Document: 396 U.S. 320 90 S.Ct. 518 24 L.Ed.2d 549 Willie CARTER et al., Appellants,v.JURY COMMISSION OF GREENE COUNTY al. No. 30. Argued Oct. 21, 1969. Decided Jan. 19, 1970. Norman C. Amaker, New York, N.Y., for appellants. Leslie Hall, Montgomery, Ala., appellees. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered the opinion of Court. 1 The appellants, Negro citizens Greene County, Alabama, commenced this class action against officials charged with administration State's juryselection laws: county jury commissioners and their clerk, local circuit court judge, Governor Alabama. complaint alleged that appellants were fully qualified to serve as jurors desired serve, but had never been summoned service. It appellees effected a discriminatory exclusion Negroes from grand petit juries in County—the his selection commission, judge arbitrary Negroes. sought (1) declaration systematically excluded County juries, Alabama statutes governing unconstitutional on face applied, commission was deliberately segregated governmental agency; (2) permanent injunction forbidding systematic pursuant challenged requiring all eligible be placed roll; (3) an order vacating appointments compelling select new members without racial discrimination. 2 Alabama's jury-selection procedure is governed by statute. Ala. Code, Tit. 30, § seq. (1958 Supp. 1967). appoints three-member each county. §§ 8—10. employs 15, who duty obtaining name every citizen over 21 under 65 years age, together occupation places residence business. 18. clerk must 'scan registration lists, lists returned tax assessor, any city directories, telephone directories other source information which he may obtain * *.' 24. He also 'visit precinct at least once year enable properly perform duties required it Ibid.1 Once submits list names, prepare roll box containing names qualified, nonexempt county, 20, 24, are 'generally reputed honest intelligent esteemed community integrity, good character sound judgment 21.2 3 A three-judge District Court, convened 28 U.S.C. 2281 2284, conducted extensive evidentiary hearing appellants' complaint. record supports trial court's conclusion, set out its detailed opinion, process actually operated outset litigation departed statutory mandate several respects: 4 'The does not potentially provided 18, fact aware statute directed done knew no way she could do it. starting point last year's roll. Everyone thereon considered remains unless dies or moves away (or, presumably, convicted felony). added old Almost work devoted securing persons suggested consideration jurors. performs some toward such names. This part-time task, compensation, spare time available performance her Circuit She uses voter assessor's lists. Telephone communities referred to, since largely rural. 5 goes into eleven beats precincts annually, usually one time. Her trips purpose consume full day. At various talks knows secures acquainted many Negroes, very few 'out county.' know reputation most Because Court reputations familiar those have crime 'in trouble.' ministers, seek white churches fraternal organizations. obtains county's deputy sheriff. 6 secure basis more regular formalized than efforts clerk. 'ask around,' area where resides, chiefly persons. Some obtained public officials, substantially whom white. 7 'One commissioner testified asked if people didn't give him submit them. accepts pay day's year, stating lot put work. takes word recommend people, checks further sees need check further, considering rely others. makes inquiry determination whether can read write *. Neither nor social contacts belong same 8 'Through yearly meeting August, 1966, met day, sometimes two, presented commissioners, sent letter, considered. checked them records felony convictions. decided upon acceptable died moved removed. 