Opinion ID: 770321
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Individual Voters' Claims for Damages

Text: 40 As we have noted, the plaintiffs in this case are 16 black citizens of Crittenden County, all registered voters. The principal defendants are three poll workers, Dixie Carlson, Mary Freeman, and William Howe. These defendants were sued individually and in their official capacities for allegedly discriminating against black citizens on the basis of their race, and intimidating them during the election. The defendant Johnny Rogers, a poll watcher, was sued in his individual capacity, and was charged with discriminating against black voters. The defendant Ruth Trent, the County Clerk, was sued in her official capacity. The complaint alleged that her preparation of the precinct register discriminated against black voters and amounted to a policy of Crittenden County. The three Election Commissioners, Messrs. Fairley, Graham, and Dawson, were sued individually and in their official capacities. The complaint alleged that they discriminated in their decisions regarding the challenged ballots, and their actions regarding the complaints made by black candidates. In their prayer for relief, the plaintiffs sought damages for each individual voter who had been allegedly harassed or hindered at the polling place, and also injunctive relief, including a request that the same election officials not be used in future elections, that the Attorney General of the United States make federal observers available for future elections, and that a plan be implemented to ensure that City voter rolls would be limited in the future to persons who lived within the City of Crawfordsville. Costs and reasonable attorneys' fees were also requested. 41 The facts are complicated and involved, and the record is voluminous. We have carefully read the entire transcript. We believe the case can be best understood if we first set forth the facts relevant to the claim of each individual plaintiff. These claims can be divided into several segments: plaintiffs who were not allowed to vote; plaintiffs whose votes were challenged, and who therefore voted by paper ballot, instead of on the machine; plaintiffs who were denied assistance from persons of their choice; voters who were harassed in other ways; black candidates for City offices who were allegedly harassed at the polls; and black poll watchers who were allegedly harassed at the polls. In each instance, we will set forth the relevant facts and our conclusions. 42 The core issue in this case is whether any defendant intentionally discriminated on the basis of race against any plaintiff. This is a quintessential question of fact. In each instance, the question turns mainly on conflicting oral testimony and an assessment of its credibility. In these circumstances, our power of review is particularly narrow. Rule 52(a) admonishes us to give due regard to the opportunity of the trial court to observe the witnesses and their demeanor. In addition, the Supreme Court has stressed that findings based on credibility, where testimony is internally consistent and not contradicted by physical facts or documentary evidence, and where the witnesses believed by the trier of fact were plausible, must almost always be affirmed. Anderson v. City of Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 575 (1985). Still, even in such a case, findings are not immune from review. It is our duty to inspect the record searchingly, and, in the end, to reverse if we have a definite and firm conviction that any finding of fact was mistaken. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395, 396 (1948).

43 William Gollin has lived in Crawfordsville since 1965, and he became a registered voter that same year. Tr. 113, 115. He completed school up to the third grade. Tr. 113. Mr. Gollin asked Loretta Page to assist him in voting because he could not read; however, Mr. Gollin was not permitted to vote because it was alleged that his name was not listed on the precinct register of voters. Tr. 314. In fact, Mr. Gollin's name was on the register; however, it was incorrectly spelled - Gallin instead of Gollin. Tr. 115. The register correctly provided Mr. Gollin's age, but the address listed was slightly incorrect - 412 South Main instead of 415 South Main. Tr. 116. The name Gallin, William Tell was listed in the city precinct register only four entries above the entry where his name should have been located (where there was an entry for someone named Gollins) and on the same page in the register. App. 2 at 22. 44 Mr. Gollin testified that he was in the city polling place for fifteen or twenty minutes, the time he testified that it took for the poll workers to determine that he could not vote. Tr. 125. Mr. Gollin testified that Carla James and Loretta Page informed the other poll workers that the listing under Gallin was really Mr. Gollin's name. Tr. 118-19, 126-27. Mr. Gollin also testified that Mr. Howe informed the other election workers that Mr. Gollin did not have running water and that the name Gallin was not Mr. Gollin's name. Tr. 118, 121, 126-27. Ms. Freeman informed Mr. Gollin that he could not vote because he didn't have water. Tr. 120. Mr. Gollin was a weekly shopper in Mr. Howe's store, when Mr. Howe owned one, and Mr. Howe had been to Mr. Gollin's home. Tr. 114, 128. However, Mr. Howe testified that he was not asked about whether to challenge Mr. Gollin or not, and testified that throughout the day he never volunteered anything, but only observed the clerks' handling of voter sign-ins. Tr. 787-88. Mr. Gollin did not see anyone make a phone call, and he was not handed a paper ballot so he could cast a vote. Tr. 121. Ms. Carlson testified that she could not recall why Mr. Gollin did not vote a challenged ballot. Tr. 728. Ms. Freeman testified that she seemed to remember Mr. Gollin's coming into the polling place, and to the best of her knowledge she believed that he had already left the polling place when the spelling error was discovered. Tr. 772-73. 