Appendix — Richmond v. United States
Supreme Court brief1975
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
Suprerie Court, & S,
FILED
APPENDIX
Volume I — Pages 1-260 dine lane
IN THE
Supreme Court of the Gnited States
OCTOBER TERM, 1974
No. 74-201
CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA,
Appellant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and
WILLIAM B. SAXBE, ATTORNEY GENERAL, and
CURTIS HOLT, SR. et al. and
CRUSADE FOR VOTERS OF RICHMOND, et ai.,
Appellees.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT FILED AUGUST 29, 1974
JURISDICTION NOTED DECEMBER 16, 1974
ETT SL LL SS TS
Washington, 0.C. e CLB PUBLISHERS ¢ LAW PRINTING CO. ¢ (202) 393-0625
(i)
INDEX
Page
Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries .......... l
Original Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Filed
August 25, 1972, with Exhibits .................. 14
First Amendment to Complaint, Filed November 9,
Rr ey ee eee oe ee ee ee 35
Answer of United States, with Exhibit ................ 35
Answer of United States to Amendinent to
ee ee ne 39
Opinion of Special Three-Judge Annexation Court,
sitting in the Circuit Court of Chesterfield
County, dated July 1, 1969, in City of
Richmond v. County of Chesterfield, etal. .......... 40
Exhibits from Holt v. City of Richmond, 334
F.Supp. 228 (E.D. Va. 1971):
A. “Off the Record Conference in Chambers”
— Originally Defendant’s Exhibit 16 —
Annexation Transcript, pp. 3234-3, 10, 11,
PPT Tee TT TT TT eT TETTTTe 48
B. Defendant’s Exhibit 29[A], pp. 4579, 4580,
AE 64456560 b 004408 OE5 0d 6 OOK 00 8% $3
C. Plaintiff's Exhibit 1, pp. 1, 2, 3, 4 — Racial
Population Maps for 1940, 1950, 1960 and
SOU” £e64b ebO1 wee EWEN SOO be KE OC ECS 60% 57
D. Plaintiffs Exhibit 2 — Census Tabulations
for 1930 through 1970, with Intercensus
ian eo ods eed i oe be oes a6 8S 61
E. Plaintiffs Exhibit 3, a through n —
Councilmanic Election Returns for City of
PEE. «ssc cucausiessoeseees 62
F. Plaintiffs Exhibit 4 — Merger Vote,
Richmond-Henrico County, December 13,
” biaekteu t4G > s eHice 4ehRSbS Cad eek as 76
(ii)
G. 1. Plaintiffs Exhibit S({a) — Election
Analysis 1966... c cree cree eeeenes
2. Plaintiffs Exhibit 5(b) — Election
PRO re Te 104
H. Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 — Map of Annexed
ee ea ge a, ete ee nae we tel 135
1. Plaintiffs Exhibit 12 (Def. Ex. 16) —
Population, Race and Age Composition
SE, cc ccc cet eseceesesetacececoss 136, 137
J. Plaintiff's Exhibit 24 — Report to Aldhizer
Commission, with Exhibits, by C.B. Mattox,
Jr., City Attorney, February 5, 1969. ...........
(This exhibit has not been printed, but has
been reproduced separately and filed to-
gether with this Appendix.)
K. Plaintiff's Exhibit 25 -— Booklet entitled
“Expand Richmond’s Boundaries” — Report
to the Richmond Boundary Expansion Study
Commission ........ Pre re try er rrer Terry
(This exhibit has not been printed, but has
been reproduced separately and filed to-
gether with this Appendix.)
L. Plaintiff's Exhibit 26 — Handwritten Notes
of Meeting, dated June 19, 1969. ..........45.
M. Plaintiff's Exhibit 29 — Crusade for Voters
Letter, dated January 1, 1968. ...........505.
N. Plaintiff's Exhibit 32 — Melvin W. Burnett
| | Peer rrr rrr rere
Motion to Consider Consent Judgment, with
Consent Judgment attached, filed May 15, 1973.
Transcript, exerpt from Hearing on July 23, 1973
Before Three-Judge District Court below, City
of Richmond v. United States, et al., pp. 8-9 .........
Exhibits From the Hearing Before the Special
Master, appointed by the Court below, City
of Richmond vy. United States, et al: ©... 6 ee eee es
(iii)
Page
. Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 — Plan C, Nine-ward
TE ari'ulaes 6 an oe een us eile ss ss 158
. Plaintiffs Exhibit 13 — Plan B, Nine-ward
ED We aaa oe we eee Nes aL 159
. Plaintiffs Exhibit 14 — Plan D, Nine-ward
DEE St CGNULDTELS CE eee eee ekuauu 160
. Plaintiff's Exhibit 15 — Nine-ward Plan. ......... 161
. Plaintiffs Exhibit 18 -— Demographic
Characteristics, accompanying Exhibit 15. ....... 162
. Crusade for Voters Exhibit ? — Plan A,
Nine-ward Plan Map. ...............ec00ee, 163
. Crusade for Voters Exhibit 20 — Plan Q,
Nine-ward Plan Map. ..............00c00ee, 164
. Crusade for Voters Exhibit 21 — Plan R,
Nine-ward Plan Map. ..............0.00eeee 165
Defendant United States Exhibits 1 through
ll:
Exhibit 1, Letter from David L. Norman to
C.B. Mattox, Jr., May 7,1971. ............ 166
Exhibit 2, Letter from David L. Norman to
C.B. Mattox, Jr., September 30,1971. ....... 168
Exhibit 3, 1966 Richmond Councilmanic
Elections, “Voting by Precincts”. ........... 170
Exhibit 4, 1968 Richmond Councilmanic
Elections, “’'ow Richmond Voted”. ......... 171
Exhibit 5, 1970 Richmond Councilmanic
I Wika tae n e e Der ae E 172
Exhibit 6, 1971 Richmond House of Dele-
SPS sh 44Gb 454040566000 euC 0% 173
Exhibit 7, 1966 Richmond Councilmanic
Election; percentage by candidate, white
Sy ES 6 6c Séeewacteoceececes 174
—
(iv)
Exhibit 8, 1968 Richmond Councilmanic
Election; percentage by candidate, white
amd hack peecimeta. 2. nce cccccccsece
Exhibit 9, 1970 Richmond Councilmanic
Election; percentage by candidate, white
and Gleck procimets. 0... ccc ccccccces
Exhibit 10, 1971 Richmond House of
Delegates Election; percentage by
candidate, white and black precincts. .....
Exhibit 11, 1966 through 1970 Elections;
white and black precincts breakdown. ....
Holt Exhibit 1 — News Clippings. ..........
Holt Exhibit 2 — Resolution. .............
Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions
of Law, filed by the Intervenor Crusade for
Voters, with the Special Master, November
. Sere rrvr rer rreeereLelee.
Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
filed with the Court below on November
26, 1973, to the Special Master, on behalf
of Curtis Holt, Sr., et al, Defendant-
TS note lo A ee en
Joint Stipulation By All Counsel that the
Record of Holt I be Received in the Instant
RN ch Pe ee ett ae aa eae ee oy
Joint Stipulation By All Counsel as to Other
Elected Officials of Richmond. ............
Page
oo a
Ts
7
Chronological List of Relevant Docket Entries
CIVIL DOCKET
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
1972
Aug. 25, Complaint, appearance; Ex. A thm E;
Request for Third-Judge Court, filed.
Aug. 25, Summons, Copies (2) and Copies (2) of
Complaint issued D.A. & Atty. Gen. Ser. 8/28/72.
Sep. 11, Motion of Curtis Holt, Sr. for himself and on
behalf of all other similarly situated for leave to intervene
as a defts. exhibit memorandum c/m 9/8 M.C. Appear-
ance of W.H.C. Venable, (422 East Main St., Richmond,
Va. 23219. $5.00 deposit by Venable).
Sep. i4, Order extending time for plaintiff and
defendants to reply to petition for leave to intervene to
September 25, 1972. (N) Richey J.
Sep. 14, Motion of plaintiff to extend time to reply to
petition for leave to intervene; P & A; c/m 9-14.
Sep. 14, Application of plaintiff for Three Judge
Court; c/m 9-14.
Sep. 25, Response of the United States to motion to
intervene; c/m 9-25-72.
Sep. 25, Memorandum of plaintiff in opposition to
petition of Curtis Holt for leave to intervene; table of
cases and authorities; P & A; c/m 9-25.
Sep. 25, Request by plaintiff for oral hearing on
motion for leave to intervene.
Oct. 3, Application for Three Judge Court granted. (N)
(Signed 10-2-72) Green.
Oct. 6, Designation of the Honorable J. Skelly Wright,
U.S.C.A. and the Honorable William B. Jones, U.S.D.C.
2
to serve with the Honorable June L. Green as members of
a three-judge panel to hear and determine this case. (N)
Bazelon, C.J.
Oct. 6, Motion of Curtis Holt, Sr. to amend petition to
intervene; exhibit; c/m 9-8-72 M.C.
Oct. 6, Motion of Curtis Holt, Sr. to proceed in Forma
Pauperis; affidavit c/m 9-18-72 M.C.
Oct. 6, Reply of pltf Curtis Holt, Sr. to pltfs
memorandum in opposition to petition to intervene; c/m
9-28-72.
Oct. 10, Memorandum of plaintiff in opposition to
amended petition of Curtis Holt, Sr. for leave to
intervene; table of contents; table of cases and authori-
ties; c/m 10-10.
Oct. 17, Letter dated 9-28-72 entering the appearance
of Josph D. Tydings and Michael E. Kris at 1120 Conn.
Ave., N.W. as counsel for petitioner-intervenors.
Oct. 18, Petition of Crusade for Voters of Richmond,
Virginia, Dr. William §S. Thornton Dr. M. Philmore
Howlette, for leave to intervene as defts. P&A; Attach-
ment Exhibits (2); c/m 10-18-72; M.C.
Oct. 18, Deposit $5.00 by Derfner.
Oct. 18, Appearance of Armand Derfner, counsel for
above interveners.
Oct. 18, Order granting the petition of Curtis Holt, Sr.
Leave to intervere as deft. and permitting him to file in
Forma Pauperis. (N) Wright, J. Jones, J. Green.
Oct. 27, Answer of defendants to complaint; exhibit
A; c/m 10-27. Appearance of Robert R. Rush, Gerald W.
Jones, Department of Justice.
Oct. 27, Calendared (CD/N).
Oct. 27, Motion ot defendants to dismiss; P & A;c/m
10-27. M.C,
3
Oct. 27, Response of defendant USA to motion to
intervene; c/m 10-27.
Nov. 8, Order granting petition of the Crusade Voters
of Richmond, et al, to intervene. (N) (Signed 11-6-72)
Wright, Jones & Green, J.
Nov. 9, Opposition of plaintiff.to motion to dismiss;
c/m 11-9,
Nov. 9, Motion of plaintiff for leave to file amendment
to complaint; exhibit A; P & A; c/m 11-9. M.C.
Nov. 15, Withdrawal of Crusade Intervenors’ motion to
dismiss, as per counsel; c/m 11-14.
Nov. 16, Response of defendants to plaintiffs motion
to amend complaint; c/m 11-16.
Nov. 17, Order denying defendants motion to dismiss;
granting plaintiffs motion to amend the complaint. (N)
Green, J.
Nov. 30, Appearance of James P. Parker as counsel for
intervenors.
Dec. 4, Amended complaint; c/m 11-9.
Dec. 4, Answer of defendants to plaintiffs amended
complaint; c/m 124.
1973
Jan. 26, Answer of deft. Intervenors Crusade For
Voters, et al. to pltfs. first amendment to complaint. c/m
1/23/73.
Feb. 9, Stipulation for extension of time for pltf. to
respond to defts. intervenor’s interrogatories to and
including 3/29/73. (fiat) (N) Green, J.
Feb. 12, Request of pltf. for admissions of facts;
appendix A & B. c/m 2/9.
Mar. 5, Second set of interrogatories of Intervenors to
pitff. c/m 3/2.
Mar. 8, Calendar Call. (Rep: E.O. Wells) Green, J.
4
Mar. 9, Order directing that all discovery be completed
by 4/6/73 and setting forth further instructions to all
parties. (N) Green, J.
Mar. 9, Motion for leave to dispense with printing of
juridictional statement attachments filed. Green, a
Mar. 12, Answer of deft. Intervenor, Crusade for
Voters to pltf’s request for admission of facts. c/m 3/9.
Mar. 12, Notice of deft. Intervenor to take deposition
of William Leightinger Dallas Oslin. c/m 3/8.
Mar. 12, Answer of intervenor, Curtis Holt to pltfs
request for admission of facts. c/m 3/9.
March 14, Answer of defts. 1 and 2 to pltf’s request
for admission of facts. c/m 3/14.
Mar. 16, Transcript of proceedings — 3-8-73. (Rep:
Elaine Wells) (Court’s Copy).
Mar. 19, Interrogatories of intervenors Curtis Holt, Sr.,
et al to plitfs. c/m 3/19.
Mar. 29, Answers and responses of pltf to deft-
Intervenors’ interrogatories. c/m 3/23.
Mar. 30, Notice of deft Intervenors Curtis Holt, et al to
take depositions of William Leightinger, George Talcott,
Conard Mattox, Henry Valentine, Thomas Bliley, Leo-
nard L. Wharton, Robert T. Fary and A. Howard Todd,
c/m 3/28/73.
Apr. 6, Answer of pltf and responses to deft Intervenor
Crusade for Voters interrogatories. c/m 4/5/73.
Apr. 6, Answer of pltf and responses to interrogatories
of deft intervenor Curtis Holt, Sr. c/m 4/5/73.
Apr. 6, Motion of Donald O. Sutton, for leave to
intervene as a pltf. exhibits K-1; K-2; K-3; K-4; K-5; K-6;
K-7. M.C. Appearance of Donald O. Sutton, 2316 Royall
Ave., Richmond, Va. 23224 in proper person: Deposit
$5.00 by Sutton.
Apr. 13, Certificate of service of mailing copy of
motion to intervene by Donald O. Sutton on 4-10-73 to
all parties of record; exhibit K-8 attached.
5
*Apr. 20, Response of U.S.A. to mction to intervene by
Donald O. Sutton; c/m 4/20/73.
*Apr. 19, Order denying petition of Donald O. Sutton
for leave to intervene as a party pltf. (N) Green, J.
Apr. 23, Deposition of William J. Leidinger for the
deft. Intervenors, Crusade For Voters of Richmond. et al
Published and filed. |
Apr. 23, Depostion of Dallas H. Oslin for the deft.
Intervenors, Crusade For Voters of Richmond, et al
Published and filed. |
Apr. 24, Opposition of pltf to motion to intervene by
Donald O. Sutton; P & A. c/m 4/24/73.
Apr. 25, Stipulation, filed. (N) Wright, J., Jones. J
Green, J. _
Apr. 26, Response of Curtis Holt, Sr., et al to motion
to intervene of Donald O. Sutton; c/m 4/24/73.
Apr. 26, Stipulation, filed.
Apr. 26, Order amending Court’s Order of March 9
1973 extending the May 1, 1973, deadline to June 1S.
1973. (N) (signed 4/25/73) Green, J. )
Apr. 27, Motion of deft. intervenors to compel answers
to interrogatories; memorandum; c/m 4/25/73 M.C.
May 2, Opposition of pltf to motion to compel
answers to interrogatories; P & A; c/m 5/2/73.
May 7, Order directing pitf. within 15 days from entry
of this Order make full and complete answers to
deft-intervenor’s interrogatories. Green, J.
May 15, Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law by defts. Holt et al, 5-15.
May 15, Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law by plitf. c/m 5-15.
May 15, Motion of pitf. to consider consent judgment;
exhibit A; P & A; attachment c/m 5-8.
6
May 16, Proposed findings of fact and conclusions of
law by defts; exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9, 10, 11 and
12;c/m 5/15/73.
May 17, Depositions of William J. Leidinger, Leonard
Lee Wharton, Robert T. Fary, Conrad B. Mattox, Jr. and
George Talcott published and filed.
May 17, Depositions of Henry Lee Valentine II, Mayor
Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. and A. Howe Todd published and
filed.
May 18, Supplemental memorandum of P & A; by ptf.
exhibits A, B, C and D. c/m 5/18/73.
May 22, Copies of pages of transcript referred to in
defts proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law.
May 24, Answer of pitf and responses to interroga-
tories of Intervenor Curtis Holt., Sr. attachment; c/m
§/22/73.
May 30, Objections of deft. intervenors to consider-
ation of entry to consent judgment proposed by pltf. c/m
5-30-73. :
Jun. 4, Motion of intervenor Holt for sanctions for
failure to respond to order for discovery. c/m 5-31-73;
M.C.
Jun. 4, Further answer of pitf. and response to
interrogatory 13; attachment; c/m 6-1-73.
Jun. 6, Motion of James W. Benton, Jr. for withdrawal
of appearance. c/m 6-5-73 M.C. |
Jun. 7, Reply of pltf. to intervenor’s objection to
consideration of consent judgment; and motion of pitf.
for relief under Rule 54 F.R.C. v P. Affidavit of Conrad
B. Mattox; Statement; c/m 6-7-73. M.C.
Jun. 11, Further answer of pltf. and response to
interrogatory 13 of Intervenor Holt; attachment; c/m
6-8-73.
**June 12,
June 15, Answer of deft #3 to interrogatory; c/m
6/14/73. Error
7
June 15, Memorandum of law by pltf.; c/m 6/15/73.
June 15, List of witnesses by pltf.; c/m 6/15/73.
June 15, Memorandum of law by intervenors Curtis
Holt. et al; exhibit; c/m 6/15/73.
June 15, List of witnesses by intervenors Holt; c/m
6/15/73 and exhibit C.
June 18, Pretrial brief by deft; c/m 6/15/73.
**June 12, Order directing the parties on or before
July 2, 1973 to file legal memoranda addressing certain
questions. (N) Green, J.
July 2, MOTION of Intervenor Crusade for Voters of
Richmond for dismissal; Pretrial memorandum: Ex.
A,B,C,D; c/m 7-2-73.
July 2, LEGAL memorandum of pltf; c/m 7-2-73.
July 2, MEMORANDUM of law by defts.; c/m 7-2-73.
July 5, MOTION of deft. intervenors Curtis Holt for
summary judgment; c/m 7/2/73.
July 5, MOTION of deft. intervenors Curtis Holt for
dismissal and relief; c/m 7/2/73.
July 5, SUPPLEMENTAL memorandum of newly
discovered evidence in support of objections to considera-
tion of consent judgment; affidavits (2) c/m 7/2/73.
July 5, LEGAL memorandum in response to order of
6/11/73; ¢/m 7/2/73.
July 10, LETTER dated 7/3/73 to Judges Wright,
Green and Jones from Mr. Venable; attachments (2).
July 12, OBJECTIONS by pltff. to motions of
intervenors to dismiss and for summary judgment and
renewal of pitffs. motions to amend complaint and for
summary judgment.
July 19, SUBMISSION of Ward Plans by defts —
intervenor Crusade for voters of Richmond; maps n, o
and p; c/m 6/19/73.
July 20, STATEMENT by deft. in opposition to
intervenors motions to dismiss and summary judgment;
c/m 7/20/73.
July 24, CERTIFIED copy order USDC for Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond division, transferring the
complete record to this court. Received 5 boxes and |
roll of maps and charts. See memo attached.
July 24, TRANSCRIPT of proceedings 7/23/73 Elaine
Wells Rep. Court’s copy.
July 24, ORDER denying pltfs. motion for summary
judgment; denying the oral motion of a November 1973
election of the city council; denying deft-intervenor
Holt’s motions to dismiss or for summary judgment and
for sanctions; granting James Benton’s motion to with-
draw. (N) (signed 7-23-73) Green, J.
Aug. 7, OBJECTIONS of deft. intervenors, Holt, et al
to order of 7-23-73; c/m 8-3-73.
Aug. 14, ORDER overruling objections of deft-
intervenors, Curtis Holt, Sr., et al to the referral of this
case to a master. (N) Wright, J. (USCA) Jones, J.
Sept. 11, OBJECTION of deft. Intervenor, Curtis Holt,
Sr.. et al to additional witnesses and exhibits being
introduced or considered beyond the provisions of the
former Orders of the Court; P&A. c/m 9-6.
Sept. 17, MEMORANDUM of Intervenors, Holt briefly
outlining position regarding scope of issue before Magis-
trate and Law controlling resolution of that issue. c/m
9-13.
Sept. 17, ORDER overruling deft. intervenor Curtis
Holt, Sr., et al’s objections to additional witnesses and
evidence being introduced. (N) Magistrate Margolis.
9
Sept. 18, MOTION of deft-Intervenors, Curtis Holt,
Sr., et al to postpone the Master’s hearing set for 9-24-73,
to allow discovery and to clarify its order dated 7-23-73.
affidavit. c/m 9-17.
Oct. 1, NOTICES (3) to take depositions of witnesses
by intervenor deft. Curtis Holt; c/m 9-27-73.
Oct. 10, DEPOSITIONS of Mayor Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
and Dr. William S. Thornton published and filed.
Oct. 10, DEPOSITION of A. Howe Todd published
and filed.
