Appendix — Whitcomb v. Chavis

Supreme Court brief1971

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Supreme Court of the United States

Ocroser Term, 1969

No. 1198

Eocak D. Wuirtcomn, Governor of the State of Indiana

Appellant,

—_VvV.— —

Patrick Cnavis, et al.

Appeal From The United States District Court For The

Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division

DOCKETED FEBRUARY 18, 1970

PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED MARCH 23, 1970

LIST OF CONTENTS

Page

Relevant Docket Entries 0 ii

poeume’ Complaint 1

Plaintiffs’ Requests For I 92

Transcript Of MIE Bical oy oi, 116

District Court’s Order Of J teen! 331

District Court’s Opinion Of J ihn, SES 335

District Court’s Plan And Order For Reapportion-

ment Of The Legislative Seats In The General As-

sembly Of Indiana Of December Ry a hein ns 390

Appellant’s Emergency Application For Stay Granted

By The Supreme Court Of The United States... 421

Appellees’ Motion To Vacate Stay Denied By The Su-

preme Court Of The United States... 422

Order Of The Supreme Court Of The United States

Of March 16, 1970, Noting Probable J urisdiction In

Nos. 735, 761 And 1198, October Term, 1969. 424

Order Of The Supreme Court Of The United States

Revoking Its Order Of March 16, 1970, And Noting

Probable Jurisdiction In No. 1198, October Term,

1969, Only

i ea, ee a re

ihe ih fs aig me Sis 5 5a > ee gn Oi 7 Ba een . Sieeeoen

ih be SIE shea Esk Acai liy Apes Relates. Sete ue, P Pee RTT Oe Meer

Vins Tian, Mic Sev Me? oi

PATER vos Sean Te

RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES

Plaintiffs’ Complaint Against The Indiana General As.

sembly And Its Individual Members Was Filed On Jann.

ary 9, 1969.

Plaintiffs’ Request For Admissions Was Filed On Febrv.

ary 4, 1969.

Plaintiffs’ Motion To Join Edgar D. Whitcomb, As Gov-

ernor Of The State of Indiana, Was Granted On Mareh

18, 1969.

Defendants’ Motion To Dismiss As To The Indiana Gen-

eral Assembly And Its Individual Members Was Grant-

ed On May 12, 1969.

Petition Of Certain Parties For Leave To Intervene Nun

Pro Tune As Defendants Was Made On June 12, 1969.

Petition To Intervene As Defendants Granted On June Ij,

1969.

District Court Determined That This Was Not A Class

Action As Stated In The Complaint But Allowed Plain-

tiffs To Maintain The Action Individually On June Ii,

1969.

Trial Begun And Evidence Heard On June 17, 1969.

District Court’s Order And Opinion Declaring The Mult-

Member Districting Provisions Of The Indiana <Appor-

tionment Act Of 1965, As They Related To Marion Couw-

ty, Unconstitutional Was Issued On July 28, 1969.

The District Court’s Plan and Crder For Reapportionment

Of The Legislative Seats In The General Assembly 0!

Indiana Was Issued On December 15, 1969.

Appellent’s Application For A Stay Of The District Court's

Order Of December 15, 1969, Was Granted By The Su

preme Court Of The United States On February 2, 197.

Appellees’ Motion To Vacate The Stay Was Denied By

The Supreme Court Of The United States On February

6, 1970.

The Supreme Court Of The United Stat

Jurisdiction In Nos.

1970.

The Order Of March 16, 1970, W

preme Court Of The United St

diction Was Noted In No. 1

es Noted Probable

735, 761, and 1198, On March 16,

as Revoked By The Su-

ates And Probable Juris-

198, Only, On March 23, 1970.

ili

REE PRIS EME ARIF NTRS SIO RY PURE DONIC RS Ae i ee sa

Supreme Court of the United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Parrick Cxavis, et al.,

Plaintiffs

vs.

Evear D. Wuitcoms, Governor of the

State of Indiana

NO. IP 69-C-23

Defendant

January 9, 1969

COMPLAINT CIVIL ACTION

_—_——

NATURE OF THE ACTION

This is a class-action suit and the classes hereinafter

are described and specified. This suit is in the nature of a

civil rights action in equity attacking the constitutionality

of two statutes of the State of Indiana which provide for

multi-member districting at large of General Assembly

seats in Marion County, Indiana and it is brought against

the legislative body having control over the nature and

content of the said statutes. In view of the fact that the

constitutionality of two Indiana statutes are under attack,

athree-judge court is suggested.

NN a a a

itn tic th. chiens

SE Se 8A iin air tit, TT A IO Par sits

JURISDICTION

The jurisdiction of this Court to hear and adjudicate this

complaint arises under the Equal Protection Clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States and the First Amendment to the said Constitution

and under the laws of the United States, and in particular,

Title 28, United States Code, Section 1348 and Title 42,

United States Code, Sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1986, 1989

and 1990. (Memorandum 1 is attached to this complaint

in support of this jurisdictional statement.) (Other memo-

randa also are attached hereto. These are cited hereinafter

simply by showing their number in parentheses, eg. (1)

PARTIES

PLAINTIFFS

A. Patrick Chavis who is hereinafter referred to as

plaintiff (A) is a resident and voter of the State of Indiana

and he is a negro. Plaintiff (A) lives outside the herein-

after described Ghetto Area and he lives in an area where

his respective minority group, negroes, are unlikely to ever

gather in sufficient number to be able to exercise a voting

bloc influence over the election of any candidate to any

public office. Plaintiff (A), therefore, has an active and

legitimate interest in suing to protect the voting rights

of the inhabitants of the hereafter described Ghetto Area

whose interests and voting propensities are similar if not

identical to his own. Plaintiff (A) sues on his own behalf

and on behalf of all persons similarly situated.

B. Plaintiffs Andrew Ramsey and Mason Bryant who

hereinafter are referred to simply as plaintiffs B are negro-

Americans who are residents and voters of Marion County,

Indiana and they live in an area hereinafter referred to as

“The Ghetto Area” and which is hereinafter defined as to

the United States Census tracts contained therein and the

streets and known geographic lines surrounding the said

cluster of census tracts. It is alleged hereinafter that the

said plaintiffs are part of a cognizable interest group which

regularly engages in bloc voting whenever the opportunity

presents itself in the form of a candidate well-known to

favor their interests but whose bloc voting is cancelled out

by the voting of contrary interest groups in Marion County-

wide elections. Because of this the plaintiff's are complain-

ing that their vote is invidiously dilluted in Indiana Gen-

eral Assembly Elections by the unnecessary multi-member

districting at-large of General Assembly seats in Marion

County, Indiana. Plaintiffs (B) sue in their own interests

and on behalf of their said class.

C. Marilyn Hotz is a White-American and a resident of

Marion County outside the City of Indianapolis which area

is sometimes referred to hereinafter as the White-Subur-

banite Belt and the said plaintiff is a Republican by party-

preference. The said plaintiff and persons living in his

said area include less than one third of the population of

Marion County, Indiana but almost one half of the regular

Republican Voters of Marion County, Indiana yet they

are, by reason of the circumstances hereinafter alleged,

deprived of a proportionate voice as to who their Repub-

lican state legislators, in years of Republican victories,

shall be. The said plaintiff sues in his own interests and

in behalf of the interests of his said class.

