Jurisdictional Statement — Tancil v. Woolls

aff

ae | : | Mthice Supreme Court, U.S. .

: i * on _* & : 86 FILED

paver” of . No- 8 -AUG°14 Lae oF

* ) ne ee

. as | LJOHNF, DAVIS, CLERK |

IN THE Os . re

a |

Supreme Court of the Auited States

OcroBeR TERM, 1964 ‘.

ns ‘ .

(in. abys. Quaxpen Taxgu and BARBARA -FACKSON

Pia ILIIAMS, ippellants -

; _— .

P v. -

Winniam P. Woorts and Fraxkun 0. Backus, Judges ee

of the Corporation Court of the: City of Alexan- 3

dria. Virginia, uppelees ie i

On haowe from the United States District Court © “3

-for the Eastern District of Virginia

~

«

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

ALLiso’ W. brows, Jr.

Suite 75 - .

1OOG Connectreut Avenue, No W.

Washington 6. DO,

“Orro LL. PeeKken

1 Princess Street

Alexandrin, “Virginfa

Alforneys for Appellants

-°@ Press or Byron S. ADAMS, Wasninetox, D C

eye, = °

2

_ INDEXs

| Get es Page

+ ATED sJuacknactesnbawachunxendsanacnans Te

— Jurisdiction .......... Leng eines Deinetcads esas 2.

Question presented ........ ebigipew weer be eeeeee es

Statutes BNE Drsroi ainsi skacxsketianneeeane. 2

Statement ........... ore eibcawas RO re oe 3

: Argument Liwaee aa ceeetabennsseees i carbeeidcen yaks | «6

7 ay p ; © . <

eee a

Cases: _ : 3

Anderson v. Martin, 375 US 5 AS Peery rer 2,9

Bates v: Little Rock, 361 U. SRA keyee fete ci cs : 9

Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 .......... 8

Goss v. Board of Education, 373.U.S. 683 2..-....8.. 6

Hamilton v.. Alabama, 376 U.S. 650 ................ 8

‘ Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61 2.0.2.2... eee. S

N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357° U. S.449 9

Steele v. Lasinw ille and Nashvil ille R. Co., 323 U.S. 192 6°

CONSTITUTIONS:

. United States :

Fourteenth | Amendment rua ade’ besecs Pe ae .2,4,9

Virginia :

SES Mc wc danesohiachweaskadueka pawastusks re

_ Sratutes: . es

——-United States Code : | |

Title 28; See. 1253 ...:..... iuuedaseuid hicaeeaes 2

Sec.- 1343(3) eee eer Seer ree ere eT a Perr ss ses 2:

ee NR oc ccues sannaces ERR POR rae

MIE a 004 (i euekvsawcdicnsacnanen ele

ii’ f es Index Continned

Ry | Page

EE ee OEY ec TRS ek 2

A Nu iwcandes ocktas ia ccesinn bse ee

Virginia Code (1950)

i reek (ieee ee 7

ESSE SSE arene nie ee 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8,9

ee ea ced iat cw cnt 2,6,7,8

Sec. 24-28 ...::... biseshecuewenesn coneeus 3°

el ns Banat ok ckkh <eene camuaes 3

: cee ccRes cake yhi cates segksuineve 3

eee eee ee ie ne can ck ceheus 3

Sec. 58-804(b), (d) and ‘iy Ce Mekekaneuinte 4 i 4

NT a nthenvestccsdstcnagscosecaenns 4

. oo o>

4

XY

>

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Rnited som

Daas TERM, 1964

: No. - fe

( iLabys: Quanper Tancu.. and BARBARA JACKSON -.

WILLIAMS, A at” aes :

& . i Vv. ny ¥

WituiaM P. Woorts and. Frat KLIN P. Backvs, Judges

of .the Corporation Court of the City of Alexap-

dria, — Appefives |

: f

’

7

On Appeal Qin the United States District Court —

or She Eastern District of Virginia ~

Noe, / ie ha' :

. . “7

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT

e P

* Appellants appeal from the adverse part of the final:

order entered April 28, 1964, by the District Court,

consisting *of three judges constituted pursuant to

Title 28, United States Code, Section 2284, and submit

°

Ya 8

this Statement: to show that the Supreme Court of:

the United’ States has jurisdiction of the appeal and.

that a substantial question is presented. |

ea OPINION BELOW |

‘The opinion' of the District Court for the Eastern

District oi Virginia, Alexandria Division, is reported —

at 230 F. Supp. 156. The opinion and final order of the -

District Court are attached hereto-as Appendix B.