Oct. 15, TRIAL begun Oct. 15, 1973 at 10:05 a.m.
and respited until 9:00 a.m. 10-16-73. (Reps: J. Lazurus,
L. Lacy) Margolis, Mag.
Oct. 16, TRIAL begun 9:30 a.m. 10-16-73 and
respited until 10-17-73 at 9:30 a.m. (Rep: B. Trivisani)
Margolis, Mag.
Oct. 17, TRIAL begun at 9:30 a.m. and concluded
10-17-73. Taken under advisement. (Rep: R. Reilly)
Margolis, Mag.
Nov. 7, TRANSCRIPT of proceedings, October 15,
1973; pp 1 thru 257; (Rep: Elizabeth Lacy) Court’s
Copy.
Nov. 7, TRANSCRIPT of proceedings, October 16,
1973; 260 thru 380; (Rep: Brenda Trivisani) Court's
Copy.
Nov. 7, TRANSCRIPT of proceedings, Afternoon
session, October 16, 1973: pp 381-568; (Rep: Brenda
Trivisani) Court’s Copy.
Nov. 7, TRANSCRIPT of proceedings, October 17,
1973; pp 570 thru 737. (Rep: Robert A. Reilly) Court’s
Copy.
Dec. 11, TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings of Sept. 26,
1973, pages 145. Rep: J&K Reporting Service; Court's
copy.
10
Dec. 17, OPPOSITION of Curtis Holts, Sr. to consider-
ation of deposition of William S. Thornton; c/m—
Dec. 19, ORAL arguments began at 2:10 p.m.
| 2-19-73; arguments concluded and taken under advise-
ment. (Rep: J. Lazarus) Margolis, Mag.
1974
Jan 17, TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS of Dec.
19, 1973, pages 1-53. (Rep: J. Lazarus) Court copy.
Jan. 21, FINDINGS of facts and conclusions of law.
Margolis, Mag.
Jan 31, MOTION by defts. for modification of
Master’s Report; objections; c/m 1-31-74.
Jan. 31, MOTION by pltf. City of Richmond, to reject
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law; P&A’s.
Jan. 31, OBJECTIONS by pitf. City of Richmond to
the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law of the
Master; c/m 1-31-74.
Jan. 31, MOTION to extend time for serving objec-
tions to the Report of the Special Master; c/s 1-30-74.
Jan. 31, ORDER granting deft.-intervenor, Crusade
Voters of Richmond, until 24-74 to file objections to the
Report of the Special Master. (N) Green, J.
Feb. 4, OBJECTIONS by deft.-intervenors, Crusade for
Voters, et al, to Report of the Special Master; c/m 24-74.
Feb. 6, MOTION by deft.-intervenors, Crusade for
Voters of Richmond, for modification of Master’s
Report; and for immediate payment of costs of hearing
before special master; c/m 2-5-74.
Feb. 8, ORDER extending time for pltff to file a
response to the Master’s Report until 2-13-74. (N) Green,
J.
11
Feb. 11, OPPOSITION of pitff to intervenor Crusade’s
motion for immediate payment of costs; c/m 2-11-74.
Feb. 13, MOTION by deft.-intervenors to adopt and
approve the Report of the Special Master and to deny
various objections and related motions to vacate or reject;
c/m 2-12-74.
Feb. 13, REPLY to objections filed to Master's
findings and conclusions; c/m 2-12.
Feb. 15, OPPOSITION by plitf. to motion of inter-
venor Holt to strike; c/m 2-15-74.
Feb. 25, PAGES | through 4 of deft.-intervenor’s reply
to objections filed to Master’s findings and conclusions
substituted, approved. (FIAT) Green, J.
Mar. 20, HEARING begun and concluded and taken
under advisement. (Rep: E. Wells) Wright, J., USCA,
Jones, J., USDC, Green, J., USDC.
Mar. 20, COPY of optinion filed 3-15-74. (Beers vs.
U.S.A. C.A. 1495-73)
Apr. 9, TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS of March
20, 1974, pages 1-55. (Rep: E. Wells); Court copy.
May 14, CERTIFIED copy of abstract of votes in the
City of Petersburg, Va. Copies mailed to Judge Skelly
Wright, Judge June Green, and Judge William B. Jones.
May 29, APPLICATION by pltfs for declaratory
judgment is denied. Wright, J., Jones, J., Green, J.
June 6, JUDGMENT denying pltfs. application for a
declaratory judgment. (N) Wright, J. USCA, Jones, J.
USDC, Green, J. USDC.
Jun. 19, MOTION by pltf. to rescind and vacate and
stay entry of final order; P&A’s; exhibit A; c/m 6-19-74.
July 2, MOTION by deft. intervenor Curtis Holt, Sr.,
et al, for attorney’s fee memorandum; c/m 7-2-74;
attachment.
12
July 2, RESPONSE and motion by deft.-intervenors,
to pltfs. motion to rescind vacate and stay final Order of
Tune 6, 1974; memorandum of law; c/m 7-2-74.
Jul. 2, ORDER denying pltfs. motion to rescind,
vacate and stay entry of final order. (N) Green, J.
Jul. 5, SUPPORTIVE vouchers and itemized time logs
by deft.
Jul. 5, OPPOSITION by deft.-intervenors to pltfs.
motion to rescind and vacate order; c/m 7-3-74.
Jul. 15, MEMORANDUM by pitf. in opposition to
deft.-intervenor Curtis Holt, Sr.’s motion for attorney’s
fees; attachments (5); exhibit A,B-1, B-2; attachments
(4); c/m 7-15-74.
Jul. 15, NOTICE of appeal by pltf. to the Supreme
Court of the United States from Judgment of June 6,
1974; c/m 7-15-74. Deposit $5.00 by Charles S. Rhyne
and credited to United States.
Jul. 22, NOTICE by pitf. to take deposition of Curtis
Holt, Sr.; c/m 7-19-74.
Jul. 22, REQUEST by pltf. to produce; c/m 7-19-74.
Jul. 22, NOTICE by pltf. to take deposition of W.H.C.
Venable; exhibit A, c/m 7-19.
Jul. 22, NOTICE by pltf. to take deposition of John
M. McCarthy; exhihit A; c/m 7-19-74.
Jul. 22, NOTICE by pltf. to take deposition of Thomas
F. Coates, III; exhibit A; c/m 7-19-74.
Jul. 22, NOTICE by pltf. to take deposition of J.
Hatcher Johnson; exhibit A; c/m 7-19-74.
Jul. 22, NOTICE by pltf. to take deposition of E. G.
Allen, Jr.; exhibit A; c/m 7-19-74.
Jul. 29, RESPONSE by defts. to memorandum in
opposition to deft.-intervenors motion for attorneys’
fees; c/m 7-25-74.
13
Aug. 1, AMENDED certificate of service by pltf. filed
on July 15, 1974.
Aug. 1, MOTION by pltf. to quash; brief; c/m 8-1-74.
Oct. 2, MOTION by deft.-intervenors, Crusade for
Voters of Richmond, et al for attorney’s fees; memoran-
dum; Appendix A; c/m 10-1-74.
Oct. 11, MOTION by pltf. for extension of time to file
a response to intervenor, Crusade for Voter’s motion for
fees; c/m 10-11-74.
Oct. 16, ORDER granting pltf. an extension of time to
file a response to deft.-intervenor’s Crusade for Voters of
Richmond’s motion for attorneys’ fees until 10-25-74.
(N) Wright, J. USCA, Jones, J. USDC, Green, J. USDC.
Oct. 25, MEMORANDUM by pitf. in opposition to
deft.-intervenor, Crusade for Voters of Richmond,
motion for attorney’s fees; c/m 10-25-74. Appearance of
David M. Dixon.
Oct. 30, ORDER holding in abeyance the issue of
attorney's fees until decision by U.S. Supreme Court. (N)
Green, J.
Dec. 19, CERTIFIED copy of ORDER U.S. Supreme
Court noting probable jurisdiction.
Dec. 19, MOTION by deft.-intervenor, Curtis Holt, Sr.,
for clarification of Order dated July 23, 1973; attach-
ment; c/m 12-17-74.
Dec. 27, OPPOSITION by pltf. to motion by ‘inter-
venor Holt for clarification of order dated July 23, 1973;
c/m | 2-24-74,
14
Original Complaint for Declaratory Judgment,
Filed August 25, 1972, with Exhibits
CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
City Hall
Richmond, Virginia 23219,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
and
RICHARD G. KLEINDIENST,
Attorney General of the United
States, individually and in his
official capacity
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.,
Defendants
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
UNDER VOTING RIGHTS ACT
1. This Court has jurisdiction over this action by
virtue of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as
amended, 79 Stat. 439; 42 U.S.C. §1973¢c.
2. Plaintiff is a political subdivision of the Common-
wealth of Virginia with respect to which the provisions of
said section are in effect.
15
3. The plaintiff’s corporate boundaries were enlarged
on January 1, 1970, by a decree of a special annexation
court in Chesterfield County acting pursuant to the
provision of Title 15.1, Chapter 25 of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended. By virtue of said decree of
the annexation court consisting of three circuit judges in
accordance with the aforesaid annexation statutes,
approximately 23 square miles of land area adjacent to
the City, located in Chesterfield County, was added to
the City of Richmond. The pre-annexation population of
the City as of 1970 was 202,359 of which 104,207 were
non-white and 98,152 were white persons. The annex-
ation added to the City, according to the 1970 United
States Census figures, 47,262 people, of which 1,557
were non-white and 45,705 were white persons. The
population as of 1968 of Chesterfield County prior to
annexation was 102,633 white and 9,845 non-white
persons.
4. In Virginia cities are independent and not a part of
the county or counties surrounding them and their
boundaries may be changed only by judicial decree in
accordance with the aforesaid annexation statutes or by
consolidation after a majority of those voting in a
referendum in each political subdivision have separately
agreed thereto. The history of this boundary expansion
began prior to 1959 when the plaintiff found itself in the
position of needing more land for development and more
revenue to finance the ever growing demand for munici-
pal services. During this time various studies and surveys
were made and discussions held with representatives of
the governing bodies of Henrico County which adjoins
Plaintiff generally to the east, north and west, and
Chesterfield County which adjoins Plaintiff generally to
the south. As a result of early discussions, the Plaintiff
16
and Henrico County entered into negotiations seeking the
consolidation of the two political subdivisions under the
provisions of Title 15.1, Chapter 26, of the Code of
Virginia of 1950, as amended. Such negotiations began in
September 1960, and culminated in an agreement
between the two governing bodies approximately one
year later. Thereafter, said agreement was submitted on
December 12, 1961, to referendum in both political
subdivisions in accordance with law. The voters of the
Plaintiff City approved the consolidation plan, the said
plan, however, was defeated because a majority of the
voters in Henrico County disapproved the plan.
5. Promptly thereafter, on December 26, 1961, the
City Council of Plaintiff, in accordance with the provi-
sions of the Virginia annexation statutues, adopted two
annexation ordinances requesting the convening of a
three judge annexation court «nd seeking from said court
the annexation of approximately 150 square miles of
Henrico County and approximately 51 square miles of
Chesterfield County, respectively. After numerous delays
in pretrial procedures, including proceedings in the
Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia, the annexation
suit against Henrico County began trial in June, 1963.
The final result of the case was a decree awarding to the
Plaintiff by the annexation court of approximately 16
square miles of land area of Henrico County which
contained approximately 42,690 white persons and 660
non-white persons with financial obligations imposed
upon the City, pursuant to the power of the court
conferred by the annexation statutes, of approximately
$55 million. City Council, in March, 1965, concluded by
ordinance that it was not in the best interests of the City
to accept the annexation award and, with the consent of
the Court, the Henrico case was dismissed.
17
6. Thereafter, the annexation suit against Chesterfield
County, which had been allowed to remair dormant on
the docket of the Circuit Court of Chesterfield County
pending the proceedings in the Henrico County suit, were
brought on for hearing and, as a result of a jurisdictional
plea, the case was dismissed by the annexation court.
After appeal by Plaintiff City, the Supreme Court of
Appeals of Virginia reversed and reinstated the case for
trial. The case came on for trial in September 1968, and
at a time when the evidence was nearly complete in
January 1969, a mistrial was declared as a result of the
local judge disqualifying himself, necessitating the
appointment of a new judge and a retrial of the whole
case, which began anew in May, and continued through
June of 1969. By final order of the annexation court of
July 12, 1969, the award of the territory of Chesterfield
County hereinabove mentioned was decreed. Appeals
were instituted by numerous intervenors from Chester-
field County which were denied by the Supreme Court of
Appeals of Virginia. Thereafter, a motion for stay of the
effective date of annexation fixed by the Virginia
statutes, to-wit, January 1, 1970, and a petition for
certiorari were filed by said intervenors in the Supreme
Court of the United States. The motion for stay was
denied separately by Justices Douglas, Marshall and
Brennan, prior to January 1, 1970, the effective date of
annexation. On April 20, 1970, the petition for certiorari
was denied by the court.
7. On January 1, 1970, Plaintiff, pursuant to the
annexation decree, took jurisdiction over the area
awarded to it from Chesterfield County by said annexa-
tion court in accordance with the provisions of the
annexation statutues, (supra), and has continued to
operate, manage and supervise the area since that date.
18
8. On January 28, 1971, after the decision of the
United States Supreme Court in Perkins v. Mathews, 400
U. S. 379 (1971), Plaintiff submitted the change resulting
from the annexation decree by letter from Conard B.
Mattox, Jr., City Attorney, to the Attorney General of
the United States in accordance with the alternative
provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Attorney General interposed an objection by letter
to Conard B. Mattox, Jr., City Attorney, dated May 7,
i971. Copies of said letters are hereto attached and
marked Exhibits A & B, respectively. Thereafter, the
Attorney General was asked by letter from the City
Attorney dated August 2, 1971, to reconsider his
objection since Chavis v. Whitcomb, 305 F. Supp. 1364
(1969), which he relied on in his letter of May 7, 1971,
had been overruled by the Supreme Court in 403 U. S.
124 1972. By letter of September 20, 1971, the Attorney
General refused again to lift his objection. Copies of said
letters are filed herewith as Exhibits C and D, respec-
tively.
9. On February 24, 1971, a class action was instituted
in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, Richmond Division, in the name of
Curtis Holt, Sr., alleging primarily that the voting rights
of the plaintiff’s class guaranteed by the 15th Amend-
ment had been violated by the Chesterfield annexation.
The aforesaid District Court, on November 23, 1971,
ruled that voting rights guaranteed by the 1Sth Amend-
ment had been violated and ordered a new election of
city councilmen with (7): being elected at large by the
former City residents and (2) being elected at large
primarily from the newly annexed area. This election
order was stayed on December 6, 1971, by the United
19
States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Plaintiff's
class and defendant City both appealed the decision to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit. That court, after a hearing, held on May 3, 1972,
that valid reasons existed for the annexation and that the
15th Amendment had not been violated and thus
overruled the lower court’s decision. Plaintiff’s class then
applied for a Writ of Certiorari to the Supreme Court of
the United States which was denied by said Court on
June 26, 1972.
10. After the writ was denied the City Attorney, by
letter dated Junly 5, 1972, again asked the United States
Attorney General to reconsider his objection. To date no
answer has been received. Copy of this letter is attached
as Exhibit E.
11. On December 9, 1971, there was instituted in the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia another class action in the name of Curtis Holt,
Sr. (Case Number C.A. 695-71-R) alleging inter alia
that the Plaintiff had not complied with Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965, and that, accordingly the
annexation of territory from Chesterfield County was
invalid. A three-judge court was convened pursuant to
§ 2284, Title 28 U.S.C. The plaintiff Holt in that action
subsequently sought an injunction against the election
officials of the City of Richmond to restrain them from
holding the election for City Council members scheduled
under Virginia law for the first Tuesday in May i972.
After a hearing, the three-judge District Court refused to
enjoin the election, but upon application to the Chief
Justice of the United States, the Supreme Court stayed
the election until the further order of the Court. Such
order is still in full force and effect and said case is still
pending awaiting hearing on a motion for summary
judgment.
20
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that a_ three-judge
District Court be convened pursuant to §2284, Title 28
and §1973c, Title 42 of the United States Code to hear
and adjudge that the Plaintiffs annexation does not
violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as
amended, in that it ““does not have the purpose and will
not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to
vote on account of race or color’, as guaranteed by the
15th Amendment.
CITY OF RICHMOND, VIRGINIA
/s/ Conard B. Mattox, Jr.
Conard B. Mattox, Jr.
City Attorney
Daniel T. Balfour
Assistant City Attorney
Room 300, City Hall
Richmond, Virginia 23219
[Certificate of Service Omitted in Printing]
January 28, 1971
Hon. John Mitchell
Attorney General
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C.
Re: Annexation proceedings in the Commonwealth of
Virginia styled City of Richmond v. Chesterfield County -
Voting Rights Act of 1965
21
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
On January !4, 1971, the Supreme Court of the
United States decided the case of Ernest Perking, et al v.
L. S. Matthews, Mayor of the City of Canton, et al, (No.
46, October term, 1970). The Court, in its opinion,
stated that any change in the boundary lines of cities
through annexation comes within the provisions of the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Attorney Generai has the
responsibility of approving or disapproving any changes
in voting that may be necessary as a result of annexation.
As the City Attorney of the City of Richmond, I am not
advised whether the decision has a retroactive effect upon
annexation cases that have become final prior to the
Supreme Court’s decision.
The Council of the City of Richmond, on December
26, 1961, authorized and directed that a portion of the
County of Chesterfield be annexed in accordance with
the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia. As directed, a
suit was instituted and became final on April 20, 1970,
when the Supreme Court of the United States denied a
petition for a writ of certiorari.
In order for you to be fully advised of the proceedings
had in the case, | am attaching hereto the following
exhibits:
1. Ordinance No. 61-334-288, adopted December 26,
196], authorizing the annexation proceedings.
2. A copy of the petition filed in the Circuit Court of
the County of Chesterfield on December 27, 1961.
3. Copy of an opinion rendered on July 1, 1969,
delivered from the bench by the presiding judge of the
annexation court.
4. The order of annexation entered on the | 2th day of
July, 1959.
22
5. An order denying an application for a stay o/ the
annexation proceedings issued by the Chief Justice and
two Justices of the Supreme Court of Appeals of
Virginia, dated December 19, 1969.
6. A letter dated December 31, 1969, from the Hon.
John F. Davis, Clerk of the Supreme Court of the United
States, indicating that application for a stay to Mr.
Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Brennan was denied on
December 30, 1969, and that an application to Mr.
Justice Douglas was denied on December 31, 1969.
7. Copy of an order entered on April 30, 1970,
indicating that the Supreme Court of the United States
denied a writ of certiorari.
Would you please advise me whether or not the above
proceedings come within the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
and if so, what steps should be followed in order to
secure your approval.
Respectfully,
C. B. Mattox, Jr.
City Attorney
CBM:kh
Enc.
Exhibit A
23
May 7, 1971
Mr. C. B. Mattox, Jr.
City Attorney
Department of Law
402 City Hall
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Mattox:
As you know, the Supreme Court recently held in
Perkins v. Mathews, 400 U.S. 379, 388-89 (1971), that
“[c] hanging boundary lines by annexations which en-
large the city’: number of eligible voters . . . constitutes
the change of a ‘standard, practice, or procedure with
respect to voting,’ within the meaning of section 5 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. This
letter concerns your submission of a 1969 annexation to
the city of Richmond.
Municipal annexations are, of course, commonly
undertaken for a variety of reasons and affect a nuinber
of areas of concern to local governments. Section 5 is not
addressed to annexations per se; but the Attorney
General is obliged under section 5 to be concerned with
the voting changes produced by an annexation. In the
present instance, the city of Richmond elects representa-
tives to its governing body on an at-large basis; its
population is approximately evenly divided between
whites and blacks. The submitted change would increase
the city’s population by approximately 43,000 new
residents of whom a very small minority is Negro. In the
circumstances of Richmond, where representatives are
elected at large, substantially increasing the number of
24
eligible white voters inevitably tends to dilute the voting
strength of black voters. Accordingly, the Attorney
General must interpose an objection to the voting change
which results from the annexation.
You may, of course, wish to consider means of
accomplishing annexation which would avoid producing
an impermissible adverse racial impact on voting, includ-
ing such techniques as single-member districts. See Chavis
v. Whitcomb, 305 F. Supp. 1364 (S.D. Ind. 1969).
Moreover, section 5 permits seeking approval of voting
changes by the United States District Court for the
District of Columbia irrespective of any previous sub-
mission to the Attorney General.
Sincerely,
DAVID L. NORMAN
Acting Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Exhibit B
August 2, 1971
The Honorabie John N. Mitchell
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Constitution Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20530
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
Pursuant to the requirements of Section 5 of the 1965
Voting Rights Act, I wish to re-submit to you on behalf
of the City of Richmond the City’s request for approval
of the election of councilmen for the City at large. This
re-submission and request for approval is predicated upon
certain events that have taken place since Mr. David
Norman’s letter to me dated May 7, 1971, in which the
Justice Department interposed “an objection to the
voting change which results from annexation”. A brief
resume of the events that have occurred to date may be
of some assistance to you.
