# Southern Christian Leadership Conference v. Sessions > Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit · June 14, 1995 · 56 F.3d 1281 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935047 ## Case - **Full name:** SOUTHERN CHRISTIAN LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE OF ALABAMA on behalf of its members and on behalf of a state-wide class of black voters Reverend John L. Alford, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Fifteenth Circuit and District of Montgomery County Reverend Abraham Woods, Jr., individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Tenth Circuit and District of Jefferson County Reverend P.H. Lewis, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Thirteenth Circuit and District of Mobile County George W. Grayson, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Twenty-Third Circuit Charles Steele, Jr., individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Sixth Circuit Reverend John Nettles, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Seventh Circuit Pearlean S. Jackson, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Twentieth Circuit Reverend James Milton, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Fifth Circuit Jesse R. Williams, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Fourth Circuit Edwin L. Moss, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Fourth Circuit Luther P. Carmichael, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Fourth Circuit Mary K. Stovall, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Twenty-Sixth Circuit and District of Russell County Arthur L. Sumbry, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Twenty-Sixth Circuit and District of Russell County Albert Turner, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Fourth Circuit J.S. Thomas, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Fourth Circuit and Malcolm R. Newman, individually and on behalf of a class of black voters in the Twentieth Circuit v. Attorney General Jeff SESSIONS Chief Justice Sonny Hornsby Secretary of State Billy Joe Camp Walker Hobbie, Jr., Probate Judge, Montgomery County Mike Bolin, Probate Judge, Jefferson County George Reynolds, Probate Judge, Jefferson County David G. Lightsey, Probate Judge, Bibb County Arthur C. Murray, Probate Judge, Calhoun County Emerson W. Thompson, Probate Judge, Chambers County Phillip W. Jordan, Probate Judge, Cleburne County John W. Jones, Jr., Probate Judge, Dallas County E. Riley Lucas, Probate Judge, Hale County J.T. Harpe, Probate Judge, Henry County Cletus Yomans, Probate Judge, Houston County Alphonso Menefee, Probate Judge, Macon County Frank Riddick, Probate Judge, Madison County W.L. Noonan, Probate Judge, Mobile County Donald R. Cook, Probate Judge, Perry County Mack Diamond, Probate Judge, Randolph County Wallace K. Brown, Probate Judge, Russell County Donald Fox, Probate Judge, Tallapoosa County W. Hardy McCollum, Probate Judge, Tuscaloosa County Jerry Boggan, Probate Judge, Wilcox County - **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit - **Decided:** June 14, 1995 - **Citations:** 56 F.3d 1281; 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 14638 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Concurrence by Edmondson - **Judges:** Anderson, Birch, Black, Cox, Edmondson, Hatchett, Kravitch, Tjoflat - **Cited by:** 54 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935047 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - stating there was no cause to set aside the district court’s finding on the ultimate issue of fact (vote dilution) where the district court “concluded that greater weight should be given to judicial elections and white on black judicial elections, but that it would also consid… - finding that district court properly determined that Dr. Lichtman's analysis was flawed where that analysis failed to consider split preference elections - stating there was no cause to set aside the district court’s finding on the ultimate issue of fact (vote dilution - recognizing, in the judicial context, an important state interest in “linkage,” which preserves accountability by “[l]inking a trial court judge’s territorial jurisdiction and electoral base” ## Opinion text EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge, concurring: I am convinced that today’s result is right legally. But, much of what is said in today’s court opinion seems unnecessary to decide this case and may hide the main point. The main point here is the same idea that I, in my concurring opinion, stressed as the holding in Nipper v. Smith, 39 F.3d 1494 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1795 , 131 L.Ed.2d 723 (1995): “each of the remedies discussed is precluded given the State’s interest in and right to formulate its own judicial system.” Id. at 1547 (Edmondson, J. concurring). *1298 Let me say briefly the way I understand the law. The Voting Rights Act covers judicial elections. But, Alabama as a matter of law has the right — a right is an extremely weighty interest — to structure its judicial branch pretty much as Alabama thinks best. That structure now (and for a considerable time) involves at-large elections of trial judges from the jurisdictions they serve. This approach is neither irrational nor, in this country, rare. And, no evidence in this case shows that either the structure of the judicial system as a whole or specific judicial boundaries were drawn up to discriminate against any Alabama citizen on account of race. None of the judicial districts are unusual or strange. Cf. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 340-42 , 81 S.Ct. 125, 127 , 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960) (involving “uncouth” election district); noted in, Houston Lawyers’ Ass’n v. Attorney General, 501 U.S. 419, 426-28 , 111 S.Ct. 2376, 2381 , 115 L.Ed.2d 379 (1991). These few facts have great legal force. With a single stroke, they strike, in favor of Alabama, the balance of the circumstances. For me, they end this matter, sweeping the field and beating down the notion that a federal court might correctly impose some kind of restructuring “remedy” in this case. These facts, as I understand the law, also allow us to keep clear of certain lines of investigation in cases such as this one. No need exists to look at winners and losers of past elections or to speculate about why particular judicial candidates won and others lost. Most important, no need (and I think no rightful, federal judicial power) exists to compare the strength and weaknesses — as a matter of political science — of Alabama’s current system of electing trial judges with the system for which plaintiffs contend. Even if in a head-to-head comparison plaintiffs’ proposed system were “better” (that is, the wiser choice — -in terms of good government or political science practice and theory) than Alabama’s present system, federal courts could not properly compel Alabama to change, given the circumstances of this case. The basic structure of Alabama’s judicial branch of government, including the shape of its judicial jurisdictions and the manner of selecting trial judges, is in the hands of Alabama’s people. And, no evidence in this case shows that, in Alabama today, black people or anyone else is obstructed on account of race from voting or otherwise working politically, to change the structure. --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/6935047. Public record. Not legal advice.