Court Opinion

ID: 9692209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 15:47:17.687464+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:33.171260
License: Public Domain

Kelly, J.
(concurring in part). Plaintiff’s appeal to this Court asking that we “restrain the incorporation of the proposed city of Dearborn Heights, Wayne county, Michigan, for the reason that the creation of such proposed city involves a racial gerrymander designed to exclude Negro citizens, all in contravention of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
In a well prepared opinion reviewing the record, Justice Black has definitely and clearly expressed this Court’s answer to plaintiffs’ claim of a designed “racial gerrymander” as disclosed by the following:
“Here it is shown that the complainants are left to reside and vote as before, that is, in their original village and township. The only change is that the village is now reduced in size by the taking of the corridor only, and the township is reduced in size by the taking of the unincorporated remainder of such township. This leaves intact to plaintiffs the actual village of their residence, the negligible corridor only excepted. Too, it leaves to them their right to vote in future village and township elections.
“Whatever the fact in Alabama, the courts of this State are ever open for the hearing of any citizen who on account of provable racial discrimination says he cannot cross or recross at will, or reside and vote as a resident on either side of, or cannot buy or rent property on the other side of, an ‘impenetrable wall’ made of a city limit or boundary. But up to the present time, for want of proof, plaintiffs’ fears in such regard must be held as doubtfully anticipatory and justiciably premature. * # *
“On the present record it may not be said with any degree of assurance that the incorporation of *61Dearborn Heights will erect or permit a racial ‘wall.’ If any snch ‘wall’ should come to equity’s attention, that will be the time and occasion for action by equity. * * *
“There is no such segregation here in fact, and none so far is threatened in fact distinguished from mere apprehension. No right of constitutional substance has been taken thus far from anyone, no matter the color of his skin. * * *
“The trial chancellor found ‘that the present strip area at the extreme easterly edge of the village of Inkster and proceeding westerly to Beech-Daly road, 3 blocks, being the first uninterrupted right-of-way completely from north to the south parts of the township was the simplest and a practical defined area for effecting contiguity in order to connect the north and south parts of the unincorporated township of Dearborn into a new home-rule city.’ He found further that this ‘was not gerrymandering, but was prompted by a motive that was legitimate and not prompted for the purpose of discriminating against anyone in the village of Inkster.’ Such findings are fully supported.”
The issue submitted has been decided. After laying at rest the accusations of gerrymandering and improper motives, I see no reason why we should be “justiciably premature” and judge the future with apprehension, or prepare for “possible problems.”
I do not agree with my Brother that “the cause be remanded with instruction that an order enter retaining the case on the docket of the circuit court, until further order of this Court.”
I vote to affirm the lower court’s decree, and adopt Justice Black’s decision in re costs and penalties.
Carr, C. J., and Dethmers, J., concurred with Kelly, J.