The Council of the City of Richmond, on December
26, 1961, authorized and directed the City Manager and
the City Attorney to institute annexation proceedings to
annex to the City certain territory located in Henrico
County and Chesterfield County. As directed by the
Council, the City Attorney instituted annexation pro-
ceedings against both counties on December 27, 1961.
Due to the fact that annexation in Virginia is a judical
matter, determined by a three judge court, the City
Attorney elected to try the annexation case against
Henrico County first. After months of preparation and
trial, the annexation court, on April 27, 1964, issued its
26
opinion granting to the City approximately 16 square
miles of territory lying within the County in which there
lived approximately 45,310 persons, of which 98 + %
were white. After further agrument by counsel, the court
entered on July 31, 1964, an order implementing its
opinion. The Council, on March 8, 1965, declined the
award of the court for the reason that the cost to the
City in an amount of approximately $42,000,000 was
excessive and that there was substantially no vacant land
within the area so awarded for future development.
Immediately following the decision of the Council to
decline the Henrico annexation award the City Attorney
proceeded to try the Chesterfield annexation case. After
a series of hearings involving jurisdictional matters, the
suit was tried on its merits, and the City was successful in
annexing 22.66 square miles of Chesterfield County in
which resided 47,262 persons. The decree of the annexa-
tion court was entered on July 12, 1969, and became
effective at the last moment of December 31, 1969. The
United States Supreme Court, on April 20, 1970,
sustained the validity of the proceedings by denying a
petition for a writ of certiorari. Deerbourne Civic &
Recreational Association, et al v. City of Richmond, No.
1237, October Term 1969. The Council proceeded to
carry out the decree of the court and has since that date
collected taxes from and rendered services in the annexed
area.
Subsequent to the enactment by the Council of the
annexation ordinances, but prior to the annexation
decree in the Chesterfield case, Congress enacted on
August 6, 1965, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.
C. 1973(c). At this point, as the chief legal advisor to the
Council, I did not consider this Act to apply to
annexation proceedings. Upon learning of the United
27
States Supreme Court’s decision in Perkins v. Matthews,
400 U. S. 379, decided January 14, 1971, and in
compliance with the Voting Rights Act, I submitted to
your office on January 28, 1971, an application for
approval of the changes occasioned by the annexation of
the territory from Chesterfield.
By letter dated May 7, 1971, I was advised by the
Honorable David L. Norman, Acting Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Rights Division, that the Attorney General
“must interpose an objection to the voting change which
results from the annexation’. Mr. Norman further
advised as follows:
“You may, of course, wish to consider means of
accomplishing annexation which would avoid pro-
ducing an impermissible adverse racial impact on
voting, including such techniques as single-member
districts. See Chavis v. Whitcomb, 105 F. Supp.
1364 (S.D.) (Ind. 1969)”.
Subsequent to Mr. Norman’s letter of May 7, the
Supreme Court of the United States, on June 7, 1971, in
Whitcomb vy. Chavis, U. S. , 39 L. W. 4666, re-
versed the earlier holding of the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Indiana, relied upon
by Mr. Norman, and permitted multi-member districts.
Since Mr. Norman’s letter to me of May 7, 1971, other
events have transpired, including a decision of the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
which bears on the City’s request for your consideration.
Pursuant to the Virginia Constitution, the General
Assembly of Virginia reapportioned the State into dis-
tricts for the purpose of electing State Senators and
Members of the House of Delegates. The Act of the
28
Assembly reapportioning the State was submitted to your
office for approval. By letter dated May 7, 1971, ad-
dressed to The Honorable Linwood Holton, Governor of
Virginia, Mr. David L. Norman, of your office, advised
the Governor that the Attorney General interposed an
objection to “(1) house multi-member districts in
Hampton, Newport News, Portsmouth and Richmond”
(emphasis added). Mr. Norman advised the Governor as
he did me that “the technique of multi-member districts
cannot be used if it tends to minimize the voting strength
of racial minorities, Chavis v. Whitcomb, 305 F. Supp.
1364 (S. L. Ind. 1969)’.
Subsequent to Mr. Norman’s letter of May 7, and the
Supreme Court’s reversal of Chavis on June 7, by
telegram dated June 10, you advised Governor Holton in
part as follows:
“In accordance with your request, we have recon-
sidered our objection to the multi-member aspects
of the plan of reapportionment of the Virginia
House of Delegates. Inasmuch as our objection was
based on the decision of the United States Supreme
Court in Whitcomb v. Chavis, and that decision was
reversed on June 7, 1971 by the Supreme Court, our
objection to the House multi-member district is
hereby withdrawn.”
On July 2, 1971, the District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, four judges sitting, rendered its
opinion involving the constitutionality of the reappor-
tionment of the State of Virginia for the election from
districts of members to the House of Delegates and
Senate.
The opinion covered three different cases which were
consolidated for the purpose of trial. These cases were as
29
follows: Howell v. Mahan, Civil Action No. 105-71-N;
Parris v. Prichard, Civil Action No. 111-71-A; DuVal v.
Prichard, Civil Action No. 174-71-R. The court, in its
opinion noted that “the Thornton plaintiffs object that
black residents of several metropolitan areas are denied
full voting strength by multi-member districts.”
In answering this contention, the Court stated:
“In Whitcomb v. Chavis, supra, U. S. a
L. W. 4666 (June 7, 1971) multi-member districts
are declared not per se unconstitutional. Therefore,
the Assembly’s adoption of the representational
theory which embodies multi-member rather than
single-member districts is accepted. We are not
unaware of the preference for single-member dis-
tricts in ‘large’ areas expressed in Connor v. John-
son, U. S. , 39 L. W. 3535, 3535-3536 (June
3, 1971), but we do not think this decision is
preclusive here.”
The Court found that the reapportionment of the
State insofar as it relates to the City of Richmond would
not be altered.
In this respect the Court said:
“33. Thirty-third: Five delegates; existing popula-
tion 249,621 — a deviation of -3.4% (calculated with
reference to the floater district as District Thirty-
five) — consisting of the City of Richmond. This will
not be altered.”
The multi-member district for the City of Richmond,
for the purpose of electing five delegates encompasses the
exact boundaries of the City from which all members of
Council are elected. It does not seem that there should be
an objection to the election of nine councilmen from the
30
same geographical area, and there be no objection to the
election of five members to the House of Delegates from
the same area. For these reasons, we respectfully urge
you to reconsider the City’s request for approval of the
election of councilmen at large as has been the practice
since 1948,
Respectfully submitted,
C, D. Mattox, Jr.
City Attorney
CBM:kh
Exhibit C
31
Mr. C. B. Mattox, Jr. s
City Attorney
Department of Law
402 City Hall
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Mattox:
This is in response to your resubmission on August 2,
1971, of the 1969 annexation to the City of Richmond
for reconsideration pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act. An objection was interposed to the initial
submission by my letter of May 7, 1971.
We have reviewed and considered the additonal infor-
mation you furnished, as well as the comments and views
expressed by yourself and Mr. Lewis F. Powell, Jr., who
submitted a memorandum in support of the resubmitted
change, and the recent findings announced by Judge
Merhige in pending litigation involving this annexation.
While we found this additional material both relevant and
useful, we find no basis for withdrawing our objection.
Although, as you point out, the intervening decision of
the Supreme Court in Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. 124,
did recognize that multi-member legislative districts are
not unconstitutional per se, we do not believe that
opinion is dispositive of issues "aised by the Richmond
annexation. In our view, considering all the available facts
and circumstances, the annexation of a large, almost
exclusively white area does have a discriminatory racial
effect on voting in the context of an emerging black
majority electorate, at-large council elections, and evi-
dence of racial purpose and effect introduced in a federal
court proceeding. It is therefore objectionable under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
32
We would like to reiterate our view that the objection
of the Attorney General under the Voting Rights Act
relates only to voting and election aspects of a proposed
change and, therefore, need not necessarily invalidate this
entire annexation. Thus, as we have suggested before, one
means of minimizing the racial effect of the annexation
and still allowing for the city’s growth and expansion
would be to adopt a system of single-member, non-
racially drawn councilmanic districts in place of at-large
voting. Should this or any other change be enacted and
submitted to the Attorney General, we will make every
effort to give it prompt consideration.
Sincerely,
/s/DAVID L. NORMAN
DAVID L. NORMAN
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
Exhibit D
33
July 5, 1972
The Honorable Richard Kleindienst
Attorney General of the United States
Department of Justice
Constitution Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20530
Dear Mr. Kleindienst:
On August 2, 1971, as counsel for the City of
Richmond, I requested The Honorable John N. Mitchell,
then Attorney General of the United States, to reconsider
an objection interposed on May 7, 1971, by the Justice
Department to the voting change which resulted from the
annexation by the City of Richmond of certain territory
formerly located in Chesterfield County. In response to
my request, The Honorable David L. Norman, Assistant
Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, on September
30, 1971, advised that the Attorney General had re-
viewea the additional information as submitted on
August 2, and had considered the findings announced by
The Honorable Robert R. Merhige, Jr., Judge of the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, in the case styled Curtis Felt, Sr., et al v. City of
Richmond, et al, Civil Action No. 151-71-R.
It is the City’s view that the Holt case should be
considered as it has now become fina!. The District
Court, on November 23, 1971, released a memorandum
which clearly sets forth the Court’s views that were
considered and argued on appeal. For your convenience a
copy of this memorandum is attached. The City and
34
Plaintiff Holt appealed to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The District Court had
ordered a special election to be held on January 25,
1972, which in effect would elect nine councilmen, seven
from one ward or district, and two from a second ward or
district. The Fourth Circuit stayed this special election by
order entered on December 8, 1971. The Fourth Circuit
heard the case and rendered its decision on May 3, 1972.
The Court found that there was no violation of the
Fifteenth Amendment and reversed Judge Merhige’s
order. The Plaintiff Holt appealed the decision of the
Fourth Circuit to the United States Supreme Court,
which denied the Writ of Certiorari on June 26, 1972.
It is apparent that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 isa
codification of the rights guaranteed by the Fifteenth
Amendment as indicated in the title of the Act: “An Act
to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States and for other purposes.” The Act
speaks in terms of enforcing the “guarantees of the
Fifteenth Amendment.”
In view of the purposes stated in the Act and in view
of the findings of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals,
the denial of the Writ by the Supreme Court, we
respectfully request that the objection interposed by the
Justice Department by letter dated May 7, 1971, be
withdrawn.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ C. B. Mattox, Jr.
C. B. Mattox, Jr.
City Attorney
CBM:kh
Enc.
Exhibit E
35
First Amendment to Complaint, Filed November 9, 1972
[Caption omitted in printing]
PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
Plaintiff, City of Richmond, Virginia, hereby makes an
amendment to the Complaint previously served and filed
herein, as follows:
1. On page 5 of the Complaint, after the sixth line and
Paragraph No. 7, add the following paragraph:
‘““7.a. Plaintiff desires and intends to hold an
election at large as has historically been done,
allowing the citizens of Plaintiff's total area to vote.
Insofar as Plaintiff's annexation may constitute a
voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or
effect a standard, practice, or procedure with
respect to voting within the meaning of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, such qualification, prerequisite,
standard, practice, or procedure does not have the
purpose and wili not have the effect of denying or
abridging the right to vote on account of race or
color.”
{Signatures and certificate of service omitted in printing]
Answer of United States, with Exhibit
[Caption omitted in printing]
ANSWER OF DEFENDENTS
For their answer to the Complaint filed herein, the
defendants, United States of America and Attorney
36
General Richard Kleindienst, state:
1. Defendants admit the allegations contained in
paragraphs |, 2, 6, 7, and 9 and of the Complaint.
2. Defendants admit the allegations contained in
paragraph 3 of the Complaint except that they can only
admit that the population statistics alleged are approxi-
mately correct.
3. Defendents admit the allegations contained in
paragraph 4 except that the allegation contained in the
second sentence is denied for lack of sufficient informa-
tion to form a belief as to the truth thereof.
4. Defendants admit the allegations contained in
paragraph 5 of the Complaint except that, for lack of
sufficient information to form a belief, they deny that
portion of the last sentence alleging the reason for the
dismissal of the Henrico annexation suit.
5. Defendants admit the allegations contained in
paragraph 8 of the Complaint except the allegation that
the Attorney General, in his letter of objection dated
May 7, 1971, relied on Chavis v. Whitcomb, 305 F. Supp.
1364, is denied.
6. Defendants admit the allegations contained in
paragraph 10 of the Complaint. Defendants aver further
that after the Complaint was filed in this case a response
was sent to the City Attorney advising that in view of the
pendency of this lawsuit reconsideration of the Attorney
General’s objection had been discontinued. Copy of letter
attached as Exhibit A.
7. The allegations contained in paragraph 11 are
admitted. The defendants aver further that a hearing was
held in the lawsuit there described on October 25, 1972.
37
By way of affirmative defense defendants allege that
the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted in that the Complaint fails to allege that
the voting change involved “does not have the purpose
and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race or color” as required by
the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c.
Having fully answered the allegations in the Complaint,
the defendants demand a judgment of dismissal or other
such relief as the Court deems appropriate.
/s/ GERALD W. JONES
GERALD W. JONES
ROBERT R. RUSH
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D.C. 20530
38
EXHIBIT A
[Certificate of service omitted in printing]
Mr. C. B. Mattox, Jr.
City Attorney
City of Richmond
Department of Law
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Mattox:
This is in response to your July 5, 1972 letter to the
Attorney General asking for reconsideration of our May
7, 1971 objection to the voting change which resulted
from the annexation by the City of Richmond of
territory formerly located in Chesterfield County.
As you know, a lawsuit seeking a declaratory judgment
under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was filed in the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia
by the City of Richmond on August 25, 1972. In view of
that development we discontinued our reconsideration
since the matter is now pending before the court.
Sincerely,
DAVID L. NORMAN
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
39
Answer of United States to Amendment to Complaint
[Caption omitted in printing]
DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S
AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT
The defendants, United States of America and Attor-
ney General Richard G. Kleindienst, for their Answer to
the Amendment to the Complaint, which adds paragraph
7.a., state:
Defendants admit the allegations contained in the first
sentence of paragraph 7.a. except for that part of the
sentence which alleges elections have been held histori-
cally at-large, which the defendants deny.
Defendants deny the second sentence of paragraph 7.a.
Further, defendants aver that the annexation does consti-
tute a voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or a
standard, practice or procedure with respect to voting
within the meaning of the Voting Rights Act of 1965S.
/s'GERALD W. JONES
GERALD W. JONES
ROBERT R. RUSH
Attorneys
Department of Justice
Washington, D. C. 20530
[Certificate of service omitted in printing]
40
Opinion of Special Three-Judge Annexation
Court, sitting in the Circuit Court of Chester-
field County, dated July 1,. 1969, in City of
Richmond vy. County of Chesterfield, et al.
VIRGINIA:
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CHESTERFIELD COUNTY
City of Richmond, Petitioner
v.
County of Chesterfield et al, Defendants
OPINION
Until June 21, 1969, when the County offered to
introduce evidence of an agreement entered into by the
Mayor of Richmond (with the approval of six of the nine
members of the City Council) and the Chairman of the
Board of Supervisors (with the approval of three others
of the six members of the Board of Supervisors of the
County), the hearing of this suit followed the usual
pattern of big city annexation proceedings.
The City’s petition was filed July 2, 1962, and for
various reasons, including an appeal from an order of
dismissal (208 Va. 278), trial on the merits was not
commenced until September, 1968 and was not con-
cluded until the final argument on June 26, 1969.
The City sought to annex an area containing some 51
square miles which in 1968 was estimated to contain
about 72,000 people of a total County population of
about 110,000. The school population figures were even
4]
more striking: Total County 30,000; Annexation Area
20,000.
Richmond has had no annexation on the South side of
the James River since 1942, and, as is the case of almost
all large cities, there has been a substantial growth of
urban residential population in the area adjoining the
City’s boundaries. As usual, this growth has been to some
extent at the cost of city population, because of the
lower cost of residential properties as well as the lower
taxes in the County. In fact, the growth in the annex-
ation area, especially during the six year period from
1962 to 1968 was described by some of the witnesses as
“phenomenal’’. Our views (we took several, including an
extensive helicopter ride), together with the evidence
adduced leave no doubt in ou minds that the entire
annexation area is rapidly becoming a densely populated
urban community. Of course, the closer to Richmond the
more the land has already been developed for residences
and the usual businesses. It must be observed that the
land in the entire annexation area is characteristically
urban rather than rural.
Chesterfield County has developed an _ excellent
modern government which satisfactorily supplies its
citizens with all needed services, such as sewage disposal,
public water, police protection, etc., and operates ai a
cost which results in taxes considerably lower than those
of the City. Small wonder that the residents of the
annexation area are happy in their present status and
oppose City annexation with its attendant increase in
taxes.
At the outset, as usual in these cases, the County took
three positions: First, that the City is not entitled to any
annexation; second, if there is to be any annexation the
42
area should be smaller than that sought; and third, that
the City’s estimate of compensation to ‘the County is
wholly inadequate. In fact there was a disparity of almost
$50,000,000 between the two.
E. I. Du Pont de Nemours & Company intervened to
oppose annexation of its property.
Some 12,000 individuals and eleven civic organizations
filed intervening petitions. The substance of their posi-
tions was that there should be no annexation of any
territory.
The Bon Air Transit Company intervened (under the
provision of Code Sec. 15.1-1042 (g) for the purpose of
advancing a claim for compensation for loss anticipated
as a result of the annexation.
The Chesterfield Refuse Company intervened for the
purpose of advancing a claim for compensation for
pecuniary loss anticipated as the result of the annexation.
Newton Ancarrow intervened for the purpose of
opposing the City’s undertaking of additional sewage
treatment at its Deepwater Plant.
It seems to us that it is copiously apparent that
Richmond is entitled to some annexation in this case. To
deny this is to say that the City can never grow into
Chesterfield County. Obviously cities must in some
manner be permitted to grow in territory and population
or they will face disastrous economic and _ social
problems. The exodus of productive citizens and the
influx of the economically underprivileged create an
intolerable condition that must have some means of
amelioration.
The City is fully capable, both managerially and
financially, of supplying some additional territory with
sound city government. The evidence overwhelmingly
convinces us of the necessity for an expediency of some
annexation:
‘
43
**.. Considering the best interests of the County
and the City *** ...the best interests, services to
be rendered and needs of the area proposed to be
annexed, and the best interests of the remaining
portion of the County.” (Underscoring supplied)
(Code Sec. 15.1-1041(b).
The individuals who live in the annexed area, for the
time being, will probably not receive any higher degree of
service than supplied by the County. The contention that
they do not need the City was answered in Henrico
County v. Richmond, 177 Va. 754, 788, 15 S.E. (2d)
309:
“Moreover, it is no answer to an annexation
proceeding to assert that individual residents of the
county do not need or desire the governmental
services rendered by the city. A county resident may
be willing to take a chance on police, fire and health
protection, and even tolerate the inadequacy of
sewerage, water and garbage service. As long as he
lives in an isolated situation his desire for lesser
services and cheaper government may be acquiesced
in with complacency, but when the movement of
population has made him a part of a compact urban
community, his individual preferences can no longer
be permitted to prevail. /t is not so much that he
needs the city government as it is that the area in
which he lives needs it.” (underscoring supplied)
People who establish their residences near a large city
must anticipate that eventually they will become a part
of that municipality.
Although there is no precise definition of the term
“expediency,” the best we have been able to find is that
pronounced in substance in Norfolk County v. Ports-
44
mouth, 186 Va. 1032, 1043, 1044, 45 SE (2d) 136.
Expedient means “advantageous”’ and in furtherance of
the policy of the State that “urban areas should be under
urban government and rural areas under county govern-
ment”’.
The County’s witnesses divided the annexation area
into forty-three study areas for the obvious purpose of
persuading the Court that the entire area sought should
not be granted, but the Court should award some
combination of such study areas which would constitute
a considerable expansion of the City’s boundaries and at
the same time lessen the violence of the impact of
annexation upon the County’s school and public utility
systems as well as all of its governmental agencies.
We are aware of no big city case in which the
annexation Court has granted the total area sought or the
exact amount of compensations contended for by either
party, and both the City and County may have antici-
pated that the Court might establish some boundary
within the area sought which it considered to be
reasonably adapted to “balance the equities’, giving to
the City enough territory for its needs in the reasonably
near future and at the same time permitting the County
to retain its present enviable status as a flourishing,
capable, viable government.
Not only have the Annexation Courts compromised as
to the boundary lines but even more so as to the
compensation by the City to the County. It is exceed-
ingly difficult to arrive at the values of public properties.
Different experts have widely divergent views on the
subject even under the yardsticks prescribed by Code Sec.
15.1-1043. The Cif'’s experts are always much more
conservative than the County’s. But the widest differ-
ences of all are usually to be found in the expert’s
45
estimates of ..... “prospective loss of net tax revenue
during the next five years”..... This is certainly true in
the instant case.