45 Before assessing the particulars of Mr. Gollin's situation, we make a few general observations about the context in which the voting difficulties shown in this record occurred. The political history of Crittenden County, to which the District Court gave little or no weight, is important. There has been a long history of racial discrimination in the electoral process in Arkansas. Harvell v. Blytheville School District, 71 F.3d 1382, 1390 (8th Cir. 1995); Perkins v. City of West Helena, 675 F.2d 201, 211 (8th Cir.), aff'd mem., 459 U.S. 801 (1982). The history of polarized voting and racial discrimination in Crittenden County has been particularly noted. See Smith v. Clinton, 687 F. Supp. 1310, remedial order entered, 687 F. Supp. 1361 (E.D. Ark.) (three-judge Court), aff'd mem., 488 U.S. 988 (1988). The hangover from this history of racial discrimination necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process. 687 F. Supp. at 1317. The race for City offices on November 5, 1996, is a good example. There was one white candidate and one black candidate for almost every contested position. We think it fair to infer that most (though not all) black voters favored black candidates, and that most (but not all) white voters favored white candidates. All but one of the election officials at the City polling place were white. The voters who experienced problems that day were overwhelmingly black. Between 67 and 81 black voters cast ballots, and between 27 and 33 per cent. of them experienced some form of a problem. All 11 of the voters who were required to vote a challenged paper ballot were black. Between 170 and 184 white voters cast ballots, but very few of them experienced voting problems. Most of the problems experienced by black voters could have been handled if the poll workers had scrupulously adhered to the procedures laid out during their training. It is true that the challenged votes would have made no difference in the outcome of any election, but this is beside the point. Each individual voter has a right to cast his ballot in accordance with State law, and this right is not to be denied, abridged, or encroached upon for reasons of race. Subtle means of discrimination, as well as blatant ones, are outlawed. Manipulative devices and practices [may not be] . . . employed to deny the vote to blacks. Rice v. Cayetano, 120 S. Ct. 1044, 1054 (2000). 46 Instances in which favorable treatment was given to white voters are significant. We note in particular the fact that William and Deborah Sue Dixon, who lived a half mile outside the City, were permitted to vote a City ballot on the voting machine at the City polling place, without challenge. Their names were listed in the City register, but the address given was 528 Joyner Road. Tr. 192, 219. The tape that was made of occurrences at the polling place on election day reveals that Mr. Dixon told Ms. Freeman that he lived on Joyner Road over by the high school. Tr. 344-46. Mr. Howe stated, in describing Mr. Dixon's explanation of where he lived, across the railroad tracks. Tr. 347. On the tape, a male voice, which the District Court did not doubt was that of Mr. Howe, responded across the railroad tracks during this conversation. Tr. 800-01. Ms. Freeman admitted that on election day she knew there was no street within the town of Crawfordsville named Joyner Road, and also knew that the high school was a half mile outside the City limits. Mr. Howe, who had been Mayor of the City for 16 years and had lived there for 60, testified that he did not know at the time whether a street in Crawfordsville was named Joyner Road. We are driven to the conclusion that Mr. Howe's testimony about the Dixons is simply incredible, and that they were given favorable treatment because they were white, and, probably, because Mr. Howe and Ms. Freeman believed that they would vote for white candidates. No similar indulgence was granted to any black person. 47 We return to the specifics of Mr. Gollin's case. He testified that he had known Mr. Howe for 31 years at the time of the election. Mr. Howe had cashed checks for him at his store. Tr. 114. Mr. Howe has been to his house. Tr. 128. This testimony is clear and consistent. The contrary evidence, such as it is, of the defendants Howe and Freeman is unworthy of belief. Whether someone has water is not relevant to his eligibility to vote, which turns solely on whether he was registered and where he lived. The argument that Mr. Gollin's name was misspelled in the voter register, with a single incorrect letter, is, in our view, a flimsy pretext. We hold that the finding that Mr. Howe and Ms. Freeman did not racially discriminate in denying the vote to Mr. Gollin is clearly erroneous. There is not sufficient evidence in this record to make a similar conclusion with respect to the defendants Carlson and Rogers.
