Court Opinion

ID: 9634184
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 12:57:01.255897+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:08.620265
License: Public Domain

HOBBS, District Judge:
Plaintiffs brought this class action on behalf of themselves and all other black citizens of the State of Alabama on November 5, 1981, contending that the legislation directed toward reapportionment of the Alabama Legislature (Act No. 81-1049) violated the rights of black citizens under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution of the *236United States and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 and 1983. Plaintiffs also, charged that said reapportionment legislation impermissibly created large population variances in both legislative houses which - are inconsistent with the equal protection requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and also is violative of the Alabama constitutional requirement that requires preservation of county boundaries. Plaintiffs sought an injunction enjoining the defendants, the Probate Judge of Montgomery County, Alabama, and the Secretary of State of Alabama, from holding, supervising or certifying the candidates or results of any election for the House of Representatives or Senate of the Alabama Legislature under the reapportionment plan provided by said Act No. 81-1049. Plaintiffs also prayed that this Court would allow the Alabama Legislature a reasonable opportunity to enact a fair and racially non-discriminatory reapportionment plan subject to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 1973), and the approval of this Court. Alternatively, plaintiffs prayed that if the Alabama Legislature failed to enact such a reapportionment plan, this Court would order the implementation of a reapportionment plan for the legislative elections in September and November, 1982.
A three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). Jurisdiction of this Court was properly invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(3) and 1343(4) for violations of the United States Constitution and Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On May 21, 1982, the Court certified plaintiffs as proper representatives of the plaintiff class and defendant Walker Hobbie, Jr. as a proper representative of defendant class and ordered the case to proceed as a class action. Proceedings Relative to Legislative Efforts to Reapportion
On May 6, 1982, the Attorney General of the United States entered an objection to Act No. 81-1049 under the authority granted him by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, thereby rendering said Act unenforceable unless court review pursuant to said Act by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reversed the decision of the Attorney General.
On May 10, 1982, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint pointing out the action of the Attorney General relative to Act No. 81- 1049, and plaintiffs also petitioned for an emergency preliminary injunction, alleging that the objections of the Attorney General made it impossible to get a legislative reapportionment plan approved by the Attorney General in time for the legislative elections which have as their qualifying dates June 5 to July 9, 1982, with primary elections set for September 7, 1982.
This Court set a hearing on May 14,1982. At that hearing defendants’ attorneys advised the Court that they would seek an emergency session of the Alabama Legislature to secure passage of a new reapportionment plan which defendants would hope would meet the objections of the Attorney General. Following that hearing, this Court issued its order of May 21, 1982. This order directed plaintiffs to file their suggested interim reapportionment plan by May 21,1982, and defendants were directed to file their amended suggested plan by June 4,1982. By this Court’s order, defendants were given to June 8, 1982 to obtain preclearance by the Attorney General of an amended legislative plan.
Because plaintiffs’ redistricting plan was not filed with the Court on May 21, 1982, defendants were allowed additional time to file objections to plaintiffs’ plan. Plaintiffs filed an Amended Plan A on June 4, 1982 and also filed a “Suggested Plan B” on that date. Defendants objected to consideration of these plans because defendants did not have the time to study adequately these plans.