In the present case, until the evidence of the so-called
agreement was offered, the Court was faced with the
problem of determining the annexation line and fixing
the amount of compensation. If the 51 square mile
territory were granted the Court would have to decide as
to whose experts were more convincing as to the
County’s compensation. If the Court awarded too little
the people remaining in the County would suffer; if too
much, the County people would be enriched at the
expense of the City people. The Court must “balance the
equities”. If che City felt that the Court had not
“balanced the equities”, it might, with the consent of the
Court, decline to accept the annexation. Code Sec.
15.1-1044.
Decisions such as this point up the fact that an
annexation Court exercises not only judicial, but also
some legislative functions. This was frankly conceded by
the majority opinion in Henrico County v. City of
Richmond, 106 Va. 282, 55 SE 683.
These things must have been on the minds of the chief
executives of the two governments when they decided to
negotiate in the attempt to arrive at an agreement as to
what they considered to be to the best interests of their
respective constituents.
The two governing bodies had experienced a growing
lack of cooperation which almost amounted to animosity
as the too-long confrontation of this case progressed. The
City’s failure to supply the needs of the growing area for
water and sewer prompted the County to create excellent
facilities to supply such needs, which facilities in the eyes
46
of the County would be seriously impaired as to
efficiency and value if the City’s plan of annexation were
adopted.
Mr. Horner, the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors
of the County, testified that one of the desires which
prompted the agreement was to promote a better spirit of
cooperation and friendliness between the City and the
County. We think that this attitude is both praiseworthy
and practical.
So far as we can ascertain, a compromise between two
governing bodies in an annexation case is unprecedented.
While the City objected to the admission of evidence of
the agreement and moved to strike it at the time of its
presentation, the objection and motion were later with-
drawn. Both sides admit that the agreement is not
binding upon the Court.
After mature consideration, we feel that the agreement
is entitled to great weight. It must be remembered that
the parties to the agreement perform the legislative
functions of their governments as duly elected represent-
atives of the people. When they decide that their
constituents are benefitted by an action, such a decision
should not be treated lightly. Of course, it must not be
overlooked that they have not acted officially by
ordinance or resolution.
This, of course, does not mean that this Court should
abdicate its responsibility to decide this case on the
merits, but it does mean that in our deliberations we
must seriously consider the evidence of what these
officials have conscientiously agreed upon after what was
described in the arguments as hours of tedious negoti-
ation and “blood, sweat and tears’”’.
While the original agreement specified the annexation
47
line with reasonable precision and set forth the axact
amount of compensation to be paid the County, it was
seriously lacking in detailed solutions of the school and
utility problems. It was apparent that, unless the County
and City could agree upon some method of temporary
continuation of the County’s plans for the education of
the children in the annexed area, a serious disruption
would occur.
The two parties after consultation with their school
officials and engineers solved these problems by an
implementing agreement, dated June 25, 1969, marked
County Exhibit No. 108.
We have studied the finalized agreement and have
viewed the proposed boundary line, and find that it
meets all requirements of necessity and, most important
of all, expediency. The acquisition of the some 23 square
miles of territory and some 43,000 people will solve
many of the City’s problems, both now and for some
time to come. The impact upon the remainder of the
County will not be such as drastically to impair its
functionins as a modern governmental agency. The
compensation appears adequate and not excessive. The
conditions under which the schools will be operated and
the school building program continued would appear to
be designed to prevent the disruption of the children’s
education which originally caused us deep concern. The
agreement as to the operation of utilities seems practical.
In sum, we believe that the boundary line set forth in
the agreement should be the annexation line and that all
terms and conditions specified should constitute the
conditions of annexation verbatira, and we so adjudge
and decide.
48
It must be remembered that this Court remains in
existence for five years to “enforce the performance of
the terms and conditions under which annexation was
granted”..... Code Sec. 15.1-1047.
We are of opinion that this Court is without jurisdic-
tion to make an award of compensation for loss of
business by Chesterfield Refuse Company.
It is our opinion that the effective date of the
annexation order should be midnight, December 31,
1969.
Exhibits from Holt v. City of Richmond, 334
F. Supp. 228 (E.D.Va. 1971)
A.“Off the Record Conference in Chambers” —
Originally Defendant’s Exhibit 16 — Annexa-
tion Transcript, pp. 3234-3, 10, 11, 19, 20, 23,
25.
[3234]:
{3} As far as { am concerned, agreement has been
reached. We are seeking the advice of this Court on the
proper mechanics of concluding the agreement.
JUDGE ABBOTT: Can I ask a few questions?
MR. THORNTON: Yes, sir. This is my statement and
I make it here. These gentlemen may have a lot of
questions about mechanics.
JUDGE ABBOTT: Well, first, | would like to say that
we are pleased that you have gotten together and settled
your differences. I think it might in the end create good
49 . ,
will and harmony between the people but I think
mechanics is a question to consider.
Now, you say you gentlemen have agreed. Does that
mean the Board of Supervisors themselves will have to
take formal action on it? Does that mean the City
Council will have to take formal action on it? And what
are we going to do about protestors? .
MR. THORNTON: If your Honors please, of course,
this is something that has to be considered as we continue
to see if we can resolve our differences.
* * * ~
.
[10] The chances are we are going to approve it but
sometimes things come up that you can’t approve. |
have been in several annexation cases in which counsel
have agreed that it wasn’t practical, you had to change
it a little bit; it didn’t affect the outcome of the case
any but it made things more practical or equitable.
Just listening to what you have said this morning, it
would be my suggestion that we just proceed with the
case and then when the evidence is in, let us hear the
Protestors and then you can tell us what your agreement
is and we can make our decision accordingly, and in that
way the Intervenors won't feel like they have been kicked
around or left out.
There would be no need for the City Council to have a
meeting, it wouldn’t be necessary for the Board of
Supervisors to have a meeting. That would be a decision
for the Court.
The only thing about it is that either side could appeal,
which would be perfectly all right; | suppose they could
do it anyway, I don’t know.
MR. MAYS: It would certainly be our suggestion,
your Honor, to go forward with the [11] case because,
50
in the first place, it would look pretty odd to recess for
three days and then get the Intervenors in on Thursday.
That would really be odd.
JUDGE ABBOTT: Let us go ahead with the case and
while we are hearing the Intervenors let the City and the
County present to the Court in writing which we will
hold here confidentially in the office when you have a
proposition that you all have agreed upon, and then when
we consider the case we will have it in mind.
MR. THORNTON: I will do that right now.
MR. MAYS: No, sir; no, sir. I hope you will not make
that observation. Now, it is not necessary. You have three
days of trial and you have two days of Intervenors’
testimony, and I see no reason why we should make a
record of the discussion that have gone on.
It is the City Attorney’s position that we don’t have a
deal at all. Now, he may or may not be right. We will see
what he says. I have not been in negotia*ions, I have seen
nothing.
MR. THORNTON: Let me speak to this,... [19]
where the press and the radio can get it. When you
write it, just hand it to me instead of laying it on the
desk and I will give it to you gentlemen later on. I just
don’t want the press getting ahold of what we have
been talking about in here because the whole thing will
just — it would be wrong.
MR. MAYS: Yes, sir. That’s the reason I suggest, sir,
that if this is attempted to be put in as evidence we will
certainly object to the whole thing being opened up and
we think we would be in for a great controversy.
JUDGE ABBOTT: I don’t think we ought to put this
in evidence but just proceed with the trial as if you
hadn't been in here.
$1
MR. MAYS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE ABBOTT: Then when the evidence is all in
you can submit to us what your agreement is.
MR. MAYS: All right, sir.
MR. THORNTON: Your Honor — excuse me, your
Honor.
JUDGE MARSHALL: That’s all right, | want to hear
everybody before I voice my opinion.
MR. THORNTON: If your Honor please, [20] this
would all be well and good had we not — as you say,
proceed as if nothing had happened. Well, something
did happen and something of very great significance, as
far as we are concerned.
The Court is worrying about the interve vors. I say to
the Court, frankly, if we have got to go apace on the
evidence which was planned and the people who are
going to take the stand, people that have to take the
stand, as far as the whole case of Chesterfield County is
concerned, we are not going to finish by the day the
Intervenors are scheduled to come up.
JUDGE ABBOTT: Well, we will just have to take it in
stride.
MR. THORNTON: All rizht, sir.
JUDGE ABBOTT: I might suggest that if you have
entered into an agreement that the City need not cross
examine so extensively as you have.
MR. MAYS: We hadn’t planned to, your Honors.
JUDGE ABBOTT: And that would certainly save
some time.
MR. THORNTON: If your Honor please, you stress
the fact, and Mr. Davenport backed me up,...
~ « -
[23] MR. MATTOX: Yes, sir, but no one is going to
submit to you, Judge Abbott, or to this Court, no one
52
on behalf of the City of Richmond, no one can
represent to this Court that it is an agreement nor
neither can anyone submit that to the Court without
the action of the City Council.
JUDGE ABBOTT: Oh, I see the point you are making
now.
MR. MATTOX: We can’t do it and we wouldn't do it.
JUDGE ABBOTT: There has been talk of a settlement
that Council have agreed on that the City hasn’t agreed to
it formally or officially.
MR. MATTOX: Yes, sir.
JUDGE ABBOTT: I see the point you are making.
JUDGE WHITLEY: I have got a question here. Sup-
pose you come in and say this is what legal counsel have
agreed on, then we don’t have the benefit of argument as
we have in an adversary proceeding; we are not going to
be exercising our discretion, we are going to be taking
your decision. And without fully arguing the case, we
won't have the facts and the figures to really decide it on.
* * *
[25] Board or the Council?
MR. THORNTON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE MARSHALL: I would like to say, gentlemen,
that would hold great weight with me in my decision if it
was shown openly that the Mayor and six members of the
Council had agreed and that the Board of Supervisors had
agreed.
I would hesitate to overrule their agreement.
JUDGE ABBOTT: I think all of us would.
MR. THORNTON: Yes, sir. And, if your Honor
please —...
JUDGE MARSHALL: It might be that I would but I
would give it great weight. However, I would want it
53
made publicly; I would want it made in open court.
MR. THORNTON: Precisely what I intend to do.
JUDGE MARSHALL: And I had contemplaied that
would be done at the time that was set for argument after
all the evidence had been introduced. I haven’t had cause
to think about the effect on the intervenors or what their
attitude would be, whether or not they would be entitled
to additional...
7 i *
B. Defendant’s Exhibit 29[A] , pages 4579, 4580,
4585, 4586
[4579] JUDGE WHITLEY: In other words, the area
that is within the Horner-Bagley line contains a large
part of what is known as Bon Air area and some of
that is left out?
THE WITNESS: The old Bon Air is left in the County,
which used to be a resort place for rich people in
Richmond years ago. That is left in the proposed, in the
County on the proposed line, but Southampton, Oxford
Addition, Huguenot Farms, Traylor Estates, all of that is
Bon Air, too.
JUDGE ABBOTT: Explain to the Court, it may be the
other two members of the Court understand it but |
don’t, what is going to happen to the water services and
the sewer services within the Horner-Bagley line? Who is
going to operate the water, who is going to operate the
sewerage or take care of the sewerage? Have you worked
out those details?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. They have been worked out
and in the spirit of cooperation and mutually.
54
As to water, each can handle their own with no
problem. It may ve in the transition we would [4580]
have to sell the City a little water until they could get
lines reorganized, and perhaps the City would want to
continue to sell us a little water in certain places.
In our sewer, that’s a situation where they propose to
ultimately let the City serve the natural drainage areas of
sewers that would come from the County, and the
County would serve the City where their sewage would
drain into trunks that would lead to the Falling Creek
disposal plant.
JUDGE ABBOTT: You all agreed on that?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE ABBOTT: Now, about school children? Have
you agreed about educating these children within this line
that you have agreed on? And those who live outside the
line?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE ABBOTT: About going back and forth to
school?
According to the evidence here, the school children are
the ones that it seems like are going to suffer most right
here.
THE WITNESS: Sir, we have talked about that at
length, in fact, spent a good part of...
* * *
[4585] Now, this property is not developed on
either side of this road at the present time except for
some large homes with large acreages.
JUDGE ABBOTT: And you and the City have agreed
on the water and sewerage operations after this takes
effect, if it does take effect?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. We have.
55
JUDGE ABBOTT: All right. Suppose you can’t agree?
THE WITNESS: As I understand the proposition that
will be submitted at a later time, it will include a
paragraph that it is agreeable to both parties that the
rates will be submitted for arbitration.
JUDGE ABBOTT: All right. Now, on this debt the
City is to pay —
MR. THORNTON: It’s not the total on that sheet. It’s
three million more on that sheet.
JUDGE ABBOTT: The City is to pay so much in cash.
Now, have you all agreed on the City assuming bond
payments? Some of these bonds are revenue bonds for
sewer and water and in that case the County is not liable
for the bonds at all, the revenue takes [4586] care of
it. How are you going to work that out?
THE WITNESS: The sewer bonds, sir, are general
obligation bonds.
JUDGE ABBOTT: They are?
THE WITNESS: Yes, sir.
By Judge Abbott:
Q. But the water isn’t.
A. Water is not; thats revenue bonds. And it is
proposed that according to the per cent that they worked
out — it has been worked out — of the debt that each
time the payment came up that they would pay their
pro-rata part of the principal and interest at the time
payment was due, which would have been each year or
each time a payment was due that this per cent of the
debt that is worked out they will pay the pro-rata part of
the debt that was due at that time.
56
Q. I guess that’s the only way you could work it out.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. But you and the City are in full agreement on all
these details?
A. Yes, sir, to the best of my knowledge we are in full
agreement.
Would it be that the Court — you see,...
* * *
57
C. Plaintiffs Exhibit 1, pp. 1, 2, 3, 4 — Racial
— Maps for 1940, 1950, 1960 and
971.
_——_— —
eeserger> e+ -2
Se . —
peetbttecesssbbeee
ee eae test eneseaae
.
peeesage
op etic csp at etrerre
pSctatnaneteenbane
MASIILILE LAA St.
Pesgecatagsrest tvs
seesseetde
. 7 PF eeee es
pres
eee eee eit’ |
aa al PERCENT “CES
TTTTT ~ es seses>s!
a ey
--.) aa | = SL
61
Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 — Census Tabulations for
1930 through 1970, with Intercensus Estimates.
Population of the City of Richmond, Virginia, 1930-1970
1930 Census
1940 Census
1942 Annexation
1950 Census
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1960 Census
1961
1962
1963
1904
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970 Census
1970 Without
Annexation
Total White % Nonwhite %
182,929 129.871 71% 53,058 29%
193,042 131,706 68% 61,336 32%
230,310 157.228 68% 73.082 32%
240,492 162.145 67% 78,347 33%
238,707 152.520 64% 86.187 36%
240,744 152,181 63% 88,563 37%
237,219 146.643 62% 90,756 38%
238,303 145.643 61% 92.511 39%
219,958 127.627 58% 92.331 42%
220,188 125.208 57% 94,980 43%
220,555 123.132 56% 97,423 44%
221,150 122,075 §5% 99,075 45%
219,205 119,028 54% 100.177 46%
219.065 118,952 54% 100,113 46%
217,671 113.333 52% 104,338 48%
216,456 111,112 51% 105,344 49%
216,451 108.398 50% 108,053 50%
217.527 n.a. n.a.
249,621 143.857 58% 105,764 42%
46,262 45.707 98.8 555 1.2%
203,359 98.150 48% 105,209 52%
Note: Annexation by Richmond from Chesterfield and Henrico in
1941.
Annexation by Richmond from Chesterfield in 1970.
n.a. Not Available.
Source: U.S. Bureau of Census; intercensal estimates prepared by
the Bureau of Population & Economic Research, Univer-
sity of Virginia.
62 63
Plaintiffs Exhibit 3, a through n — Councilmanic 3B
Election Returns for City of Richmond, 1960-1970.
+A COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 12, 1962
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 14, 1960 Rank Candidate Endorsement Race Vote %
l Haberle Crusade White 11,348 50.9
Rank § Candidate =~ Endorsement Race Vote % 2 Sheppard Crusade & RCA White 11,184 50.0
l Sheppard RCA & Crusade White 14,879 53.1 3 Woodward Crusade & RCA White 10,353 464
2 Woodward RCA & Crusade White 14,096 50.7 4 Throckmorton Independ. White 10,201 458
3 Sadler RCA & Crusade White 13,435 48.2 5 Bagley RCA White 9,772 438
4 Rudd RCA &Crusade White 12,611 45.4 6 Smithers Crusade & RCA White 9,493 42.5
5 Johns RCA & Crusade White 11,389 40.9 7 Ford Crusade & RCA White 9,295 41.46
6 Ford RCA & Crusade White 10,988 39.5 8 Herrink Crusade White 9,200 41.3
7 Throckmorton Ind.&Crusade White 10,707 38.5 9 Sadler Crusade & RCA White 8.960 40.3
8 Garber Ind. & Crusade White 10,674 38.3
) Smithers RCA & Crusade White 10,574 38.0 10 Johns Crusade & RCA White 8.639 388
11 Newsome Crusade Black 7,903 35.5
10 Bagley Independ. White 10,550 37.9 12 DeBerry RCA White 7,598 34.1
11 Heberie Independ. White 10,196 36.7 13 Rudd RCA White 7,463 33.5
12 Macon Independ. White 10,105 36.4 14 Covey Independ. White 6,779 304
13 Herrink Independ. White 9,111 32.7 15 Carwile Independ. White 6.240 28.0
14 — Proctor Independ. White 9,001 32.4 16 — Sullivan Independ. White 6,113 274
1S _— Allen Independ. White 8,909 32.0 17 _— Elgert Independ. White 5,833 26.2
16 Carwile Independ. White 8,752 31.5 18 Gray Independ. White 1677 7.5
17 O’ Ferrall Independ. White 8.510 30.6 19 Smith Independ. (?) 1254 5.7
18 Williams Independ. White 8,325 29.9 20 Jenkins Independ. White 1184 53
19 Jenkins Independ. White 2,113 7.6 21 Brock Independ. White 1117 5.0
20 Thomas Independ. White 1910 69 2? McGehee Independ. White 1004 4.5
21 Anthony Independ. White 1401 5.0 23 Poupore Independ. White 893 40
22 ~— Brock Independ. White =1,256 3.7 24s O'Brien Independ. White 861 39
25 Howard Independ. White 656 2.9
TOTAL VOTE 27,823
TOTAL VOTE 22.337
;
OomOAD UN & WN —
64
3
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 10, 1964
Candidate
Sheppard
Cephas
Wheat
Anderson
Miller
Crowe
Bagley
Throckmorton
Habenicht
Hill
Heverle
Louthan
Wilson
Smithers
Garber
Herrink
Carwile
Covey
Eggleston
Charity
McGehee
TOTAL VOTE 30,928
Endorsement
RF
Crusade
RF
Independ.
RF
RF
Independ.
Independ.
RF
RF
Independ.
RF
RF
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Race
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
Whiie
White
White
White
White
White
Black
Black
White
Vote
18,042
16,512
15,965
15,135
13,886
13,846
13,333
12,860
12,780
12,211
12,186
11,887
11,747
11,574
10,474
8,634
8,228
6,983
6,396
6,121
1 603
Je
58.3
53.4
$1.6
48.9
44.9
44.8
43.1
41.6
41.4
39.5
39.4
38.5
38.0
37.5
33.9
27.9
26.6
22.6
20.7
19.8
5.2
— eee
aunt WN OC OmAnNAD UF WN
65
3-D
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 14, 1966
Candidate
Bagley
Cephas
Sheppard
Crowe
Mundle
Marsh (H)
Wheat
Habenicht
Carwile
Miller
Marsh (R)
Throckmorton
Covey
House
Holt
Bradley
Endorsement
RF & Crusade
RF & Crusade
RF
RF
RF & Crusade
Crusade
RF
RF
Crusade
RF
RF
Independ.
Independ.
Crusade
Independ.
Independ.
TOTAL VOTE 36,248 (100%)
Race
White
Black
White
White
Black
Black
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
Vote
23,997
22,957
19,763
19,102
18,286
17,812
17,803
17,066
16,356
15,862
15,388
14,876
13,359
13,269
7,916
7 663
%
66.2
63.3
54.5
$2.7
50.4
49.1
49.1:
47.1
45.1
43.8
42.5
41.0
36.9
36.6
21.8
21.1
66
3-E
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 14, 1966
Split Precincts — Precincts 17, 23, 25, 45, 54, 56, 58 and 68
Candidate
Cephas
Bagley
H.L. Marsh
Carwile
Mundle
Sheppard
Crowe
House
Covey
Throckmorton
Wheat
Habenicht
Miller
R.T. Marsh
Bradley
Holt
TOTAL VOTE 4,604
Endorsement
RF & Crusade
RF & Crusade
Crusade
Crusade
RF & Crusade
RF
RF
Crusade
independ.
Independ.
RF
RF
RF .
RF
Independ.
Independ.