48 Derrick Marshall was unquestionably a registered voter and a resident of Crawfordsville. His name was listed in the city precinct register. However, the word absentee had been stamped by his name. Both Ms. Freeman and Ms. James informed Mr. Marshall that he had already voted by absentee ballot, and would not be allowed to vote again. Tr. 238, 243. Mr. Marshall denied that he had voted. Tr. 239. No phone call was made by poll workers to the County Clerk's Office to determine if a mistake had been made when the register was stamped. Tr. 173, 597. Ms. Carlson testified: He really insisted that he had not voted. But we couldn't - with an absentee marked we couldn't - he had already voted as far as we were concerned. It was on the book. Tr. 728-29. 49 The fact that the word absentee was stamped beside Mr. Marshall's name was certainly sufficient to raise a question in the minds of the poll workers. It was not, however, conclusive as to whether or not he had already voted. According to the County Clerk, when someone writes in and requests an absentee ballot, the ballot is mailed to the voter, and the word absentee is then stamped next to the voter's name in the precinct binder. The stamping occurs at the time of mailing, not when the ballot is returned to the Clerk's Office. Tr. 576-77. Some ballots that are mailed out to people requesting them are not returned. A voter who requests an absentee ballot, but does not use it, is presumably entitled to vote in person on election day. This could have been the case with Mr. Marshall. Moreover, there are things that the poll workers could have done to investigate further. They could have telephoned the County Clerk's Office to try to determine whether an absentee ballot had been returned by the person in question, and apparently no such call was made. In addition, Mr. Marshall himself could have taken the initiative to go to the County Clerk's Office and request an investigation. When this happens, the County Clerk will do research, and, if it's justified, send the voter back to the polling place with a slip instructing the poll workers to allow him to vote. This also was not done in the instant case. 50 The District Court found that the defendants' actions towards Mr. Marshall were not motivated by race. The evidence is fairly even. On the whole, we are not persuaded that this finding was clearly erroneous. The stamping of the word absentee on the voting register raised a concrete and serious problem. Decisions in polling places on election day are made rather quickly. There is often not enough time to investigate thoroughly each individual case. Our judgment is further influenced by the fact that Carla James, the black poll worker, took the same position with respect to Mr. Marshall that the defendants Howe and Freeman took. We will affirm the District Court's decision with respect to the plaintiff Derrick Marshall.
51 Kimberly Nathan Warren is a registered voter, and she lived in Crawfordsville, Arkansas, at the time of the election. She had lived at her family home in Crawfordsville since 1988, with the exception of three months in 1996 (ending in September) when she lived outside the City limits in the McNeil Apartments. Ms. Freeman and Ms. Warren had known each other for years. Ms. Warren's father had worked for the City, and Ms. Warren paid the water bill in her father's name at the Water Department where Ms. Freeman works. 52 When Ms. Warren went to the City polling place to vote on election day, Ms. Freeman told Ms. Warren that she did not live in Crawfordsville. Ms. Warren insisted that she did. Her name had been listed in the County register under her maiden name, Nathan, apparently reflecting the short time when she lived outside the City. 53 We are firmly convinced that the defense position with respect to this plaintiff is not plausible. Ms. Freeman had known Ms. Warren for years. It is true that her name was not in the City register, but that was not a sufficient reason for the treatment that Ms. Warren received. Under the instructions that had been given to the poll workers, Ms. Warren should not have been turned away. No election worker called the Clerk's Office, and no one told Ms. Warren that she could fill out an address-change form and vote. No one offered to allow her to vote a challenged ballot on paper. No one even informed her that she ought to go across the street and cast her vote in the County polling place. As a consequence, she was altogether denied the right to vote. We believe that the finding in favor of Ms. Freeman with respect to Ms. Warren's claim is clearly erroneous. There is no substantial evidence that any of the other defendants played a part in Ms. Warren's difficulties.