9 'At 1966 submitted Negro, merely did clerical meeting. Another ill able little all. third remember suggested. brought name, proposed trade bill received, after so using threw away. All destroyed. As result number increased 37. Approximately 32 came given testimony one-day August entire scanned. contained around 2,000 10 'Thus practice, through system exactly reverse what state contemplate. produced small group individually selected recommended consideration. Those whose focused prepared administered limited means contact community. Though they recognized pertinent Negoes do, not, meet qualifications comes there meaningful fed machinery effectual communication knowledge possessed utilized. In practice has function come up rolls person felony. applying criteria carried only part, accepting conclusive others, all.'3 11 Court's findings demonstrated impact composition juries. According 1960 census, composed threefourths population. Yet 1961 1963 largest ever appear about 7% total. noted 1964 single-judge federal district entered declaratory setting forth law, instructing pursue course conduct operating discriminate employ numerical proportional limitations respect race, directing examination compliance judgment.4 Thereafter, situation improved marginally. 82 appeared among 471 listed 50% male population found 4% Negro.5 1967, following amendment, women Upon expansion list, 388 1,198 potential jurors—still 32% total, even though 1967 estimated 65% Negro.6 12 'there invalid racially basis.' enjoined excluding roll, 'to take prompt compile accordance laws constitutional principles'; file compiled within 60 days, showing law juror, race and, available, age; report applied exclusions. 13 declined, however, either enjoin enforcement provisions direct appoint commission. From these rulings took appeal 1253. We probable jurisdiction. 393 1115, 89 990, 22 120.7 14 first case reach attack discrimination choosing made plaintiffs seeking affirmative relief, rather defendants challenging judgments criminal conviction ground indicted them,8 guilty,9 both.10 barrier suit, neither we. Defendants proceedings cognizable legal interest nondiscriminatory selection. People because much aggrieved tried chosen exclusion.11 Surely jurisdictional procedural bar civil suit here. claim bottomed simple proposition State, acting agents, refused consider service solely race. Whether deemed right, privilege, duty, State extend deny others grounds invidiously offering withholding elective franchise.12 chooses provide constitutionally so,13 hew ensuring membership free bias.14 'practically brand *, assertion inferiority *.'15 That kind contravenes idea jury—'a body truly representative community,'16 'the peers equals rights determine; is, neighbors, fellows, associates, having status society holds.'17 II 15 On merits, argue erred refusing invalidate Ala.Code, (Supp.1967). say because, leaving large jurors, provides opportunity race—an taken advantage.18 Specifically, charge leaves effect belief generally inferior less likely measure requirements;19 commissioners' fear will suffer accorded exercise power majority;20 preference tend assert right equality.21 injunctive relief granted inadequate, history demonstrates persisting despite prior grant relief. Moreover, long argued, Citizens throughout obliged county-by-county basis, thereby imposing heavy burden already congested dockets delaying day selection.22 16 While force say, we cannot agree s irredeemably face. accepted Constitution forbid States prescribe relevant jurors.23 remain confine citizens, specified age educational attainment,24 possessing intelligence, judgment, fair character.25 'Our protect mean should impose states our conception proper reasonably reflects crosssection suitable intelligence civic duty.'26 17 Statutory peculiar particular region country. Nearly requires United States,27 residents locality,28 minimum age,29 understand English.30 Many require 'good character' like;31 some, 'intelligent'32 'well informed.'33 18 Provisions similar breadth here sustained before. Franklin v. South Carolina,34 rejected plaintiff error conferred commissioners. 