On June 1,1982, the Alabama Legislature enacted a second redistricting bill, Act No. 82- 629, which defendants contend meets the objections of the Attorney General. Even before its enactment, the bill was submitted to the Attorney General. On May 25, the Assistant Attorney General of the United States wrote the Attorney General of Alabama that the proposed modifi*237cations appear for the most part to address the May 6, 1982 objection. The letter of May 25 pointed out, however, the lack of opportunity for detailed analysis or informed public comment. The letter also commented that if the proposed legislation is enacted, the Attorney General would need further examination of redistricting in seven counties. After the proposed legislation was enacted by the Alabama Legislature, it was again submitted to the Attorney General. The Assistant Attorney General of the United States on June 8 gave his response to Act No. 82-629, stating that the Attorney General of the United States is not able to conclude in the limited time available that the enactment meets all of the concerns of the Attorney General as to six “Black Belt” districts and one Jefferson County district. In these circumstances, he wrote: “. . . our evaluation of your submission cannot be favorably completed at this time.” The letter continued that in all other respects than with the enumerated seven counties, the redistricting in Act No. 82-629 meets standards of the Voting Rights Act.
At a second hearing on June 14, 1982, all parties agreed that the Court must act within the next week if the scheduled elections can go forward at the times presently set for such elections. The parties agreed that any plan of redistricting adopted by the Court should be an interim plan. They also agreed that it would take this Court a week or more after it got the necessary data to make changes in the seven counties which would accord with plaintiffs’ treatment of these counties in plaintiffs’ Plan B. They conceded that because of the “ripple” effect of changing district lines within the Black Belt counties, the Court would probably have to change district lines in approximately thirty other counties. No one believed this could be done and adhere to the election schedule. Defendants urge as an interim solution the implementation of Act No. 82-629. Plaintiffs urge the adoption of plaintiffs’ Plan B.
At the request of the Court, the parties on June 17, 1982, provided the Court with suggested modifications in the redistricting provided in Act No. 82-629 to meet the suspected concerns of the Attorney General as to the uncleared six Black Belt counties and District 36 in Jefferson County. The modification provided by defendants had the effect of reducing the number of said Black Belt counties which would be split, but it also had the effect of reducing the number of “safe” black districts; i.e., those with a black majority population of sixty-five per cent, from 2 to 1. In the opinion of this Court, defendants’ proposed modification would not address the Attorney General’s concerns in a way that would be constructive.
Plaintiffs’ proposed modification of the legislative redistricting in the six Black Belt counties had a ripple effect in twenty-six counties beyond the six Black Belt counties. These twenty-six counties were ones where the Attorney General had found no unfavorable impact on black voters. Moreover, defendants urge that in some of the twenty-six counties, plaintiffs’ proposed modification would create problems which Act No. 82-629 had addressed and solved to the satisfaction of the Attorney General.1 This Court is unwilling to impose a modification on the legislative plan which does not have the effect of solving any dilution problem in the Black Belt counties and which would require the Court to ignore the approved legislative enactment in some twenty-six counties. If the Attorney General has been unable to form a judgment as to the impact of the legislative redistricting plan after the period of time that he had to study the two legislative plans, it is understandable that this Court is unable in the time available to it to form a judgment as to the impact of plaintiffs’ proposed modification in some twenty-six counties plus the six Black Belt counties.
Plaintiffs have also proposed a modification in Jefferson County to meet the sus*238peeted concern of the Attorney General as to District 36. This modification addresses such a concern by making more compact Districts 36, 44 and 32, in an apparent effort to answer the Attorney General’s expressed concern that Act No. 82-629 caused “the fragmentation of predominantly black communities.”
Defendants presented no proposed modification with respect to Jefferson County, District 36.
This Court is of the opinion that plaintiffs’ proposed modification in Jefferson County would be an appropriate response to the Attorney General’s concerns as to the fragmenting of black communities in District 36; therefore, the choice for the Court is the legislative plan as modified by plaintiffs’ proposal in Jefferson County or plaintiffs’ proposed Plan B. The modifications in Jefferson County are attached hereto as APPENDIX A.