54 In general, the following procedure was followed with respect to persons whose votes were challenged, but were still allowed to vote. If someone came into the polling place and was challenged, either by a poll watcher (Mr. Rogers) or a poll worker, that person would not be allowed to vote on the machine. Instead, he or she would be given a paper ballot. In this way, the challenged ballots (and, as we have noted, there were 11 of them in all) could be separated, and each ballot could be identified, if necessary, in the event of an election contest.
55 Sharon White lived with her grandmother, Rae Miller White, on Main Street in Crawfordsville. She has a general delivery post office address, and was listed on the County register. On November 5, 1996, Ms. White went to the County polling place, but an election worker there, who knew that Ms. White lived in the City, told her to go across the street and vote at the City polling place, in the Water Department office. 56 When Ms. White got to the City polling place, her name could not be found on the City register. However, Ms. James, the black poll worker, told Ms. Freeman that Ms. White was indeed a City resident. Ms. White was well known to Ms. Freeman, having paid her grandmother's water bill every month at the Water Department office for at least seven years. Tr. 55. In addition, she had known Mr. Howe since she was six years old, having shopped in his store, sometimes every day. Tr. 54. When Ms. White approached the voting table, Ms. Freeman informed her that her name was not on the City voting register, and that she could not vote, because she did not pay a water bill in her own name. Tr. 56-57, 70. No one called the Clerk's Office. Tr. 60, 163, 527-28. Johnny Rogers, the poll watcher, challenged Ms. White's vote, because her name did not appear on the City register, Tr. 671, but most of the challenge form was filled out by someone else. The challenge form stated: Does not appear in the City box, but all say she does. Tr. 754. According to Ms. Carlson, everyone in the polling place, all the officials said that she did live in the City. Tr. 755. Ms. White was given a paper ballot in order to vote in accordance with the procedure described above. When Ms. White voted, two unnamed white men stood over her and watched her, Tr. 59, with Mr. Howe standing about two or three feet behind them. Tr. 71, 78. 57 The defendants introduced very little specific evidence about this incident. Ms. Freeman testified that she did not remember Ms. White's coming into the polling place. The District Court found that Ms. White was not denied her franchise. In a way, this is true, because Ms. White was allowed to cast a challenged paper ballot. On the other hand, her vote was never counted (more about this later), and she was subjected to harassment, with the apparent cooperation of Mr. Howe. We believe that the evidence is overwhelming that both Ms. Freeman and Mr. Howe knew Ms. White, and the fact that Ms. White had been paying her grandmother's water bill, instead of a bill in her own name, had nothing to do with her right to vote. The regular procedure which had been given to the poll workers at training was not followed in this case. The County Clerk's Office was not called, nor was Ms. White given a chance to use a change-of-address form. We hold that the District Court's finding in favor of Ms. Freeman and Mr. Howe is clearly erroneous. With respect to the defendants Carlson and Rogers, however, we affirm. Neither of them lived in the City. In fact, Mr. Rogers did not even live in Crittenden County. He was representing the best interests of his congressional candidate, and his challenge of a ballot being cast by a person whose name was not on the City register is understandable. He could not be expected to be familiar with individual citizens and where they lived.
