Court Opinion

ID: 9624830
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 07:19:06.359713+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:08:31.848948
License: Public Domain

THOMAS, District Judge
(Special Concurring Opinion).
I concur in the result reached by Judge Rives and Judge Johnson, though for different reasons which I feel are worthy of expression in a separate concurring opinion.
I doubt if any reapportionment plan could stand microscopic inspection. The plaintiffs' plan adopted by this Court on January 3, 1972, certainly could not, nor does Professor Moore’s, but microscopic exactness is not required. It is generally understood that the official census varies from one to three per cent from *224perfection, though it is accepted as the best known method of accomplishing the desired result. It is the Legislature’s responsibility to redistrict the state and only becomes the Court’s responsibility when the Legislature fails in this duty. The Legislature in seeking to present such a plan sought the help of experts in the field. The experts came up with a plan which, though not perfect, I feel meets constitutional acceptability. I would therefore probably have accepted Professor Moore’s plan as it was originally submitted to the Legislature,1 2as being within constitutional limitations. That plan, however, is not the plan which was incorporated in Act No. 3, House Bill 2, passed by the 1973 special session and signed by the Governor on May 15, 1973. The amendments to the Moore Plan which were incorporated in the Bill as it was ultimately passed and signed, have rendered the plan constitutionally defective. These amendments produced a plan which was legislatively gerrymandered to an extent to be racially discriminatory.2 Thus, the defendants’ motion must be denied.
The plaintiff-intervenors urged upon the Court the acceptance of the legislative plan with some refinements being made by the Court in Jefferson and Mobile Counties, suggesting that such would, in the final analysis, produce a better plan than the one adopted by this Court in its decision of January 3, 1972, and affirmed by the Supreme Court on October 24, 1972. Even if such procedure would indeed produce a better plan, I find that approach unacceptable for three reasons:
(a) In our order of April 9, 1973, we were committed to consider only such plan as may be enacted by the Legislature.3
(b) To adopt such course the Court would be guilty of judicial gerrymandering, solely for the purpose of creating predominately black legislative districts.
(c) To adopt such course would set a precedent for future legislatures in reapportioning themselves pursuant to Sections 198, 199, and 200 of the 1901 Constitution of Alabama, in passing constitutionally unacceptable reapportionment plans and relying upon the courts to cure such deficiencies.

. Not the Chenier plan, but the second plan submitted to the Legislature by Professor Moore.

. See last paragraph in majority opinion under Paragraph II, B., page 8.

. “Accordingly, this Court will not accept for consideration any reapportionment plan other than one which has been enacted by the Legislature”.