The jurisdiction of the District Court to decide the

question involved in this appeal was invoked under the

Fourteenth Amendment to the United State< Constitu-

,tion, Title 42, United States Code, Sections 198] and

-

/

/

1983, and Title 28, United States Code, Sections 1343

(3) and 2201. The judgment of the District Court was

entered on.April 38, 1963, and notice of appeal was

filed in that court on June 26, 1964. The jurisdiction

of the Supreme Court to review this decision by direct

/appeal is couferred by Title 28, United States Code,

Sections 1253 and 2101(b). The Court's jurisdiction

to review the ease_on direct appeal is sustained by

- Anderson v. Martin, 375 U.S. 399. - _

a :

~

QTESTION PRESENTED

‘Whether. Section 20-101, Code of Virginia .(1950), —

which requires every decree of divorce entered by a

court in Virginia -to ‘contain a recital showing the

race of the husband and wife,” violates the Fourteenth.

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. |

, STATUTES INVOLVED . F

Sections 20-101 and 20.123, Code of Virginia (1950),

‘ are set forth in Appendix A hereto. «

3

STATEMENT

Appellants Gladys Quander Tancil and: Barbara

' Jackson Williams are Negro citizens of the United

_ States and residents of the State of Virginia. They

_ brought this action-in the District Court to. have de-

clared unconstitutional, and to enjoin enforcement of

Section 20-101, Code of Virginia (1950), which re-

quires every decree of divorce entered by a court in

Virginia to “‘vontain a recital showing the race of the

husband and wife.’" The appetees William P. Woolls

- | Appellants were part of a larger group of 14 Negro and white

plaintiffs, who, in a single proceeding in the District Court, chal-

lenged the constitutionality of several provisions of the Virginia

Code and Constitution, in addition to the one here at iasue, which

require the maintenance 6f various types of public records on a

racial basis. The other provisions of law attacked, and which the

District Court held anconstitutional (infra, pp. 2a-Ga) are as

follows; . :

(a) The provision of Section 38 of the Constitution of Vir.

ginia which requires lists of those who have paid thef poll.

taxes to state ‘‘white and colored pérsons separately.’’

(b) The provision of Seption 24-28, Code of Virginia (1950),

as amended, which requires registration list of ‘‘white ang

colored’’ voters to be ‘‘kept and arranged in separate books

or records.’’ - a. :

(c) The provision of Section 24-118, Code of Virginia

(1950), as amended, which requires registration lists of voters

in eertain counties and cities to be kept in loose leaf binders

“with white sheets for recording the names of white voters

and buff sheets for recording the names of colored voters.”’

(d) The provision of Section 24-120, Code of Virginia

(1950), as amended, which requires lists of those who have

paid their poll taxes and filed certificates of residenve to state

“white. and colored persons’’ and certain tribal Indians

separately. ; : | ;

© (e) The provision of Section 98-790, Code of Virginia

(1950), as amended, which requires sors, at the time of

_ . 4

ad ?

and Franklin P. Backus, are the two alien of the —

“Corporation Court of the City of Alexandria, Virginia.

Defendant Woolls, on March 4, 1952, entered a decree’

of: divorce in the matter known on the records of the’

‘Corporation Court as Gladys Quander Tancil * v.

Herbert Pike Tancil, III, Chancery. No. 8205, which

decree recited that each party to. the action, inchading

‘appellant Gladys Quander Taneil, is ‘‘eolored.”’ -

The. Corporation Court of the City of Alexandria,

of which appellees: Woolls and Backus are the judges

also has jurisdiction over a pending divorce: proceed-

ing. known on the reeords of that court as. Barbara

Jackson Williams vy. Charles Oscar Williams, Chan- .

cery No. 10822, in which’ proceeding appellant Barbara

making astessments of real estate to “note whether the owner

is white or colored, or Indian.”’

