Court Opinion

ID: 9750465
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-28 14:59:51.877439+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:12.175769
License: Public Domain

EISELE, Chief District Judge,
dissenting.
(Filed March 5, 1990)
If I had voted to approve the plan on February 9, 1990, I would agree to grant the motion for reconsideration and approve the modification requested by the defendants. But, since I find no justification for the supermajority districts mandated by this Court, I cannot agree to the new proposal which increases the black VAP from 61% to 62%. See my dissenting opinions.
FINAL ORDER WITH RESPECT TO THE CLAIM UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
(Filed March 5, 1990)
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge and GEORGE HOWARD, Jr., District Judge.
In accordance with the opinion filed today, it is CONSIDERED, ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED as follows:
1. The motion of James Wilburn, Christine Brownlee, James Walter Adams, Louise Evans, and the Rev. Robert Nelson for leave to file objections to remedial plans and to file alternative remedial plan, or in the alternative, to intervene as parties plaintiff, is denied.
2. The motion of the defendant Bill Clinton for leave to file memorandum of fact and law in support of an alternative remedy plan is granted.
3. Defendants are instructed to adopt, as the plan of apportionment of the Arkansas General Assembly in effect henceforth and until the adoption of a new plan following the 1990 Census, the plan submitted by the Board of Apportionment on January 16, 1990, modified, however, in accordance with plaintiffs’ objections with respect to House District 74 and House District 75, and in accordance with the Board’s plan with respect to Senate District 30 submitted on February 16, 1990.
4. Defendants have filed with this Court, on February 16, 1990, a final plan, including a detailed description of both House and Senate Districts, with maps attached. They subsequently filed corrections — dealing with exact placement of district lines — on February 26, 1990. The corrected plan has been approved as to form by counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for *1204defendants. The signatures of counsel evidencing this approval as to form shall not be construed as a waiver of any objections that have been previously preserved. This final plan carries out the direction contained in paragraph 3 of this order, except for the most recent modification of Senate District 30.
5. Defendants, and each of them, are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from using, giving effect to, or operating under any other plan of apportionment for the Arkansas General Assembly than the one described in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this order, provided, however, that this plan is hereby modified in respect of Senate District 30, in accordance with our opinion filed today.
6. The Court retains jurisdiction for the purpose of entering such other orders, if any, as may be necessary to effectuate this decree.
It is so ordered.
ORDER ON MOTION FOR STAY
(Filed March 5, 1990)
ARNOLD, Circuit Judge, and GEORGE HOWARD, Jr., District Judge.
The motion of defendants for stay pending appeal is denied.
Judge Eisele would grant the motion for stay pending appeal on the basis of the views he has expressed in the various dissenting opinions he has filed in this case.
It is so ordered.