'prepare electors Constitution, between ages twenty-one sixty-five years, moral character, respective counties deem otherwise well being exceptions, shall include three upholding validity standards, said: 19 'We think anything provision secured Federal Constitution. There nothing discriminates individuals account color previous condition, subjects different treatment simply attempting competent qualifications.'35 20 Again, Smith Texas,36 dealt wide range choice commissioners.37 expressly upheld law. scheme itself unfair; 'capable whatsoever.'38 No said standards attacked present case. Despite overwhelming proof adduced support abused discretion confers preparation necessarily circumstances invalid. devoid mention race.39 Its antecedents ancient vintage,40 suggestion originally adopted subsequently forward fostering discrimination.41 courts incompetent fashion stringent remedy application hands empowered administer it.42 sum, conclude, before us, guarantees total invalidation 21. III They urge causal relation conceded absence past decade established argued best-intentioned unlikely satisfy regard incapable satisfying prerequisites membership. Having shown continuing consistent disregard part contend discretionary essential functions, particularly constitute majority erred, ordering 23 precisely terms. task unbiased manner predominantly Rather, contended appointed exercising argument, short, went appointment biases inherent entirely claimed Governor. For purposes assume exclude themselves. But men, concluded failed want proof. ruling correct. Quite apart problems would involved way, amounted prima facie exclusion. indicated during preceding commencement suit. counsel prove Governor.43 concession necessary, statement led conclude produce witnesses behalf phase 25 Nor uphold contention that, question compelled entitled representation jury.44 IV 26 propriety afforded court, noted, principles. *'45 Pursuant order, dated November 6, 1968. stated contacted both races personal visit, telephone; recommendations help voting directory, complies terms decree matter instance. might appropriate. 'has render far possible eliminate effects like future.'46 Accordingly, below 27 modification require. ordered. 29 BLACK, concurring. 30 I concur except insofar leave implication vacate governor's compel governor office commissioner. my grants reject certain individual member voters elect defeat group. 31 DOUGLAS, dissenting part. when organ agency proved racist mission survive challenge. instances numerous history. appeared. One Louisiana States, 380 145, 85 817, 709, constitution register 'be understand' 'give reasonable interpretation' section 'when registrar.' Id., 149, 820. interpretation test depriving 'otherwise vote,' id., 150, 820, policing injunction. 821 n. 9. therefore struck down. 33 instant held '(t)he (jury) fails now men governor.' 298 F.Supp. 181, 192. But, states, shows more: outnumber whites two one. southern patterns—had little, any, Negroes; practically black community; listing; (4) statutorily created subjective relied, own judgments, people; (5) expected pass muster standards; (6) '(i)n Negro. Negro.' Ante, 327-328. 34 see solution problem, bi-racial. Kingdom Heaven, all-white all-black equal justice intelligent' 'esteemed judgment.' (Supp. exists pattern discrimination, times probably retains authority control community's official life, true cross-section 35 often represent proportionally community.1 See Swain 202, 208—209, 824, 829—830, 759; Cassell Texas, 339 282, 286—287, 70 629, 631—632, 94 L.Ed. 839. Jury chance; defendant, bears risk component, presumably favorable him, tries him. panel purposely unrepresentative. Whitus Georgia, 385 545, 550, 87 643, 646, 599. finally minority operation chance, challenges cause, peremptory challenges. 36 problem keep selective influence. implicates oversight system. 