(f) The provisions of Section 58-804, penageanhe (b),- (a)

and (h), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which require

land books for the cities and counties to be arranged so that

separate listings are made of real estate owned by ‘white

persons,”’ “colored persons’’ and certain ‘‘tribal Indians.’ -

* (g@) The provision of Section 58-880, Code of Virginia

. (1950), as amended, which requires personal property books to

_ be arranged so that personal property assessm@nts with taxes

and levies are shown separately for ‘‘white panes" and

*‘eolored persons.’’ ;

‘The District Cuurt found that these provisions “serve no other

purpose than to classify and° distinguish ¢fficial records on the.

basis of race or color’? (infra, p. 4a). The Court held that by

requiring the separation of names by race, the provisions conffict

with the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution; the Court

* therefore enjoined their enforcement, Various State and loca!

officials, who were defendants below, have noted their appeal to

©, this Court from the District Court's decision (V trgima State Board

of Elections, et al. v. Hamm, No, ——; October Term, 1964) the }

‘ single record of the proceeding before the District Court has been)

filed in this Court, aad presumably the Court will want. to consider

the two cases together.

| 5 aad

Jackson Williams is suing for, and is entitled to, a_

decree of divorce from the borid of matrimony on the

ground of wilful desertion and abandonment. The

- appellees Woolls and Backuc, are required, pursuant

to Section 20-101 Code of Virginia (1950) to include

in any decree of divorce granted in the pending action

involving appellant. ee a recital showing that

she is of the tet bi oe

Appellants, in additi\ to nite a declaration of

the unconstitutionality of Section 20-101, requested the

District Court to enjoin the appéllees from enforcing,

or in any manner giving effect to the provisien. Such

an injunction would protect appellant Williams from

threatened harm resulting from application of the

statute in convection with ber pending divorce action.

The injunctive relief sought.by appellant Tancil would _

require the Corporation Court to strike from her decree |

of divorce. entered by appellee Woolls on March 4, 1952,

the word ‘‘colored’’ where it appears following the

names of the

A three-judge District Court was tonvened pursuant

to Title 28, United States Code, Section 2284, and the

cause was heard February 21, 1964. On April 28,

1964, the Court rendered its decision and a final order

granting part of the relief sought,’ but denying relief

‘ to these appellaits. The Court, declined to hpld See-

tion 20-101 cit on the ground, as stated

by it, that ‘‘vital\statisties * * * are aided hy the deno-

tation in the divoree décree of the race of the parties.”’

This ruling by the District Court upholding the con-

stitutionality of Section 20-101. and refusing to enjoin,

its enforcement constitute the fubject of this appeal.

Se

2 See pp. 3-4, n. 1, Supra.

.

a 6

THE QUESTION PRESENTED IS SUBSTANTIAL

_ It cannot be gainsaid, as’ the District Court: held,

_ < that a statute is unconstitutional which serves ‘‘no

‘other purpose than to classify and distinguish ye

\ records. on the basis of race or. eolor”’ (infra, .

4a). That ruling accords with this Court’s arent

view that, ‘‘racial classifications are ‘obviously irrele-

vant and invidious.’’’ Goss v. Board of Education,

373 U.S. 683, 687, or Steele v. Louisville .and

“Nashville R. Co., 323 U.S. 192, 203. However, the

District € ourt a its eves to inescapable fact when

it failed to apply, this fundamental peneage to Section

20-101. .

~- The District Court ‘manifestly erred in upholding

the constitutionality of Section 20-101 of the. Virginia

Code onthe ground that the section is related to the .