58 Arnissa Edwards is a resident of Crawfordsville. She lived in the white section. Her name was listed in the City register. When she came into the polling place, Ms. Edwards signed the register and said she had brought Latesa Calloway 2 to assist her in voting. Ms. Edwards said she needed help because she did not know how to use the voting machine, and that she had been allowed assistance with the machine in previous elections. Mr. Rogers, the poll watcher, challenged Ms. Edwards's vote because of [i]mproper voting procedures. She did not state reason for help with her vote. Tr. 669. Ms. Calloway then asked whether Ms. Edwards could vote by paper ballot, and this is what occurred. 59 We find this plaintiff's situation somewhat difficult. On the one hand, it seems clear that she was not in fact entitled to assistance in voting. She conceded at trial that she had no disability. Tr. 508. Mr. Rogers's statement that [s]he did not state reason for help with her vote is correct, if reason is understood as good reason. On the other hand, the fact that Ms. Edwards was not entitled to have someone help her vote did not require that the vote itself be challenged. The logical outcome would have been to allow her to vote on the machine, but without assistance. Instead, she was required to vote by paper ballot. This procedure seems to have been suggested by Ms. Calloway herself, however. There is no substantial evidence about the conduct of the defendants Freeman, Howe, and Carlson during this incident. Ms. Edwards testified that on several occasions Ms. Freeman had asked her whether she was planning to sell her house, and this is evidence of racial animus if believed. Although what happened to Ms. Edwards makes us somewhat uneasy, we have no definite and firm conviction that the District Court's finding adverse to her claim was clearly erroneous. According, the finding will be affirmed.
60 Stanley Calloway was a convicted felon. His name was on the City register, and he signed in, but Ms. Carlson then challenged him on the basis of his conviction. Under Arkansas law, convicted felons cannot vote. If there was any racial prejudice operating with respect to Mr. Calloway, it could not have been the cause of his vote's being disallowed. He was not entitled to vote in any event. The finding of the District Court adverse to Mr. Calloway's claim will be affirmed. 61
62 It is important to remember, in evaluating these claims, what the law and accepted practice were with respect to voters who asked for help. Any voter with a disability was entitled to assistance from any person of his or her choice. It did not matter who the person was. A relative, a friend, even a candidate, was eligible to give assistance. If a voter asked a poll worker to help, two election judges (not just one poll worker) would give assistance.
63 Ruby Coburn was a qualified voter in the City. She requested help in voting on the ground of inability to read well and nerves. Tr. 418, 429. Ms. Coburn asked LaSaundra Johnson for help. Tr. 463. Both Ms. Coburn and Ms. Johnson testified that Mr. Howe gave Ms. Johnson a sheet of paper with an amendment on it, and told her that she had to read that paper before she could help Ms. Coburn in voting. Ms. Johnson refused to read the paper, became upset, and left. Ms. Coburn was then offered assistance from one (apparently not two) poll workers, but she declined. She voted on the machine without assistance. However, because she could not read well, she voted only for about two candidates. 64 Mr. Howe testified that he never stopped Ms. Johnson from helping anyone, Tr. 789, nor did he make anyone read an amendment as a condition to assisting another person to vote, Tr. 790. We are firmly convinced that Mr. Howe's testimony was unreliable. He himself conceded that his memory was fading, and his testimony with respect to the Dixon incident, recounted above, was clearly incorrect, as the videotape showed. Requiring Ms. Johnson to read an amendment (the reference may be to the title of one of the constitutional amendments on the ballot at the time) was improper. It is of course true that Ms. Johnson would need to read in order to assist Ms. Coburn with a reading disability, but that was not the concern of the poll workers. Ms. Coburn had a right to ask anyone to help her, and how well that person could read was no one else's business. We hold that the finding against Ruby Coburn's claim is clearly erroneous, so far as the defendant Howe is concerned. The evidence with respect to the other defendants is either slight or nonexistent, and the judgment in their favor on Ms. Coburn's claim will be affirmed.
65 Willie Taylor is a registered voter and a resident of the City. He asked for help from LaSaundra Johnson (the same person involved in the Coburn incident, just recounted). Mr. Taylor had poor eyesight because of glaucoma. Ms. Freeman and Mr. Howe informed Mr. Taylor that Ms. Johnson could not help him, because she was not kin to him. Mr. Howe testified that he understood that a person needing assistance had to choose a relative or a good friend. Tr. 789. (There is no evidence as to why Mr. Howe would not believe that Ms. Johnson was a good friend of Mr. Taylor's.) Ms. Johnson was not allowed to help Mr. Taylor, and then, at Mr. Taylor's request, Mr. Howe helped him. Mr. Taylor could not see the buttons in the voting machine to punch. He had to tell Mr. Howe how he wanted to vote, and Mr. Howe then punched the buttons. 66 What happened to Mr. Taylor was improper and contrary to law. He had a right to LaSaundra Johnson's help. There is no requirement that she be a relative or a good friend. Violations of state law and election practice, of course, are not, in and of themselves, the same thing as racial discrimination. However, when the alleged violators' conduct is otherwise questionable, and when no plausible justification is asserted, the inference of discriminatory intent is strong in the circumstances of this particular election. We hold that the District Court's finding on Mr. Taylor's claim, so far as the defendants Freeman and Howe are concerned, was clearly erroneous. There is no evidence that the defendants Carlson and Rogers were involved in this incident, and the finding in their favor will therefore be affirmed.