D. Rowland Allan who hereinafter is referred to simply

as Plaintiff (D) is an American Citizen and a resident and

voter of Marion County and the said plaintiff is an inde-

pendent voter who believes that neither the Republican

nor the Democrat Party provides the ultimate answer to the

oA een ae

ideas opehtt Sutil iis pie ty

economic and social problems confronting our times and

so he seeks to vote for the individual rather than the party

but he is frustrated in this effort when voting in Genera)

Assembly Elections in Marion County because he is con-

fronted with a list of 23 candidates of each party and it

is impossible for him to ascertain the personal merits of

this many candidates. Plaintiff (D) sues in his own behalf

and in behalf of all persons likewise situated.

KE. William Walker is a resident and voter of Lake

County, Indiana and a negro and he hereinafter is referred

to as plaintiff (E). Plaintiff (E) is complaining that al-

though Lake County, Indiana contains about the same

number of negroes as Marion County, Lake County negroes

have the opportunity to influence the election of only 5¢ as

many senators and 11/15 as many representatives as

Marion County negroes in Indiana General Assembly elee-

tions and his vote is thus, mathematically dilluted because

of the multi-mevaber districting of Marion County. Plain-

tiff (E) sues in his own behalf and in behalf of his said

class.

DEFENDANTS (2)

Defendants are the members of the Indiana General As-

sembly. It is the contention of this complaint that the

defendants are acting under color of law to deprive the

plaintiffs of equal protection of the law in their voting

rights by the continued sanctioning of the following

statutes:

Ill

QUESTIONED STATUTES

34-102, Apportionment of representatives—Rep-

resentatives shall be elected from districts ecom-

prised of one (1) or more counties and having one

(1) or more representatives as follows: . . . Twenty

Sixth District Marion County: fifteen (15) repre-

sentatives;

(Acts 1965 (2nd Spec. Sess.), ch. 5, see. 3, p. 18)

34-104. Apportionment of senators. — Senators

shall be elected from districts, comprised of one (1)

or more counties and having (1) or more senators

as follows: .. . Nineteenth District—Marion County:

eight (8) senators, two (2) to be elected in 1966

(Acts 1965 (2nd Spee. Sess.), ch. 4, sec. 3, p. 15)

These statutes are being attacked in the context of other

pertinent Indiana Statutes which the plaintiffs specifically

are refraining from placing under attack in this lawsuit. (3)

It is contended herein that the said statutes dillute the

vote of cognizable and legitimate minorities and promote

political bossism which compounds the said dillution.

COMPLAINTS

The above named plaintiffs complain of the defendants

and for cause of action allege and say:

a. Dillution of vote of racial minority.

Plaintiffs (A) and (B) say that the questioned statutes

are unconscionably detrimental to the force and effect of

the vote of negroes and poor persons living in Marion

County, Indiana and they further say:

1. That there is in Marion County, Indiana an area in-

cluding 1960 United States Census Tracts 220, 501, 502,

503, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520,

528, 529, 530, 531, 534, 535, 536 and 540 which are con-

tiguous and circumscribed by certain known geographic

boundaries (4) and which area is here and hereinafter

simply referred to as “The Ghetto Area” and the said area

has demographic characteristics which cause it to be a

¢»gnizable minority interest group. (5)

2. There also is in Marion County, Indiana a cluster of

voting wards and individual precincts consisting of Wards

1, 4,5 ©. 23 and of precincts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 11, 12 and

14 of Wa. . 3, precinct 5 of Ward 2, precinct 5 of Ward 8,

precincts 1, 10, 11, 12 and 15 of Ward 20 and precincts 10

and 24 of Ward 28. This area is circumscribed by certain

known geographie boundaries (6) and its said boundaries

closely coincide with those of the aforesaid Ghetto Area.

This voting area is here and hereinafter referred to simply

as “The Ghetto Voting area.”

3. Because of its said cognizable minority character-

istics the Ghetto Area has an unusual interest in specific

areas of substantive law which are under the control of the

defendant, General Assembly. (7)

4. The said Ghetto Area exists as a Ghetto Area involun-

tarily because of the forced segregation of racial minority

groups and persons of low income by the majority of in-

habitants and by Marion County and Indianapolis City

Government. The majority of inhabitants and local govern-

ment in Marion County have long followed a pattern of

creating problems among racial minorities and low income

families by segregating them into one area (8) and then

seeking to bypass the government burden created by those

problems by maintaining said segregation and by main-

taining pseudo-government taxing units which force the

said Ghetto Area to endure its own burdens. (9)

5. The defendant, General Assembly has complete con-

trol over the form of government units and taxing units

in Marion County. (10)

— ae -~. a | LO

6. With single-member districting the Ghetto Area and

Ghetto Voting Area would control the nomination and

dection of three members of the Indiana House of Repre-

sentatives and one member of the Indiana Senate. (11)

Under the present system of multi-member districting the

said areas have almost no pelitical force or control over

legislators because the effect of their vote is cancelled

out by other contrary interest groups in the District of

Marion County, Indiana. (12)

7. There is voter apathy in the Ghetto Area as compared

to the remainder of Marion County but where a candidate

has come forward and made a strong presentation on civil

rights, negro rights and the rights and interests of poor

people the Ghetto Voting Area has responded with strong,

bloc voting, (13), the effect of which was dilluted.

8. There is a further dillution of the vote of the Ghetto

Voting Area which results from the third of the above-

listed and complained of statutes in that the County Chair-

men of the political parties in Marion County, Indiana are

elected by precinct committeemen and vice-committeemen

who in turn are elected by the voters of each precinct and

each precinct in Marion County thus has two votes at the

county party convention regardless of the size of the party

vote returned in the precinct. Thus the Ghetto Area which

regularly returns a very heavy Democrat vote has only

me half the representation to which it is entitled at the

Marion County Democrat Party organization convention.

9. The Democrat organization and particularly the

County Chairman has a very substantial control over the

tmination of prospective state legislators in Marion

County Primaries. The said organization and County

Chairman sponsor a slate of recommended legislative candi-

dates who are very seldom defeated in the primary. This

1 wth sin si ty adil SR aati

Be ia GERD ih Std Rb eR IED AS oi 3

substantial control exists because the complained of multi.

member districting at large causes the number of candi.

dates to be so large that they cannot become individually

known to even the most conscientious and discerning voter,

10, Although three Negroes are in the present Marion

County General Assembly delegation to the Indiana House

of Representatives they can in no way be regarded as repre-

sentatives of the Ghetto Area, (15) In the fall election of

1968, the three said Negro Representatives, combined, re-

ceived less votes than the single losing white candidate

who received the least votes among white candidates.

Ul. The effect of multi-member districting at large in

Marion County, Indiana and the effect of the aforesaid

mal-apportionment in the election of party county chair-

men are cumulative and have a combined, invidious effect

dilluting the vote of the Ghetto Voting Area.

12. This plaintiff further alleges and says everything

that is hereinafter alleged and said in behalf of plaintiff

(C).

b. Dilution of vote of political minority

Plaintiff (C) says that the questioned statutes dillute the

vote of a political minority in Marion County, Indiana and

the said plaintiff further says:

1, That there is in Marion County, Indiana an area

bounded by the city limits of Indianapolis and the county

limits of Marion County which will here and hereinafter

be called the White Suburban Belt and the said belt has

cognizable minority characteristics which cause it to be a

cognizable minority interest group. (16)

2. Because of its said cognizable minority character-

istics, the White Suburban Belt has an interest in specific

areas Of substantive law which are under the control of the

defendant, General Assembly. For the most part these

are the same substantive areas that are of interest to the

Ghetto area and, for the most part, the interests of the

White Suburban Belt conflict with those of the Ghetto area.