State’s function of gathering vital'statistics concern-.

ing dtvorees. . Another section of the Code, Section

20-123, is the only provision of the State’s divorcee law

relating to the coHection of vital statisties. Section 20-

123 provides that the clerk of aicourt which grants =.

divorces must make a report of each divorce granted ~

in his court to the State Registrar of Vital Statistics

on a form turnished by. the State -Bureau of Vital

Statistics* for that purpose. Pursuant to the terms of

Section 20-123, that report must include: (a). alleged

-cause of the divorce; (b) sex of plaintiff and defend-

ant;“(c) oecupation of plaintiff and defendant ; (d)

date . marriage; (e) place of marriage; (f) nfiimber

i »

’ The Bureau of Vital Statistics is established within the State

' Department. of Health pursuant to Section 32-353.5, Code of V ir—

ginia (1962 Cum. Supp.). The Bureau’s authority and functions .

are spelled out in detail in Sections 32-353.4 through 32-353.31-of

the Code. The State Registrar is in cnarge of the Bureau.

-

fife

q

of children iv family; .(g) time of separation, and,

. finally (h) plaintiffs and defendant’s * ‘color’’**

The eollection of vital statisties concededly is a legiti-

mate function of government. But the record of this

ease is devoid of any evidence that Section 20-101,

which requires the recital of cace in divorce dncrens

was enacted ‘with a statistical purpose in view or that .

it has ever served such a function. There were no

issues of fact tried before the District Court in this

case. > The appellants made a timely motion for sum-

mary judgment pursuant to>Rule 56 of the Rules of

Civil Procedure, and oral argument.of ‘counsel, plus

_ the pleadings and briefs of. the parties, provided. the

‘basis for the Court's consideration of the matter. The

‘appellees, through their counsel, the Attorney General,

offered no evidence to show that Section 20-101 is re-.

lated to the collection of vital statistics by the State.

It is apparent, therefore, from this lack of evidénce,

as well as the existence in the Code of Section 26-123,

which relates by its terins to the collection of statistics,

that the Court’s finding that Section 20-101 serves i

statistical purpose represents sheer s ulation. Since,

the State has shown no justification i e racial pro-

visions contained in Seetion 20-101, the section should

4 There is no definition in the Code of the term ‘‘race’’ as it is

~ used in Section 20-101. ~ Section 1-14,0f the Code (1950), howaver;

provides: . ee e

_* Colored persons and Indians defined —Every person in whom j

there. is ascertainable any Negro blood ghall be-deemed and

taken to be a colored person, and-every “person not a colored

person having one-fourth or more of American Indian blood |

‘shall be deemed.an American Indian; except that mémbers of

Indian tribes living on reservations allotted them by the Com-

monwealth having’ one-fourth or more of Indian blood and less

» than one-sixteenth of Negro blood shall be deemed trtbal

Indians so long as they are domitiled on such reservations.

(Code 1919, § 67; 1930, P- 97). «hans .

‘o

¥ as 8

have been held unconstitutional by the District Court

and its enforcement enjoined.’

The decisions of .this Court make clear that the

processes of a state court system may not be used to

promote distinctions between. persons. based on race.

- Johnson v. Virginia, 373 U.S. 61; Hamilton-v. Ala-

bama,- 376 U.S. 650. Under the statutory provision

here in question, Virginia has conditioned access to its

courts by parties seeking a divorce on a requirement

that thet submit to a judicial determination of their

race. If, as in the cas&of the appellants, the parties

involved are Negro, the requirement is demeaning in

- the same sense as any other form of racial discrimina-

tion; and for Negro lawyers in the State, serving

Negro clients, it is an annoying and irritating experi-

ence every time they are required to prepare a divorce

decree.* ,

Virginia’s divorce law is contained in Title 20, Chap-

ter 6, of the State Code. Chapter. 6 contains 37 sec-.

tions, but except for Section 20-101, requiring . the

recital of race, no requirement is set forth in any

other part of the law as to the form or content of a

divorce decree. Furthermore, with regard to Section

-123, which explicitly concerns the, collection of vital

statistics, of the eight items of information which must

5 The District Court plainly was mistaken if it meant by its deci-

‘Sion to suggest that a provision of law which has a racial purpose,

and no other, is saved from unconstitutionality beqguse it aids in |

_ the collection of statisticat data. Every law which promotes racial

distinctions, is likely to facilitate the collection of statistics cdn-

cerning-race. It is obvious, however, that this fact alouc does net

provide justification fer such a law or make it constitutional.

