Title: Ex parte State of Alabama. PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: CRIMINAL (In re: State of Alabama vs. Albert Mack, III)
Citation: N/A
Docket Number: 1091312
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: December 17, 2010

REL: 12/17/10
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance
sheets of Southern Reporter.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
Alabama Appellate Courts, 300 Dexter Avenue, Montgomery, Alabama 36104-3741 ((334)
229-0649), of any typographical or other errors, in order that corrections may be made
before the opinion is printed in Southern Reporter.
SUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
OCTOBER TERM, 2010-2011
_________________________
1091312
_________________________
Ex parte State of Alabama
PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
(In re:  State of Alabama
v.
Albert Mack III)
(Tuscaloosa Circuit Court, CC-93-1204.60;
Court of Criminal Appeals, CR-09-0973)
WOODALL, Justice.
1091312
2
The Court of Criminal Appeals issued a writ of mandamus
in response to a petition filed by Albert Mack III, whose Rule
32, Ala. R. Crim. P., petition is pending in the Tuscaloosa
Circuit Court, directing the trial court to ensure that Mack
has access to certain demographic information he is seeking.
The State of Alabama has sought review of the Court of
Criminal Appeals' decision in this Court by filing a petition
for a writ of mandamus directed to the Court of Criminal
Appeals.  See Rule 21(e)(1), Ala. R. App. P.  We deny the
State's petition.
Our consideration of this matter must begin with Ex parte
Mack, 894 So. 2d 764 (Ala. Crim. App. 2003) ("Mack I"), in
which the Court of Criminal Appeals granted, in relevant part,
an earlier mandamus petition filed by Mack.  Mack filed that
petition after the trial court had denied his requests for
"the demographic information on the race and gender of grand
and petit jurors in Tuscaloosa County from 1978 through 1995."
894 So. 2d at 766.  Mack had sought the demographic
information in relation to his claim "that his trial counsel's
performance was ineffective because he failed to effectively
challenge the underrepresentation of African-Americans on the
grand and petit juries in Tuscaloosa County."  894 So. 2d at
1091312
3
769.  The Court of Criminal Appeals held that Mack had shown
good cause for obtaining the demographic information, and,
insofar as the information was concerned, it granted Mack's
petition.  
The judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals have
responded to the State's petition for a writ of mandamus
directed to that court.  See Rule 21(b), Ala. R. App. P.  In
their response, the judges assert that "[t]he instructions in
[Mack I] were clear," but they admit that the opinion "did not
identify what agency could or would furnish [the demographic]
information to Mack."  Judges' response, at 7-8.
Until 2010, Mack took no further action to obtain any of
the demographic information to which he had sought access,
despite the favorable holding in Mack I.  Then, on March 4,
2010, the trial court, on Mack's motion,  ordered the circuit
clerk to produce the grand and petit jury venire lists from
1978 through 1995.  The clerk promptly produced the lists, but
only two lists from 1995 contained information regarding the
race and gender of the members of the venire. 
On April 1, 2010, Mack filed a motion seeking the trial
court's "compliance" with the decision in Mack I. More
specifically, the motion requested that the court order "the
1091312
4
Alabama Department of Motor Vehicles, the Administrative
Office of Courts, the Tuscaloosa District Attorney's Office,
and the Tuscaloosa County Department of Voter Registration ...
to produce any records in their custody or control that
reflect the race and gender of jury venires between 1978 and
1995 in Tuscaloosa County."  On April 5, the trial court
denied that motion on the bases that the circuit clerk had
provided Mack everything within her possession and that the
additional requests amounted to "nothing more than a fishing
expedition."
On April 6, 2010, Mack's counsel sent a letter to the
trial court explaining why she had reason to believe that the
Tuscaloosa 
County 
Board of Registrars had demographic
information responsive to the earlier request and stating
that, with a court order, counsel would be given access to the
available records.  On April 9, the trial court entered
another order denying any further discovery, and Mack filed a
second petition for a writ of mandamus in the Court of
Criminal Appeals.  
On June 9, 2010, the Court of Criminal Appeals granted
Mack's petition. In a brief unpublished order, the court,
relying upon the holding in Mack I, directed the trial court
1091312
The judges never mention in their response the Tuscaloosa
1
District Attorney's Office, the Administrative Office of
5
"to comply with [the Court of Criminal Appeals' instructions
in Mack [I] and to ensure that Mack has access to the
demographic information concerning the grand and petit jurors
in Tuscaloosa County from 1978 through 1995." Ex parte Mack
(No. CR-09-0973, June 9, 2010), ___ So. 3d ___ (Ala. Crim.