(5)

3. The White Suburbanite Belt contains sufficient popu-

lation to control five representatives and two senators in

the General Assembly if there were single member dist © +t

ing of the Indiana General Assembly seats in) Mee:

County but, because of the multi-member districting o

large which exists in said county the control of the White

Suburban Belt over any legislator is questionable and un-

certain.

4. The White Suburban Belt votes heavily Republican

and in the fall, 1968 election it returned almost one half

of the Republican vote cast in Marion County yet it was

able, by law, to send only slightly more than one fourth

of the delegates to the Republican Party County Convention

where the leaders of the said party were elected. (17)

5. The party leaders who are thus elected effectively con-

trol the selection of prospective state legislators in the

Republican Party Primary. In one manner or another they

recommend a slate and no individual General Assembly

candidate ever is able to defeat the party slate in the

primary although insurgent slates have defeated organiza-

tion slates in times of party upheaval.

6. The effect of multi-member districting at-large of

General Assembly seats in Marion County, Indiana is that

of rendering even the most conscientious and discerning

voter helpless to learn the relative merits of the numerous

eandidates and an expression of trust or distrust in the

party leadership is the only voting choice available. The

Se SE Nae ae eee 5 ii ait mae se ae

2 ein a RANE A a NaI

SS apde RT pte> Nr Hin cached a @Aehin eis

malapportionment of the precincts from the standpoint of

the party organization vote together with the said multi.

member districting invidiously dillutes the vote of the

White Suburban Belt voter.

7. This plaintiff further says that everything that js

hereinafter alleged and said in behalf of plaintiff (D) is

hereby incorporated in this plaintiff's complaint.

Plaintiff (D) also says that the complained of statutes

dillute the voice of the vote of political minorities in Marion

County, Indiana and the said plaintiff further says:

1, That there is a minority group among the voters of

Marion County, Indiana who either do not believe in party

polities or do not find either of the major political parties

sufficiently to their liking to become a member of either,

These voters are not cognizable as a minority group and

their existence ean be shown only through common knowl-

edge and through the fact that the fall election vote in

Marion County, Indiana always is substantially higher than

the spring party primary vote. (18)

2. Multi-member districting of legislative constituencies

automatically has an invidious effect upon plaintiff's vote

as an independent voter because it is impossible for him

to learn much of value about the numerous candidates for

the numerous legislative seats and to vote for the individual

rather than the party. Independent voters never have been

able to express themselves as a group in Marion County

General Assembly elections since the 1921 reapportionment.

In the twenty four elections which have taken place since

1921 one major party or the other has won all of the Marion

County legislative seats in all but two of them and in the

two remaining elections the split was caused by ethnic

bigotry against the losing candidates and not by a bloc

of independent votes. (19)

3. There is no rational basis for

large legislative-districting of Marion County, Indiana and

the geographic compactness of the said county falls far

short of providing such a rational basis. There are forty

one voting wards in Marion County and the average ward

in the fall, 1968 election voted

of one of the major political parties over the other while,

in the Southern District of Indiana, there is a contiguous

group of thirty six counties which cont

districts and which contain about the

tion as Marion County,

the multi-member-at-

almost two to one in favor

ain no multi-member

* same total popula-

There was a less than ten percent

margin in the number of votes cast for e

party in the average of these counties in the 1968 fall

election. The said single-member-thirty-six-county area’s

fall, 1968 election vote demonstrated far more homogeniety

than that which existed in the more compact but equally

populated district of Marion County.

Marion County showed almost a two-to-one preference for

me party or the other while the typical county in the afore-

said single-member-districted ar ‘a of similar population

showed less than a 93% to 47% preference for one party or

the other. (20)

ach major political

The average ward in

4. There is fear and concern among the inhabitants and

political leaders of the State of Indiana that Marion

‘ounty might become a powerful political force in the

State of Indiana and efforts h

Marion County as a political force ever since it first

achieved a plurality among the counties, (21)

ave been made to suppress

9 The multi-member districting of Marion County dil-

ates the votes of all voters of Marion County, Indiana

eause it capatilizes on the tend

2 Indiana to experience more sh

2) to cause Marion County to ha

ancy of larger counties

ifts in party preference

ve a very high turnover

‘ue among its representatives and senators. (23) Freshmen

eae R OE USL GR SME RES

BERS Pe LAE An ESPNS 2 ee ee ee

Borda RE ee Ri aaa

rita rae TS

Give Seat pal ace OBER LARS SO te Es

legislators in Indiana consistently fail to sponsor as much

enacted legislation as experienced legislators (24) and

Marion County, Indiana is thus substantially disabled asa

voting force. Under single-member districting there would

be a substantial proportion of safe seats among the Marion

Younty House and Senate General Assembly seats and

delegations. (25) This problem is unique to Marion County

among the multi-member districts of the State of Indiana.

(26)

ce. Discrimination per se-—political and geographical

Plaintiff (2) alleges and says that multi-member district.

ing gives certain inhabitants and voters in a larger multi.

member district a mathematically unconscionable advan-

tage over the said plaintiff. The said plaintiff further says:

1. That there is a county known as Lake County, Ind:

ana whieh is second only to Marion County, Indiana in the

number of inhabitants it contains and is equal or almost

equal to Marion County, Indiana in the number of negro

inhabitants and negro voters which it contains, and which

county probably would clect as many negro-rights conscious

legislators to the Indiana General Assembly as would

Marion County, Indiana if single districting prevailed in

both counties.

9. That in both Lake and Marion County, Indiana there

are a sufficient number of negro voters and inhabitants for

a bloc vote by the said inhabitants to change the result of

any election recently held. (27)

3. In the number of its inhabitants and in the number

of its General Assembly delegates, Lake County, Indiana

is about 34 the size of Marion County, Indiana. Lake

REY aca

County, like Marion County is an at-large

district for purposes of electing dele

General Assembly.

-multi-member

gates to the defendant,

4. The four to three ratio which exists between inhabi-

tants and voters of the said counties results in and will con-

tinue to result in a four to three apportionment ratio be-

tween the said counties in the number of General Assembly

vats allotted to cach but this four to three ratio on a multi-

member-at-large-districting basis in Marion County will

result in an invidious dillution of the Lake County negro

vote and voter influence with respect to the defendant,

General Assembly,

5. Voter influence does not decrease

ratio with the population or vote

vecause the rules of mathematics inject a square root factor

into the denominator of the said equation and fraction.

Because of this the vote of each Lake County voter does and

vill continue to effect the election of only 4 as many gen-

al assemblymen as the vote of each Marion County voter

wt the probability of a typical Marion County Voter's

laving the opportunity to effect the result of an individual

General Assembly delegate contest. will not be an inverse

4 that of the Lake County voter; it will, instead, be about

%30% that of a Lake County voter’s said opportunity

ind ability.

in a direct inverse

r population of a district

6. The following commonly conceived of, be

ad acted upon ratio with respect to the me

‘ence which a typical voter in a multi-memb

istrict exerts in comparison to a voter in a si

ta different size is not correct:

lieved in,

asure of in-

er legislative

milar district

cull od SMEO TAINLY TIRE OL I CEA ht NS, MAE? EWR IORI

CO PELLET RDN Pigg ELI NOD

W—Being the number of legislators to be elected in the

larger multi-member district.

X—Being the number of inhabitants or voters in the

smaller multi-member district.

Y—Being the number of legislators to be elected in the

smaller multi-member district.

Z—Being the number of inhabitants or voters in the larger

multi-member district.