Race
Black
White
Black
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
Vote
3,057
3,041
2,808
2,760
2,493
2,203
2,130
2,078
2,075
2,016
1,848
1,776
1,622
1,578
1,175
1,145
%
66.4
66.0
61.1
59.9
54.1
47.8
46.3
45.2
45.1
43.8
40.1
38.6
36.3
34.3
25.5
24.9
Mi, Sth centictton de ata nel. ee eae — = ~
os,
67
3-F
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 14, 1966
Black Precincts Exclusive of Split Precincts*
Precincts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6,7, 8,9, 18, 19, 24, 46, 47, 55, 62, 63, 64, 65,
66, and 67
Rank Candidate Endorsement Race Vote %
l H.L. Marsh Crusade Black 11,270 83.4
2 Cephas RF & Crusade Black 10,432 77.2
3 Mundle RF & Crusade _ Black 9,329 69.0
4 Carwile Crusade White 8,454 62.5
5 Bagley RF & Crusade White 7,316 54.1
6 Sheppard RF White 5,691 42.1
7 House Crusade White 4,589 33.9
8 Covey Independ. White 4,545 33.6
9 Crowe RF White 4,485 33.2
10 Wheat RF White 3,581 26.4
11 Habenicht RF White 3,088 22.8
12 Miller RF White 3,003 22.2
13 R.T. Marsh RF White 2,929 21.7
14 Throckmorton _Independ. White 2,467 18.3
15 Bradley Independ. White 1,426 10.4
16 Holt Independ. White 1,170 8.6
TOTAL VOTE 13,515 (100%)
*Does not include split precincts 17, 23, 25, 45, $4, $6, 57, 58
and 68
eet
Candidate
Carwile
Bagley
Bliley
Crowe
Carpenter
Marsh (H)
Forb
Wheat
Pusey
Cephas
Mundle
Randolph, B.
Kenney
Randolph, M.
Edwards
Bradley *
68
3-G
Endorsement
Crusade
RF
RF
RF
Crusade
Crusade
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
Independ.
Crusade
Crusade
Independ.
TOTAL VOTE 44,787 (100%)
*withdrew prior to election
Race
White
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
Black
Black
White
Black
Black
White
Black
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 10, 1968
Vote
25,361
24,604
23,552
22,631
22,091
22,014
21,960
21,437
20,556
19,675
18,845
18,749
16,372
15,282
6,190
4,448
%
56.6
54.9
52.6
50.5
49.3
49.2
49.0
47.9
45.9
43.9
42.1
41.9
36.6
34.1
13.8
9.9
69
3-H
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 10, 1968
Split Precincts
Precincts — 3, 8, 11, 12, 17, 23,25, 29, 34, 45, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58,
68
Rank
Omen DMN DWN —
— eet
Aunt WN — ©
Candidate
Carwile
Carpenter
Marsh
Bagley
Bliley
Kenney
Crowe
Forb
Randolph, M.
Wheat
Pusey
Randolph, B.
Cephas
Mundle
Edwards
Bradley
TOTAL VOTE 9,402
Endorsement
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
RF
RF
Crusade
RF
RF
Crusade
RF
RF
Independ.
RF
RF
Independ.
Independ.
Race
White
White
Black
White
White
Black
White
White
Black
White
White
White
Black
Black
White
White
Vote
6,203
5,411
5,208
4,485
4,334
4,069
3,985
3,820
3,753
3,642
3,610
3,561
3,476
3,285
1,583
1,122
%
66.0
57.5
55.4
47.7
46.0
43.3
42.2
40.6
39.9
38.7
38.4
37.9
37.0
34.9
16.8
11.9
70
3-I
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 10, 1968
Black Precincts Exclusive of Split Precincts*
Precincts 1, 4, 5, 6, 7,9, 18, 19, 24, 46,47, 55, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66
and 67
cousuaune £
_—_
—_ ©
—_— et
aun & Wd
Candidate
Marsh
Carwile
Carpenter
Kenney
Randolph, M.
Cephas
Mundle
Bagley
Crowe
Bliley
Bradley
Forb
Wheat
Pusey
Randolph, B.
Edwards
Endorsement
Crusade
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Crusade
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
Independ.
RF
RF
RF
Independ.
Independ.
TOTAL VOTE 14,666 (100%)
Race
Black
White
White
Black
Black
Black
Black
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
Vote
13,363
13,061
12,010
10,759
9,660
3,433
2,922
2,388
2,284
1,877
1,680
1 669
1,595
1,574
1,546
529
%o
91.0
88.9
85.0
73.3
65.8
23.4
19.9
16.3
15.5
12.8
11.4
11.4
10.9
10.7
10.
3.6
iio ee ae ee a
O©OANIKDAUN Rh WNK O coraueune BF
to
Oo
mM MN bh
> Wn —
mM MN hv
onan
71
3-J
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 10, 1970
Carpenter
Bliley
Forb
Daniel
Valentine
Rennie
Thompson
Orndorff
Morris
Kenney
Lewis
Shiro
Taylor
Livingston
Holt
McCullen
J.R. Johnson
Leake
Royall
Hodges
L. Johnson
Weber
Collins
Hall
Habough
Scordo
New City Results
Endorsement
Crusade
Crusade
Crusade
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
RF
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Crusade
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
TOTAL VOTE 51,509 (100%)
Race
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
Vote
29,031
26,012
25,502
24,928
21,781
21,429
20,977
19,767
19,431
19,338
19,238
17,592
16,409
16,140
15,408
13,41!
13,009
12,762
11,307
9,586
5,560
4,945
3,067
2,139
1,847
1,586
1,278
962
%o
56.3
50.5
49.5
48.3
42.3
41.6
40.8
38.4
37.7
37.5
37.4
34.2
31.9
31.3
29.9
26.1
25.3
24.8
22.0
18.5
10.6
9.6
6.0
4.2
3.6
3.1
2.5
1.9
— eee et
BYRRRBRRRBSSIRAEGS IS em vsusune B
72
3-K
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 10, 1970
Candidate
Carwile
Marsh
Carpenter
Bliley
Forb
Daniel
Valentine
Kenney
Rennie
Morris
Thompson
Orndorf
Lewis
Shiro
Holt
Taylor
McCullen
Livingston
J. Johnson
Leake
Hodges
L. Johnson
Royall
Collins
Weber
Hall!
Haboush
Scordo
TOTAI. VOTE 42.248
Old City Results
Endorsement
Crusade
Crusade
Crusade
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
Crusade
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Crusade
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Race
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
White
73
3-L
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 10, 1970
Split Precincts
(Old City)
Precincts — 3, 7, 8, 12, 17, 60, 61, 68
ee
OU MANAUS WN © Omen KDU SP WN
NM NM te NY
n> Ww —
Nm NM WN
ona
Candidate
Carwile
Marsh
Carpenter
Kenney
Shiro
Lewis
Holt
Taylor
McCulien
Bliley
Livingston
Forb
J. Johnson
Daniel
Leake
Rennie
Morris
Valentine
Orndorf
Thompson
Royall
Hodges
Collins
L. Johnson
Hall
Haboush
Weber
Scordo
Endorsement
Crusade
Crusade
Crusade
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
TOP
Crusade
TOP
Independ.
TOP
Independ.
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
TOTAL VOTE 3,615 (100%)
Race
White
Black
White
Black
White
White
Black
White
White
White
Whiie
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
Vote %
2,278 62.9
2,083 57.6
2,041 56.4
1,594 44.1
1,376 38.0
1,293 35.7
1,242 34.3
1,242 34.3
1,130 31.2
1,104 30.5
1,100 30.4
1,084 30.0
1,075 29.7
1,053 29.1
944 26.1
856 23.7
782 21.6
770 «21.3
729 20.1
646 17.9
549 15.2
420 11.6
281 7.28
252 7.0
158 4.4
152. 4.2
150. 4.2
106 2.9
74
3-M
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 10, 1970
Black Precincts Exclusive of Split Precincts
(Old City)
Precincts — 1,4, 5, 6, 18, 19, 23, 24, 45, 46, 47, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58,
59, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67
Rank
Conant wn —
Ns
COO OmON AU Sf WN — O
Nm Ne Nv
wn —
N Nw
nan &
mNm N
on a
Candidate
Marsh
Carwile
Kenney
Carpenter
Holt
Lewis
Shiro
McCullen
Livingston
Bliley
Taylor
Leake
L. Johnson
Daniel
Forb
J. Johnson
Rennie
Valentine
Morris
Thompson
Orndorf
Hodges
Royall
Scordo
Collins
Hall
Haboush
Weber
Endorsement
Crusade
Crusade
Crusade
Crusade
Crusade
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Crusade
TOP
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
TOP
TOP
Independ.
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
TOTAL VOTE 15,940 (100%)
a,
Black
White
Black
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
Vote
14,032
13,826
11,789
11,643
9,492
8,253
7,997
7,678
7,445
2,541
2,459
2,444
1,915
1,874
1,588
1,107
1,056
998
909
749
682
386
325
302
290
198
187
136
%
84.3
83.1
70.7
69.9
56.9
49.5
48.0
46.1
44.6
15.3
14.8
14.6
11.5
11.2
9.5
6.6
6.3
6.0
5.5
4.5
4.1
2.3
2.0
’
i.
1.7
1.2
1.1
0.8
75
3-N
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION — June 10, 1970
White Precincts Exclusive of Split Precincts
(Old City)
Precincts — 2,9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 25-44, 48-53
ee ee —
SSMIADEBR-—O Coraneune B
NMNNMWN WN NN
CNA UMN WN —
Candidate
Bliley
Valentine
Forb
Daniel
Rennie
Morris
Thompson
Orndorf
Carpenter
Carwile
Taylor
Marsh
J. Johnson
Lewis
Leake
Shiro
Kenney
Hodges
Livingston
McCullen
Royall
Holt
Weber
Collins
Hall
L. Johnson
Haboush
Scordo
Endorsement
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
TOP
Crusade
Crusade
independ.
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Independ.
Independ.
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Crusade
Independ.
Crusade
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
Independ.
TOTAL VOTE 22,693 (100%)
Race
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
Black
White
White
White
White
Biack
White
White
White
Black
White
White
Vote
16,439
16,087
14,925
14,231
14,216
13,619
13,299
13,120
8,028
8,028
7435
6,623
5,785
4,910
3,651
3,170
2,878
2,598
2,160
2,009
1 933
1 666
884
805
695
661
621
328
%
72.4
66.5
65.8
62.7
62.7
60.0
58.6
57.9
35.4
35.4
32.7
29.2
25.5
216
16.1
14.0
12.7
11.4
9.5
8.9
8.5
7.3
3.9
3.6
3.1
2.9
2.7
1.4
76
Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 — Merger Vote, Richmond-
Henrico, December 13, 1961.
MERGER OF HENRICO AND RICHMOND
Vote — December 13, 1961
Black Precincts — 100% vote No
Mixed Precincts — 62% vote No
White Precincts — 95.7% vote Yes
Results
Precinct For Against Character Results
l 22 130 Black No
2 202 42 White Yes
3 56 80 Mixed No
4 22 151 Black No
5 26 121 Black No
6 47 71 Mixed No
7 45 178 Mixed No
& 90 92 White No/Yes
) 52 95 White No
10 108 28 White Yes
11 151 48 White Yes
12 201 38 White Yes
13 253 43 White Yes
14 338 44 White Yes
15 434 44 White Yes
16 247 97 White Yes
17 88 32 White Yes
18 47 327 Black No
19 51 168 Black No
20 382 19 White Yes
21 276 25 White Yes
22 255 42 White Yes
23 102 81 White Yes
24 77 331 Black No
25 312 238 Mixed Yes
26 155 31 White Yes
27 185 28 White Yes
77
Results
Against Character Results
44 White Yes
44 White Yes
42 White Yes
34 White Yes
25 White Yes
40 White Yes
62 White Yes
28 White Yes
55 White Yes
14 White Yes
68 White Yes
30 White Yes
22 White Yes
33 White Yes
28 White Yes
40 White Yes
23 White Yes
78 Mixed Yes
390 Black No
156 Black No
64 White Yes
60 White Yes
35 White Yes
43 White Yes
92 Mixed Yes
28 White Yes
179 Mixed No
363 Mixed No
34 White Yes
111 White Yes
67 White Yes
41 White Yes
53 White Yes
35 White Yes
276 Black No
98 Black No
310 Black No
210 Black No
201 Black No
313 Black No
205 Mixed No
78
G.1. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 (a) — Election analysis 1966.
AN ANALYSIS OF THE VOTING
IN THE COUNCILMANIC ELECTION, JUNE 14, 1966
There was a considerable change in the voting pattern
in the 1966 councilmanic election as compared with the
1964 election. The 1966 total of 36,248 was an increase
of 5,320 votes over the 1964 total of 30,928. This was an
increase of approximately 17 per cents.
The increase in the Negro vote was 5,928, or 60 per
cent, from 1962 to 1964. The white vote actually
dropped approximately 600 votes, or 3 per cent.
The Negro vote was 43 per cent of the total vote in
1966 as compared with only 32 per cent of the total in
1964.
Even with this change in the voting pattern, the Negro
community was not able to give any candidate sufficient
votes to elect him without support from the white
community. However, neither did the white community
give any candidate sufficient votes for election without
support from the Negro community.
While this 1966 vote was the highest councilmanic vote
on record, it did not compare with the 1964 presidential
election when 63,964 votes were cast. It is estimated that
this total represented approximately 37,400 white votes
and 25,500 Negro votes. Even this total is less than 50
per cent of the adult population of the city.
Richmond Forward Strength
In the Fan District most RF candidates obtained a
larger percentage of the vote than in 1964, but Throck-
79
morton ran ahead of Mundle. In the Fax West End
Richmond Forward candidates increased their majority
substantially over the 1964 majority, but here again
Throckmorton ran ahead of Mundle.
The RF candidates did better in 1966 on the Southside
and in the Ginter Park-Barton Heights area. The RF
candidates took eight of the top 9 spots in the Ginter
Park area and 7 of the top 9 spots in the Southside
precincts.
RF candidates did better in the Mid-West End pre-
cincts and Highland Park in 1966 than they did in 1964,
but these are still unfavorable precincts.
Negro Precincts
It is estimated that the Crusade for Voters endorse-
ment was worth approximately 4,000 votes. This was the
difference between the vote given House and Holt in the
Negro precincts. Crusade support for Carwile increased
his percentage of the Negro vote from 49 per cent in
1964 to 63 per cent in 1966.
Bagley received 8,534 Negro votes with both Crusade
and Labor support as compared with Sheppard who
received 6,637 without this support. The Richmond
Forward organization in the Negro communi*y produced
from 3,400 to 6,600 votes for RF candidates who did not
receive Crusade support. The weakest RF candidate in
the Negro community received 22 per cent of the vote in
1966 as compared with 14 per cent for the weakest RF
candidate in 1964.
80
Number of Candidates Per Ballot
The average number of candidates voted for per ballot
in the white community was 8.0 candidates in 1966 as
compared with 8.3 candidates in 1964.
In the Negro community the number of candidates per
ballot dropped to 6.0 in 1966 from 6.3 in 1964.
Bagley
Bagley led the ticket in all white areas of the city
except Highland Park. He received 64 per cent of his vote
from the white community and 36 per cent from the
Negro community. He had the support of RF, labor and
the Crusade. Bagley increased his percentage of the total
vote from 43 per cent in 1964 to 66 per cent in 1966.
Cephas
With the support of all organizations except the
Taxpayers Association, Cephas received 10,783 votes
from the white community and 12,174 votes from the
Negro community, 47 percent of his support came from
the white community. He increased his percentage of the
total vote from 53 per cent in 1964 to 63 per cent in
1966. He ran very strong in the favorable RF areas with
60 per cent of the vote in the Fan District and 59 per
cent of the vote in the Far West End.
Sheppard
Sheppard’s percentage of the total vote declined from
58 per cent in 1964 to 55 per cent in 1966. She received
81
6,637 votes from the Negro community without the
support of the Crusade. This accounted for one-third of
her total vote.
Crowe
Crowe’s support throughout the city increased consid-
erably — from 45 per cent in 1964 to 53 per cent in
1966. He ran well in all areas and received 5,231 votes in
the Negro community, which accounted for 27 per cent
of his total vote.
Mundle
Mundle received 7,400 votes from the white commu-
nity and 10,880 from the Negro community. 41 per cent
of his support came from the white community. In the
strong RF precincts he received 43 per cent of the total
white vote.
H. L. Marsh
Henry L. Marsh received 4,667 white votes, or 26 per
cent of his total vote. He led the ticket in all areas of the
Negro community. In the white community he did
poorest in the strong RF precincts in the Fan District and
the Far West End with 19 and 17 per cent of the total
vote respectively.
82
Wheat
Wheat’s percentage of the total vote dropped from 52
per cent in 1964 to 49 per cent in 1966. His share of the
vote increased in the white community, but dropped in
the Negro community. He received only 24 per cent of
his total vote from the Negro community.
Habenicht
Habenicht received 79 per cent of his vote from the
white community and 21 per cent from the Negro
community. He received 3,650 votes in the Negro
community. He ran very close to Wheat throughout the
white community.
Carwile
Carwile received 6,457 votes from the white commu-
nity and 9,859 from the Negro community. 40 per cent
of his vote was white and 60 per cent Negro. He ran
strong in the unfavorable RF areas. For instance he
received 50 per cent of the Highland Park vote. He was
supported by the Taxpayers Association, labor and the
Crusade. His percentage of the Negro vote increased from
49 per cent in 1964, without Crusade support, to 63 per
cent in 1966, with Crusade support.
Miller
Miller received 22 per cent of his votes from the Negro
community and 78 per cent from the white community.
83
His total Negro vote was 3,500. He ran stronger in the
white community in 1966 than in 1964, but his
percentage of the Negro vote dropped to 22 per cent in
1966 from 31 per cent in 1964. Miller’s percentage of the
total vote was 44 per cent in 1966 as compared with 45
per cent in 1964 when he ran fifth.
R. T. Marsh
Robert T. Marsh’s vote was very close, but slightly
behind Miller’s vote throughout the community. He
received 11,971 votes from the white community and
3,417 from the Negro community.
Throckmorton
Throckmorton’s percentage of the total vote declined
only six-tenths of one percent from 1964 to 1966. He ran
eighth in 1964 and twelfth in 1966. The difference was in
a drop from 33 per cent of the Negro vote in 1964 to 18
per cent in 1966. He ran stronger in favorable RF
precincts in 1966 than he did in 1964.
Referendum
The staggered terms issue was defeated in the Negro
community, where only 13 per cent of the voters cast
ballots in favor of it. This issue received a favorable vote
of 58 per cent in the white community.
