Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_87-cv-01179/USCOURTS-almd-2_87-cv-01179-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 441
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Voting
Cause of Action: 42:1973 Voting Rights Act

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT FOR THE UNITED STATES OF THE

 MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHN DILLARD, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

ROBERT R. BINION and )

JOHN WRIGHT, )

)

Plaintiffs-Intervenors,)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 2:87cv1179-MHT

) (WO)

CHILTON COUNTY COMMISSION, )

et al., )

)

Defendants. )

OPINION

This matter is before the court on the question of

whether it should give final approval to the modification

of the consent decree approved by this court on June 23,

1988 (Doc. Nos. 46 and 47), Dillard v. Chilton County Bd.

of Educ., 699 F.Supp. 870 (M.D. Ala. 1988), aff'd,

Dillard v. Chilton County Com'n, 868 F.2d 1274 (11th Cir.

1989) (table), and which provides for seven Chilton

County Commissioners to be elected by the voters of the

county at large using cumulative voting rules. The

Case 2:87-cv-01179-MHT-CSC Document 228 Filed 04/03/08 Page 1 of 10
2

question is presented in a joint motion filed by

plaintiffs John Dillard, et al., plaintiffs-intervenors

Robert R. Binion and John Wright, and defendant Chilton

County Commission, seeking the court’s approval to strike

the following proviso from ¶ 4 of the consent decree:

“provided, however, that the procedures

used by the commission for that purpose

shall ensure that, if a black citizen is

elected to the county commission, he or

she shall be offered the opportunity to

serve a term as chair of not less that

[sic] six months duration during each

four year term of office. If more than

one black citizen is elected to the

commission, the proviso herein shall

only require that one six month term as

chair be guaranteed.”

For the reasons that follow, the court is of the

opinion that the modification should be approved and the

joint motion granted.

I. BACKGROUND

The motion to amend the consent decree is joined by

all parties to this action. The claims of Gilbert Green

and Calvin Jones, Jr., who were allowed to intervene in

Case 2:87-cv-01179-MHT-CSC Document 228 Filed 04/03/08 Page 2 of 10
3

2003, were dismissed by order entered on December 10,

2007, pursuant to a mandate of the Eleventh Circuit Court

of Appeals. Dillard v. Chilton County Comm’n, 495 F.3d

1324 (11th Cir. 2007). Green and Jones have filed a

petition for writ of certiorari. Gilbert Green and

Calvin Jones, Jr., v. Chilton County Comm,n, No. 07-1124

(U.S.).

The consent decree in this action is the last of the

180 court-ordered election plans still active in the

longstanding set of Dillard cases, which began with

Dillard v. Crenshaw County, 640 F.Supp. 1347 (M.D. Ala.

1986), and which eventually involved the governing bodies

in 192 local jurisdictions in Alabama. By passing Act

2006-252, now codified at 1975 Ala. Code § 11-80-12, the

Alabama Legislature adopted under state law all courtordered election plans with respect to which there is no

pending litigation challenging the plan. Act 2007-488

incorporated Act 2006-252 in an even broader statutory

Case 2:87-cv-01179-MHT-CSC Document 228 Filed 04/03/08 Page 3 of 10
4

provision, now codified at 1975 Ala. Code § 11-3-1(c).

Section 11-3-1(c), as amended by Act 2007-488, provides:

“Unless otherwise provided by local law,

by court order, or governed by Section

11-80-12, and as otherwise provided in

subsection (d), there shall be in every

county a county commission, composed of

the judge of probate, who shall serve as

chairman, and four commissioners, who

shall be elected at the time prescribed

by law and shall hold office for four

years until their successors are elected

and qualified.”

(Emphasis added.) Section 11-80-12, provides:

“Notwithstanding any other provision of

law to the contrary, any board of

education, county commission, or

municipal governing body whose currently

serving members have been elected by a

method of election and a specific number

of seats prescribed by a federal court

shall retain that manner of election and

composition until such time as the

method of election or number of seats is

changed in accordance with general or

local law. This section shall not apply

in any county where a federal court has

overturned the previous order concerning

the manner of election and the number of

members of a county commission and shall

not apply in any county where there is

currently pending litigation, or appeals

relating thereto, challenging previous

court orders or consent orders

Case 2:87-cv-01179-MHT-CSC Document 228 Filed 04/03/08 Page 4 of 10
5

concerning the manner of elections or

the number of members or districts of a

county commission.”

There is no provision in Alabama law, however, for

the above quoted proviso in ¶ 4 of the 1988 consent

decree in this action, nor could such a racial

classification be enacted by the Legislature unless it

was narrowly tailored to serve a compelling state

interest.

II. NOTICE TO THE CLASS AND FAIRNESS HEARING

Before addressing the merits of approving the

amendment to the consent decree, the court must ensure

that all members of the plaintiff class of black voters

have been informed of the proposed amendment and have had

the opportunity to voice any objections. Fed.R.Civ.P.

