# Appendix — Richmond v. United States > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0174%3A02 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1975 - **Citation:** 422 U.S. 358 ## 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 t [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0174%3A02. Public record. Not legal advice.