Total Vote by Candidates
Rank Candidate
| Bagley
2 Cephas
3 Sheppard
4 Crowe
5 fundle
6 H_ L. Marsh
7 Wheat
8 Habenicht
9 Carwile
10 Miller
11 R. T. Marsh
12 Throckmorton
13 Covey
14 House
15 Holt
16 Bradley
Referendum
FOR
AGAINST
Total Vote
84
TABLE 1
Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966
1966 Vote
Total (%)
23,997 (66.2%)
22,957 (63.3%)
19,763 (54.5%)
19,102 (52.7%)
18,286 (50.4%)
17,812 (49.1%)
17,803 (49.1%)
17,066 (47.1%)
16,356 (45.1%)
15,862 (43.8%)
15,388 (42.5%)
14,876 (41.0%)
13,359 (36.9%)
13,269 (36.6%)
7,916 (21.8%)
7,663 (21.1%)
13,412 (37.0%)
21,760 (60.0%)
36,248
1964 Vote
T tal (%)
13,333 (43.2%)
16,512 (53.4%)
18,042 (58.4%)
13,846 (44.8%)
15,965 (51.6%)
12,780 (41.3%)
8,228 (26.8%)
13,886 (44.9%)
12,860 (41.6%)
6,983 (22.6%)
(100.0%) 30,928 (100.0%)
Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966
85
TABLE 2
Vote in Fan District - Precincts 2, 20, 21, 22, 43 and 44
Rank Candidate
l Bagley
2 Crowe
3 Wheat
4 Habenicht
5 Sheppard
6 Miller
7 R. T. Marsh
8 Cephas
9 Throckmorton
10 Mundle
1] House
12 Covey
13 Carwile
14 Holt
15 Bradley
16 H. L. Marsh
Referendum
FOR
AGAINST
Total Vote
Total Vote
1722
1682
1672
1592
1567
1533
1497
1335
1183
946
640
$76
$29
$20
504
411
% of Total
77.4%
75.6%
75.2%
71.6%
70.5%
68.9%
67.3%
60.0%
53.2%
42.5%
28.8%
25.9%
23.8%
23.4%
22.6%
18.5%
64.4%
34.0%
100.0%
86
TABLE 3
Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966
Vote in Mid West End - Precincts 26, 27, 28, 29, 41 and 42
Rank Candidate
] Bagley
2 Throckmorton
3 Crowe
4 Habenicht
5 Wheat
6 Miller
7 Sheppard
8 House
9 R. T. Marsh
10 Cephas
1] Covey
i2 Carwile
13 Holt
14 Bradley
15 Mundle
16 H. L. Marsh
Referendum
FOR
AGAINST
Total Vote
Total Vote
1275
1237
1085
1045
1034
931
921
861
850
771
744
709
701
667
459
432
803
928
1765
(Area Between Boulevard and Belt Line)
% of Total
72.2%
70.1%
61.5%
59.2%
58.6%
52.8%
52.2%
48.8%
48.2%
43.7%
42.2%
40.2%
39.7%
37.8%
26.0%
24.5%
45.5%
52.6%
100.0%
87
TABLE 4
Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966
Far West End - Precincts 30 through 40
(Area West of Belt Line)
Rank Candidate Total Vote
| Bagley 5400
2 Crowe $232
3 Wheat 5130
4 Habenicht 5012
5 Sheppard 5007
6 Miller 4786
7 R. T. Marsh 4589
8 Cephas 3986
9 Throckmorton 3276
10 Mundle 2919
1) House 2089
12 Covey 1906
13 Holt 1487
14 Carwile 1455
15 Bradley 1302
16 H. L. Marsh 1139
Referendum
FOR 4612
AGAINST 2065
Total Vote 6745
% ot Vote
80.1%
77.6%
76.1%
74.3%
74.2%
71.0%
68.0%
59.1%
48.6%
43.3%
31.0%
28.3%
22.0%
21.6%
19.3%
16.9%
68.4%
30.6%
100.0%
88 ) 89
TABLE 5 TABLE 6
Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966 Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966
Northside (Ginter Park and Barton Heights) - Northside (Highland Park) - Precincts 59, 60 and 61
Precincts 48 through 53
Rank Candidate Total Vote % of Vote
Rank Candidate Total Vote % of Vote
l Throckmorton 666 79.2%
l Bagley 2506 73.7% 2 Bradley 575 68.3%
2 Crowe 2338 68.8% 3 Bagley 540 64.2%
3 Habenicht 2318 68.2% a House 475 56.5%
4 Wheat 2286 67.2% 5 Covey 462 54.9%
5 Sheppard 2276 66.9% 6 Holt 457 54.3%
6 Miller 2065 60.7% 7 Crowe 434 51.6%
7 R. T. Marsh 2038 59.9% 8 Habenicht 428 50.9%
8 Throckmorton 1959 57.6% 9 Carwile 417 49.6%
9 Cephas 1784 52.5% 10 Wheat 414 49.2%
10 Mundle 1207 35.5% 1] Sheppard 379 45.1%
1] Covey 1195 35.1% 12 Miller 362 43.0%
12 House 1142 33 6% 13 R. T. Marsh 356 42.3%
13 Holt 940 28.5% 14 Cephas 243 28.9%
14 Carwile | 928 27.5% 15 H. L. Marsh 210 25.0%
15 Bradley 888 26.1% 16 Mundle 126 15.0%
16 H. L. Marsh 758 22.2%
Referendum
Referendum
7 FOR 280 33.3%
FOR 1895 55.7% AGAINST 544 64.7%
AGAINST 1462 43.0%
Total Vote 841 100.0%
Total Vote 3400 100.0%
90 91
TABLE 7 TABLE 8
Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966 Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966
Southside - Precincts 10 through 16 Negro Precincts Exclusive of Split Precincts*
Precincts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, 24, 46, 47,
Rank Candidate Total Vote % of Vote 55, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, and 67
l Bagley 2197 69.6% Rank Candidate Total Vote* % of Vote
2 Throckmorton 2072 65.7%
3 Covey 1856 58.9% l H. L. Marsh 11,270 83.4%
4 Wheat 1838 58.3% 2 Cephas 10,432 77.2%
5 Habenicht 1789 56.7% 3 Mundle 9,329 69.0%
6 Sheppard 1718 54.5% 4 Carwile 8,454 62.5%
7 Crowe 1716 54.4% 5 Bagley 7,316 54.1%
8 Miller 1560 49.5% 6 Sheppard 5,691 42.1%
9 R. T. Marsh 1551 49.2% 7 House 4,589 33.9%
10 Holt 1496 47.4% 8 Covey 4,545 33.6%
11 House 1395 44.2% S) Crowe 4,485 33.2%
12 Cephas 1349 42.8% 10 Wheat 3,581 26.4%
13 Bradley 1126 35.7% 11 Habenicht 3,088 22.8%
14 Carwile 1104 35.0% 12 Miller 3,003 22.2%
15 Mundle . 807 25.6% 13 R. T. Marsh 2,929 21.7%
16 H. L. Marsh 784 24.9% 14 Throckmorton 2,467 18.3%
15 Bradley 1,426 10.5%
Referendum 16 Holt 1,170 8.6%
FOR 1430 45.4% Referendum
AGAINST 1694 53.7%
FOR 1,765 13.0%
Total Vote 3154 100.0% AGAINST 10,686 79.0%
Total Vote 13,515* 100.0%
*Does not include split precincts 17, 23, 25, 45, 54, 56, 57,
58 and 68.
92 93
TABLE 9 TABLE 10
Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966 Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966
Estimated White and Negro Vote in Split Precincts Analysis of Vote by Candidates
Precincts 17, 23, 25, 45, 54, 56, 57, 58, and 68
Bagley Cephas Sheppard
Total Estimated Estimated
Rank Candidate Vote Negro Vote White Vote White Precincts
1 Cephas 3,057 ‘1,742 1,315 West End
2 Bagley 3,041 1,218 1,823 Fan District 1722 (7.1%) 1335 (5.8%) 1567 (7.9%)
3 H. L. Marsh 2,808 1,875 933 Mid West End 1275 (5.3%) 771 (3.4%) 921 (4.7%)
4 Carwile 2,760 1,405 1,355 Far West End 5400 (22.5%) 3986 (17.3%) 5007 (25.3%)
5 Mundle 2,493 1,551 942 Northside
oe) , es
| o- 2S Gime Pak
. to “eo = ae Barton Heights 2506 (10.4%) 1784 (7.8%) 2276 (11.5%)
~ ’ i 9) »)
9 Sum 2075 256 1320 Highland Park 540 (2.3%) 243 (1.1%) 379 (1.9%)
10 Throckmorton 2,016 411 1,605 Southside 2917 (9.2%) i349 (5.9%) 1718 (8.7%)
11 Wheat 1,848 593 1,255 Split (9) Estimated 1823 (7.6%) 1315 (5.7%) 1257 (6.4%)
12 Habenicht 1,776 544 1,232 ; > ane Paragon a
13 Miller 1622 499 1123 Total White 15,463 (64.4%) 10,783 (47.0%) 13,125 (66.4%)
14 R. T. Marsh 1,578 488 1,090 ——
1S Bradley 1,175 236 939 —_
16 Holt 1,145 193 952 Central (4) 930 1271 699
South (4) 923 1107 691
Referendum West (3) 1557 2110 1143
North (3) 1069 1928 1233
FOR 1,194 292 902 East (6) 2837 4016 1925
AGAINST 3,292 1,776 1,516 Split (9) 1218 1742 946
Total Negro 8534 (35.6%) 12,174 (53.0%) 6637 (33.6%)
Total Vote 4,604 2,248 2,356 ——
Total Vote 23,997 (100.0%) 22,957 (100.0%) 19,762 (100.0%)
White Precincts
West End
Fan District
Mid West End
Far West End
Northside
Ginter Park-
Barton Heights
Highland Park
Southside
Split (9) Estimated
Total White
Negro Precincts
Central (4)
South (4)
West (3)
North (3)
East (6)
Split (9)
Total Negro
Total Vote
94
Crowe
1682
1085
$232
2338
434
1716
1384
13,871
542
550
903
1007
1483
746
$231
(8.8%)
(5.7%)
(27.4%)
(12.2%)
(2.3%)
(9.0%)
(7.2%)
(72.6%)
Mundle
946
459
2919
120”
126
807
942
(5.2%)
(2.5%)
(16.0%)
(6.6%)
(0.7%)
(4.4%)
(5.1%)
740€ (40.5%)
1063
1002
1850
1841
3573
1551
H. L. Marsh
411
432
1139
758
210
784
933
(2.3%)
(2.4%)
(6.4%)
(4.3%)
(1.2%)
(4.4%)
($.2%)
4667 (26.2%)
1312
1157
2257
2054
4490
1875
(27.4%) 10,880 (59.5%) 13,145 (73.8%)
19,102 (100.0%) 18,286 (100.0%) 17,812 (100.0%)
95
TABLE 10 (continued)
Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966
1114
925
1668
1389
3358
1405
Analysis of Vote by Candidates
Wheat Habenicht
White Precincts
West End
Fan District 1672 (9.4%) 1592 (9.3%)
Mid West End 1034 (5.8%) 1045 (6.1%)
Far West End $130 (28.8%) 5012 (29.4%)
Northside
Ginter Park-
Barton Heights 2286 (12.8%) 2318 (13.6%)
Highland Park 414 (2.3%) 428 (2.5%)
Southside 1838 (10.3%) 1789 (10.5%)
Split (9) Estimated 1255 (7.1%) 1232 (7.2%)
Total White 13,629 (76.5%) 13,416 (78.6%)
Negro Precincts
Central (4) 423 359
South (4) 450 426
West (3) 735 621
North (3) 789 681
East (6) 1184 1019
Split (9) _ 593 _544
Total Negro 4174 (23.5%) 3650 (21.4%) 9859
Total Vote
(3.2%)
(4.3%)
(8.9%)
(5.7%)
(2.5%)
(6.8%)
(8.3%)
(39.7%)
(60.3%)
17,803 (100.0%) 17,066 (100.0%) 16,356 (100.0%)
White Precincts
West End
Fan District
Mid West End
Far West End
Northside
Ginter Park-
Barton Heights
Highland Park
Southside
Split (9) Estimated
Total White
Negro Precincts
Central (4)
South (4)
West (3)
North (3)
East (6)
Split (9)
Total Negro
Total Vote
Miller
1533
931
4786
2065
362
1560
1123
12,360
385
395
586
593
1044
499
3502
96
(9.6%) 1497
(5.9%) 850
(30.2%) 4589
(13.0%) 2038
(2.3%) 356
(9.8%) 1551
(7.1%) 1090
(77.9%) 11,971
429
406
559
620
915
488
(22.1%) 3417
R. T. Marsh
Throckmorton
(9.7%) 1183 (8.0%)
(5.5%) 1237 (8.3%)
(29.8%) 3276 (22.0%)
(13.2%) 1959 (13.1%)
(2.3%) 666 (4.5%)
(10.1%) 2072 (13.9%)
(7.1%) 1605 (10.8%)
(77.8%) 11,998 (80.6%)
425
478
466
395
703
411
(22.2%) 2878 (19.4%)
15,862 (100.0%) 15,388 (100.0%) 14,876 (100.0%)
TABLE 10 (continued)
Councilmanic Election - June 14, 1966
Analysis of Vote by Candidates
White Precincts
West End
Fan District
Mid West End
Far West End
Northside
Ginter Park-
Barton Heights
Highland Park
Southside
Split (9) Estimated
Total White
Negro Precincts
Central (4)
South (4)
West (3)
North (3)
East (6)
Split (9)
Total Negro
Total Vote
Bradley
504 (6.6%)
667 (8.7%)
1302 (17.0%)
888 (11.6%)
575 (7.5%)
1126 (14.7%)
939 (12.3%)
6001 (78.3%)
228
294
284
190
430
236
1662 (21.7%)
7663 (100.0%)
98 99
TABLE 10 (continued)
aa oo Election - June 14, 1966 re ariso Paar ns ti f City
Analysis of Vote by Candidates — a —
(Adjusted for Split Precincts)
oy Mouse Holt White Precincts
White Precincts West End
West End Fan District 2,224
Fan District 576 (4.3%) 640 (4.8%) 520 (6.6%) a be ~ ; “ | cas
Mid West End 744 (5.6%) 861 (6.5%) 701 (8.9%) ar West En 6,74
Far West End 1906 (14.3%) 2089 (15.7%) 1487 (18.8%) Northside
Northside Ginter Park-
Ginter Park- Barton Heights 3,400
Barton Heights 1195 (8.9%) 1142 (8.6%) 940 (11.9%) Highland Fark “
Highland Park 462 (3.5%) 475 (3.6%) 457 (5.8%) Southside aA
Southside 1856 (13.9%) 1395 (10.5%) 1496 (18.9%) Split Precincts 2228
Split (9) Estimated 1320 (9.9%) 1316 (9.9%) 952 (12.0%) Est. Total White Vote aes
Total White 8059 (60.3%) 7918 (59.7%) 6553 (82.8%) Negro mentees
Negro Precincts Central 1,655
Central (4) 563 623 188 South l 590
South (4) 639 645 89 | West 2,656
West (3) 961 939 228 North 2,356
North (3) 705 701 138 East 5,258
East (6) 1677 1681 327 Split _ 2,248
Split (9) 755 762 193 Est. Total Negro Vote 15,763 43.5%
Total Negro 5300 (39.7%) 5351 (40.3%) 1363 (17.2%) Total Vote 36,248 100%
Total Vote 13,359 (100.0%) 13,269 (100.0%) 7916(100.0%)
100
1966
Councilmanic
Vote
TABLE 12
Comparison of Voting by Precincts 1964 and 1966
1964 1964
Precinct Councilmanic Presidential
Vote Vote
West End
Fan District
2 309 607
20 499 849
21 414 659
22 368 760
43 309 648
44 344 47
Total 2243 4170
Mid West End
26 242 454
27 271 539
28 355 644
29 385 747
41 263 560
42 330 639
Total 1846 3583
Far West End
30 594 1150
31 528 850
3? 92] 1244
33 608 988
34 667 1'36
35 58? 863
36 692 1285
37 467 677
38 739 1350
39 S68 939
40 340 73?
Total 6706 11,214
i
1964
Precinct Councilmanic
Vote
Northside
Ginter Park-Barton Heights
48 742
49 752
50 463
51 456
52 427
$3 520
Total 3360
Highland Park
59 311
60 309
61 267
Total 887
Southside
10 223
11 340
12 391
13 450
14 56?
15 664
lo 467
Total 3097
Total White
Precincts 18,139
1Uu2 103
TABLE 12 (continued)
1964 1964 1966
1964 1964 1966 Precinct C ~~ fvositontia Councilmanic
Precinct Councilmanic _ Presidential Councilmanic . ote Vote
Vote Vote Vote North
. 46 766 1504 1028
Split Precine.~ 47 396 688 $33
17 184 458 226 55 671 1072 795
23 269 649 338 Total —
1833 3264 2356
25 838 1505 978
45 368 853 463 East
54 425 655 467 62 683 2173 1208
56 417 775 361 63 198 866 385
57 458 834 $33 64 659 1808 1174
58 422 833 440 65 375 1357 670
68 666 1513 798 66 404 1329 779
Total Split 67 626 1601 1042
Precincts 4047 8075 4604 Total 2945 9134 5258
lotal Negro
Negro Community Precincts 8742 22,585 13,515
Central Total Vote 30,928 63,964 36,248
l 305 665 419
3 238 577 321
4 360 1976 686
5 221 560 229
Total 1124 3078 1655
South
6 195 749 360
7 379 1007 540
8 330 870 378
9 241 545 312
Total 1145 3171 1590
West
18 634 1625 1082
19 424 1059 676
24 637 1254 898
Total 1695 3938 2656
104
Tables
Detailed tables of this analysis of the 1966 council-
manic vote by areas and by candidates will be found in
the attached tables.
2. Plaintiff's Exhibit 5(b) — Election Analysis 1968
COU NCILMANIC ELECTION
JUNE 11, 1968
AN ANALYSIS OF THE VOTING IN THE
COUNCILMANIC ELECTION JUNE 11, 1968
The most significant factors in the voting pattern in
the Councilmanic Election in 1968, as compared with
previous Councilmanic elections were the increase in the
total vote and the sharp division between the white and
the Negro vote.
The 1968 total of 44,880 was an increase of 8,632
over the previous high of 36,248 reached in 1966. The
white vote increased 4,574 in 1968 as compared with a
decrease of approximately 600 in 1966. The Negro vote
increased 4,058 in 1968 as compared with am increase of
5,320 in 1966.
The General Trend
The voting pattern continued to edge towards an even
balance between the white and the Negro vote. The white
vote was 55.8% of the total in 1968 and the Negro vote
44.2% of the total. In 1966 the proportion had been
105
white 56.5% and Negro 43.5%. This 1966 proportion had
been a major shift from the previous election year of
1964 when the white vote was 68.2% and the Negro vote
31.8%.
The total Negro vote of 19,821 appears to have been
just about the same as that cast in the November 1967
General Assembly election. For example, in the large east
end Negro precinct #64 the vote was slightly higher —
1515 in 1967 and 1644 in 1968, in the large northside
Negro precinct #46 the vote was slightly lower — 1128 in
1967 and 1073 in 1968, while in the large west end
Negro precinct #18 the vote was the identical 1114 in
each election.
The Richmond Forward Candidates
There was a sharp division in the candidates supported
in the white and Negro precincts. The Richmond For-
ward candidates were in eight of the first nine places in
every white area of the city except Highland Park. In
Highland Park Messrs. Mundle and Cephas slipped out of
the first nine. Just the opposite occurred in the Negro
areas in which the five candidates supported by the
Crusade for Voters won the top five places by a
substantial margin over the rest of the field.
The individual RF candidates generally increased their
support in the white areas by 10% or more over 1966.
The white vote for the six winning RF candidates ranged
from 74 to 85% and was virtually enough to elect them.
Messrs. Mundle and Cephas received almost 60% of the
white vote, an increase of about 7% for Mr. Cephas and
about 23% for Mr. Mundle. But these latter two
candidates lost large amounts of Negro support received
106
in 1966, falling from 77.2% to 24% and from 70% to
20.5% of the Negro vote, respectively. Thus they were
defeated although they received a larger white vote than
ever before.
Similarly the white RF candidates lost a drastic
amount of their Negro vote. Mr. Bagley, who had the
Crusade endorsement in 1966, slipped from 54.1% to
17.2% of the Negro vote. Mr. Crowe, who had not had
the endorsement in 1966, still slipped from 33.2% to
16.1% of the Negro vote; likewise, Mr. Wheat, without
the endorsement of the Crusade in 1966, still slipped
from 26.5% to 11.1% of the Negro vote.
Howard Carwile
Mr. Carwile led the ticket because of the sharp increase
in the size of his Negro vote from 62.5% in 1966 to
87.2% in 1968. His white vote increased only from 31.7%
to 32.2%. This broke the rule that no white candidate
could receive more than 60% of the Negro vote and
supported the analysis that the Negro voter was now
more concerned about “‘activism”’ than color.
The Impact of National Events
Several national events and their impact on Richmond
may have contributed to the Negro voting pattern this
year. At the outset of the campaign, Dr. Martin Luther
King was assassinated. A few weeks after this assassina-
tion the Poor People’s March came through Richmond
and was well received. In the week following their
departure from Richmond, a sample ticket called the
Poor People’s Ticket was widely distributed in Negro
107
areas of Richmond. The obvious suggestion was that
persons supporting the Poor People’s March and Dr. King
should support the Poor People’s Ticket.
The five candidates endorsed on the Poor People’s
Ticket were the candidates subsequently endorsed by the
Crusade for Voters. This ticket was apparently well
enough received to justify a second distribution of it a
few weeks before the election.
Finally, the assassination of Senator Robert Kennedy
occurred in the final days of the campaign.
If these events did influence the Negro voter, then it
would be a mistake to read the results as evidence of a
great increase in the strength of the Crusade for Voters.
The fact that Messrs. Crowe and Wheat lost significant
Negro support — Mr. Crowe slipping from 33.2% to
16.1% of the Negro vote and Mr. Wheat slipping from
26.5% to 11.1% of the Negro vote — although they were
not supported by the Crusade in either campaign,
suggests that there were factors other than the Crusade
endorsement which affected the Negro voting pattern in
this election.
National events, and particularly the unrest occurring
throughout the Nation, may have affected the white
voter also. The disturbances in Richmond following Dr.
King’s assassination obviously upset many white voters.
Concern over this national and local unrest, and an
absence of strong white opposition candidates, probably
increased the support given the Richmond Forward
candidates in the white areas. Hopefully, this increased
support also indicated approval of the Richmond For-
ward record. The sharp increase in the number of white
voters would have been difficult to achieve without such
approval.
108
“Race” as an Issue
This analysis of the voting patterns in terms of white
and Negro voters suggests that “race” was a much greater
issue than it actually appears to have been. The small
support given Mr. Edwards by the white voters (21.2%)
and Mr. Bradley by the Negro voters (12.1%) suggests
that a man’s race had little influence on most voters. This
is reinforced by the large white vote for Messrs. Cephas
and Mundle, and the large Negro vote for Messrs. Carwile
and Carpenter.
The white and Negro voter appear to have voted
differently because they were concerned about different
issues. Recognizing that such conclusions can only be
conjecture and over-simplification at best, it is suggested
that the white voter was concerned mainly about the
stability of society, while the Negro voter was concerned
mainly about the problems of the poor. This is not to
suggest for a moment that both groups were not
concerned about the poor and a stable society, but their
priorities appear to have been different. Nor is this to
suggest that all candidates were not concerned about the
poor and a stable society, but in the voter’s mind, they
appear to have been identified as candidates for either
one or the other goal.