App. 2010) (table) ("Mack II").  However, as in Mack I, the
Court of Criminal Appeals did not identify which agency could
or would furnish the demographic information to Mack.  Thus,
as the State correctly argues, Mack II "fails to provide any
guidance to the circuit court [as to] what specific discovery
Mack is entitled."  Petition, at 12.  Thus, in deciding
whether to issue a writ of mandamus to the Court of Criminal
Appeals, we must look to the response to the State's petition
by the judges of that court to determine the breadth of the
Court of Criminal Appeals' order in Mack I.
In their response, the judges mention only that Mack
"informed the circuit court that the information he sought was
maintained by the Tuscaloosa Voter Registration Office and ...
that he could have access to the information if the [trial
court] would sign an order to that effect."   Judges'
1
1091312
Courts, or the Department of Public Safety.
6
response, at 5.  Then, according to the respondent judges,
when the trial court "refused to sign [such an] order for
discovery," Mack filed his petition for a writ of mandamus in
the Court of Criminal Appeals.  Id.  Therefore, we construe
the order in Mack II to order discovery only with regard to
demographic information available from the Tuscaloosa County
Board of Registrars. Our review of the order is de novo.  Rule
21(e), Ala. R. App. P.  However, "[t]he materials reviewed by
this Court in considering a petition for writ of mandamus
consist [only] of exhibits provided by the parties ...."  Ex
parte Covington Pike Dodge, Inc., 904 So. 2d 226, 232 n. 2
(Ala. 2004).    
In Mack I, the Court of Criminal Appeals clearly held
that Mack was entitled to the demographic information about
the jury venires in question.  However, although the circuit
clerk has been able to produce the jury lists Mack requested,
only two of the lists reveal information about race or gender.
On the other hand, it is undisputed that the board of
registrars has in its records voter-registration applications
that request, and generally contain, information about the
1091312
7
applicant's gender and race. We see no reason why the trial
court should not be required to order that the voter-
registration applications in the possession of the board of
registrars be made available to Mack for his review.
Hopefully, Mack will be able to gather from this review the
demographic information he needs without again requesting
further discovery from other sources, allowing his long
pending Rule 32 petition to move toward a conclusion. 
The State's arguments in support of its petition are not
persuasive.  First, the State argues that Mack is entitled to
no further discovery, "because the circuit court has already
attempted to provide 'demographic information' by ordering
discovery of the jury venire lists of Tuscaloosa County from
1978-1995."  Petition, at 14.  Although it is true that the
trial court ordered the production of the venire lists, it is
equally 
true 
that 
"Mack 
still 
needs 
the 
demographic
information."  Mack's response, at 15.
Next, the State argues that Mack's request for further
discovery is a "textbook example of a fishing expedition."
Petition, at 20.  This is so, according to the State, because
there is no evidence indicating that the board of registrars
possesses any jury list or other information concerning the
1091312
8
identity of veniremembers for the period in question. This
argument completely misses the mark.  Mack already has the
jury lists. He needs the voter-registration applications
available from the board of registrars because those
applications are likely to reveal the type of demographic
information that is missing from all but two of the jury
lists.  More specifically, if Mack is able to identify the
veniremembers' voter-registration applications, he is likely
to have available to him information concerning the race and
gender of those veniremembers. 
Third, the State argues that requiring the board of
registrars 
to 
produce 
the 
available 
voter-registration
applications "would create an overwhelming strain and burden
on that agency's resources."  Petition, at 29.  This argument
is based on the State's assumption that "an employee [of the
board] would have to manually search each box of paper voter
registration applications by hand and compare each application
to a list of people who served on juries in Tuscaloosa County
from 1978-1995."  Id.  However, as previously stated in this
opinion, the trial court is required to order only that the
voter-registration applications be made available to Mack for
1091312
"Mr. Mack only requests that the information be made
2
available to him.  He will make arrangements to gather,
review, copy or scan the necessary information."  Mack's
response, at 25.
9
his review.   The exhibits before this Court in this petition
2
for the writ of mandamus indicate that the board of registrars
has 
already 
located 
the 
boxes 
containing 
the 
voter-
registration applications and identified those applications
within the scope of Mack's request.  
Finally, we note that the State does not argue that the
Court of Criminal Appeals has ordered the production of any
confidential information. Indeed, the materials before this
Court 
belie 
any 
concern 
that 
the 
voter-registration
applications contain confidential information. "Even if Mack
[is] able to gain access to voter registration records, such
records do not request an applicant's full Social Security
number.  (Ex. D., App. 8 at p. 2)."  Petition, at 25. The
exhibit referenced by the State states, based on information
provided by an employee of the board of registrars, that the
"applications request [only] the last four digits of the
applicant's Social Security number."   