Arguments of Parties

The primary contention of defendants has always been that Act No. 82-629 should be implemented without modification on an interim basis. Plaintiffs’ primary contention is that their Plan B should be implemented without modification on an interim basis.
Plaintiffs urge that Plan B is preferable to the legislative plan because it respects county lines to a far greater degree than the legislative plan, and the Alabama Constitution requires respect for county lines in redistricting where county lines do not have to yield to the equal protection requirement or other requirements of the United States Constitution.
Defendants urge that Plan B was not unveiled until June 4 or 5,1982. They have not had an opportunity to study it. Defendants urge that the formulation of the legislative plan took months with corrections in the initial legislation resulting in Act No. 82-629, after inspection by many groups, including weeks of study by, and input from, the Attorney General. Defendants point out that the Attorney General has found no unfavorable impact on black voters in sixty of sixty-seven counties and has only declined to approve or disapprove the final redistricting in the remaining seven counties because a week or more is insufficient time for him to reach a conclusion. Defendants urge that if this Court, without any study of plaintiffs’ Plan B by any group other than plaintiffs, scrap the work of months by many groups, including the work of the Alabama Legislature and the Attorney General of the United States, and substitute plaintiffs’ untested and uninspected plan, it would violate the directions of the Supreme Court of the United States and the treatment of such cases by other three-judge courts in the Fifth Circuit.

Applicable Law

The Supreme Court has made it clear that “reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination.” White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 795, 93 S.Ct. 2348, 2354, 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973); Upham v. Seamon,-U.S.-, 102 S.Ct. 1518, 71 L.Ed.2d 725 (1982). In Weiser, the Supreme Court reversed the district court because “in choosing between two possible court-ordered plans, it failed to choose that plan which most closely approximated the state proposed plan.” 412 U.S. at p. 797, 93 S.Ct. at p. 2355.
In Upham, the Supreme Court reversed the district court because it substituted its own plan for a legislative reapportionment plan which had been partially precleared by the Attorney General. The Upham court wrote:
“Whenever a District Court is faced with entering an interim reapportionment order that will allow elections to go forward it is faced with the problem of ‘reconciling the requirements of the Constitution with the goals of state political policy.’ Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. [407] at 414, 97 S.Ct. [1828] at 1833 [52 L.Ed.2d 465], An appropriate reconciliation of these two goals can only be reached if the District Court’s modifications of a state plan are limited to those necessary to cure any constitutional or statutory defect. Thus, in the absence of a finding that the Dallas reapportionment plan offended either the Constitution or the Vot*239ing Rights Act, the District Court was not free, and certainly was not required, to disregard the political program of the Texas State Legislature.” 102 S.Ct. at 1522.
In Terrazas v. Clements, 537 F.Supp. 514 (N.D.Tex.1982), a three-judge court heard a challenge to the Texas legislative redistricting. The Texas redistricting was objected to by the Attorney General. The three-judge court nevertheless ordered implementation of the Texas legislative plan on an interim basis on the ground that there was insufficient time to do otherwise in view of the impending election. In the instant case, we are not even confronted with an Attorney General objection to the legislative plan — merely an inability to express a judgment because of insufficient time as to the districting in seven of sixty-seven counties.
The Supreme Court has authorized elections to be held
“... that do not in all respects measure up to the legal requirements, even constitutional requirements. See, e.g., Bullock v. Weiser, 404 U.S. 1065, 92 S.Ct. 750, 30 L.Ed.2d 752 (1972); Whitcomb v. Chavis, 396 U.S. 1055, 90 S.Ct. 748, 24 L.Ed.2d 757 (1970). Necessity has been the motivating factor in these situations.” Upham v. Seamon, 102 S.Ct. at 1522.
Because of severe time restraints, as to the primary contentions of the parties, this Court has a choice of implementing on an interim basis the legislative plan which has been evolving over months or plaintiffs’ Plan B which has not been adequately studied or evaluated other than by plaintiffs.