The Open Housing Referendum
A not too surprising 25% of the white voters supported
the open housing referendum. Combined with the Negro
vote, this would have been sufficient to pass this
referendum except for the fact that 33% of the Negro
voters abstained frem voting. These Negro voters who
109
abstained thought open housing would be defeated and
abstained to minimize the effect of such a defeat. It
appears certain that they would have voted for open
housing if they had voted on the issue, and, in retrospect,
that their votes would have been sufficient to pass the
referendum. The total vote was 34% voting “For” and
46% voting “Against” and 20% abstaining.
J. Plaintiff's Exhibit 24 — Report to Aldhizer
Commission, with Exhibits, by C. B. Mattox,
Jr., City Attorney, February 5, 1969.
(This exhibit has not been printed, but has
been reproduced separately and filed together
with this Appendix.)
K. Plaintiff's Exhibit 25 -— Booklet entitled
“Expand Richmond’s Boundaries”’ — Report to
the Richmond Boundary Expansion.
(This exhibit has not been printed, but has
been reproduced separately and filed together
with this Appendix.)
110
ANALYSIS OF VOTING
(The recent Presidential election makes possible an analysis and
comparison of the voting in this and the City Council elections
since Richmond Forward was founded.)
VOTES
City Council Presidential
White Negro White Negro
1964 21,093 9,835 37 339 26,625
1966 20,429 15,819
1968 25,059 19,821 39,122 28,605
PERCENTAGE
White Negro White Negro
1964 68.2 31.8 58.3 41.7
1966 56.4 43.6
1968 55.8 44.2 57.8 42.2
Note:
1. The increase in the white vote in the 1968 City Council election
after relative stability in 1966.
2. The increase in the Negro vote in the City Council elections in
both 1966 and 1968.
3. The comparatively smaller increase in both the white and Negro
vote in the Presidential election in 1968.
4. The similarity of the percentages of white and Negro vote in
both City Council and Presidential elections since the poll tax
requirement for voting was removed. (Presidential election — 1964;
City Council election — 1966).
1)1
Estimate of Crusade for Voters strength:
1968 City Council % of Negro Vote Received
|. Marsh 91.0
2. Carwile 88.9
3. Carpenter 85.0
4. Kenney 73.3
5. Randolph, M. 65.8
1968 Presidential % of Negro V ote Received
Humphrey 97.9
Nixon 2.0
1968 Congressional % of Negro Vote Received
Satterfield 19.2
Hansen 80.8
Hansen vote less Republicans (determined by
subtracting Nixon vote)
78.5
Comment:
1. The Hansen vote represents mostly voters who switched from a
Democratic Presidential vote to a Republican Congressional vote.
The only explanation for such a large crossing of party lines to
vote for a political unknown appears to be the Crusade endorsement.
2. The top three in the City Council election obviously had per-
sonal support in addition to their Crusade support. It looks like
Messrs. Kenney and Randolph did not.
3. The Crusade influence appears to increase with the size of the
vote and to range from about 65 to 75%.
Rank Candidate
1 Carwile
2 Bagley
3 Bliley
4 Crowe
5 Carpenter
6 Marsh, H.L.
7 Forb
8 Wheat
9 Pusey
10 Cephas
11 Mundle
12 Randolph, B.
13 Kenney
14 Randolph, M.
15 Edwards
16 Bradley
Total Vote
Increase
112
TABLE |
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
TOTAL VOTE BY CANDIDATES
1968 Vote
(%) Total (%)
Total
25,361
24,604
23,552
22,63!
22,091
22,014
21,960
21,437
20,556
19,675
18,845
18,749
16,372
15,282
6,190
4,448
44,787
8,539
(56.6%)
(54.9%)
(52.6%)
(50.5%)
(49.3%)
(49.2%)
(49.0%)
(47.9%)
(45.9%)
(43.9%)
(42.1%)
(41.9%)
(36.6%)
(34.1%)
(13.8%)
( 9.9%)
(100.0%)
(23.6%)
16,356
23,997
19,102
17,812
17,803
22,957
18,286
36,248
5,320
1966 Vote
(45.1%)
(66.2%)
(52.7%)
(49.1%)
(49.1%)
(63.3%)
(50.4%)
(100.0%)
1964 Vote
Total
8,228
13,333
13,846
15,965
16,512
30,928
(%)
(26.8%)
(43.2%)
(44.8%)
(51.6%)
(53.4%)
(100.0%)
Increase
Rank Candidate
| Bagley
2 Bliley
3 Crowe
4 Wheat
5 Forb
6 Pusey
7 Randolph, B.
8 Mundle
9 Cephas
10 Carwile
11 Carpenter
12 Marsh, H.L.
13 Edwards
14 Randolph, M.
15 Bradley
16 Kenney
Total Vote
113
TABLE 2
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Vote in Fan District — Precincts 2, 20,21, 22,43 and 44
1968 Vote
Total (%)
2,352 (85.3%)
2,322 (84.2%)
2,228 (80.8%)
2,202 (79.9%)
2,108 (76.5%)
2,107 (76.4%)
1,820 (66.0%)
1,809 (65.6%)
1,798 (65.2%)
771 =(28.0%)
717 (26.0%)
475 (17.2%)
474 —s (17.2%)
276 (10.0%)
257 ( 9.3%)
237 ( 8.6%)
2,757 (100.0%)
533 (24.0%)
1966 Vote
Total (%)
1,722 (77.4%)
1,682 (75.6%)
1,672 (75.2%)
946 (42.5%)
1,335 (60.0%)
529 (23.8%)
411 (18.5%)
2,224 (100.0%)
114 115
TABLE 3
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Vote in Mid West End — Precincts 26, 27, 28, 29, 41 and 42
(Area Between Bouievard and Belt Line)
TABLE 4
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Far West End — Precincts 30 through 40
(Area West of Belt Line)
1968 Vote 1966 Vote
=a eel lh OUT OO Rank Candidate “< "o ) c- o~ )
Bliley 1,859 (86.4%) - “
2 — Bagley 1,755 (81.6%) 1,275 (72.2% : a sy agi a ny
3 Forb 1,550 (72.1%) 3 Forb 718) (83.0%)
4 Crowe 1,548 (72.0%) 1,085 (61.5%) . ie 7049 (81 4%) 5.232 (77.6%)
5 Wheat 1,524 (70.9%) 1,034 (58.6%) $s Whest 6 084 (80.758) $130 (76.1%)
6 Pusey 1436 (66.7%) ‘ “ne 6607 (764%) |
7 Randolph, B. 1,369 (63.6%) 7 Cephas $7 30 (66.2%) 3986 (59.1%)
8 Cephas 1,132 (526%) 771 (43.7%) 8 Mundie $668 (65.5%) 919 (43.3%)
9 Mundle 1,097 (51.0%) 459 (260%) > foe — ao 2, 3.
10 Carpenter 880 (40.9%) 10 Compente: a % (24.6%)
11 — Carwile 843 (39.2%) 709 (40.2%) a om ee
_ — oe 12 Marsh 1226 (14.2%) 1,139 (16.9%)
13. Marsh, HLL. 369 = (17.2%) = 432—s (24.5%) 13 Edwards 1169 (13.5%) -
14 Bradley 236 (11.0%) 14 — Randolph, M. 617 (_: 7.1%)
15 Randolph, M. 204 ( 9.5%) 1 Bradley 479 ( 5.5%)
16 Kenney 196 ( 9.1%) 16 Kenney 467 ( 5.4%)
Total 2,151 (100.0%) 1,765 (100.0%) Total 8.650 (100.0%) 6.745 (100.0%)
Increase 386 (21.9%) hoomnaes 905 (28.9%)
116 117
TABLE 6
Councilmanic-Election — June 11, 1968
Northside (Highland Park) — Precincts 59, 60 and 61
TABLE 5
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Northside (Ginter Park and Barton Heights) — Precincts
48 through 53*
1968 V ote 1966 Vote
1968 Vote 1966 Vote Rank Candidate Total (%) Total (%)
Rank Candidate Total (%) Total (%)
l Bagley 766 (75.8%) 540 (64.2%)
| Bagley 3,656 (81.2%) 2,506 (73.7%) 2 _siBiiley 746 = (73.8%)
2 — Bliley 3,609 (80.2%) 3 Forb 661 (65.4%)
3 Crowe 3,471 (77.1%) 2,338 (68.8%) 4 = Randolph, B. 630 = (62.3%)
4 Wheat 3,392 (75.4%) 2,286 (67.2%) 5 Wheat 616 = (60.9%) = 414 (49.2%)
§ Forb 3,331 (74.0%) 6 Crowe 611 (60.4%) 434 (51.6%)
6 Pusey 3,265 (72.6%) 7 Pusey 607 = (60.0%)
7 Randolph, B. 2.782 (61.8%) 8 Carwile $75 (56.9%) 417 (49.6%)
8 Cephas 2.747 (61.0%) 1,784 (52.5%) 9 Edwards 393 (38.9%)
9 Mundle 2,732 (60.7%) 1,207 (35.5%) 10 = Carpenter 388 (38.4%)
10 Carpenter 1,595 (35.4%) 11 = Cephas 383 (37.9%) = 243 (28.9%)
11 — Carwile 1405 (31.2%) 928 (27.3%) 12 Mundle 366, (36.2%) = 126 (15.0%)
12 Marsh 943 (21.0%) 758 (22.2%) 13 Marsh 257 (25.4%) 210 = (25.0%)
13 Edwards 788 (17.5%) 14 Randolph, M. 187 (15.5%)
14 — Randolph, M. 587 (13.0%) 1S Kenney So (15.4%)
15 Kenney 538 (12.0%) 16 Bradley 141 (13.9%)
16 Bradley 302 ( 6.7%)
Total LOL = (100.0%) 841 (100.0%)
Total 4,500 (100.0%) 3,400 (100.0%) Increase 170, (20.2%)
Increase 1,100 (32.4%)
*52 is split, 12 appears split, 16 appears split sligtit!y
118 119
TABLE 7
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Svuthside — Precincts 10 through 16*
TABLE 8
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Negro Precincts Exclusive of Split Precincts*
Precincts 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 18, 19, 24,46, 47
55, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67
1968 Vote 1966 Vote
Rank Candidate Total (%) Total (%)
Vote 1966 Vote
l Bagley 3,618 (79.6%) 2,197 (69.6%) Rank Candida “"
2 Bliley 3,518 (774%) 7 vine - _ ™
3 Forb 3,315 (73.0%)
13,867 (896%) 11,27 83.4%
4 Crowe 3,126 (68.8%) 1,716 (544%) : noe’ ~ a ro — ' 8 om -— ——
z — 3,096 (68.1%) 1,838 (58.3%) 3 Carpenter l 2,482 (80.6%) | 7
sey 3,023 (66.5%) .
oe 4 11,141 (72.09
Randolph, B. 2,845 (62.6%) 5 ore M 10.035 as aon
: Mundie me (51.4%) 807 (25.6%) 6 Cephas _ 3.710 (24.0%) 10,432 (77.2%)
z a 2,021 (44.5%) 1349 (42.8%) 7 Mundle 3,188 (20.6%) 9,329 (64.0%)
- enue +“ oe 1104 (35.0%) 8 Bagley 2,736 (17.7) 7,316 (54.1%)
sf Ie -O'% . 2%
12 Edwards 1344 (29.6%) .. a — aan ne
~ a 1072 (23.6%) 784. = (24.9%) 1 wy 1934 (12.5%)
enney 663 (14.6%) 5
15 Randolph, M. 663 (14.6%) ~ aoe ~ oem ae er
1o =—Saeey oF ITS) 14 Randolph, B. «1,821 (11.8%)
Total 4,543 (100.0%) 3,154 (100.0%) ~ oe — fase
Increase 1,389 (44.0%) —
*12 appears split, 16 appears split slightly ae ry ye pe ian
T . e
*Does not include split precincts 17, 23, 25, 45, 54, 56, 57, 58
and 68.
120 121
TABLE 8A
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Estimated White and Negro Vote in Split Precincts
Precincts 3, 8, 11, 12, 17, 23, 25, 29, 34, 45, 52,
54, 56, 57, 58, 68
(Precincts 11, 12, 29, 34, 52 are added to 1966 listing)
TABLE 8 (Revised)
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Negro Precincts Exclusive of Split Precincts*®
Precincts 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 18, 19, 24, 46, 47,
55, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67
1968 Vote 1966 Vote Precincts 3 and 8 are transferred from all Negro precincts
Rank Candidate Total (%) Total (%)
Estimated Estimated Total
l Marsh 13,363 (91.0) 11,270 (83.4) Rank Candidate Negro Vote White Vote Vote
2 Carwile 13,061 (88.9) 8.454 (62.5)
3 ~—- Carpenter 12,010 (85.0) 1 Carwile 4,601 1,602 6,203
4 Kenney 10,759 (73.3) 2 Carpenter 3,935 1,476 5,411
5 Randolph, M. 9,660 (65.8) 3. = Marsh 4,469 739 5,208
6 Cephas 3,433 (23.4) 10,432 (77.2) 4 _— Bagley 1,020 3,465 4,485
7 Mundle 2,922 (19.9) 9,329 (69.0) 5 Bliley 777 3,557 4,334
8 Bagley 2,388 (16.3) 7,316 (54.1) 6 Kenney 3,369 700 4,069
4 Crowe 2,284 (15.5) 4485 (33.2) 7 Crowe 912 3,073 3,985
10 —s Bililey 1877 (12.8) 8 Forb 638 3,182 3,820
11 Bradley 1,680 (11.4) a Randolph, M. 3,196 557 3,753
12 Forb 1669 (114) 10 Wheat 610 3,032 3,642
13 Wheat 1595 (10.9) 3,581 (26.4) 11 Pusey 665 2,945 3,610
14 Pusey 1.574 (10.7) 12 Randolph, B. 715 2,843 3,561
15 Randolph, B. 1,546 (10.5) 13 = Cephas 1,335 2,141 3,476
16 Edwards 529. ( 3.6) 14 Mundle 1,135 2,150 3,285
15 Edwards 392 1,191 1,583
Total 14,666* (100.0) 13,515* (100.0) 16 Bradley 711 411 1,122
Referendum: For 6,662 (454)
Against 3,151 (21.5)
Abstain 4.853 (33.1)
*Does not include split precincts 3, 8, 11, 12, 17, 23, 25, 29, 34,
52, 54, 56, 57, 58 and 68
(Precincts 3 and 8 are omitted from 1966 list because they appear
more accurately classified as split)
122 i 123
TABLE 8B ‘ NEGRO
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968 \
Estimated Total White and Negro Vote 1” Estimated Vote Percentage
Rank Candidate 1968 1966 1968 1966
WHITE ,
: 1 Marsh 17,382 13,145 900 83.3
Estimated Vote Percentage 2 = Carwile 17,290 9859 87.2 62.5
Rank Candidate 1968 1966 1968 1966 | 3 Carpenter 14.469 73.0
4 Kenney 14,128 71.3
l Bagley 21,194 15,463 84.6 75.5 5 Randolph, M. 12.856 64.9
2 si Bililey 20,898 83.4 6 Cephas 4,768 12,174 240 77.2
3 Forb 19,653 78.4 P 7 Mundle 4,057 10880 205 70.0
4 Crowe 19.435 13,871 77.5 67.7 8 Bagley 3.410 8 534 17.2 54.1
5 Wheat 19,232 13,629 76.7 66.5 9 Crowe 3.196 § 231 16.1 33.2
6 Pusey 18,477 73.7 10 Bliley 2,654 13.4
7 Randolph, B. 16,384 65.4 1] Bradley 2.392 12.1
8 Cephas 14,907 10,783 59.5 52.6 ; 12 Randolph, B. 2.365 11.9
9 Mundle 14,788 7406 590 36.1 13. Forb 2,307 11.6
10 Carwile 8,071 6,497 32.2 31.7 14 Pusey 2,279 11.5
1] Carpenter 7,622 30.4 15 Wheat 2,205 4,174 11.1 26.5
12 Edwards 5,305 21.2 16 Edwards 921 46
13 Marsh 4,632 4,667 18.5 22.8
i4 Randolph, M. 2,426 9.7 Total Negro Vote: 1968 1966 1964
15 Kenney 2,244 8.9 19,821 15,763 9,835
16 Bradley 2,050 8.2
Percentage of
Total White Vote: 1968 1966 1964 Total Vote: 44.2 43.5 31.8
25,059 20,485 21,093
Percentage of
Total Vote: 55.8 56.5 68.2
oe
,
124 125
TABLE 8C TABLE 9
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968 : Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Estimated Percentage of Total Negro Vote by Area
‘ Percentage by Precinct
Rank Candidate Central South West North East
(1,3%,4, (6,7,8", (17*,18, (46,47, (62,63, % of
5,45*) 9.11%, 19,23, 52%,54*, 64,65, Total...
