United States v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'n, 850 F.2d 1430 (11th Cir. 1988). · Go Syfert
Search
United States v. Dallas Cnty. Comm'n, 850 F.2d 1430 (11th Cir. 1988). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
44 citation events across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Wilson v. Jones (alsd, 1999-03-29)
Treatment trajectory · 1988 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1988 2007 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 15 distinct citers. How cited ↗
examined Cited as authority (rule) Wilson v. Jones (5×)
S.D. Ala. · 1999 · confidence medium
See, United States v. Dallas County Commission, 548 F.Supp. 875, 877-914 (S.D.Ala.1982), aff'd in part, rev’d in part, vacated and remanded, 739 F.2d 1529, 1535-41 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Dallas County Commission, 636 F.Supp. 704, 705-709 (S.D.Ala.1986); United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1430, 1432 (11th Cir.1988) and 850 F.2d 1433, 1434-42 (11th Cir.1988).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Jones
11th Cir. · 1997 · confidence medium
The district court was instructed to direct the Dallas County Commission to create a single-member fifth “swing district” consisting of a black population of at least 61.3 %. 2 United States v. Dallas County Comm’n, 850 F.2d 1430, 1432 (11th Cir.1988) (citing United States v. Dallas County Comm’n, 850 F.2d 1433, 1440-42 (11th Cir.1988)).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Dillard v. City of Foley
M.D. Ala. · 1996 · confidence medium
On another side is the legal principle of federal-state comity, which re *1067 quires the court to defer to state policy judgments and to modify state law “only to the extent necessary to cure statutory or constitutional defects,” Dallas County Comm’n, 850 F.2d at 1432.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nipper v. Smith
11th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
This court has recognized that "the surest indication of race-conscious politics is a pattern of racially polarized voting." Marengo, 731 F.2d at 1567 ; United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1430, 1439 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 , 109 S.Ct. 1768 , 104 L.Ed.2d 203 (1989) (same); see also Meek, 985 F.2d at 1488 (relying heavily upon evidence of racially and ethnically polarized voting in upholding district court's finding that racial bias substantially motivates voting behavior).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nipper v. Smith
11th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
This court has recognized that “the surest indication of race-conscious politics is a pattern of racially polarized voting.” Marengo, 731 F.2d at 1567 ; United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1430, 1439 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 , 109 S.Ct. 1768 , 104 L.Ed.2d 203 (1989) (same); see also Meek, 985 F.2d at 1488 (relying heavily upon evidence of racially and ethnically polarized voting in upholding district court’s finding that racial bias substantially motivates voting behavior).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dallas County Commission
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
DISCUSSION The portion of our order at issue states that “[t]he case is remanded to the district court for the sole purpose of directing the members of the Dallas County Commission to conduct elections ... pursuant to the Lichtman plan ... and in accordance with applicable state and local law during a primary election to be hereafter scheduled and the general election to be held.” Dallas County, 850 F.2d at 1432 (emphasis added).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) United States v. Dallas County Commission
11th Cir. · 1990 · confidence medium
DISCUSSION 6 The portion of our order at issue states that "[t]he case is remanded to the district court for the sole purpose of directing the members of the Dallas County Commission to conduct elections ... pursuant to the Lichtman plan ... and in accordance with applicable state and local law during a primary election to be hereafter scheduled and the general election to be held." Dallas County, 850 F.2d at 1432 (emphasis added). 7 Act No. 328, Section 6, Local Acts of Alabama, 1901 (Act No. 328) established the Dallas County Commission and requires, in part, "[t]hat all ... members shall be…
discussed Cited "see" Dean Butch Wilson v. John W. Jones, Jr. (2×)
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Dallas County Comm'n, 850 F.2d 1430 , 1432 (11th Cir.1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 , 109 S.Ct. 1768 , 104 L.Ed.2d 203 (1989).
cited Cited "see" Dean Butch Wilson v. John W. Jones, Jr.
11th Cir. · 2000 · signal: see · confidence high
See United States v. Dallas County Comm’n, 850 F.2d 1430 , 1432 (11th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 , 109 S.Ct. 1768 , 104 L.Ed.2d 203 (1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nipper v. Smith
11th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