7. The true ratio which obtains between large and small

multi-member legislative districts contains a square root

factor in the denominator which renders it mathematically

impossible to achieve a truly equitable apportionment

among multi-member legislative districts of different sizes.

Under the popular inverse ratio concept a Marion County

inhabitant or voter would have only 75% the influence over

the election of each individual legislator as would be avail-

able to a Lake County voter but, in fact, the true ratio

being not that stated above, but instead, a ratio of

1% X 1/pi X 1/N with the square root to be taken of the

product of the denominators and with “N” being the num-

ber of voters or inhabitants, which ratio results in an 86.80

measure of influence for each Marion County voter over the

election of any state legislator rather than the 74.17%

measure of influence which would be and is presumed to

obtain under the direct inverse-ratio theory which prevails

and which did prevail in the original concept of proportion-

ate multi-member districting. (28)

8. The defendant, General Assembly is and has been

and will be for a substantial period of time in the future,

confronted with the problem of overcoming the effect of

past injustices perpetrated upon racial minorities in Marion

County, in Lake County and in the State of Indiana as a

whole. Both Marion County, Indiana and Lake County,

Indiana, which contain the two largest negro ghettos in

the State are the sole matter for consideration before two

separate state legislative committees, one directed to the

affairs of each county. The laws enacted by defendant

which directly effect Marion or Lake County typically

apply to only one county or the other. The result of the

aforesaid is that there is competition between the negro

population of both of the said counties to capitalize upon

the general concern which has ;

arisen among the general

public and its legislators and in the course of the said com-

petition, Marion County Negroes enjoy

advantage dilluting the voting power of Lake County

Negroes because of the aforesaid faets and because of the

ihove-quoted districting statute,

an unconscionable

WHEREFORE

For the reasons given an order is sought declaring the at-

arge provisions in Indiana Acts 1965 (Spec. Sess.) chap-

ts 4 and 5 unconstitutional insofar as they apply to

Merion County, Indiana and directing the Indiana General

‘sembly to achieve a proper legislative apportionment in

Marion County, Indiana.

Plaintiff's pray for the following action by this

(a) That a three-judge court be convened to determine

‘constitutionality of the questioned statutes.

Court:

‘b) That a hearing be held and ey

te whether the questioned

eet of causing the votes

idence heard to deter-

statutes have the invidious

cast in the above-designated and

POSTE LENG AM ODED NT VEY TNA eR PRM SN

ae PEPER OE OVI

described Ghetto Area, White Suburban Belt, Marion

County District and Lake County District to have a force

and effect upon the deliberations and enactments of the

defendant, Indiana General Assembly so inferior to the

force and effect of the votes cast generally by the inhab-

itants of the State of Indiana in other districts as to con-

stitute a denial of equal protection of the law.

clusion of such a hearing and that an appropriate order

issue.

James BEatTy

JaMES MANAHAN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

James Beatty

Bamburger & Feibleman

500 Union Federal Bldg.

Indianapolis, Indiana

ph. 632-3571

James Manahan

5224 N. Pennsylvania

Indianapolis, Indiana

At 3-3871

MEMORANDUM 1

IN VIEW OF TWO RECENT DECISIONS OF THE

UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT THERE CAN BE

NO QUESTION THAT THIS COMPLAINT CANNOT BE

SUBJECTED TO A MOTION TO DISMISS AND THAT

THIS COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO TRY THE IS-

SUES OF FACT WHICH ARE BEING PRESENTED BY

THE ALLEGATIONS HEREIN MADE.

The United States Supreme Court has twice refused to

hold that a state legislature should be ordered to divide

a multi-member-at-large constituency of such legislature

in order to give equal force and effect to the vote of a

minority within such district.

In Fortson v Dorsey, (1965) 379 U.S. 433, 85 S.Ct. 498,

13 L.Ed.2d 401 the appeal was from a district court in

Georgia where the court had ordered that Fulton County,

Georgia should be subdivided so that the negro ghetto

would have its own representatives in the state legislature.

The theory upon which this relief had been granted was

summarized by the Supreme Court as follows:

Footnote 3: Appellees take as their example, Sena-

torial District 34, in which there are 82,196 of Fulton

County’s total of 556,326 voters. They say, as a

matter of mathematics, that even if every voter in

District 34 voted for the same candidate from that

district, less than 18% of the voters in the other

six districts within the county (i.e. approximately

85,000 of the remaining 474,131 voters in the county)

could outvote the unanimous choice of District 34

voters. First of all, there is no political composition

of District 34 vis-a-vis that of the rest of the county.

» 2 6€@.8 6 6

Fortson v Dorsey, (1965) 379 U.S. 433: 85 S.Ct.

498; 13 L.Ed.2d 401, 404.

In reversing the District Court the Supreme Court made it

clear that the decision was being reversed, not because it

was contrary to law but because it was not sustained by

sufficient evidence. The invidious effect of the at-large

district had been presumed and not proved.

In reversing the District Court we should emphasize

that the equal-protection claim below was based

upon an alleged infirmity that attaches to the statute

on its face. Agreeing with appellee’s contention that

the multi-member constituency feature of the

Georgia scheme was per se bad, the District Court

entered the decree on summary judgment. We treat

the question as presented in that context, and our

opinion is not to be understood to say that in all in-

stances or under all circumstances such a system

as Georgia has will comport with the dictates of the

Equal Protection Clause. It might well be that de-

signedly or otherwise, a multi-member constituency

apportionment scheme, under the « reumstances of a

particular case, would operate to minimize or cancel

out the voting strength of racial or political ele-

ments of the voting population.

Fortson v Dorsey, (1965) 397 U.S. 483; 85 S.Ct.

498; 13 L.Ed.2d 401, 405.

In Burns v Richardson, (1966) 384 U.S. 73, 86 S.Ct. 1286,

16 L.Fd.2d 376 the District Court of Hawaii had deelined

to order the further sub-dividing of a state legislature’s

multi-member constituency and the District Court was

affirmed, but again only because of the lack of evidence of

an actual denial of equal protection. In Burns v Richardson

the United States Supreme Court went out of its way te

emphasize the fact of its willingness to require the sub-

dividing of a multi-member-at-large, state-legislative dis-

trict upon proof that the at-large quality of such a district

was, in fact, depriving a geographic portion of the district

of equal protection of the law by reason of an unconscion-

able dillution of its vote.

The Equal Protection Clause does not require that at

least one house of a bicameral state legislature con-

sist of single-member legislative districts. See Fort-

son v. Dorsey, 397 U.S. 433, 85 S.Ct. 498, 13 L.Ed.

2d 401. Where the requirements of Reynolds v Sims

are met, apportionate schemes including multi-mem-

ber districts will constitute an invidious discrimina-

tion only if it can be shown that “designedly or

otherwise, a multi-member constituency apportion-

ment scheme, under the circumstances of a particu-

lar case, would operate to minimize or cancel out the

voting strength c* racial or political elements of the

voting population.” Id, at 439, 85 S.Ct. at 501. It

may be that this invidious effect can more easily be

shown if, in contrast to the facts in Fortson, districts

are large in relation to the total number of legisla-

tors, if districts are not appropriately subdistricted

to assure distribution of legislators that are resident

over the entire district, or if such districts charace-

terize both houses of a bicameral legislature rather

than one. But the demonstration that a particular

multi-member scheme effects an invidious result

must appear from evidence in the record. Cf. Me-

Gowan v State of Maryland, 366 U.S. 420, 81 S.Ct.