1091312
10
For these reasons, the State's petition for a writ of
mandamus directed to the Court of Criminal Appeals is denied.
PETITION DENIED.
Cobb, C.J., and Lyons, Stuart, and Parker, JJ., concur.
Bolin, J., concurs specially.
Smith and Murdock, JJ., dissent.
Shaw, J., recuses himself.*
      
     
        
*Justice Shaw was a member of the Court of Criminal
Appeals when that court considered this case.
1091312
11
BOLIN, Justice (concurring specially).
I concur specially with the main opinion, but I write
separately to address the potential divulgence of voters'
Social Security numbers as the result of any blanket discovery
order directed to the Tuscaloosa County Board of Registrars
allowing 
unfettered 
access 
to 
voter-registration 
applications.
The defendant, Albert Mack III, seeks information
concerning the race and gender of members of jury venires in
Tuscaloosa County from 1978 to 1995, specifically through the
local board of registrars.  As the main opinion correctly
points out, the State does not argue that the order of the
Court of Criminal Appeals makes available for inspection,
either inadvertently or not, confidential information from the
voter-registration applications.  The only mention by the
State of the possible disclosure of such information is in its
reply brief, which states:
"However, simply because Mack asserts that he is
willing to do the searching and copying does not
mean that he will actually be granted access by the
various agencies to their official files, with
potentially 
confidential 
information, 
to 
sift
through and copy."
(Reply brief, p. 14.)
1091312
12
The State's only specific mention of voters' Social
Security numbers, as opposed to nonspecific "confidential
information," relates to its argument that Mack's request for
discovery of records of the Department of Motor Vehicles would
require the individuals' Social Security numbers because that
is what the Department uses to access information, arguing
that such would be "completely impracticable and is nothing
but a fishing expedition."  (Petition, p. 25.)  This in no way
properly addresses a crucial issue –- whether unfettered
access 
to 
voter-registration 
records 
would 
allow 
the
disclosure of voters' Social Security numbers.  Indeed, the
State takes at face value a statement from Mack's counsel,
based on a conversation with an employee of the board of
registrars, that that board's voter-registration records list
only the last four digits of a voter's Social Security number.
This is true now by virtue of § 17-4-36, Ala. Code 1975, which
became effective January 13, 2003.  See Act No. 2003-313, Ala.
Acts 2003.  Act No. 2003-313 changed the duty of each board of
registrars from obtaining a voter's "Social Security number,
if such number is known," to obtaining only the last four
1091312
Act No. 2003-313 amended § 17-4-36 as follows (the
3
changes are shown by strike-throughs (deletions) and emphasis
(additions): 
"(a) In order to establish the statewide voter
file and to ensure its continued accuracy, it shall
be the duty of the boards of registrars, on forms or
in a manner rule prescribed by the Director of Voter
Registration Secretary of State:
"(1) To provide said director the
Secretary of State the name, driver's
license 
number 
or 
non-driver's
identification number, if such number is
known, the last four digits of the Social
Security number, if such number is known,
date of birth, address, race, sex, and
political subdivision or voting place of
each registered voter in their respective
counties within one month after a written
request from said director the Secretary of
State;
"(2) To provide said director the
Secretary of State the name, driver's
license 
number 
or 
non-driver's
identification number, if such number is
known, the last four digits of the Social
Security number, if such number is known,
date 
of 
birth, 
address, 
race, 
sex,
political subdivision or voting place,
place 
of 
previous 
registration, 
if
applicable, and date of registration of
each newly registered voter as such voter
is registered;
"(3) To provide to said director the
Secretary of State the name, driver's
license 
number 
or 
non-driver's
identification number, if such number is
13
digits of that number.   A 1977 voter-registration form
3
1091312
known, the last four digits of the Social
Security number, if such number is known,
date 
of 
birth, 
address, 
race, 
sex,
political subdivision or voting place, and
date of reidentification of every voter who
reidentifies, pursuant to Article 7 of this
chapter.
"(b) Where an applicant for voter registration
is unable to produce either a driver's license
number, a non-driver's identification number, or the
last four digits of the Social Security number, the
state voter registration list shall assign a unique
number which shall serve as the registrant's voter
registration identification number
"(b) Members of local boards of registrars and
members of county commissions who fail to comply
with the provisions of this article in their
representative capacities as such registrars and
commissioners 
shall 
be 
guilty 
of 
a 
Class 
A
misdemeanor and punished as prescribed by law."
