  o r  Chairman and t h e  

r e l a t i v e  power o f  Board members.

The powers o f  the n o n - v o t in g  Chairman ( P r e s i ­

den t )  have been expanded t o  enhance h i s  or  her 

c o n t r o l  o v e r  Board  m a t t e r s  i n  the  f o l l o w i n g  

w ays :

(1 )  An o v e r r i d e  o f  the P r e s i d e n t ' s  d e c i s i o n s  

on p o i n t s  o f  o r d e r  now r e q u i r e s  a t w o - t h i r d s  

m a jo r i t y  o f  the Board ( i . e . ,  four  v o t e s )  whereas a 

s imple  m a jo r i t y  ( i . e . g ,  th ree  v o t e s )  would s u f f i c e  

under the August 1974 p o l i c i e s  (compare new and 

o l d  p o l i c y . §BBABA);

( 2 )  Emergency Board meetings now may be h e ld  

on ly  upon the request  o f  the Pres ident (new Board 

p o l i c y  §BBB);

( 3 )  The P r e s i d e n t  i s  now an e x - o f f i c i o  

member o f  a l l  c o m m i t t e e s  ( c o m p a r e  o l d  and new 

p o l i c y  §BBC) ;

(4 )  The Pres iden t  p o s s e s s e s  the power, with 

the approva l  o f  the Board, t o  appo int  ch a i r p e r so n s  

o f  a l l  ad v i so r y  committees whereas the recommenda­



8a

t i o n  o f  the Superintendent was part  o f  the p r o c e ­

dure b e f o r e  (compare o l d  and new p o l i c y  §BBFA and 

BBFB);

(5 )  The Pres iden t  must approve a l l  items to 

be p l a c e d  on t h e  w r i t t e n  agen da  o f  r e g u l a r  

Board meetings (compare o l d  and new p o l i c y  §BCBD).

I t  is  s i g n i f i c a n t ,  t o o ,  that  the necessary  

number o f  vo te s  o f  Board members has been r a i s e d  

f rom  t h r e e  t o  f o u r  c r e a t i n g  i n  t h e  words o f  

Alexander a " s u p e r "  m a j o r i t y ,  with regard  to  the 

f o l l o w i n g  a c t i o n s :

( 1 )  To c a l l  s p e c i a l  meetings o f  the Board 

(compare o l d  and new p o l i c y  §BCAC);

(2 )  To o v e r r i d e  p r i o r  a c t i o n s  o f  the Board 

(compare o l d  and new p o l i c y  §BCB);

( 3 )  To c o n s t i t u t e  a quorum (compare o ld  and 

new p o l i c y  §BCBFA);

B oard  P r e s i d e n t  Dan C. A l e x a n d e r ,  J r . ,  

d e c l a r e d  at  a p r e s s  c o n f e r e n c e  and c l a i m e d  i n  

open co u r t  that  a number o f  the p o l i c y  changes 

a d o p t e d  i n  O c t o b e r  w ere  d e s i g n e d  t o  g i v e  c o n ­

t i n u i t y  and s t a b i l i t y  t o  p r i o r  Board p o l i c y  by 

c i r c u m v e n t i n g  t h e  c r e a t i o n  o f  a new 3 - p e r s o n  

m a jo r i t y  on the board c o n s i s t i n g  o f  the two new 

b la c k  Board members and a present  member o f  the



9a

B o a r d .  A l e x a n d e r  s a i d  t h a t  t h i s  new m a j o r i t y  

would work t o  o v er tu rn  p r e v io u s  a c t i o n s  and p r i o r  

p o l i c y  o f  the " o l d "  Board.

The Board m e e t i n g  o f  O c t o b e r  25, 1 978,  

d e m o n s t r a t e d  how t h e  pow ers o f  t h e  P r e s i d e n t  
or  Chairman t o  prevent  a m a j o r i t y  o f  Board members 

from p r e v a i l i n g  on i s s u e s  o f  i m p o r t a n c e .  The 
Board had been u n c u sse s s fu l  in  i t s  attempts to  

e l e c t  a n o n - v o t in g  Chairman and at  the October 25 
meeting one Board member announced h i s  i n t e n t i o n  

t o  b r e a k  t h e  d e a d l o c k  by c h a n g i n g  h i s  v o t e  t o  
c r e a t e  the necessary  t h r e e - p e r s o n  m a jo r i t y  f o r  