67 Nikita Ladell Calloway, who was 20 years old at the time of the election, had lived in Crawfordsville all his life. He was frequently in the Water Department to pay bills, and Ms. Freeman had seen him there from the time he was a child until three months before the election. He saw Ms. Freeman at the Water Department about eight times in the year before the election. He would stop and talk with her, and she would call him by name, either Nikita, or his nickname, Bird. Tr. 37, 47, 51-52. Mr. Calloway had also done yard work for Ms. Freeman when he was about 15 years old. Tr. 38. 68 On November 5, 1996, when Ms. Freeman asked Mr. Calloway his name, he replied Nikita Calloway. Ms. Freeman then said, according to Mr. Calloway's testimony, You can't vote, because you are trying to vote in place of a girl. Ms. Freeman said, That can't be your name. That's a girl's name. Tr. 153 (testimony of Carla James). Finally, Mr. Calloway pulled out an identification card and showed it to Ms. Freeman. Tr. 39-40. At that point, someone whose voice he didn't recognize stated that such a form of identification could be made up on computers. Tr. 41. Then, [a]fter a little conflict, he was allowed to vote on the voting machine. Tr. 50. Mr. Calloway testified that while he was voting, Mr. Howe stuck his head in the voting booth for about 15 seconds. Tr. 42-43. Mr. Howe denied the incident. Tr. 790. About 30 people were in the polling place when these events occurred, and Mr. Calloway felt ashamed and embarrassed. Tr. 44. 69 Mr. Calloway was allowed to vote. What happened to him was not so serious as denying a person the right to vote, but being harassed during the exercise of one's franchise is still unlawful if the harassers are acting under color of state law and are motivated by racial prejudice. The District Court rejected this claim, finding Ms. Freeman's testimony more credible. Among other things, the Court said that Calloway was the only one of these persons [Calloway, Howe, Freeman, and Carlson] to testify to the plaintiff's version of events. This is true, but it overlooks the fact that Carla James, not a party to the case, backed Mr. Calloway's account. Ms. James testified that Ms. Freeman said to Mr. Calloway, That can't be your name. That's a girl's name. Tr. 153. In our view, the finding of the District Court on this point is clearly erroneous. No one denied the length of Mr. Calloway's residence in Crawfordsville, the fact of his having frequented the water office, or his having done yard work for Ms. Freeman. Nikita is not a girl's name, not exclusively, anyway, and it wouldn't matter for present purposes if it were. There is no evidence that any white voter was similarly impeded. We hold that Ms. Freeman and Mr. Howe are liable in this incident. There is no evidence connecting Ms. Carlson with these events.
70 There is little evidence in the record about Ms. Page. Her claim is that she was improperly ignored when she attempted to vouch for James and Levetter Williams, black voters whose residence had been drawn in question. Ms. Page herself did not testify. The District Court's finding rejecting her claim is not clearly erroneous.

71 Appellants have abandoned any claim for damages on behalf of Mary Holmes, see Brief for Appellants 4 n.6, so the finding adverse to her claim will be affirmed.