We submit, however, that the burden allocation detailed above strikes the appropriate balance, such that plaintiffs to make out a case of vote dilution are not required to prove the negative; rather, proof of the second and third Gingles factors will ordinarily create a sufficient inference that racial bias is at work. 64 In many cases, “[t]he surest indica tion of race-conscious politics is a pattern of racially polarized voting.” United States v. Marengo County Comm’n, 731 F.2d 1546, 1567 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 976 , 105 S.Ct. 375 , 83 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984); see also United S…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Nipper v. Smith
11th Cir. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
We submit, however, that the burden allocation detailed above strikes the appropriate balance, such that plaintiffs to make out a case of vote dilution are not required to prove the negative; rather, proof of the second and third Gingles factors will ordinarily create a sufficient inference that racial bias is at work. 64 In many cases, "[t]he surest indication of race-conscious politics is a pattern of racially polarized voting." United States v. Marengo County Comm'n, 731 F.2d 1546, 1567 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 976 , 105 S.Ct. 375 , 83 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984); see also United States v…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Meek v. Metropolitan Dade County
11th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See United States v. Marengo County Commission, 731 F.2d 1546, 1567 (11th Cir.) (recognizing that "the surest indication of race-conscious politics is a pattern of racially polarized voting"), cert. denied, Y469 U.S. 976, 105 S.Ct. 375 , 83 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984); see also United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1430, 1439 (11th Cir.1988). cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 , 109 S.Ct. 1768 , 104 L.Ed.2d 203 (1989) (same). 64 Based on the evidence of racial bloc voting, the presence of Senate Report factors, "keen hostility" between blacks and hispanics, and the use of overt and subtle racial…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Meek v. Metropolitan Dade County
11th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence medium
See United States v. Marengo County Commission, 731 F.2d 1546, 1567 (11th Cir.) (recognizing that “the surest indication of race-conscious politics is a pattern of racially polarized voting”), cert. de nied, 469 U.S. 976 , 105 S.Ct. 375 , 83 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984); see also United States v. Dallas County Commission, 850 F.2d 1430, 1439 (11th Cir.1988). cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 , 109 S.Ct. 1768 , 104 L.Ed.2d 203 (1989) (same).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434, and Jessie Oliver, Intervening v. William P. Clements, Etc., Jim Mattox v. Judge F. Harold Entz, Etc., Judge Sharolyn Wood, Etc., and George S. Bayoud, Jr., Etc., and Tom Rickhoff, Susan D. Reed, John J. Specia, Jr., Sid L. Harle, Sharon MacRae and Michael P. Pedan, Bexar County, Texas State District Judges
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 40-42 , 102 S.Ct. 1518, 1520-1521 , 71 L.Ed.2d 725 (1982); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 795 , 93 S.Ct. 2348, 2355 , 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973); see also United States v. Dallas County Comm'n, 850 F.2d 1430 , 1432 (11th Cir.1988) ("[W]hen devising election plans, federal courts should defer to state legislative policy and modify the state's plan only to the extent necessary to cure statutory or constitutional defects."), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 , 109 S.Ct. 1768 , 104 L.Ed.2d 203 (1989).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." League of United Latin American Citizens, Council No. 4434 v. Clements
5th Cir. · 1993 · signal: see also · confidence low
See Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 40-42 , 102 S.Ct. 1518, 1520-1521 , 71 L.Ed.2d 725 (1982); White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 795 , 93 S.Ct. 2348, 2355 , 37 L.Ed.2d 335 (1973); see also United States v. Dallas County Comm'n, 850 F.2d 1430 , 1432 (11th Cir.1988) ("[W]hen devising election plans, federal courts should defer to state legislative policy and modify the state's plan only to the extent necessary to cure statutory or constitutional defects."), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 , 109 S.Ct. 1768 , 104 L.Ed.2d 203 (1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States of America, Samson Crum, Sr., Edwin Moss, Frederick D. Reese, Clarence Williams, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated, Movants-Appellants
v.
Dallas County Commission, Dallas County, Ala. Jones, John W., Jr., Chairman Deans E. Barber, Jr., William H. Kendrick, C. Stanley Baldwin, James S. Wilkinson, Members, Earl Goodwin, Chairman of the Dallas County Democratic Executive Committee and John J. Grimes, Chairman of the Dallas County Republican Executive Committee, Dallas County Board of Education
87-7459.
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.
Jul 13, 1988.
850 F.2d 1430
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