Drago. (See minutes in  P l a i n t i f f s '  E x h ib i t  No. 1, 
pp .  5 0 - 6 4 ,  o f f e r e d  at  h e a r i n g  on November 14, 

1978) .  Chairman Alexander employed h i s  a u t h o r i t y  
to  pass on p o in t s  o f  o rder  in d e c i d i n g  unanimous 

approval  by the Board was e s s e n t i a l  to  p la c e  the 
v o t e  f o r  n o n -v o t in g  Chairman on the agenda s in c e  

i t  was not  p a r t  o f  the  w r i t t e n  agenda  f o r  the  
meeting.  With two v o t e s  ag a in s t  supplmenting the 

agenda  w i t h  t h i s  m i t e r W  A l e x a n d e r  r e f u s e d  t o  
permit  such a v o t e .

These a c t i o n s  stand in  sharp c o n t r a s t  to the 
p r o c e d u r e s  e m p lo y e d  by A l e x a n d e r  s u b s e q u e n t  

to t h i s  c o u r t ' s  f i n d i n g  o f  him as w e l l  as Board



10a

members B o s a r g e  and S e s s i o n s  i n  c o n t e m p t  on 

October  20, 1978, f o r  f a i l u r e  t o  v o t e  pursuant to  

t h i s  c o u r t ' s  d e cre e  in  t h i s  cause.  Alexander,  

as Board Chairman,  had no d i f f i c u l t y  w i t h  t h e  

procedure  to  p o l l  the Board and to  permit  h im se l f  

to change h i s  p rev iou s  a b s t e n t io n  to  a v o t e  f o r  

Drago. Nie th er  did  he have d i f f i c u l t y  in  a l l o w in g  

Bosarge and Sess ions  to v o t e  aga in .  Furthermore,  
the f o l l o w i n g  day he had l i t t l e  t r o u b l e  in  co n ­

d u c t in g  another  v o t e  and p e rm it t in g  Sess ions  to  
change h i s  v o t e  from Bosarge t o  Drago, one o f  the 

c a n d i d a t e s  f o r  t h e  p o s i t i o n  d e s i g n a t e d  by the  
c o u r t .

In c o n n e c t i o n  with the show cause contempt 
c i t a t i o n  and the f a i l u r e  o f  the Board to  e l e c t  

a Chairman as o r d e r e d  by the c o u r t ,  Chairman 
Alexander  s t a t e d  in  subs tance  that  he was go ing 

to f i g h t  t h i s  c o u r t ' s  o r d e r  as long  as he co u ld .  

The v a r i o u s  m a n e u v e r s ,  t h e  e n c o u r a g e m e n t  t o  

Bosarge with r e f e r e n c e  to B o s a r g e ' s  f a i l u r e  to 

v o t e  f o r  e i t h e r  o f  the two d e s ig n ate d  p erson s ,  

the a t t i t u d e ,  the tes t im ony ,  and the i n c o n s i s t e n t  
p o s i t i o n s  o f  t h e  d e f e n d a n t s  in  t h e  d i f f e r e n t  

Federal  co u r ts  r e l a t i n g  t o  the unexpired  terms o f  

t h e  a l r e a d y  e l e c t e d  Board  members a l l  s e r v e



11a

t o  s u b s t a n t i a t e  t h e  e f f o r t  and p u r p o s e  o f  the  

d e f e n d a n t s  t o  f r u s t r a t e  t h i s  c o u r t ' s  o r d e r .

The d e f e n d a n t s '  p o s i t i o n  in  t h i s  c o u r t  
was f o r  the terms o f  a l l  those  then se r v in g  on the 

Board to  be completed  without r e s t r i c t i o n .  The 
l a t e s t  e x p i r a t i o n  date o f  any term member then 

s e r v i n g  on the  Board w i l l  be November,  1982.
The r e p l y  b r i e f  o f  the d e f e n d a n t s - a p p e l l a n t s  

to  the F i f t h  C i r c u i t  Court o f  Appeals ,  Case No. 
77-1583,  s t a t e s :