* Compare Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483, 494, where

the Court took notice of the fact that state-compelled discrimination

tween the races ‘‘is us»ally interpreted as denoting thé inferior-

'y of the Negro group ”’

® Reh |

be reported by. clerks-of, courts, to the State registrar,

only the item relating to race, is set apart by the re-

quirement of judicial determination. The.singling out

of ‘‘ ‘race’ as the single item of information” required

in a decred ‘‘in itself ‘underscores the purely racial

eharacterfand purpose’ of the statute.’? Anderson v.

Martin, 375 U.S. 399, 403. Nor does it matter that

Se¢tion 20-101 applies equally to Negro and white. .

“Race is the factor upon which the statute operates

and its. involvement promotes the ultimate-discrimina-

tion which is sufficient to mike it invalid.’’. Id. at 404;

“and see N.A.A.C.P. v. Alabama ex rel: Patterson, 357

U.S. 449; 463; Bates v. Little Rock, .361 U.S. 516, 524."

It is submitted that the District Court erred in fail-

ing to hold that Section 20-101 confliets with the Four:

teenth Amendment to the Constitution. We. believe

that the question presented by this appec il is substan-

tial and that it is of public importance.

Respectfully submitted,

~ ALLISON W. Brown, JR.

Suite 705 - > :

1000 Connecticit Avenue, N. W.

Washington 6; D. C.

Orro L. TUcKER

. . 901 Prineess Street

Alexandria, Virginia

August 1964 - 2 Attorneys for Appellants

7 At the District Court heating. counsel for the appellees tlis-

claimed any relationship between Section 20-101 and Virginia's

miscegenation .statute. The latter provisions are contained in a

separate chapter, Chapter 4, of Title 20, entitled ‘‘ Colored Persons ;

Marriage Between White and Colored Persons.’’ The validity of

that chapter is*not.at issue in this proceeding and an examination

-of its “provisions fails to disclose any way in which it would be

_affeeted by a declaration of the unconstitutionality of Section

20-101. :

la

__ APPENDIX A.

Text of statutes involved (Code of Virginia (1950)) :

See. 20-101. Decre e to show race of parties. —-Anv inter-

locutory or final décree granting a* divorce a mensa -et |

thoro or a vineulo mat rimonii, as the case may be, shall

contain a recital showing the race of the husband and

wife; but the failure of such decree to contain such recital

shall. not affect the validity of such decree or divoree.:

(Code 1919, § 5106; 193s, p. 202.) .

See.: 20-123. Report of-divorces by dint to State Regis~ sale

trar of Vital. Statistics The clerk of eyery—court: author-

ized to grant divorces in Vie = shall on or before the -

tenth day of eacti month forward to the State Registrar

of Vital Statistics a report of each divorcee and of each

annulment of a “marriage granted in his court during the

preceding month, on the forms prov ided by the Bureau of

Vital Statisties for that 4 purpose.

v he reports shall include alleged cause, sex, ovcupation,

and: color cf plaintiff and defendant, date and place of

Inarriage, number of children in family, and time of sepa-

ration, prov ided how ever, the record discloses such infor

mation.

~Sueh reports shall be filed and preserved in the State

Registrar's oftiee, and from them he shall prepare annually

a compilation -of-divoress im’each county and corporation -

and make a report of such compilation ta the General

Assembly at each regular session.

There shall be allowed to such clerks a compensation of

twenty-five cents for every divorce reported, to be paid

as a part of the costs of the suit.

The State Registrar shall certify to the Comptroller

the number of divorces and annulments reported by each

clerk. (1918, p. 397 ; 1938, p. 188; Michie, Code 1942,

§ 5116a.) |

Ya

APPENDIX

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COU RT

‘FOR THE EASTERN STRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

Civil Action No. 3127

E. Lesurr Ham, ET AL., Plaintiff's

* e

Virainta State Boarp or ELsctioys, - aL., Defendants

€Argued February 21, 1964 Decided April 28, 1964)

Before Bryan, Circuit Ju ‘re, and Lewis and Burtzyer,

District Judges.

~

Allison W. Brown, @., Esquire, Washington, D. C. and

Otto L; Tucker, Esquire, Alexandria, Virgie, attor-

neys for the plaintiffs ; .