1101, 6 L.Ed.2d 393. That demonstration was not

made here.

Burns v Richardson, (1966) 384 U.S. 73; 86 S.Ct.

1286, 1294; 16 L.Ed.2d 376.

The lesson in the above cited cases was not lost upon the

Georgia Legislature which voluntarily adopted a single-

wember districting plan after Fortson v Dorsey, (Ga Laws,

1965, Act No. 77). The result was the election of such noted

pokesmen as Julian Bond.

In view of the above-quoted portions of the above-quoted

leisions of the United States Supreme Court it is submit-

ted that this Court has jurisdiction to hear this matter and

to hear a trial of this cause.

This lawsuit will not present the obvious type of inequi-

ties which appeared in the prior apportionment suits tried

in this United States District Court for the Southern Dis.

trict of Indiana but it will present inequities that are

equally if not more invidious. The subtlety of a denial of

equal protection of the law cannot be permitted to have the

effect of rendering it immune from judicial notice and juv-

dicial action.

One must be ever aware that the Constitution for.

bids “sophisticated as well as simple-minded modes

of discrimination.” Lane v Wilson, 307 U.S. 268,

275, 83 L.ed. 1281, 1287, 59 S.Ct. 872; Gomillion y

Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 342, 5 L.ed.2d 110, 113, 81

S.Ct. 125.

Reynolds v Sims, (1964) 377 U.S. 533, 563; 8

S.Ct. 1362; 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 528.

Although the Supreme Court has declined to decree that

multi-member districts are unconstitutional per se it has,

with respect to a legislative district almost identical to

Marion County, taken judicial notice of the fact that a

large number of legislative candidates on a ballot auto-

matically frustrates the expression of minority group in-

terests in the vote and renders an intelligent choice among

the candidates almost impossible.

One of the most undesirable features of the existing

apportionment scheme was the requirement that, in

counties given more than one seat in either or both

of the houses of the General Assembly, all legislators

must be elected at large from the county as a whole.

Thus, under the existing plan, each Denver voter

was required to vote for eight senators and 17 rep-

resentatives. Ballots were long and cumbersome,

and an intelligent choice among candidates for seats

in the legislature was made quite difficult. No

identifiable constituencies within the populous coun-

ties resulted and the reside.:ts of those areas had no

single member of the Senate or House elected spe-

cifically to represent them. Rather, each legislator

elected from a multi-member county represented the

county as a whole.

Lucas v Colorado General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713,

731; 12 L.Ed.2d 632, 644; 84 S.Ct. 1472 (1964).

It appears from the foregoing that the plaintiffs’ burden

of proof in this case is that of showing that minority in-

terests exist in Marion County, Indiana, that they express

themselves through their voting franchise when they are

afforded such an opportunity, that multi-member district-

ing precludes them from having such an opportunity with

respect to the election of general assembly delegates, that

they are cognizable geographically to an extent that would

cause single-member districting to make a difference and

that the expression of their minority interests through the

use of their franchise in General Assembly elections is vital

to their said interests. Proof of malice on the part of the

majority in frustrating the said minorities and interest

groups also appears to be relevant to fulfilling the burden

of proof herein but the Supreme Court’s choice of words

(ie. “designedly or otherwise”) in both the Fortson and

Burns decisions, supra, indicates that such proof is not an

essential element.

In undertaking the said burden of proof the plaintiffs’

are attaching voluminous memoranda or footnotes to the

complaint. While these will burden the reader of this com-

plaint it is believed that they eventually will relieve the

court of a substantial burden that would be involved in

hearing involved and complex oral testimony. Ten days

after the filing of this complaint the plaintiff’s will file

requests for admissions relating to all of the matters al.

leged in the complaint and the memoranda for the purpos

of minimizing the oral testimony that will have to be heard

at the hearing in this cause.

MEMORANDUM 2

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS A PROPER PARTY

DEFENDANT AND THE PLAINTIFF’S PROPERLY

REPRESENT THEIR RESPECTIVE CLASSES.

The General Assembly has been named as the party de.

fendant instead of the state officials who would execute the

questioned statutes because, in the case of apportionment

statutes, a substantive area is involved where the General

Assembly has a continuing duty to act and the plaintiffs

are thus entitled to an affirmative remedy while in the case

of other statutes the only remedy is that of enjoining their

further execution. There is precedent for naming a legisla.

ture as defendant in Lucas v Colorado General Assembly,

supra.

All of the plaintiffs are suing as a class. In the ease of

the negro and independent voter plaintiffs there can be no

question that their respective classes would favor the relief

being sought but their might be some question as to

whether this is the case in the instance of the white subuwr-

ban belt plaintiff. This, however, would be an irrelevant

question because a mal-apportionment be justified by even

an official referendum, much less by proof of sentiment.

A citizen’s constitutional rights can hardly be in-

fringed simply because a majority of the people

choose that it be. We hold that the fact that a chal-

lenged legislative apportionment plan was approved

by the electorate is without federal constitutional

significance, if the scheme adopted fails to satisfy

the basic requirements of the Equal Protection

Clause, ...

Lucas v Colorado General Assembly, 377 U.S. 713

737; 84 S.Ct. 1472; 12 L.Ed.2d 632, 647.

MEMORANDUM 3

UNAVOIDABLY, THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF

OTHER INDIANA STATUTES WILL BECOME MANI-

FEST DURING THE LITIGATION IN THIS CAUSE.

THESE STATUTES ARE NOT UNDER ATTACK AND

THE PROPER PARTIES DEFENDANT HAVE NOT

BEEN NAMED FOR SUCH AN ATTACK.

The unconstitutionality of certain aspects of Indiana’s

party organization statute and the Marion County gov-

ernmental and taxing unit statutes will become manifest

in the course of the presentation which the plaintiffs con-

template making in this cause. (See Memoranda 9 and 17)

Because of the complexity of this case just on the issues

being raised by the questioned apportionment of Marion

County, the plaintiffs specifically are refraining from any

constitutional attack on these other statutes.

MEMORANDUM 4

THE CENSUS TRACTS WHICH MAKE UP THE GHET-

TO AREA ARE CONTIGUOUS AND CIRCUMSCRIBED

BY KNOWN LANDMARKS AND THE GHETTO AREA

THUS IS GEOGRAPHICALLY COGNIZABLE.

The said Ghetto Area in Marion County, Indiana is

circumscribed by a line beginning at the intersection of

White River, Central Canal and Forth Second Street and

proceeding one block east and one block north to 43rd

Street and then proceeding east on 43rd Street to Pennsyl-

vania Avenue and then south on Pennsylvania Avenue to

34th Street and then east on 34th Street to Keystone

Avenue and then south on Keystone Avenue to 30th Street

and then east on 30th Street to Dearborn and then south

on Dearborn to Massachusetts Avenue and then southwest

on Massachusetts Avenue to Commerce and then southeast

on Commerce to Tecumseh and then south on Tecumseh

to 10th Street and then west on 10th Street to College

Avenue and then north on College Avenue to 21st Street

and then west on 21st Street to Capitol Avenue and then

south on Capitol Avenue to 10th Street and ther west on

10th Street to the Canal and then south on the Canal to

Washington Street and then west on Washington Street to

Minerva Street and then north on Minerva Street to

Michigan Street and then west on Michigan Street to Locke

Street and then north on Locke Street to Fall Creek and

then north on Fall Creek to 16th Street and then west on

16th Street to Belmont and then north on Belmont to 38th

Street and then east on 38th Street to the White River

Central Canal and then northeast on the said canal to

where it makes its closest approach to 42nd Street.