" I t  a p p e a r s  t h a t  P l a i n i t f f s '  c o u n s e l  e x ­
p r e s s e s  l i t t l e  c o n c e r n  o v e r  p r e s e r v i n g  
t h e  i n c u m b e n c i e s  o f  t h e  i n d i v i d u a l  d e f e n ­
dants .  Shortening  the term o f  one commis­
s i o n e r ,  much l e s s  the terms o f  f ou r  commis­
s i o n e r s ,  i s  ' fundamental ly  u n f a i r ' ,  ' i n v i d i ­
o u s ly  d i s c r i m i n a t o r y '  and ' v i o l a t i v e  o f  due 
pro ce ss  o f  l a w ' .  Such a c t i o n  i s  u n c o n s c i o n ­
a b l e  and s h o u l d  n o t  be c o n s i d e r e d  i n  t h i s  
c a s e . "  (Emphasis added .)

Yet ,  in  the d e fe n d a n t s '  a p p l i c a t i o n  t o  the 

Supreme C ourt  f o r  s t a y  o f  e l e c t i o n s  and s t a y  
o f  c i v i l  contempt s a n c t i o n s ,  pending appeal  t o  the 

Supreme Court o f  the United S t a t e s ,  No. 78-357,  at  

PP • 5 and 6,  t h e  d e f e n d a n t s  t o o k  an o p p o s i t e  
p o s i t  i o n :



12a

" I n d e e d ,  a l e s s  i n t r u s i v e ,  and f a r  more 
p r a c t i c a l  remedy  w ould  h ave  be e n  s i m p l y  
t o  o r d e r  in  1978 f u l l  e l e c t i o n s  o f  a l l  
_5 Commissioners by single-member d i s t r i c t ,  
thus g iv i n g  a l l  the County 's  v o t e r s ,  and not 
j u s t  i t s  b l a c k  v o t e r s ,  o f f i c i a l s  w i t h  
t h e  a l l e g i a n c e  t o  a p a r t i c u l a r  d i s t r i c t ' s  
i n t e r e s t  which the D i s t r i c t  Court apparently  
f e l t  was e s s e n t i a l  t o  c o n s t i t u t i o n a l l y  
s u f f i c i e n t  r e p r e s e n t a t i o n .  This would have 
avoided  the enlargement o f  the Board from 5 
to  6 members from 1978-1980,  and the problems 
a t t e n d a n t  t o  c r e a t i n g  an amalgam Board o f  
s i n g l e - m e m b e r  and a t - l a r g e  C o m m is s i o n e r s  
d u r i n g  t h i s  p e r i o d . "  (Emphasis  a d d e d . )

These i n c o n s i s t e n t  p o s i t i o n s  o f  the d e f e n ­

dants in the Federal  court  system in t h i s  case ,  

and the p o s i t i o n  o f  c e r t a i n  Board members in  a t ­

tempting t o  f r u s t r a t e  the s ingle-member d i s t r i c t  

plan ordered  which in c lu d e d  in  i t s  implementation 

a n o n - v o t in g  chairman, ( s o  that  none o f  the then 

e l e c t e d  Board members'  term would be shortened )  

r e f l e c t s  a p a t t e r n  o f  c o n d u c t  o f  t h e s e  d e f e n ­

d a n t s  condemned by t h i s  c o u r t  c o n c e r n i n g  th e  

d e fe n d a n ts '  d i f f e r e n t  p o s i t i o n s  on l e g i s l a t i v e  

p r o p o sa l s  to  p r o v id e  f o r  s ingle-member d i s t r i c t  

o f  the Board. (See ,  p.  21 o f  t h i s  c o u r t ' s  o r i g i ­

nal  o rder  beg in n in g  "On September 2, 1976, . . . "  

and ending on page 23 at " I I " . )  In sh o r t ,  i t  i s  

obv ious  that  the b a s i c  th rust  o f  th ese  a c t i o n s  by 
the defendant  Board, and c e r t a i n  o f  i t s  members,



13a

have been t o  de lay  or  d e fe a t  t h e i r  a l l e g e d  support  
o f  the l e g i s l a t i v e  a c t i o n s  and t h i s  c o u r t ' s  o rders  

o f  the s ingle-member d i s t r i c t  e l e c t i o n  plans f o r  
the Board des igned  to  remove the u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  

d i l u t i o n  o f  the b l a c k  v o t e s .