12*) 24,25%, 55,56*, 66,67, Vote> . 1 > 3 4 5 P 5
29*, 34%) 57*,58*) 68*) Candidate: (44,880) (441) (356) (340) (711) (193) (424) (651)
1 Marsh 80.5 73.6 92.7 92.5 93.6 Bagley $49 172 842 421 157 275 245 179
2 Carwile 80.7 79.9 94.9 80.4 91.1 Bliley 526 143 842 456 13.1 264 229 186
3 Carpenter 74.4 62.2 72.3 74.7 78.7 Bradley 99 15.2 8.1 14.7 10.4 98 17.2 12.7
4 Kenney 68.1 57.6 70.0 65.3 80.3 Carpenter 49.3 84.1 216 526 679 63.2 63.7 71.3
5 Randolph,M. 60.7 53.5 67.1 61.8 69.7 Carwile 56.6 68.7 239 69.7 905 793 856 892
6 Cephas 23.7 23.0 22.0 34.4 18.8 Cephas 439 263 665 37.1 199 306 23.1 22.1
7 Mundle 21.3 19.9 18.5 28.1 16.5 Crowe 505 213 842 426 149 306 189 15.1
8 Bagley 18.0 26.5 15.6 21.1 12.8 Edwards 138 39 109 103 28 411 78 6.6
9 Crowe 19.7 20.1 15.1 21.3 11.3 Forb 490 116 819 326 105 20.2 25.7 13.4
10 Bliley 16.4 23.9 14.0 13.3 9.5 Kenney 366 70.7 89 462 690 569 62.7 69.4
11 Bradley 13.1 14.5 16.2 11.4 9.4 Marsh 492 85.7 174 606 884 803 785 845
12 Randolph,B. =—'11.5 25.1 11.7 10.1 9.8 Mundle 42.1 23.1 668 374 179 259 200 22,7
15 Forb 11.4 20.1 11.6 13.2 8.4 Pusey 459 109 79.2 347 105 238 165 £114
14 Pusey 12.1 16.7 10.9 14.7 8.1 Randolph,B. 419 102 696 32.9 98 20.7 219 141
15 Wheat 11.2 17.1 10.1 13.9 8.2 Randolph,M. 34.1 58.0 11.5 449 638 565 580 669
16 Edwards 4.2 12.7 7.0 2.4 2.7 Wheat 479 12.2 839 34,7 85 20.7 179 12.7
*Indicates split precinct. % Increase §.2 26.2 5.9 3.6 (15.7) 178 20.6
(Decrease)
TABLE 8D
Councilmanic Election — Jui.e 1 l, 1968 % Voting 53.1 48.2 34.4 48.8 37.4 43.6 55.4
Analysis of Referendum Vote
NEGRO WHITE TOTAL
Vote , % Vote Jo Vote %o
For: 8890 448 6,361 254 15,251 34.0
Against: 4,408 22.2 16,302 65.0 20,710 46.0
Abstain: 6,523 330 2,396 96 8919 20.0
19.821 100.0 . 25.059 100.0 44.880 100.0
126 127
TABLE 9 ~ Part 2 TABLE 9 — Part 3
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968 Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Percentage by Precinct Percentage by Precinct
% of % of _
Total Total
Vote 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Vote 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Candidate: (44,880) (477) (384) (368) (393) (493) (526) (871) TH Candidate: (44,880) (943) (949) (288) (1,114) (630) (578) (525)
Bagley 949 429 32.6 89.1 71.7 65.3 849 85.4 TE Bastey 549 868 71.2 51.7 128 19.7 86.7 866
Bliley $2.6 42.1 25.5 84.2 73.5 65.7 8738 87.6 Bliley 52.6 87.0 578 479 7.6 19.9 82.3 86.1
Bradley 99 12.2 156 136 12.2 118 79 9.7 Th Bradley 99 72 161 16.7 13.7 138 93 86
Carpenter 49.3 614 60.9 345 46.3 448 314 32.6 TE Carpenter 49.3 27.7 539 S503 67.1 67.1 246 246
Carwile 56.6 75.2 828 39.1 49.1 49.3 300 33.2 Carwile 56.6 286 636 760 940 92.2 218 274
Cephas 439 316 249 587 41.2 °&48.1 55.5 619 Cephas 439 579 346 288 219 #2267 #==2714~«27214
Crowe 50.50 35.0 25.7 734 565 548 774 80.6 BF Crowe $0.5 77.1 55.6 368 126 24.1 839 81,7
Edwards 138 20.1 141 302 369 264 338 265 Edwards 138 245 335 249 19 63 9 175
Forb 49.0 32.3 21.9 75.3 63.1 54.9 77.6 76.7 Forb 49.0 82.8 69.7 34.7 8.9 17.6 78.2 78.3
Kenney 36.6 47.2 534 163 226 30.2 5.1 9.2 Kenney 366 5.7 24 378 %7.2 679 106 £76
Marsh 492 625 755 215 310 414 123 195 Marsh 49.2 126 329 503 92.7 895 192 179
Mundle 42.1 291 216 538 394 428 549 60.0 Mundle 42.1 59.7 31.3 222 19.7 244 719 172.5
Pusey 459 329 167 728 572 SIS 75.1 749 Pusey 459 76.1 53.7 375 92 #159 813 £759
Randolph,B. 41.9 342 23.7 625 628 600 646 68.3 Randolph,B. 41.9 665 53.7 43.4 72 171 65.2 668
Randolph,M. 34.1 46.5 53.1 133 183 266 79. +99 Randolph,M. 34.1 77 220 344 «2972.7 ~~ 63:5 7.9 8.8
Wheat 479 296 198 742 60.3 535 768 78.3 Wheat 479 760 54.7 344 72 175 823 809
% Increase 26.2 23.1 55.3 20.5 40.5 179 48.4 % Increase 33.9 86.4 27.4 2.9 (6.8) 18.7 26.8
(Decrease) (Decrease)
% Voting 48.50 53.7 S91 S14 373 ©6603 = 51.4 % Voting 66.2 41.2 44.7 581 509 539 60.0
128 129
TABLE 9 — Part 4
TABLE 9 — Part 5
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968 -
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Percentage by Precinct Percentage by Precinct
% of
Total
Vote 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
Candidate: (44,880) (490) (385) (859) (1,102) (283) (339) (457)
% of
Total
Vote 29 30 31 32 33 34 35
Candidate: (44,880) (368) (838) (654) (1,142) (822) (802) (732)
Bagley 549 849 366 165 409 859 864 829 i
Bliley $26 85.1 343 148 395 834 873 958 peovsley a oe Ol
Bliley 52.6 73.1 839 809 900 849 771 83.7
Bradley 99 9.4 16.6 18.2 10.8 12.4 7.9 9.6 Bradley 99 144 68 61 36 45 8 3 30
Carpenter 49.3 279 610 68.7 62.3 343 436 34.3 FIO enter Pn ey ay ae ay ey ay
Carwile $6.6 320 75.3 890 70.2 349 333 383 Bo. a, 06 23 3 019 24 8 tes
Cephas 439 96.7 262 222 375 $33 58.7 59.5 Bireohas ae we 8 63 49 439 94 A
Crowe $0.5 789 399 149 373 759 769 759 Bar. m6 ot m9 8h 818 (687 (144 «(TS
Edwards 13.8 22.2 15.6 4.3 11.2 27.2 20.6 21.2 Edwards 13.8 36.1 18.5 11.9 75 13.1 16.3 93
Forb 490 718 280 122 350 721 725 1766 Brey OO 625 96 844 865 859 730 871
Kenney 366 9.2 52.7 693 479 78 657.7 Ev enney ma 188 66 #137 #23 «34° «131 -—
Marsh 49.2 133 654 91.7 684 194 162 144 Fy os 6) 186 44 83 186 BS 04
Mundle 42.1 $57 252 173 360 484 554 S71 By a. a1 6s 69 3 42 63 08 =718
Pusey 459 738 293 104 341 696 684 69.6 Bois “ae 8 nh 7 «(6éOlUMG CUM COS
Randolph, B. 41.9 718 340 115 31.3 66.1 63.9 66.3 —Brandoiph.B. 419 595 641 80.7 709 635 S87 628
Randolph,M. 341 82 475 645 465 67 97 74 BpindoiphM. 341 149 «85 43 40 SI 183 36
Wheat 479 75.1 273 105 31.7 738 725 735 Bw, me a: 4 O16 082 837 14 06)
nana 66 1359) G3) 126 169 HS AA Thee increase 14 445 340 106 270 241 222
(Decrease) (Decrease)
» voting . 7 7 : > i% Voting 419 S562 670 849 692 739 696
130 131
TABLE 9 — Part 6 TABLE 9 — Part 7
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968 Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Percentage by Precinct Percentage by Preciict
% of % of
Total Total
Vote 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Vote 43 44 45 46 47 48 49
Candidate: (44,880) (897) (547) (1,049) (687) (480) (327) (377) (44,880) (398) (410) (568) (1,073) (S78) (935) (1,007)
Bagley 549 88.0 94.8 80.8 85.8 79.4 84.4 81.4 Bagley 54.9 83.4 84.9 46.1 19.0 239 88.2 90.1
Bliley §26 910 87.2. 760 83.1 810 804 804 Bliley 526 819 856 £447 13.3 18.7 886 897
Bradley 9.9 6.9 2.4 5.3 74 6.9 11.0 10.9 Bradley 99 12.1 8.5 12.7 10.9 11.9 58 $5
Carpenter 49.3 29.7 146 284 24.7 31.7 38.2 37.7 arpenter 4993 304 27.1 50.2 670 704 339 28.7
Carwile 56.6 27.6 8.9 31.8 23.6 26.5 34.9 34.2 arwile 56.6 36.4 278 64.2 85.7 83.6 24.2 24.4
Cephas 439 65.7 82.1 55.4 67.1 62.9 47.4 58.1 phas 439 56.0 60.3 398 35.5 ~6 64.6 65.0
Crowe 50.5 82.1 91.8 76.0 82.4 78.9 74.0 71.6 rowe 50.5 76.6 78.5 45.2 219 25.4 83.4 85.1
Edwards 13.8 14.9 4.9 19.1 13.4 18.7 27.5 21.2 dwards 138 20.3 17.6 11.8 24 4.5 18.4 21.3
Forb 49.0 81.7 87.6 83.6 86.3 75.4 71.6 758 orb 49.0 739 74.9 428 126 15.7 79.9 84.4
Kenney 36.6 7.5 3.1 6.0 4.8 7.1 79 8.8 enney 36.6 7.0 7.1 41.5 66.4 63.1 5s 4.5
Marsh 49.2 159 10.2 14.0 13.2 19.4 18.0 14.9 arsh 49.2 17.3 18.0 §39 95.) 87.5 18.3 11.3
Mundle 42.1 64.7 83.5 56.2 65.3 62.3 52.9 54.6 undle 42.1 568 67.6 38. 23.2 31.5 67.0 64.7
Pusey 459 77.5 87.4 67.9 73.5 72.5 68.2 719 Pusey 459 »3 74.6 OR 11.5 18.) 778 81.0
Randolph,B. 419 64.3 54.7 59.9 65.6 68.1 66.4 599 Randolph, B. 41.9 598 619 329 a5 13.7 66.1 68.5
Randolph,M. 34.1 7.5 3.8 8.5 79 10.4 9.5 8.5 Randolph,M. 34.1 10.0 98 40.3 $3.1 618 71 49
Wheat 479 80.7 92.9 69.3 79.2 77.1 77.4 71.3 Wheat 479 76.1 80.7 41.5 12.8 19.7 80.9 RS.8
% Increase 27.1 24.0 33.3 28.4 28.3 26.7 21.6 % Increase 48 994 997 44 84 ~8 35.)
(Decrease) (Decrease)
% Voting 58.2 65.4 63.4 65.8 §2.3 49.4 52.1 % Voting 48.7 $3] 5)8 60.7 60.0 s8 | 63.1
132
TABLE 9 — Part 8
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
133
TABLE 9 — Part 9
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Percen Precinct
tage by Percentage by Precinct
% of
Total
Vote 50 51 52 53 54 55 56
Candidate: (44,880) (564) (569) (746) (679) (538) (841) (592)
% of
Total
Vote 57 58 5$ 60 61 62 63
Candidate: (44,880) (735) (560) (340) (347) (324) (1,559) (484)
Bagley $49 894 875 49.7 81.1 264 213 309
Bliley $26 88.1 866 463 796 214 > a7 Pp Baeley $49 223 560 679 824 768 97 124
Bradi oo ae 526 174 530 632 804 778 7.7 130
radley 99 6.7 6.5 8.7 78 11.3 11.4 10.9 Bradl 99 12.5 15.5 118 141 16.0 14 8.0
Carpenter «49.3 34.4 30.7 S41 318) 704) 78.2713 Ben ._ a ae , 7 .- &
Oued ‘ . , Carpenter «49.3. «709-596 42-1349 38.3 788-729
arwile 66 245 29.7 576 289 789 864 78.5 . )
Cosh a9 r - Carwile 566 858 648 615 593 494 926 938
Crowe $05 83.7 829 479 783 247 203 304 Bic — oS «188 «(452:«S23:«39CS.LsC*LDs«10:3
Edwards 138 204 200 127 166 43 20 76 [i rduar _ — oo. oe | = 2.
Forb 9 . . oné Cdwards 13.8 46 262 368 412 386 2.6 4.5
or 49.0 785 785 45.7 739 23 129 252 :
- : - Forb 490 152 480 S68 706 688 83 72
enney 366 32 3.7 427 124 879 655 659
Marsh 49 12.4 127 $12 138 855 925 774 Kenney 366 663 403 22.4 10.4 136 846 764
oe ~~ . YY * o~ e oat & ow d 5 5 5 5
Mundle 42.1 635 633 405 63.7 325 2298 30.2 wer ea was mM a 3
hens —--emeenwmmewe we 42.1 241 325 318 346 426 144 15.7
' - = 7 & Pusey 459 182 455 S12 654 $36 75 £79
Randolph,B. 41.9 65.9 72.0 38.1 60.1 17.8 9.6 26.0
Randolph M. 341 86h Os te 82 6h 8 Randolph,B. 41.9 143 434 S91 694 S80 8&5 143
Randolph,M. 34.1 62.6 37.5 23.2 10.4 i29 73.3 70.0
Wheat 479 81.7 81.7 1 #7 > 2
' 43.1 769 186 13.2 265 Ta Wheat 479 162 4230:«OS3.S) 628) «66.77.70
% Increase 5. 24. . 2
somna 25.6 248 405 360 152 58 639 Tio increase 379 (2730«189 «172s 2H. 28.7
(Decrease)
(Decrease)
% Votin 59.9 2 . ? > 5
g $6.2 60.3 52.7 63.7 81.2 55.5 Bl % Voting 614 $30 476 489 470 636 498
134
TABLE 9 — Part 10
Councilmanic Election — June 11, 1968
Percentage by Precinct
% of
Total
Vote 64 65 66 67 68
Candidate: (44,880) (1,644) (858) (925) (1,297) (1,015)
Bagley $49 130 161 159 123 469
Bliley 52.6 9.5 13.3 13.4 66 45.3
Bradley 99 10.1 10.6 8.6 10.8 13.0
Carpenter 49.3 769 61.9 68.8 78.6 61.8
Carwile 49.3 91.9 92.5 86.9 89.7 71.4
Cephas 439 18.6 23.8 20.3 17.7 25.5
Crowe 50.5 11.1 15.1 13.3 10.2 37.0
Edwards 13.8 2.4 2.7 2.5 2.9 239
Forb 49.0 8.0 10.8 8.6 8.0 39.7
Kenney 36.6 82.8 78.1 72.2 80.3 47.6
Marsh 49.2 96.0 91.7 89.9 93.4 §2.3
Mundle 42.1 16.2 20.7 18.7 15.7 25.5
Pusey 45.9 8.6 10.1 9.7 6.6 39.7
Randolph,B. 41.9 99 10.0 10.2 9.5 37.8
Rando!ph,M. 34.1 69.1 67.8 65.1 70.4 38.6
Wheat 479 8.3 11.3 99 7.1 35.3
% Increase 40.0 28.1 18.7 24.5 27.2
(Decrease)
% Voting 62.2 Sil 594 615 50.7
Ico
ce pee *
cou
' 7
Po ‘PD
| al
“\
hede
ce ee
ore |
o™*
"— =
~ a
| =
a - 3 |
be
| er
AY
—-_—-Z,,
\\x
m
Zz
x
E
CHESTERFIELD
| ANNEXATION AREA
a aULY |, 1969 SCALE (+3000
54
mes
Z “YX
a —-_- b 4g -
\ Z
A
4 of
4 : »
Pom « eeee
4 ~ 7
‘gel ¢ “N
“eae
.
a =
ae 2
eter ee 6 o
S = - 5 -
' 5 ; ~
= Fr22.8 pe C
| , +a i=)
se =
D A L E J a
fog
. . s@
: ‘ ; 4 KINGSLANO\!
—_
‘ 4
T » %
| -* >
pa Ress
2 2 eurealia “Bees
T@anr | . ~
d
wreee
»
‘
“ts \
en see
ee mee
a 4g 58
/ -
/ -
‘
o~tee mar
H. Plaintiff's Exhibit 10 — Map of Annexed Area.
/3¢
Plaintiff's Example 12 (1)
NON - WHITE WHITE
a, AAA: CARTS ; 2 ] Se ae ae cal
76-74 | OO ——— == ia er
s-o | SCO] a ae | eee
60-64 — —_—- =— + +—— —_—_——— .
55-59 ee . = ___|
50-54 — eal ‘ie Seine 1s SS
45-49 | L i ceaneenamall
s0o-44 | : 1 anal
35-39 | Pe |
30-34 | puss zz
25-29 | - |
20-26 | 4
is-19 | ia J
10-14 | TD
5- 9 ain —.-—s«-++—
a i a a
;s
= SrHOUSANOS OF PEOPLE - - =
NON - WHITE WHITE
- 7 T | — — a ee —s
75- OVER — RD Me PR = ; i. ox <' CSG: ARCS
70-74 — | —— = j : 7 os —— =
65-69 | , om w | é‘ | et eS
60-64 | | | | ar
55-59 L t | l 1 if i _]
50-54 | I as
45-49 i l L 2
40-44 | [TL | a =
35-39 = . | a
30-34 | } we |
es-20 6S er ya | | - ae
20-24 | | a aI oe
15-19 | it _ a ar _J
10-14 - i l a AS
5-9 | ] a l _]
o-4 . [| ain i =
6 i.) : 1 rt) ro)
THOUSANOS oF PEOPLE
75 -OVER | I ‘]
70-74 | ]
65-69 it J
60-64 | | |
55-59 |
50-54 | I |
45-49 I | |
40-44 a j _|
35-39 I ]
30-34 1 1
25-29 | }
20-24 [ 1
15-19 1
10-14 L T zi
5- 9 L 4
o- 4 TI a
“ 25 30 35
Sasa ®'CHMONOD CMESTERFIELO
oS
a
~
a
vs CHE STERFIEL® AME LATION
TRENDS IN AGE AND RACE COMPOSITION—1940, 1950, 1960-—-SMSA, Richmond City and Chesterfield County
This exhibit graphically portrays tve changing age and race composition of Richmond as contrasted to that of the total metropolitan
area and Chesterfield County
In 1940 and 1950. the pyrannd of the City generally reflected that of the metropolitan area, as did the white population of Chester-
field County. The non-white population of Chesterfield County has been so small that it does not relate to the metropolitan composition
trends
By 1960, « significant imbalance has occurred im the age composition of the City’s population. There has been a drastic loss of white
working-age aduits and 4 sizeable increase im the very young and the very old non-white age groups.
Chesterficld County has shown a steady increase in white population since 1940, especially in the younger age groups an< has
had practicaily so change in its over all non-white composition
|. Plaintiff's Exhibit 12 (Def. Ex. 16)
Population, Race and Age Composition
Charts. (2 Charts)
Plaintiff's Example 12 (2)
NON =
75 -OVER
70-74
65-69
60-64
55-59
50-54
45-45
40-44
35-39
30-34
25-29
20-24
is-19
10-14
S$- 9
o-4
5
WHITE
WHITE
THOUS ANOS
CHESTERFIELD
THOUS
ie)
ANWNO S
RICH MOND
WHITE
NON ~- WHITE
rE eS ? &
E
T
*»OvuUS AWN ODO S
30
35
Ltl
~_ ee
ve @etey & Tt CONUS
—"lwers ee
See ot : > + ype . 2 SS sr
> a! Ey : , -_ wees . _—
. = *
_ a : : oo %
“ aw . ong —+2°
. ~ aes
aa mete tin: GOMPOSITION CHANGES .
POPULATION COMPOSITION CHANGE—1950 TO 1960—Richmond Chesterfield and SMSA
This exhibit shows quite graphically the imbalance in age composition that has been occurring in Richmond since 1950
In the bottom diagram, it is evident that there was a steady increase in population, both white and non-white in all age groups in
the SMSA from 1950 to 1960, with the largest increases for the white population. In the age groups 0-19, however, the non-white popula
uion also increased significantly
Chesterfield County had practically no change in non-white population, but significant increases in white population
The Civ of Richmond gamed in non-white population, with increases in the older age groups and extremely large mecreases im the
19 age groups The white population declined drasticaliv. with the loss occurring im the young adult ages from 20 to 48 and wn 09
iwe group) Within the City, from 1950 to 1960. the non-white porulation increased 18,890 while the white population decreased 29.60)
-
producing a net lost of 10,711
138 . efifes
a CL bbe ld
) Pareja, We (hloery maior Tahott Ck gps
4 ” / ? « s oa
Hamree Ivve [fh Voorn, Porn fe niek , ,
oft Dre ve teva mee Puy -
: ‘hom 0 o Age pmen F
(vy Mo cle 4 fon yg . Les, Ip fminohe ro Betrvive :
oS Se hols - (en baie Pa singe ow st & a ' of
~ a
pert bese hoses - og. AL he hou,
@ Bay, , P = ep hth ? wing <™e, J. 4 ol, ¢- Z ?
L 4
re -
G C1, / , 7? - ce yy Arn es fb. a “h
oben needed ~
/ /
i? thee bros * le«wrr meted (C-9e fer Om F
->)
S
/ G ' pe hiv] theta Pe pwes
, P - za / Flee ey
i / / /
— Selre€ a a a ad 2
n }/ :
/ ' / /
CC Ibe oh Me hax poll pane
c& - f J
fy = <
j ted | " ee
\ ;
/ f [
4 J is Fog j , 7
PL 2%
L. Plaintiff's Exhibit 26 — Handwritten Notes of
Meeting, dated June 19, 1969.
139
M. Plaintiff's Exhibit 29 — Crusade for Voters
Letter, dated January 1, 1968.
CRUSADE FOR VOTERS
206 East Clay Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
January |, 1968
Honorable Members
Richmond Delegation
General Assembly of Virginia
State Capitol
Richmond, Virginia
Dear Sirs:
This Memo has been duly prepared and authorized by
the Richmond Crusade for Voters, to be specifically
presented to each member of the Richmond delegation to
the General Assembly of Virginia, as a Guideline of our
interest and position regarding legislation coming up for
passage during the 1968 Assembly.
(1) We propose that the adoption of The Hahn Repori
be deferred to a later meeting of the General Assembly.
(2) We are in favor of a mandatory school attendance
law, throughout the state, covering ages from six to
sixteen.
(3) We favor abolition of Tuition Grants for non-
sectarian private schools.
(4) We favor annual sessions of the General Assembly.
(5) We advocate passage of necessary legislation to
140
authorize direct payments from the State to the City of
Richmond for use of city tax exempt land, and services,
in lieu of Taxes.
(6) We favor passage of necessary legislation, granting
authority for Richmond City Council to fix time and
place for Voter Registration for City of Richmond.
(7) We favor modification or elimination of State
“Pay as you go” financing.
(8) We oppose the amendment of Sec. 702 of the City
Charter in order to permit the sale of Bonds to cover
annexation cost.
(9) We favor asking the General Assembly to impose a
moratorium on the annexation of Chesterfield County
and Richmond.
(10) We are in favor of State assumption of Welfare
costs.
(11) We are in favor of repeal cf 1946 resolution of
opposition to local governing bodies recognizing labor
unions to negotiate for city employees.
(12) We are in favor of passing a State minimum wage
law.
(13) We are in favor of legislation providing for the
establishment of and operation by the State, of its own
Poverty Program.
(14) We are in favor of providing free textbooks for
students in all sections of the State of Virginia.
If there are questions that you wouid like to ask of us,
feel free to call upon us.
141
We hope that you will have a forward looking and
progressive session of the General Assembly.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Wilmer Wilson /s/ Milton Randolph, Sr.
Wilmer Wilson Milton Randolph, Sr.
Vice President President
/s/ William S. Thornton /s/ Lola H. Hamilton
William S. Thornton (Mrs.) Lola H. Hamilton
Board Chairman Secretary
142 (D
sey a ts Toeselg July Me Lice ~
Alan Kise yyee >be met. at. Me Dole? ”;
fre bhas L0 tunutes fete! 8:40 fim
i We diseisted the Coerts sua 7ei:
that tut meet -he. stated flat BC he/as-
—~ _haviny trockle wth his bezel Shaft aud
——httws bert_ ot Maumesh; the (oa wytet lacorotad _
: ZL hed that ther ttaeld net be
_. Feasible - le. ttight get 2 play hack tu
Laurt ot sholetweutas pada ae ox fihe
fale tre torae Ling » thes Could mat pe ps a
| | oad. beuld be adeterraut. amiaiia
oo ., Mrepper: Jor know tle Laks moines)
tora timall arise, [ie thig
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.