14
approved by this Court in accordance with then § 17-4-122 (now
§ 17-3-52) requested Social Security numbers from registering
voters. Because Mack is requesting records from 1978-1995, it
is fair to assume that the board of registrars met its duty
during this period and, as a consequence, that the majority of
its stored application records contain full Social Security
numbers. 
The State does argue that compliance with the judgment of
the Court of Criminal Appeals would create "an extreme burden
1091312
15
on the state."  As pertains to the burden on the board of
registrars, the State argues:
"Regarding the Tuscaloosa Board of Registrars,
specifically, that agency's records are maintained
in the attic of the Tuscaloosa County courthouse.
The Board of Registrars' records are stored in
boxes.  The records within these boxes are not
maintained in a particular order.  In order for that
agency to comply with a discovery order to provide
demographic information, an employee would have to
manually search each box of paper voter registration
applications by hand and compare each application to
a list of people who served on juries in Tuscaloosa
County from 1978-1995.  The Board of Registrars also
does not have a large staff and this process would
be 
both 
time 
consuming 
and 
labor 
intensive.
Furthermore, as noted above, this exercise could all
be a fruitless labor as there is no guarantee that
searching through the Board of Registrars records
will reveal any person who served on [a] jury from
1978-1995, not to mention demographic information.
Certainly, such a task would create an overwhelming
strain and burden on that agency's resources."
(Petition, pp. 28-29.) Mack counters that he needs only that
the information be made available to him and that he will
"make arrangements to gather, review, copy or scan the
necessary 
information." 
 
(Emphasis 
added.)(Respondent's 
brief,
p. 25.)
Significantly, the State does not argue that the presence
of, and possible disclosure of, voters' Social Security
numbers will mandate personal scrutiny by employees of the
board of registrars as each individual voter-registration
1091312
16
application is examined to see if the applicant matches the
name of a venireperson supplied by the lists prepared by the
circuit clerk.  It is my opinion that this would have been
pertinent to the State's argument that the requested discovery
would have been unduly burdensome.
Citizens applying to vote before the effective date of
Act No. 2003-313 had a right to rely on their belief that
their State government would not make available their Social
Security numbers, which were requested by the board of
registrars on their voter-registration application.  Social
Security numbers are private information, the unauthorized
release of which can lead to identity theft.  See Greidinger
v. Davis, 988 F.2d 1344, 1353-54 (4th Cir. 1993)(holding that
the state's requirement that a voter supply a Social Security
number when registering to vote and then making voter-
registration 
lists 
containing 
Social 
Security 
numbers
available to the public infringed upon the right to vote and
that the burden was not narrowly tailored  to meet the state's
interest in preventing voter fraud because "armed with one's
[Social Security number], an unscrupulous individual could
obtain a person's welfare benefits or Social Security
benefits, order new checks at a new address on that person's
1091312
17
checking account, obtain credit cards, or even obtain the
person's paycheck. ... Succinctly stated, the harm that can be
inflicted from the disclosure of [Social Security number] to
an unscrupulous individual is alarming and potentially
financially ruinous.").  The Kentucky appellate court in Zink
v. Commonwealth, 902 S.W.2d 825, 829 (Ky. Ct. App. 1994),
accurately stated:
"Those nine digits today represent no less than the
keys to an information kingdom as it relates to any
given individual. Access to a wealth of data
compiled by both government agencies and private
enterprises such as credit bureaus is obtainable
simply upon presentation of the proper Social
number."  
The Alabama Legislature exempted voter-registration
records from being classified as public records in § 17-3-52,
Ala. Code 1975, which states, in pertinent part:
"Except 
as 
provided 
in 
Section 
17-3-53, 
the
applications of persons applying for registration
shall not become public records as public records
are defined under the laws of the State of Alabama,
nor shall the board disclose information contained
in such applications and written answers, except
with the written consent of the person who filed the
answer or pursuant to the order of a court of
competent jurisdiction in a proper proceeding."
Because the State has not shown a clear legal right to
mandamus relief in this proceeding, I would suggest that the
trial court would still be "a court of competent jurisdiction
1091312
18
in a proper proceeding" to protect the confidentiality of the
voter-registration applications as they pertain to the
sensitive information contained therein, in complying with
Mack's right to discover demographic information as ordered by
the Court of Criminal Appeals.
        
1091312
19
MURDOCK, Justice (dissenting).