The c o r e  and thrust  o f  t h i s  c o u r t ' s  r u l in g s  

in  t h i s  l i t i g a t i o n  has been t o  remedy the uncon­
s t i t u t i o n a l  d i l u t i o n  o f  the b la c k  v o t e  in Mobi le  

County in  the e l e c t i o n  o f  Board members and the 

r e s u l t i n g  Board p o l i c i e s  t h a t  f l o w  from t h i s  

im perm iss ib le  d i l u t i o n .  I t  is  the f i n d i n g  o f  t h i s  

co u r t  that  the p o l i c y  changes adopted by the Board 

in  October  o f  t h i s  year  were d e v ise d  t o  and w i l l  

f u n c t i o n  to encumber the attempts o f  new b la c k  

Board members to p la ce  on the agenda and secure  
s u f f i c i e n t  v o t e s ,  a c c o r d in g  to  v o t i n g  procedures  

at the time o f  t h i s  c o u r t ' s  o r i g i n a l  o r d e r ,  f o r  
p a s s a g e  o f  p r o p o s a l s  p ro m o te d  by and i n  the  

i n t e r e s t  o f  t h e i r  c o n s t i t u e n t s .  This r e v i s i o n a r y  
a c t i o n  by the Board re p r e s e n t s  a c o n t i n u a t i o n  o f  

the u n c o n s t i t u t i o n a l  v o t e r  d i l u t i o n  t h i s  court  

sought to  remedy in  i t s  d e c r e e  that  i s  now almost 

two years o l d .  A d d i t i o n a l l y ,  the court  f in d s  the 

enchanced powers o f  the n o n -v o t in g  Pres ident or  

Chairman w i l l  work t o  stave o f f  Board members '



14a

e f f o r t s  to  o b t a i n  adopt ion  o f  programs and p o l i ­

c i e s  t o  w h ich  t h e  P r e s i d e n t  has o b j e c t i o n s .

In sum, i t  i s  the f i n d i n g  o f  t h i s  court  that  

the B oard 's  p o l i c y  changes o f  l a t e  were c o n c e iv e d  

to  and o pe ra te  to impede, i n t e r f e r e  and o b s t r u c t  

the i n j u n c t i v e  remedy o f  t h i s  c o u r t ' s  1976 o p i n i o n  

and o rde r  whose purpose was to  guarantee b la ck  

c i t i z e n s  o f  Mobile  County, through the b a l l o t  box,  

imput i n t o  the d e c i s i o n —making p r o c e s s  o f  t h e  
School  Board.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

The A l l  W r i t s  A c t  p r o v i d e s :  "The Supreme 

Court and a l l  c o u r t s  e s t a b l i s h e d  by Act o f  Con­

g r e ss  may i s s u e  a l l  w r i t s  n ecessa ry  or  app r o p r ia te  

i n  a id  o f  t h e i r  r e s p e c t i v e  j u r i s d i c t i o n s  and 

a g re e ab le  t o  the usages and p r i n c i p l e s  o f  l a w . "  28 

U . S . C .  §1651 ( a )  . Last  y e a r  the  Supreme C ourt  

co n st ru e d  i t s  s t a t u t o r y  p r o v i s i o n  and d e c l a r e d :  

"This  Court has r e p e a t e d ly  r e c o g n i z e d  the power o f  

a f e d e r a l  court  to i s su e  such commands under the 

A l l  Wri ts  Act  as may be n e c e ssa ry  o r  a p p r o p r i a t e  

t o  e f f e c t u a t e  and p r e v e n t  t h e  f r u s t r a t i o n  o f  

orders  i t  has p r e v i o u s l y  i s su ed  in  i t s  e x e r c i s e  o f  

j u r i s d i c t i o n  o th erw ise  o b ta in e d .  . . United 

Sta te s v .  New York Telephone Co. ,  434 U.S. 159,



15a

_____ , 98 S. Ct. 1364, 54 L.Ed.2d 376, 389 (1977 ) .

C o u r t s  w i t h i n  t h e  F i f t h  C i r c u i t  have  s t a t e d  

s i m i l a r  p o s i t i o n s  on the o p e r a t i o n  o f  t h i s  ju d g ­

ment enforcement t o o l  o f  the f e d e r a l  j u d i c i a r y .  