23(e). By order entered March 6, 2008, the court gave

preliminary approval to the proposed modification of the

consent decree and approved a notice to the plaintiff

class. The notice to the class provided that all written

Case 2:87-cv-01179-MHT-CSC Document 228 Filed 04/03/08 Page 5 of 10
6

objections must be submitted to the clerk of the court no

later than by March 25, 2008. The court further stated

that all objections by class members must be timely

submitted in writing to be considered by the court. A

fairness hearing was scheduled for April 3, 2008.

Defendant Chilton County Commission has certified

that the notice to the class was published, as ordered,

once a week for two weeks in the Chilton County News.

The court finds that this was adequate notice that

satisfies Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(1), and constitutional

requirements of due process. A fairness hearing was

conducted on April 3, 2008, at which no written or oral

objections were received from members of the plaintiff

class.

III. WHETHER THE MODIFICATION OF THE CONSENT DECREE 

IS FAIR, REASONABLE, AND ADEQUATE.

Because all parties to this action agree to the

proposed modification of the consent decree, the

standards this court must employ to determine whether the

Case 2:87-cv-01179-MHT-CSC Document 228 Filed 04/03/08 Page 6 of 10
7

modification should be approved are governed by

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e). Reynolds v. Alabama Dept. of

Transportation, 261 F.Supp.2d 1331, 1345-51 (M.D. Ala.),

vacated on other grounds, 265 F.Supp.2d 1289 (M.D. Ala.

2001). Thus, the issue here is whether the proposed

modification is “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”

Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(e)(2). This court has previously set out

the factors it will examine in deciding whether a

settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable. Those

factors are as follows: 

“(1) the views of the class members; (2)

the views of class counsel; (3) the

substance and amount of opposition to

the settlement; (4) the possible

existence of collusion behind the

settlement; (5) the state of the

proceedings; (6) the likelihood of

success at trial; (7) the complexity,

expense and likely duration of the

lawsuit; and (8) the range of possible

recovery.”

Allen v. Alabama State Bd. of Education, 190 F.R.D. 602,

607 (M.D. Ala. 2000) (citations omitted). All of the

relevant factors are satisfied here. However, in

Case 2:87-cv-01179-MHT-CSC Document 228 Filed 04/03/08 Page 7 of 10
* In Bonner v. Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th

Cir. 1981) (en banc), the Eleventh Circuit Court of

Appeals adopted as binding precedent all of the decisions

of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the

close of business on September 30, 1981. 

8

approving the amendment to the consent decree, the court

must “undertake an analysis of the facts and the law

relevant to the proposed compromise” and “support [its]

conclusions by memorandum opinion or otherwise in the

record.” Cotton v. Hinton, 559 F.2d 1326, 1330 (5th Cir.

1977).*

No objections were submitted to the court by members

of the plaintiff class. Commissioner Bobby L. Agee, who

is black, and other class members attended the fairness

hearing and represented to the court that they favored

striking the race-specific proviso from the consent

decree. 

The Supreme Court has provided guidance about the

appropriateness of race-specific relief in a remedial

decree:

“In determining whether race-conscious

remedies are appropriate, we look to

Case 2:87-cv-01179-MHT-CSC Document 228 Filed 04/03/08 Page 8 of 10
9

several factors, including the necessity

for the relief and the efficacy of

alternative remedies; the flexibility

and duration of the relief, including

the availability of waiver provisions;

the relationship of the numerical goals

to the relevant labor market; and the

impact of the relief on the rights of

third parties.”

United States v. Paradise, 480 U.S. 149, 171 (1987)

(plurality opinion). Although the Supreme Court in

Paradise was addressing remedies in an employment

context, the general principles it enunciated are

applicable here as well. Commissioner Agee and defendant

Chilton County Commission presented evidence that the

proviso had never been invoked and was not necessary. To

the extent it appeared to be necessary when the consent

decree was approved in 1988, 20 years is a sufficient

duration for such a temporary race-specific proviso. The

evidence now before the court shows that striking the

proviso should have no adverse impact on the class of

black voters.

Case 2:87-cv-01179-MHT-CSC Document 228 Filed 04/03/08 Page 9 of 10
Counsel for the plaintiff class, experienced voting

rights lawyers, have stated their view that removing the

proviso was in the best interests of the class. The

consent decree has been in effect for 20 years, and

striking the race-specific proviso will facilitate the

final dismissal of this action. The public interest will

be served by eliminating an unnecessary racial

classification from the consent decree.

An appropriate judgment will be entered.

DONE, this the 3rd day of April, 2008.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:87-cv-01179-MHT-CSC Document 228 Filed 04/03/08 Page 10 of 10