37 expressed doubts Sellers Laird, 395 950, 2022, 470, Selective Service System board registrants, respects problems. resolved here, credited India handled type amendment.2 sufficient more. 38 Where agency, dealing liberties citizen, corrective representation. Under indeed seem effective practiced 39 go strike down system, races. sole requirements insure complete objective jurors.' Mitchell Johnson, D.C., 250 117, 123. habitual drunkard, unfit discharge juror's afflicted disease physical weakness, unable English, anyone offense involving turpitude. disqualified English still freeholder householder. willing so. exempt classes persons, based occupation, consent serve. 3. addition, excuse appears jury, exempt, 'or cause 4, 5. Until blanket declared White Crook, 251 401, 408—409; thereafter amended eligible. (1). may, shown. requirement place permissive, mandatory, commission's failure absent fraud denial rights, quashing indictment venire. Fikes 263 89, 95, 81 So.2d 303, 309, rev'd grounds, 352 191, 77 281, 246; 207, 828, 759 3; supra, 403 6; 119 Bokulich Commission 187—188. (Footnotes omitted.) Coleman Barton, 63—4 (N.D.Ala.1964). unreported. F.Supp., 184. males. 2, supra. appellees' emigration younger better-educated 1960's accounted disparity succeeding decade. 188. 389 22, 23, 88 3, 22. Other prevent charges larceny then outstanding denied plaintiffs, separate appeal. affirmed portion Term, longer us. 394 97, 767, 109 (per curiam). Arnold North Carolina, 376 773, 84 1032, curiam); Eubanks Louisiana, 356 584, 78 970, 991; Reece 350 85, 87, 76 167, 169, 100 77; 839; Hill 316 400, 404, 406, 62 1159, 1161, 1162, 86 1559; 311 128, 129—130, 61 164, 165, 84; Pierre 306 354, 356—358, 362, 59 536, 537—538, 540, 83 757; Rogers 192 226, 231, 257, 258, 48 417; Carter 177 442, 447, 687, 689, 44 Bush Kentucky, 107 110, 121, 625, 634, 354. Avery 345 559, 73 891, 97 1244; Hollins Oklahoma, 295 394, 55 784, 79 1500 Sims 407—408, 523, 525 526, 634; 599; 377 129, 1152, 190; Patton Mississippi, 332 463, 68 184, 92 76; Hale 303 613, 58 753, 1050 Norris 294 587, 589, 579, 580, 1074; Martin 200 316, 319, 338, 339, 50 497; Neal Delaware, 103 370, 396—397, 567; Strauder West Virginia, 664. Billingsley Clayton, Cir., 359 F.2d 13, (en banc); Jewell Stebbins, 288 600, 604—605; 405—406; 121. Kuhn, Discrimination: Next Phase, 41 S.Cal.L.Rev. 235, 247—249; Note, Congress, Selection: Critique Titles Civil Rights Bill 52 Va.L.Rev. 1069, 1084—1094 (1966). Cf. Carrington Rash, 91, 775, 777, 675; Lassiter Northampton Board Elections, 360 45, 50—51, 985, 989—990, 1072; Pope Williams, 193 621, 632, 573, 575, 817. Compare Duncan 391 1444, 491, Hurtado California, 110 516, 111, 292, 232. Ex parte 346—347, 676; Virginia Rives, 313, 321, 667. 308. 130, 165. recognizing sanction violation: 'No prescribed juror color, condition servitude; whoever, officer summoning excludes summon fined $5,000.' 243. 552, 647. Witcher Peyton, 405 725, 727. Gray Main, 309 224. Brooks Beto, 366 1, (Wisdom, J., concurring result), cert. denied, 386 975, 1169, 135. suits Brown Allen, 344 443, 473, 397, 415, 469 (opinion Reed, announcing judgment); 291, 633 (Frankfurter, 334—335 (Field, 310. 386; Gibson 162 565, 904, 909, 40 1075. reviewing See, e.g., Flynn, 216 (C.A.2d Cir.) (Harlan, J.), 348 75 295, 99 713; Dennis, 183 201, 220 (L. Hand, granted, 340 863, 71 95 630. 474, S.Ct 416 judgment). Ariz.Rev.Stat. Ann. 21—201 (1956); Wis.Stat.Ann. 255.01(1) 1969). Cal.Civ.Proc.Code 198 (1954); Wash.Rev.Code 2.36.070(2) (1956). E.g., Colo.Rev.Stat.Ann. 78—1—1(1) (1963) (21 old); Md.Ann.Code, Art. 51, (1968 Repl.Vol.) (25 years); Hawaii Rev.Stat. 609—1(1) (1968) (20 Neb.Rev.Stat. 1601(1) (1964) R.I.Gen. Laws 9—9—1 (1956) (same). Pa.Stat.Ann., 17, 1322 (1962). Vermont delegated determining administrators. Vt.Stat.Ann., 902 Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. Ark.Stat.Ann. 206 (1962 Repl.Vol.); Conn.Gen.Stat.Rev. 51—217 (1968); Fla.Stat. 40.01(3) (1965), F.S.A.; 609—1(3) Ill.Rev.Stat., c. 78, (1967) ('fair character'); Iowa Code 607.1 (1966); Kan.Stat.Ann. 43—102 (1964); Ky.Rev.Stat. 29.025 (1962) ('temperate, discreet, demeanor)'; Me.Rev.Stat.Ann., 14, 1254 25—1601(1) N.Y. Judiciary