As a threshold matter, I note that the underlying issue
for which the discovery is sought in this case is not the
direct 
question 
whether there 
was an unconstitutional
disparity in the makeup of the jury panels in Tuscaloosa
County at the time Albert Mack III was indicted and convicted
in 1995.  Rather it is whether there was a constitutional
disparity and whether this disparity was such that it was
known or should have been known to Mack's trial counsel so
that his failure to assert it and to conduct the discovery now
being attempted in an effort to find proof of it justifies a
conclusion that counsel was not acting as the counsel
guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.  If the answer to any aspect of the latter query
is "no," this would have been a ground for the Court of
Criminal Appeals to have reached a different result in Mack I.
I see no discussion of this issue in Mack I; I therefore
assume that the State did not explore it at the time of that
decision, and I will not do so now.
Nonetheless, under the de novo standard by which we are
to review the current petition, I question whether the
discovery being ordered by this Court today will provide Mack
1091312
20
the information he is seeking concerning the race and gender
of veniremembers from 1978 to 1995.  In this regard, I first
note that, according to the affidavit of Kathie Viselli, the
director of the Board of Registrars for Tuscaloosa County, the
only voter-registration records from 1978-1995 that have been
located are from the years 1980 to 1984.  Even if these
records were to show a significant disparity in the makeup of
Tuscaloosa County jury panels during those years, I question
how material this information would be to Mack's ultimate
purpose of showing that his 1995 conviction came at the hands
of an improperly constituted jury to which his trial counsel
should have objected. 
Second, 
I 
am 
not 
persuaded 
that 
the 
available
registration forms, even for this four- or five-year period,
contain the information needed.  Alabama law during this
period did not provide for registration forms requesting that
the voter indicate his or her race or gender.  See __ So. 3d
at __ n. 3 (Bolin, J., concurring specially and indicating the
differences between the current registration statute and the
statute in place before the 2003 amendment).  In her
affidavit, Viselli states that she has worked with the
1091312
The materials before us include an exhibit consisting of
4
a letter from Mack's counsel to the trial judge recounting an
April 2010 conversation with Coral Lewis "in the Tuscaloosa
County Voter Registration records department."  Counsel (not
purporting to quote Lewis) asserts that "Lewis indicated that
the voter registration applications request name, address,
date of birth, race, sex, drivers' license numbers, and the
21
Tuscaloosa Board of Registrars only since 2004. She thereafter
states:
"I do not know for sure whether demographic
information, such as race and gender, will be
contained on the voter registration applications
from the years 1980-1984.  The voter registration
applications request data on race and gender.
However, in my experience, in some cases applicants
will fail to identify their race or gender or both
on the voter registration applications."
Especially in light of the status of Alabama law during the
period 1980 through 1984, I question whether Viselli's
description in the middle sentence of what is requested on
voter-registration applications should be read in relation to
the reference in the preceding sentence to the "registration
applications from the years 1980-1984" or in relation to the
years with which Viselli has "experience," as referenced in
her following sentence, i.e., from 2004 forward. 
For similar reasons, and despite some suggestion to the
contrary in one of the numerous exhibits attached to the
State's petition,  I am not persuaded that the voter-
4
1091312
last four digits of the applicant's [S]ocial [S]ecurity
number." (Petition Exhibit D, App. 8 at p. 2.)
22
registration applications Mack seeks do not contain the entire
Social Security number of the applicants.  The Alabama statute
governing this matter during the period in question provided
for registration forms requiring the voter to provide his or
her entire Social Security number.  Again, see __ So. 3d at __
n. 3 (Bolin, J., concurring specially and indicating the
differences between the current registration statute and the
statute in place before the 2003 amendment). 
Overarching these doubts is the fact that the voters
whose Social Security numbers appear in whole or in part on
the voter-registration forms to be produced are not parties to
this case.  I therefore do not consider myself or other
elements of the judiciary bound by the fact that the
prosecutorial arm of the State, insofar as it is a party to
this action, does not adequately make an issue of this fact.
In his special writing, Justice Bolin correctly observes that
"[c]itizens applying to vote before the effective date of Act
No. 2003-313 had a right to rely on their belief that their
State government would not make available their Social
Security number, which were requested by the board of
1091312
23
registrars on their voter-registration application." ___ So.
3d at __ (Bolin, J., concurring specially).  The judiciary is
a part of that State government. 
On the basis of the law and materials presented, and the
confidentiality concerns expressed above, I do not believe the
relief left in place by this Court's decision today is
justified.  I therefore respectfully dissent. 
Smith, J., concurs.