Teas v .  Twentieth Century Fox Fi lm Corp . ,  413 F .2d 

1263, 1267 (5 th  C ir .  1969) ,  c i t i n g  with approva l  

United States v .  W a l l a c e , 218 F.Supp. 290, 292 

(N.D, Ala .  1963) ;  see a l s o  ITT Community D e v e lo p -  

ment Corp, v .  Barton , 569 F . 2d 1351, 1358-60 (5th 

C i r .  1978) .

The A l l  W r i t s  A c t  i s  a p p l i c a b l e  i n  the  

f a c t u a l  con tex t  o f  the case sub j u d i c e  in  that  

" [ s ] e c t i o n  1651 g i v e s  the d i s t r i c t  c o u r t  power to 

e n j o i n  a c t i o n  that  improper ly h inders  or  d e f e a t s  

the j u r i s d i c t i o n  which i t  is  v a l i d l y  e x e r c i s i n g . "  

9 Moore  F e d e r a l  P r a c t i c e  9 1 1 0 . 2 9 ,  pp .  3 1 6 - 1 7 .  

There  can be no d o u b t  t h a t  t h e  c o n d u c t  o f  the  

School  Board as d e t a i l e d  above meets t h i s  c r i t e ­

r i o n  f o r  the u t i l i z a t i o n  o f  the A l l  Wri ts  Act  in 

the form o f  i n j u n c t i v e  r e l i e f .

I t  has b e e n  s u g g e s t e d  t h a t  the  Board as 

r e - c o n s t i t u t e d  might seek t o  di sm iss  the pending 

appeal  in th is  cause now in  the Supreme Court .  

T h i s  c o u r t  i s  o f  t h e  o p i n i o n  t h a t  i t  w o u ld  be 

i n e q u i t a b le  and u n f a i r  t o  permit  a Board r e s t r u c ­

tured  by an o rder  o f  t h i s  court  t o  d ism iss  the



16a

appeal  and deny those  ru led  aga inst  the o p p o r tu ­

n i t y  o f  t e s t i n g  t h e  l e g a l i t y  o f  t h a t  o r d e r . —^

It  i s  t h e r e f o r e  ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED 

th£t the defendant Board o f  School  Commissioners 

o f  Mobile  County and the defendant Schoo l  Commis­

s i o n e r s  are now c o n s t i t u t e d  (Mr. Dan C. Alexander ,  

J r . ,  Dr. Norman J. Berger ,  Mr. Hiram C. Bosarge,  

Mr. Norman G. Cox, Mrs. Ruth F. Drago, and Dr. 

R.W. G i l l i a r d ) ,  i n d i v i d u a l l y  and in  t h e i r  o f f i c i a l  

c a p a c i t y ,  t h e i r  o f f i c r e s ,  agen ts ,  su c c e s s o r s  and 

th ose  a c t i n g  in c o n c e r t  with them, are thereby 
ENJOINED:

From implementing,  e n f o r c i n g  or  r e l y i n g  upon 

any new S c h o o l  Board  p o l i c i e s  w h ic h  o p e r a t e s  
t o ;

(1 )  enhance the powers o f  the Board Chairman 

o r  P r e s i d e n t  beyond  t h o s e  i n v e s t e d  in  s a i d

2 /  The " r e a l "  and " b a s i c "  i s s u e s  in t h i s  case ,  
d i l u t i o n  o f  the b l a c k  v o t e  and remedy o rde re d ,  
s ingle-member d i s t r i c t s ,  and the implementat ion  o f  
that  o rder  are a l ready  b e f o r e  the Supreme Court.  
The c o u r t  h e r e in  e n j o i n s  t h i s  newly c o n s t i t u t e d  
Board from d i s m is s in g  that  appeal .  On the o th er  
hand, the newly c o n s t i t u t e d  Board must be perm it ­
t e d  i n  a l l  o t h e r  r e s p e c t s  t o  e x e r c i s e  a l l  i t s  
p e r o g a t i v e s ,  i n c l u d i n g  a p p e a l  o r  no t  o f  t h i s  
o r d e r ,  u n t i l  such time as the Supreme Court o f  the 
United S ta tes  r u l e s  o th e r w ise  in  the case  b e f o r e  
i t .



