Court Opinion

ID: 9450052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 16:33:35.267376+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:32:07.711727
License: Public Domain

RIVES, Circuit Judge
(concurring specially):
The Government properly concedes that:
“The statute [42 U.S.C. 1971(b)] essentially requires proof of two ultimate facts: (1) that there was an intimidation, threat, or coercion, or an attempt to intimidate, threaten, or coerce, and (2) that the intimidation was for the purpose of interfering with the right to vote.”
Ultimate fact (1) is, I think, established by the undisputed testimony to the effect that at least one of the reasons why Mrs. Talbert was not re-employed was her involvement in the Government’s voting suit.1 I agree with the majority, *47however, that the finding of the district court2 that the Government failed to meet its burden of proving ultimate fact (2) is not clearly erroneous. For that reason I concur in affirming the judgement of dismissal.

. Superintendent Martin testified (R. 408) :
“Q. But there was nothing about Mrs. *47Talbert’s performance of her duties that caused you not to recommend her?
“A. It was lack of cooperation in the things that I have mentioned, plus the fact that she was involved in litigation which was not conducive to good work from her nor good for getting the best from the school nor good for the relations among the teachers. It was a controversial matter.”

. The district court found that the Government had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (R. 612) :
“ * * * that either of the defendants, in not rehiring her, did so with any intent or purpose to intimidate, threaten or coerce or create any apprehension in the mind of any negro about registering and/or voting in his county * *