Robert Y. ‘Button, Esquire, Attoreey — of Virginia ;

R. D. Mel bwaine, III, Esquire, -Assistant . Attorney

’ General of Virginia; William J. Hassen,' Esquire, Com-

monwealth’s Attorney, Artington, Virginia; Ralph G.

Louk, Esquire, Commonwealth’s Attorney, Fairfax,

Virginia; Earl F. Wagner, Esquire, Commonwealth’s -

Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, attorneys for defend-

ants. . | , ae

ALBE rt V. Bryan, Circuit. Judge :

Certain Virginia statufes and a section of het seaatien-

tion are here attacked by plaintiff Negro and white citi-

zens ot the State as violative of the Fourteenth and Fif-

teenth. amendments of the Federal constitution: The laws

assailed ‘deal with records relating to: (1). voting, (2).

property, tax assessments, and (3) divorce. - Plaintiffs

allege that provisions in the first category ‘‘require lists

of persons who are qualified voters in Virginia to be main-

ty

oa

tained on a racially segregated basis.’"' The second cate-

gory is°averred to ‘provide for the maigtenance on a

racially segregated basis of public records pertaining to

property ownership and taxation’’.? The divorce statute -

in suit directs that every decreof divorce must recite the

race of the spouses.* Besides asking for a declaration’ of

Specifically, the following portions of Vieginle' 8 — records

laws are-questioned as unconstitutional :

(a) Article I], § 38 of-the Virginia Sineicieattinsninelitiain lists

of those who have paid their poll taxes to state “white and colored

persons separately.”

(b) Section 24-28 Code of Vi irginia—requiring registration lists

of ‘‘white and colored’’ voters to be * ‘kept ond arranged in sep-

~ arate books or records.’

(ce) Section 24-118 Code of Virginia—requiring registration lixts

of voters in certain counties and cities to be kept in loose leaf

binders ‘‘with white sheets for recording the names of white voters

and buff sheets for recording the names of colored voters

(a) Section 24-120 Code of Virginia as amended in- 1968, re-

quiring lists of those who have Paid their poll taxes and filed cer-

tificates of residehce-to state ‘‘white and colored persons’’ and

certain tfibal Indians separately.

=That part of the property ena Bal and taxation statutes

criticized are :

_ (a) Seetion 58-790, Code of Virginia, requiring Asvexsorn, ‘at the

time of making assessments of real estate to ‘‘note whether the

oWner is white or célored, or Indian as defined by ection 1-14. of*

the Code.”’ °

(b) Section 58-804, pars. b, « ec, d and h, Code of Virginia, requir-

ing land books for, the cities and counties to be arranged so that

separate listings are made of real estate owned by ‘* white persons,”

‘colored persons’ and certain ‘‘tribal Indians,’’

(¢e) Section 58-880, Code of Virginia, requiring personal prop-

erty books tw be arranged so that personal property asséssments

With taxes and levi ies are shown separately for ‘‘white persons”

and *‘colored persons.’*

® Section 20-101, Code of Virginia, requires ‘‘any- interlocutory

‘- or final decree granting a divorce a mensa et there or a vineulo

matrimonii .. . [to] contain a } recital showing the race of the inus-

band and wife... .”’

4a

the invalidity of these statutory and constitutional provi-

sions, revere ‘*seek an injunction restraining the

- various governmental officials named as defendants .from

enforcing, execu or administering their provisions.’’

The ‘separate but equal”’ racial doctrine was condemned

a decade ago in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. -

483 (1954). Subsequent decisional Jaw has made it axio- *

matic that no State can directly d&tate or casually pro-

mote a distinction in the treatment of persons solely on

the basis of their color. To be withinghe condemnation,

the governmental action need not effectuate segregation

of facilities directly. Cf. Anderson v. Martin, 375 U.S.

399, 402 (1964). The result of the statute or policy must

not tend to separate individuals by reason of difference in

race or color. No form of State discrimination, no nntter.

how subtle, is permissible under the guarantees of the

Fourteenth amendment freedoms. See, e.g:, Burton v.

Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U.S. 715, 721-26

(1961); NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449, 463 (1958).

- Although the legislative history of the provisions pres-

ently under examination cannot adequately be ‘traced, - it

is evident from the language employed that, save ‘for the

divorce decree statute, they serve no other purpose than

to classify and distinguish official records on the basis of

race or color. Separation of white and colored on the

poll tax, residence-certificate and registration lists as well.

as on the assessment rolls renders these provisions invalid

under the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth amend:

ment.

Of course, es designation of race, just as sex or religious

. denomination, may in certain records serve a useful pur-

pose, and the procurement and compilation of stich infor-

mation by State authorities cannot be outlawed per se.

For example, the securing and chronicling of racial data

- for identification or statistical use violates no constitu-

tional privilege. If the purpose is legitimate, the reason

justifiable, then no infringement results. The infirmity of

the provisions just mentioned lies in their. mandate of

separation of names by race.

Vital statistics, obviously, are . aided by denotation” in

the divorce decrees of the race of the parties, This pro-

- vision @f section 20-101 of the Virginia Code is not objec-

tionable in law. Of course, the advertence must be made |

in every case, not just in suits involving. Negroes.

For the reasons outlined, the defendant State and local

officers will be restrained from further adminisf{ration and

enforeement of the Virginia laws in issue insofar as they

are inconsistent with,the views herein expressed. ‘Since

no voting rights and tax assessments are impaired by the

present practice, and so there is no urgency for earlier

changes, compliance with the restraint we now impose will

not be required, before December 31, 1964.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FORTHE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

Civil Action No. 3127

BE. Lesuix Hama, et av, Plaintiffs

Goat

Viratnia State Boarp-or Evrcrions, et ‘an., Deferdants

Final Order

Upon the findings of fact and conclusions cof !sw, as well

‘as for the reasons, set-forth in the opinion of the Court

this day filed, it is Drctaren:

.

l. That Article 11, § 38 of. the Constitution of Virginia

is in conflict with the Fourteenth amendment of the‘ Con-

stitution of ‘the United States insofar as the said section

©

A

Ga ae my

requires the lists of poll taxes paid to state the names of |

+ White and colored persons separately ;

2. That § 24-28 of the Code of Virginia is in conflict with

the Fourteenth amendment of the Constitution of the

United States insofar as the said section requires that the

voting régistration lists of white and colored persdéns be

kept and arranged in separate books or records;

3. That $24-118 Code of Virginia is in conflict with the

Fourteer'th amendment of the Constitution of the United

States insofar as the said section requires the registration

lists of voters in named counties and cities to be kept in

binders with white sheets for recording the namés of. white.

voters and buff sheets for hearan the names of colored

voters ;

4 That § 24-190 Code of Virginia, as amended in 1963,

is in conflict with the Fourteenth amendment of the Con-

. stitution of the United States insofar as the said section —

requires the lists of persons who have paid their, poll taxes

and filed certificates. of residence to state separately the

names of white and colored ‘persons eae certain tribai

Indians ; "

5. That §§ 58.790; 58-804, paragraphs~b, ¢, d and h; and

58-880 Code of Virginia are in conflict with the Fourteenth .

amendment of the Constitution of the United States inso-

far as the said sections require the lists of assessments

of real estate, the arrangement of the listings in the

land books of real estate, and the arrangement of the per-

sonal property books to note and show separately the

tiames of = e property owners as white or colored persona;

and .

6. That § 20-101, Code of Virginia (1950) is not in con-

fet with the Fourteenth amendment of the Constitution ‘of

the United States.

Ascordingly, it is Awep DGED, OnpERED and Dcarep that *

the defe J ants, their agents, employ ees and suécessors be,

~~e

= .

a . S

end cath of then ts hereby, restrained end enjoined ther

enforcing any of the constitutional or statutory provisions

hereinbefore declared to be in conflict wigh the Fourteenth

amendment of the Constitution of the United States, but

this injunction shall not be effective ome December 31,

1964. ,

C4 J

;

>

United States Cipoutt Judge»

Tnited States District Judge

United States District Judge

April 28th, 1964

te