Law, McKinney's Consol. Laws, 504(4) 1969); Okla.Stat.Ann., 38, S.C.Code 38—52 1968); Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann., 2133(2) 255.01(5) phrase frequently 'approved integrity.' (1967); (1964). ('sober'); 1968) ('integrity'); Miss.Code 1762—02 (not 'habitual drunkard'); Mo.Ann.Stat. 494.010 1969) (Supp.1969) drunkard); Tenn.Code 22—102 (1955) (same); W.Va.Code 52—1—2 (1966) cf. N.H.Rev.Stat.Ann. 500:29 (disqualification 'vicious habits'); 2.36.110 (1959) ('unfit persons' excused). (Supp.1968); Mont.Rev.Codes 93 1301(2) (1964 Law 596(5) (only cities million population); Wyo.Stat.Ann. 1—77(2) ('sound judgment'); (1965) F.S.A. N.D.Cent.Code 27—09—01 (1960) mind discretion'); Utah 78—46—8(5) (1953) judgment'). education'). 1072—1073 (collecting ref.). 218 161, 640, 54 980. U.S., 167—168, 642. 164. Akins 325 398, 402—403, 1276, 1278—1279, 1692 130—131, (Footnote Hernandez 347 475, 478—479, 74 667, 670—671, 98 866, 284, 630, challenge scheme. earliest ciscrimination selection, consistently distinguished, removability proceeding neutral discriminatorily applied. Murray 163 101, 105—106, 991—992, 87; 592, 900, 903, 1082; 579—586, 906—908; 116, 630; 386—393; 318—323, 310—312. City Greenwood Peacock, 384 808, 827—828, 1800, 1812 1813, 944; Georgia Rachel, 780, 797—804, 1783, 1792—1796, 925. Ala.Pen.Code 1841, X, Such considerations distinguish invalidated vested registrars 'a virtually uncontrolled vote not,' deprive S.Ct., provision, written 'part successful plan vote.' 151, 821, aff'g 225 353, 356, 363—381. Carolina Katzenbach, 383 301, 312 803, 810—811, 769; 131—136, 143—144, 809 812, 816—817, 717; 371 37, 112, per curiam, 304 583, 584—589, 677; Schnell Davis, 336 933, 69 749, 1093, 872, 876, 878—880. 42 se finding view provision's 'vote-abridging effect,' vices cured prohibiting unfair application. 391, aff'd, 820 Davis Schnell, 877. 43 motion quash subpoena served tender fees. Fed. Rule Civ.Proc. 45(c). Moore Henslee, 276 878—879; 208, 829; 403, 1279; 339; 906; 631; 394; 323; Hoyt Florida, 368 57, 59, 69, 159, 166, 118. 45 193. 46 154, 822. 583. 590 591, 145 Of relevance drawn Judge Johnson Middle 123—124: involve issuance prohibitory injunction, immediate emptying box, abandoning use either, compiling refilling strict principles herein forth. remedying wrong, cautioned apply service—particularly qualification relating concerning prospective English—these imposed fairly objectively regardless manner. 'Failure comply immediately faith necessitate master masters recompile empty refill box.' Accord: Pullum Greene, 251, 257; Turner Spencer, 261 542, 544; 409—410. Act 1964, 703, Stat. 255, 2000e—2(a), 255 unlawful employer federally financed project limit, segregate, classify' employees commenting Philadelphia Plan, regulating employment construction jobs, Washington Post stated: 'Quotas understandably abhorrent quota context ceiling. ago, colleges accused discriminating religious minorities admission policies, fixed quotas percentage ratio general ability competitive entrance tests; became maximum students. goals embodied Plan floor, ceiling, maximum; agreement enlarge job opportunities workers, restrict them; conformity spirit Act.' 1970, p. A18. contains economically educationally deprived classes, including untouchables. Article 15(4) provides: 'Nothing article clause making special advancement socially backward Scheduled Castes Tribes.' 1951 object override decision Madras Dorairajan, Rptr. Sup.Ct. make reserve seats Tribes institutions, advancement. 16(4), employment, reservation posts favour which, adequately represented services State.' 'adequate representation' applies lower government positions, levels office. General Manager, S.R. Co. Rangachari, 1962 36. Articles 330 Tribes, tribal areas Assam, House legislative assembly State. 331 nomination Anglo-Indian President People. mentioned above cease viz., January amendment extending national parliament legislatures States. Indian & Foreign Review, 7.

Category: 1