Conclusion

All parties agree that due to substantial population shifts the existing legislative districts must be altered in order to comply with the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution. It is conceded that there are as many “safe” black districts under Act No. 82-629 as under the 1972 court-ordered redistricting. The Court is also of the opinion that the Legislature has made an effort to stay within the constitutional requirements of the equal protection clause, “one man, one vote.” The main objection of plaintiffs is that the Legislature impermissibly disregarded county lines in the redistricting of Act No. 82-629.
Consistent with Upham v. Seamon, supra; White v. Weiser, supra; and Terrazas v. Clements, supra, this Court is of the opinion that it is obligated to order the implementation on an interim basis of the redistricting of the Legislature as prescribed in Act No. 82-629 with the exception of the modification in Jefferson County. In the event the Attorney General files an objection to the legislative redistricting indicating an objection to Act No. 82-629 different than this Court’s modification in Jefferson County, and the defendants do not successfully avail themselves of their right to appeal such decision as prescribed in the Voting Rights Act, and if the Alabama Legislature fails at its next session of the Legislature to adopt a redistricting plan which will be approved by the Attorney General of the United States pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, this Court will formulate a court redistricting plan.
This Court does not imply by its decision implementing Act No. 82-629, with the modification heretofore noted, on an interim basis, that it has rejected plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge under the Alabama Constitution that the Act has ignored county lines. Nor has it rejected plaintiffs’ challenge that said Act has impermissibly allowed a greater deviation in population among districts than is consistent with the United States Constitution. These challenges will be addressed before a final redistricting plan is implemented or approved by this Court, but only after the Attorney General has completed his review as mandated by the Voting Rights Act, after the parties have developed a record adequate to present these issues, and after the Court has been allowed sufficient time to reach an informed opinion. An order will enter accordingly.
APPENDIX A
HOUSE DISTRICT 44 SHALL CONSIST OF:
In Jefferson County:
*240Birmingham Division
Tract 0009
Block Groups 1, 2, 3 & 5
Tract 0014
Block Groups 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7
Tract 0015
Tract 0016
Tract 0025
Tract 2601
Tract 2602
Tract 0027
Tract 2801
Tract 0044
Tract 0045
Tract 0046
Tract 4701
Tract 4703
Tract 0049
Block Groups 1 & 4
HOUSE DISTRICT 36 SHALL CONSIST OF:
In Jefferson County:
Birmingham Division
Tract 0001
Tract 0003
Block Groups 2, 3 & 4
Tract 0005
Block Group 3
Blocks 307, 311 & 319
Block Groups 4, 5 & 6
Tract 0006
Tract 0017
Tract 1801
Tract 1802
Tract 1901
Tract 0020
Tract 0021, except
Block Groups 1, 2 & 3
Tract 0022
Tract 2303
Tract 2304
Tract 2305
Tract 0024
Tract 5301, except
Block Group 5
Tract 11903
Block Group 2
Block Group 3
Blocks 303-310, 313, 314, 316, 324, 325, 343, 343, 344, 346 & 347
Block Group 5
Tract 0022 (Irondale City)
Tract 0020 (Remainder of Birmingham Division)
Tract 0022 (Remainder of Birmingham Division)
HOUSE DISTRICT 32 SHALL CONSIST OF:
In Jefferson County:
Birmingham Division
Tract 002306
Tract 004702
Tract 0048
Tract 0049, except
Block Groups 1 & 4
Tract 0050
Blocks 201, 202 & 203
Tract 21
Block Groups 1, 2 & 3
Tract 005301
Block Group 5
Tract 005302
Tract 0056 (Birmingham City)
Tract 005903
Blocks 414, 415, 421 & 425
Tract 012601
Tract 0056 (Irondale City)
Tract 012602
Tract 0056 (Mountain Brook City)
Tract 010801 (Mountain Brook City)
Tract 21 (Remainder of Birmingham Division)
Block Group 1
Tract 0049 (Remainder of Birmingham Division)
Tract 005302 (Remainder of Birmingham Division)
Block Group 1
Tract 005903 (Remainder of Birmingham Division)
Blocks 425 & 426
Tract 012602 (Remainder of Birmingham Division)

. For example, defendants contend that the Attorney General was concerned about maintaining “influence” districts; i.e., districts where the black population is at least twenty-five per cent, as well as maintaining “safe” districts.