17a

o f f i c e r  on January 18, 1977, and e s p e c i a l l y  the

f o l l o w i n g  new S c h o o l  Board p o l i c i e s ,  t o  w i t ;

(a)  A t w o - t h i r d s  m a jo r i t y  ( i . e . ,  four  

v o t e s )  w i l l  be r e q u i r e d  to  o v e r r i d e  the P r e s i ­

d e n t ' s  d e c i s i o n s  on a l l  p o i n t s  o f  o r d e r ;

( b ) Emergency  Board m e e t i n g s  may be  

convened only  on the approval  o f  the P r e s i d e n t ;

( c )  For the f i r s t  t ime,  the P o l i c i e s

d e s ig n a t e  the P res iden t  an e x - o f f i c i o  member o f  

a l l  Board standing  committee;

(d)  The P r e s id e n t ,  with the approval  o f  

the Board, i s  empowered to  appoint  the Chairman o f  

a l l  adv iso ry  committees ,  whereas p r e v i o u s l y  the 

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n  o f  t h e  S u p e r i n t e n d e n t  was a l s o  

r e q u i r e d ;

( e )  The P r e s id e n t ,  f o r  the f i r s t  t ime,
must a p p r o v e  a l l  i t e m s  t o  be p l a c e d  on t h e

w r i t t e n  agenda  o r  r e g u l a r  Board  m e e t i n g s ,  and

(2 )  r a i s e  the number o f  Board members' vo te s  

r e q u i r e d  as o f  January 18, 1977, to  c o n s t i t u t e  a

quorum o r  au th o r i ze  any s te p s  taken or  procedure  

adopted by the Baord, and e s p e c i a l l y  the f o l l o w i n g  

new Schoo l  Board p o l i c i e s ,  t o  w i t ,

( a )  To c a l l  s p e c i a l  m e e t i n g s  o f  t h e

Board;



18a

(b)  To o v e r r i d e  any p r i o r  a c t i o n s  o f  

the Board; and
( c )  To c o n s t i t u t e  a quorum o f  th e

Board.
I t  i s  fu r t h e r  ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED 

that  pursuant to  Mr. J u s t i c e  P o w e l l ' s  o r d e r  o f  

October 31, 1978, i t  is  ORDERED th at  defendant Dan 

C. A l e x a n d e r ,  J r .  s h a l l  s e r v e  as n o n - v o t i n g  

Chiarman o f  the Board f o r  one y e a r ,  and that  Ruth 

Drago s h a l l  serve in the same c a p a c i t y  f o r  one 

y e a r .  Dan C. A l e x a n d e r ,  J r .  i s  t o  s e r v e  as 

n o n - v o t in g  Chiarman commencing November 15, 1978,

and de fendant  Ruth Drago s h a l l  serve  as n o n - v o t in g  

Chairman commencing on the one -year  anniversary  

meeting date o f  the Board.

I t  i s  fu r th e re d  ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED 

that  t h i s  c o u r t ,  upon i t s  own moti on ,  e n j o i n s  the 

present members o f  the Board, as s e t  out  above,  

and t h e i r  s u c c e s s o r s  in o f f i c e  i n d i v i d u a l l y  and 

c o l l e c t i v e l y ,  and a l l  persons a c t i n g  in  co n c e r t  

with them from d i s m i s s in g  the appeal  and p e t i t i o n s  

p r e v i o u s l y  f i l e d  in t h i s  a c t i o n  in the Supreme 

Court o f  the United S t a t e s .  The present Board is  

f r e e  by m a jo r i t y  v o t e  to  choose whether to appeal



o r  n o t  t o  a p p e a l ,  d i r e c t l y ,  by  a n c i l l a r y  a c t i o n ,  

o r  o t h e r w i s e ,  t h i s  o r  any o t h e r  r u l i n g  by  t h i s  

c o u r t  h e r e a f t e r  i n  t h i s  m a t t e r .

A l l  c o s t s  a re  t a x e d  t o  t h e  d e f e n d a n t s .

Done t h i s  th e  24th  day o f  N ovem ber, 
1978 .

V i r g i l  P i t tm a n  / s /
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

U. S . DISTRICT COURT 
SOU. DIST. ALA.
FILED AND ENTERED THIS THE 

DAY OF NOVEMBER 1978 
MINUTE ENTRY NO.
WILLIAM J .  O'CONNOR, CLERK 
BY-

D epu ty  C le r k



■

'
4

j :<*: "V r
'V. -

MEILEN PRESS INC. —  N. Y. C. 219