72 Loretta Page was a candidate for Alderman in the 1996 election. She came into the polling place several times, to assist two voters who had asked her help, and to check on the number of votes. Tr. 315-16, 202. Late in the afternoon, Dixie Carlson told her that she could not come into the polling place again. Tr. 316-17. There was evidence that a white candidate, J.B. Cole, had been in the polling place continuously on one occasion for 20 or 25 minutes without hindrance. Ms. Freeman and Ms. Carlson told Ms. Page that she could stick her head in to check the vote, but then had to leave, and had to remain more than 100 feet from the polling place. Tr. 169. There was evidence that Mr. Cole was passing out leaflets at the front door of the polling place, within the 100-foot zone, on at least one occasion. Tr. 248, 300. 73 Arkansas law prohibits electioneering within 100 feet of a polling place. Ms. Page was allowed to enter the polling place to help other voters who specifically requested her assistance, and also, from time to time, to check on the number of votes. Apparently Ms. Freeman and Ms. Carlson considered the mere presence of a candidate within the polling place, for no particular purpose, to be electioneering. We think this understanding, though arguably erroneous, was reasonable. Crawfordsville is a small town. Many voters would know Ms. Page, and might be intimidated or made to feel awkward by her presence in the polling place. The District Court's finding that no racial discrimination occurred with respect to Ms. Page is not clearly erroneous.
74 Bernice Bates was a candidate. Tr. 446. She had served as an Alderman from 1991 to 1995. She helped five or ten people to vote, at their request, Tr. 461. According to Ms. Bates's testimony, she came in to help a voter and was asked to leave by Ms. Carlson, who took the position that Ms. Bates's mere presence in the polling place was electioneering. Tr. 169. There is a conflict in the evidence about whether Ms. Carlson grabbed Ms. Bates's arm, or merely touched her, Tr. 169, 743. 75 This claim seems somewhat stronger to us than that of Loretta Page, which we have just discussed. Ms. Bates had a specific right to be in the polling place for the purpose of helping any voter who had requested her assistance by name. Ms. Carlson's understanding that Ms. Bates was electioneering was incorrect. On the other hand, Ms. Bates was allowed to assist five or ten other voters, and Ms. Carlson testified that she did not intend to intimidate or harass Ms. Bates. Tr. 743. According to Ms. James, Ms. Bates created a disturbance after this incident occurred, and the police were called. Tr. 205. Although we have some doubts about the matter, we are not firmly convinced that the finding of the District Court was erroneous, and its finding with respect to this claim will therefore be affirmed.
76 Alice Faye Calloway was a candidate for City Recorder. Ms. Calloway's case is somewhat similar to that of Bernice Bates. She periodically entered the polling place, asked for a count, and then left. Tr. 201. She entered the polling place at least four times during the day. On one of these occasions, she was attempting to help her mother, Annie Mae Nathan, to vote. Ms. Carlson approached her and told her that she could not be in the polling place. Tr. 247. Ms. Calloway informed Ms. Carlson that she was helping her mother to vote at her mother's specific request. According to Ms. Calloway, Ms. Carlson put out both of her hands to prevent Ms. Calloway from walking past her and stated, I told you not to come in here. Tr. 248. Ms. Calloway then left, and Ms. Nathan voted without her assistance. Tr. 735. Ms. Carlson denied pushing Ms. Calloway. Tr. 743. 77 Again, we consider this claim somewhat stronger than that of Loretta Page, and perhaps than that of Bernice Bates, since it was Ms. Calloway's own mother whom she was attempting to assist. There is no question that Ms. Nathan had the right to request assistance from her daughter. The fact that her daughter was a candidate, and had already been in the polling place several times, complicates the situation. On the whole, we do not have a definite and firm conviction that the District Court's finding was mistaken. Although this is a close case, we affirm with respect to Ms. Calloway's claim.

78 As we have already noted, Latesa Calloway's claim for damages has been abandoned.
79 LaSaundra Michelle Johnson was a black poll watcher for Bernice Bates, but was not allowed to act as such because her credentials were not proper. No question is raised about this particular decision by the election officials. However, Ms. Johnson was also involved in incidents respecting Ruby Coburn's and Willie Taylor's request for assistance - incidents we have already described in connection with our discussion of these plaintiffs' claims. When Ms. Johnson attempted to help these voters, Mr. Howe said she had to read out loud to him some kind of amendment. Tr. 464. The amendment had been handed to Mr. Howe by Ms. Freeman. Ms. Johnson refused to read the required material, and then left. Mr. Howe also told her that she could not assist Mr. Taylor because she was not related to him. Tr. 464. 80 For reasons already given in our discussion of the Coburn and Taylor claims, we believe the finding in favor of the defendants Howe and Freeman on Ms. Johnson's claim was clearly erroneous.