This Ghetto Area has expanded and by 1967 it covered

an area circumscribed by the following known landmarks:

Beginning at the Central Canal, White River at 43rd Street

and following 43rd Street east to Pennsylvania Avenue and

then south on Pennsylvania Avenue to 38th Street and then

east on 38th Street to Massachusetts Avenue and then

southwest on Massachusetts Avenue to Ralston Avenue and

then south on Ralston Avenue to 10th Street and then west

on 10th Street to College Avenue and then North on College

Avenue to 21st Street and thca west on 21st Street to Cap-

itol Avenue and then south on Capitol Avenue to 10th

Street and then west on 10th Street to Boulevard Place and

then South on Boulevard Place to Washington Street and

then west on Washington Street to Locke Street and then

North on Locke Street to 18th Street and then west on 18th

Street to Bellmont Avenue and then North on Bellmont

Avenue to 38th Street and then east on 38th Street to

Central Canal White River and then north on Central

(anal, White River to the near intersection of Central

Canal, White River and 43rd Street.

The Ghetto Area as it existed in 1960 is portrayed on the

following diagram:

r : 3 a ‘

il t (ore

a a @ an 1 a

- ¥f re _ mf ee |

oy Beeetet=(=l st

- Se «| a < Ese.

P. Te-n noo ae

- = : -T"T= i 4

. car ez ge

= = Fo} seal an

mr. | tt B. F ? =

: Be -

Figure 9

NON-WHITES, AS PERCENT OF TOTAL POPULA-

TION, BY CENSUS TRACT, MARION COUNTY, 1960 —, sss ren mes

Research Department—Community Service Council of m= ses w ass

Metropolitan Indianapolis Source: U.S. Census ums sees wo oven

ERT RRINEEE pt Tomine ae eeerecantar ey er te

—_ + Caled oo - a = —_ ae ee Meee

MEMORANDUM 5

THE GHETTO AREA HAS DEMOGRAPHIC CHARAC.

TERISTICS WHICH CAUSE IT TO BE A COGNIZABLE

MINORITY INTEREST GROUP.

As of the 1960 Census the 1960 Ghetto Area had the fol-

lowing characteristics which distinguished it from Marion

County, Indiana as a whole:

A. As of the time of the 1960 United States Census the

Ghetto Area contained 105,808 inhabitants including 75,

221 negro inhabitants and 30,587 white inhabitants the said

area thus being 71.09% inhabited by negro inhabitants

according to the 1960 census as opposed to the 15.18%

figure which the 1960 census found to be the percentage of

negro inhabitants of Marion County, Indiana as a whole.

B. The balance of Marion County, Indiana outside the

Ghetto Area, at the time of the 1960 census consisted of

24,691 negro inhabitants and 566,251 inhabitants who were

other than negro the said balance of Marion County thus

consisting of only 4.17% negro inhabitants in contrast to

the 71.09 percentage which prevailed in the Ghetto Area.

C. While the Ghetto Area contained but 15.80% of the

Marion County population it contained 40.45% of the

dillapidated housing units in the said county as of the

1960 census.

D. While the Ghetto Area contained but 15.8% of the

Marion County population it contained 29.12% of the

Marion County population dependent upon public transpor-

tation to go to and from work as of the 1960 census.

E. While the Ghetto Area contained but 15.8% of the

Marion County Population it contained 22.00% of the

county population housed in dwellings containing fewer

rooms than inhabitants as of the 1960 census.

F. While the Ghetto Area contained but 15.8% of the

Marion County population it contained 28.74% of the unem-

ployed Marion County population as of the 1960 census.

G. While the median family income for Marion County,

Indiana was $6,609 as of the 1960 census, in negro families

located in the census tracts containing more than 400 such

families the median family income was $4,390 as of the 1960

census or 66.42% of the total median income figure for all

of Marion County including non-whites and whites. All of

the aforesaid census tracts containing 400 or more negro

families were in the Ghetto Area.

H. While the Ghetto Area contained but 15.8% of the

Marion County population it contained 51.47% of the

statistical-functional illiterates (being over 25 years of age

with four years of schooling or less) in the county as of the

1960 census.

I. The average of the years-of-education medians of the

4 census tracts in the Ghetto Area as of the 1960 census

was 9.0 years and the median years-of-education for non-

whites in the entire County of Marion was 9.2 years while

the median years-of-education of all persons in the County

of Marion was 11.5 years.

J. As of the 1960 census the Ghetto Area was inhabi-

tated by 2821 persons with four or more years of college

who will hereinafter be referred to simply as “college

graduates’’. Three of the 24 census tracts in the Ghetto

Area are in what is known as the Butler-Tarkington com-

munity which is an enlightened, integrated neighborhood

inhabited by professors, instructors and graduate students

at nearby Butler University, almost all of whom are white

and a fourth census tract is in the neighborhood of John

Herron Art Museum and it too is inhabited by instructors,

curators and graduate students at the said museum almost

all of whom are white. When these four census tracts are

“

semnimmnnanenanmnmats a

abstracted from the Ghetto Area the remaining area con.

tains only 1245 college graduates out of 82,203 inhabitants

the percentage of inhabitants who are college graduates

being 1.51%. Stated from another aspect, only 1245 of

the 33,816 college graduates in Marion County as of the

1960 census or 3.86% of them lived in the said 20 census

tract 1960 Ghetto Area while 11.76% of the people of

Marion County lived in the said area. It is correct to ab.

stract the said four census tracts from the 24 tract Ghetto

Area in making these computations because the total of

2821 college graduates in the entire 24 census tract Ghetto

area exceeds by more than 1000 the 1,734 non-white college

graduates in the entire county as of the 1960 census,

To a very substantial extent, negroes in Marion County,

Indiana, taken as a group, and inhabitants of the Ghetto

Area, taken as a group, amount to much the same thing and

statistics applicable to negroes in Marion County are mean-

ingful to a portrayal of the problems and singular in-

terests of the Ghetto Area.

The Ghettoization of Marion County negroes is increas.

ing and not decreasing by reason of the operations of

racial prejudice in housing and real estate buying as is

evidenced by the fact that the negro population in the out-

lying census tracts of Marion County decreased during the

1950-1960 decade while increasing in the inward tracts as is

shown by the following diagram:

Figure 10

DIFFERENCE IN PERCENT OF NON-WHITES IN TOTAL POPULATION 1950-1960,

BY CENSUS TRACTS MARION COUNTY

Research Department Key:

Community Service Council * Approx. 1% Larger Proportion

ot Metropolitan Indianapolis of Non-Whites in ‘60 than in ‘50

Source: 1960 Census ° Approx. 1% Smaller Proportion

Base Map Furnished By of Non-Whites in ‘60 than in ‘50

Metropolitan Planning Department

Marion County, Indiana

While the negro population of Marion County, Indiana is

being moved inward the white population is steadily mov-

ing outward and the long tradition of segregation which

has prevailed in this county (See Memorandum 8) at least

through 1960 if not to the present day. While the negro

population in Marion County, Indiana is being moved in-

Te See vale =

x SAW EL See AON ae a » SITET Seed eee eee ON ere

ward the white population steadily is moving outward as

the following diagram demonstrates:

} e "4 s . me . e

| : Js A oe oes . : _ ° .