850 F.2d 1430

47 Ed. Law Rep. 854

UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant,
Samson Crum, Sr., Edwin Moss, Frederick D. Reese, Clarence
Williams, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated, Movants-Appellants,
v.
DALLAS COUNTY COMMISSION, DALLAS COUNTY, ALA.; Jones, John
W., Jr., Chairman; Deans E. Barber, Jr., William H.
Kendrick, C. Stanley Baldwin, James S. Wilkinson, Members,
Earl Goodwin, Chairman of the Dallas County Democratic
Executive Committee and John J. Grimes, Chairman of the
Dallas County Republican Executive Committee, Defendants-Appellees,
Dallas County Board of Education, et al., Defendants.

No. 87-7459.

United States Court of Appeals,
Eleventh Circuit.

July 13, 1988.
Rehearing and Rehearing In Banc Denied July 13, 1988.

Marie Klimesz McElderry, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Jessica Dunsay Silver, Wm. Bradford Reynolds, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Rights Div., Washington, D.C. for U.S.

Larry T. Menefee, James U. Blacksher, Birmingham, Ala., Neil Bradley, American Civil Liberties Union, Laughlin McDonald, Atlanta, Ga., for intervenors-appellants Crum, Moss, Reese, William, et al.

John E. Pilcher, Pilcher & Pilcher, P.C., Selma, Ala., for Dallas Co. Bd. of Educ., Grimes, Martin, Bozeman, Ralston and Bradford.

Cartledge W. Blackwell, Jr., Blackwell & Keith, Selma, Ala., J. Garrison Thompson, Pitts, Pitts & Thompson, Selma, Ala., for Dallas Co. Comm., Dallas Co., Ala., Jones, Barber, Kendrick, Baldwin and Wilkinson.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama.

Before HILL and HATCHETT, Circuit Judges, and GIBSON[*], Senior Circuit Judge.

HATCHETT, Circuit Judge:

[*~1430]1

This appeal is a companion case to United States v. Dallas County Commission, No. 87-7766, 850 F.2d 1433 (11th Cir.1988). In No. 87-7766, we held that the district court's remedial plan for election of members to the Dallas County Board of Education does not comply with section 2 et seq. of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973 et seq.

2

In this appeal, the sole question presented is whether a similar election plan adopted by the district court with respect to the Dallas County Commission, is likewise infirm under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. See United States v. Dallas County Commission, 671 F.Supp. 1337, 1339-40 (S.D.Ala.1987).

3

The Dallas County Commission was created by Act No. 328 of the Alabama Legislature of 1900-1901. The Act provided for four commissioners to be elected at-large from residency districts and for the county probate judge, also elected at-large, to serve as ex-officio chairman of the Commission. The probate judge's sole duty as ex-officio chairman is to preside over the Commission's meetings and to cast a vote in the event of a tie. The probate judge is elected to a six-year term, while the other four members of the Commission are elected to concurrent, four-year terms.

4

The government objects to the district court's election plan on the ground that inclusion of the probate judge as a voting member of the Commission, to be elected at-large, does not fully cure the section 2 violation we previously declared. See United States v. Dallas County Commission, 636 F.Supp. 704 (S.D.Ala.1986) (holding that the at-large election scheme utilized in election of members to the County Commission violates section 2).[1] The government contends that a single-member district plan containing a fifth swing district in lieu of the probate judge's at-large seat would provide an adequate remedy for the section 2 violation. The county contends that the district court's plan is consistent with longstanding policy in Dallas County favoring a countywide election of the probate judge, and hence should not be disturbed by this court, in the absence of statutory or constitutional infirmities.

[*~1431]5

We agree with the county that when devising election plans, federal courts should defer to state legislative policy and modify the state's plan only to the extent necessary to cure statutory or constitutional defects. Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 41-43, 102 S.Ct. 1518, 1521-1522, 71 L.Ed.2d 725 (1982); Edge v. Sumter County School District, 775 F.2d 1509, 1512 (11th Cir.1985). This rule does not obtain, however, in this case where we have already determined that the court-drawn election plan does not fully cure the infirmities which caused the district court in the first instance to declare the county's at-large electoral system violative of section 2. United States v. Dallas County Commission, No. 87-7766, 850 F.2d 1433 (11th Cir.1988).

6

Accordingly, for the reasons expressed in No. 87-7766, the remedial plan drawn by the district court for election of members to the Dallas County Commission does not comply with section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1973. The district court's order adopting an election plan, pursuant to which the county is divided into two predominantly black and two predominantly white single-member districts, with the probate judge, to be elected at-large, serving as chairman ex-officio of the Commission, is VACATED. The case is remanded to the district court for the sole purpose of directing the members of the Dallas County Commission to conduct elections for the members of the County Commission pursuant to the Lichtman plan adopted by this court in No. 87-7766 and in accordance with applicable state and local law during a primary election to be hereafter scheduled and the general election to be held in November, 1988. The order of this court granting the government's motion for a stay pending appeal of the elections for the Dallas County Commission scheduled for June 7, 1988, and also tolling the qualification period for candidates, is hereby VACATED. The district court shall comply with the mandate of this court in an expeditious manner.[2]

7

REVERSED, VACATED, AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

HILL, Circuit Judge, concurring specially:

8

I concur in the judgment for the reasons stated in my special concurrence filed today in the case of 87-7766--United States of America v. Dallas County Board of Education, et al, 850 F.2d 1433.

9

FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, dissenting:

[*~1432]10

I respectfully dissent for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion filed today in the case of 87-7766--United States of America v. Dallas County Board of Education, et al, 850 F.2d 1433.

*

Honorable Floyd R. Gibson, Senior U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation

1

The government urges, and we agree, that the at-large election of the probate judge is permissible under the Voting Rights Act with respect to the judicial aspects of that office. See Butts v. City of New York, 779 F.2d 141, 148 (2d Cir.1985), cert. denied, 478 U.S. 1021, 106 S.Ct. 3335, 92 L.Ed.2d 740 (1986)

2

The court is aware that its adoption of a five single-member district plan results in the creation of an additional elected official