Court Opinion

ID: 9679058
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:39:32.94157+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:09.892938
License: Public Domain

EISELE, Senior District Judge,
concurring.
While I do not believe that this Court has jurisdiction of this matter and further believe that these plaintiffs should be es-topped from asserting, as the principal basis of their present claims, a theory of black majorities that is contrary to that asserted by them in their 1989 attack on the 1981 redistricting, I nevertheless concur with my brothers on the narrow issue reserved by the majority of this Court in its March 20, 1992, order. That issue is whether the challenges made by the plaintiffs represented by Mr. Simes to the 1991 Plan for districts in Eastern Arkansas are barred by a settlement agreement. The defendants contend that the 1991 Plan is the result of a settlement agreement between the parties which would bind all of the named plaintiffs to that Plan. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this issue should be denied.
I continue to reserve my right to state at a later time my views on these and related issues.