. . e ee * a aa

~ . = - THe wR r = . ‘ . 4

° . . ‘ cs ‘sae é . 6 -,,

; > " x . oat,” . me, . a .. Ns ° “ ™

= . ¥ ~" “ vet ae . e. - .. . °

» . ™e. ety & le ~ “Wy ** **

.u : uw. So x . ° 7.™ Te,

- ,. ome . -, 7 -, » @ ,

oz * “a8 . 2 : ee . yg

. . = wy : r) heed o* - lest Bae he *. » -

aetna ~ we oe

_—~ eee >| oe / . .

FPS: eek x ° ct Co

mere ry, . ~~ Pe 4 . .

. q vecpee “abe — / © . °

Figure 7

WHITE POPULATION CHANGE 1950-1960, BY CENSUS TRACTS,

MARION COUNTY

Research Department Key:

Community Service Council * Approx. 150 Person Increase

of Metropolitan Indianapolis * Approx. 150 Person Decrease

Source: 1960 Census

Negro inhabitants of Marion County and Ghetto in-

habitants of Marion County have long had special interests

foisted upon them by their being foreed to live close to-

gether in a compact Ghetto Area where the economic and

other individual problems which are common to negroes

because of their being socially ostracized become social

problems and interest group problems.

As is commonly the case with the poor, negroes in Marion

County have a higher birth rate than the whites in said

county:

TABLE VIL FERTILITY RATE PER 1,000 POPULA-

TION, BY COLOR, MARION COUNTY

AND INDIANAPOLIS, 1960-1965

— — ————— ——— =

Marion County Indianapolis

N on- Non-

Year Total White White Total White White

1960 =. 25.7 24.1 35.3 27.4 25.3 35.5

19961 25.5 23.9 34.8 27.5 25.5 35.1

1%2 24.9 23.5 33.1 27.0 25.3 33.3

1%3 23.6 21.9 33.3 25.6 23.6 33.3

1964 22.5 21.1 31.1 24.4 22.6 31.2

19965 20.5 19.1 28.8 21.8 20.0 28.8

Source: Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion

County

Thus, while negroes constituted only 14.07% of the Marion

County population in 1960 they constituted almost 30%

of the Indianapolis school enrollment in 1965. (Negro en-

rollment in Marion County schools other than Indianapolis

schools was negligible. )

TABLE XVIIT ENROLLMENT OF INDIANAPOLIS

PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS

AND HIGH SCHOOLS, BY RACE,

INDIANAPOLIS, JUNE, 1965

— ——— —

Percent

Grade White Negro Negro

Total 68,024 28,840 29.7

Elementary 49,307 21,538 30.4

High

School 18,717 7,302 28.1

“Source: Indianapolis Public Schools

Because of the above-shown facts, negroes in Marion

County, Indiana, as an interest group, and the Ghetto Ara

residents, as an interest group, have a specially strong

interest in school policy and school districting and school

budgeting in Marion County, Indiana. The governmental

structure under which such policies arc evolved and under

which such districting and budgeting is accomplished js

under the complete control of the Indiana General As.

sembly. As matters now stand, there is very substantial de

facto segregation in the Indianapolis School System, only

five of the ten major high schools having an enrollment of

both races in excess of one percent:

TABLE XIX PUBLIC HIGH SCHOOL ENROLLMENTS,

BY RACE, INDIANAPOLIS, JUNE, 1965

Percent

School White Negro Negro

Arlington 3,150 21 :

Technical 3,637 1,665 31

Broad Ripple 1,637 4 :

Crispus Attucks 0 2,611 100

Emmerich Manual 2,366 197 8

George Washington _ 1,722 362 17

Harry E. Wood 1,340 352 21

Northwest 1,787 2 .

Shortridge 739 2,021 73

Thomas Carr Howe 2,190 25 1

James E. Roberts 27 4 13

Riley Hospital 58 7 11

Juvenile Center 54 29 35

Homebound 10 2 17

* Less than 1 percent.

Source: Indianapolis Public Schools

This segregation enables the school board to engage in a

budgeting apportionment so demographically unrealistic as

to fall short even of the rudimentary requirements of

Plessy v Ferguson. Only single-member districted negro

legislators, capable of acquiring “safe seats” if they serve

their constituents well, would be capable of mounting the

sustained offensive necessary to overcome the deep seated

problems in the organization of Marion County Govern-

ment which are detrimental to negroes and the poor.

Governmental reform is not happening and will not happen

so long as the Ghetto Area vote is dilluted by multi-member

districting. To the contrary, at the time of the filing of this

lawsuit the Marion County General Assembly delegation

was busily lobbying for “governmental reform” which

would do little else that further dillute the Getto Area

vote in direct contravention of the dictates against such

devices in Gomillion v Lightfoot, 364 US 339, 342, 5 L.ed.

24110, 113, 81 S.Ct. 125.

The people of the Ghetto Area have still other demogra-

phic characteristics, many of a socially critical nature,

which cause them to be a distinct interest group apart

from the remainder of Marion County.

Infant mortality among negroes in Marion County is

much higher than it is among whites:

TABLE XLI INFANT MORTALITY, BY COLOR, MAR-

ION COUNTY, 1960-1966

Number Rate

Non Non-

Year White White White White

1960 327 148 22.7 41.7

1961 319 121 21.3 34.6

1962 314 119 22.4 35.7

1963 297 133 21.9 38.6

1964 291 127 21.9 38.8

1965 255 125 20.9 40.7

1966 269 117 22.8 37.2

Source: Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion

County

The mortality rate of negroes of all ages in Marion

County, Indiana also is substantially higher than it js

among whites.

TABLE VIII MORTALITY RATE PER 1,000 POPULA.

TION, BY COLOR, MARION COUNTY

AND INDIANAPOLIS, 1960-1965

—<——

Marion County Indianapolis

Non- Non-

Year Total White White Total White White

1960 9.0 8.7 10.9 10.6 10.6 10.9

1961 8.9 8.6 10.6 10.4 10.3 10.7

1962 9.0 8.7 11.0 10.6 10.5 11.1

1963 9.4 8.9 12.3 11.0 10.6 12.3

1964 9.1 8.6 12.3 10.7 10.3 12.3

1965 8.9 8.4 11.5 10.4 10.8 11.5

Source: Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion

County

Economic dependency among children also is propor:

tionally very high in Marion County. As of July 1, 1964,

72% of the aid to dependent children cases in Warion

County involved negro children although negroes did not

total much more than the 14.07% percentage figure which

was their proportion of the Marion County population in

1960.

From 1950 through 1965 illegitimate births increased

threefold in Marion County, Indiana increasing from 545

in 1950 to 1,618 in 1965 and during all of the said years,

although negroes comprised an average of only about 14%

of the Marion County population, more than one half of the

illegitimate births were negro births.

Illegitimate Percent Percent

Year Births White Non-White

1950 545 46 54

1951 573 41 59

1952 630 44 56

1953 662 47 53

1954 773 43 57

1955 819 44 56

1956 875 42 58

1957 993 40 60

1958 1,114 41 959

1959 1,121 39 61

1960 1,231 40 60

1961 1,359 40 60

1962 1,366 41 59

1963 1,525 40 60

1964 1,653 43 57

1965 1,618 40 60

Source: Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion

County

Stated from another aspect, only one out of twenty white

births in Marion County, Indiana are illegitimate births

while almost one third of the negro births in Marion

County, Indiana are illegitimate births and ten percent of

these births originate from circumstances amounting to

statutory rape:

TABLE XXXVI ILLEGITIMATE BIRTHS, BY COLOR

AND AGE OF MOTHER, MARION

COUNTY, 1965

Age of White Non-White

Mother Number Percent Number Percent

15 Years

and Under 32 4.9 103 10.6

16-20 312 48.1 454 46.8

21-30 233 35.9 313 32.3

3land Over 71 10.9 95 98

Unknown 1 2 4 4

Source: Health and Hospital Corporation of Marion

County

Although negro youth constituted only about 20% of the

Marion County youth population they constituted 42.86%

of the youthful offenders in 1966 and their offenses tended

more to be more of the sort that are felonies when com-

mitted by adults while the white juvenile offenses tended

more to be of the sort that are misdemeanors when com.

mitted by adults.

TABLE XL TYPE OF OFFENSE OF PETITIONS RE-

CEIVED, BY RACE, MARION COUNTY,

1966

White Negro

Type of Offense Number Percent Number Percent

Conduct Offense 1,088 47.9 577 33.9

ee ee ae Oe ee

Personal Offense 73 3.2 117 6.9

Property Offense 933 41.1 829 48.6

Other 178 7.8 180 10.6

Total 2,272 100.0 1,703 100.0

Source: Marion County Juvenile Court

The General Assembly has control over the structure of

the Marion Juvenile Court and the scope of its facilities.

Presently, two/thirds of the Juvenile offenders in Marion

County who are placed on probation are placed on “in-

formal” probation as opposed to a one/third average for

the state as a whole. Marion County as a whole has a prob-

lem in that it has become necessary for the courts to send a

substantially higher percentage of its citizens to prison

than the percentage which prevails in other counties. While

Marion county contains only about 15% of the population

of Indiana, 25.4% of the persons admitted to state correc-

tional institutions in 1966-1967 were from Marion County.

The percentage of negroes in Indianapolis, Indiana has

increased steadily over the past century and it can be ex-

pected to increase steadily in the future:

Figure 5

POPULATION GROWTH BY COLOR

FOR INDIANAPOLIS, 1835-1965*

a toate

on one cual ee qh rey

eee ‘ oe

nse

Te My ; om

;

ous £ lol

4 -

mared He me

fet

~ od |

a 5 ae EE

7 ee oe x *

— qk 5 Ma SOS Oe Co

FAS A So SO 58 I Oe

_ 3 oR] OEY RE

~ 4 “ “4 ond bie) | ome

* - ° *< * &Y

“] FY oR] EY EGE

owes > TE (25 Mn > S03 BE Ss sD

a SM SM Os SS SO Ce

ok oD) oR OR RV

Re SM Soe Mn 5 So SSS

niall SM SS a oS sO oS ~

5 SS > Oe SS DS

~~ SRY RY RD RY ES l=

° 0 . eS

a Sn Ss se SS

x 5 ee ~~

ane “ es & sae

] Pee

ces

a. eee ae

e " -: .

1835 1840 1850 1860 1870 rT) 1890 ‘200 110 920 930 940 950 ree0 was?

Research Department Leetne

Community Service Council TOTAL Eo NON-WHITE

of Metropolitan Indianapolis Lae _—

Source: U.S. Census

* Estimated

The above-noted problems will increase with their number.

The percentage of negroes in the State of Indiana has

shown a similar increase over the past one hundred years.

TABLE II NEGRO POPULATION AND PERCENT OF

TOTAL POPULATION, INDIANA, 1860-

1960

Negro Percent

Negro Total of Total

Year Population* Population? Population

1860 11,428 1,350,428 8

1870 24,560 1,680,637 1.5

1880 39,228 1,978,302 2.0

1890 45,215 2,192,404 2.1

1900 57,505 2,516,462 2.3

1910 60,320 2,700,876 2.2

1920 80,810 2,930,390 2.8

1930 111,982 3,238,503 3.4

1940 121,196 3,427,796 3.5

1950 175,712 3,934,224 4.5

1960 273,944 4,662,498 5.9

* Source: Indiana Historical Bureau

*Source: U. S. Census

The percentage of negroes in the entire state is quite small

and there are only two parts of the state where they are

living together in a sufficiently large number to control the

election of an Indiana legislator. Yet wherever negroes are

living together in substantial numbers there is multi-mem-

ber districting for seats in the General Assembly. 87.59%

of the negroes in Indiana live in multi-member districts

while only 46.94% of the white people live in such districts.

The single districting of Marion County, Indiana would

cause the aforesaid percentage figures to be 51.09% and

33.25% respectively, a more balanced figure more in keep-

ing with the Kerner report’s recommendation with respect

to multi member districting.

It is plain that the Negro ghetto resident feels that

he is not represented fairly and adequately under

the arrangements which prevail in many cities. This

condition strikes at major democratic values. To

meet this problem, city government and the ma.

jority community should revitalize the political

system to encourage fuller participation by all sag.

ments of the community. Whether this requires

adoption of any one system of representation we are

not prepared to say. But it is clear that at-large rep-

resentation, currently the practice in many Amer.

ican cities, does not give members of the minority

community a feeling of involvement. U.S. Riot Com-

mission Report, Bantam p. 296.

MEMORANDUM 6

The Ghetto Voting Area, because of the substantial popu-

lation changes which have taken place since 1960, is defined

to coincide with the previously described 1967 Ghetto Area

rather than the previously described 1960 Ghetto Area.

This Ghetto Voting Area can be described by means of

known geographic entities as being the area within the

line beginning at 43rd Street and White River, Central

Canal and proceeding east on 43rd Street to Washington

Boulevard and then south to 40th Street and then east on

40th Street to New Jersey Street and then south on New

Jersey Street to 38th Street and then east on 38th Street

to Sheridan Road and then South on what would be a line

extending Sheridan Road to the New York Central Rail-

road Tracks and then southwest on the said railroad tracks

to Steele Street and then southward on a meandering course

on Steele and Windsor Streets to 10th Street and then east

on Tenth Street to Shelby Street and then north on Shelby

Street to 11th Street and then west on 11th Street to College

Avenue and then North on College Avenue to 21st Street

and then west on 21st Street to Talbot and then south on

Talbot to 21st Street (21st Street jogs at this point) and

then west on 21st Street to Meridian Street and then south

on Meridian Street to 19th Street and then west on 19th

Street to Capitol Avenue and then South on Capitol Avenue

to 9th Street and then west on 9th Street to West Street and

then North on West Street to 10th Street and then west on

10th Street to White River and then northwesterly on

White River to a line even with Belmont Street and then

north on said line to 38th Street and then east on 38th

Street to Northwestern Avenue and then northwest on

Northwestern Avenue to the canal and then north east on

the said canal to 43rd Street and then due east to White

River and 43rd Street.

MEMORANDUM 7

In Memorandum 5 there has been some discussion of

certain substantive areas under the control of the Indiana

General Assembly which are of particular and special in-

terest to the Ghetto Area. Certain additional statutes en-

acted by and under the control of the Indiana General

Assembly which also are of special interest to the Ghetto

Area are listed here without comment. No comment is

made (except for brief, parenthetical comments) because

it is believed that the pertinence of these statutes to the

interests of the Ghetto Area is self-evident.

A. The Employment Security Act being a subject of

constant enactments, repeals and amendments: Acts 1947,

ch. 208; 1951, ch. 295; 1953, ch. 1771; 1955, ch. 317; 1957,

ch. 299, ch. 97; 1965, ch. 190 & 1967, ch. 310.

B. The minimum wage law, Acts 1935, ch. 319.

C. The Public Welfare Act, being a subject of constant

enactments, repeals and amendments: 1936 (Spec. Sess.)

ch. 3; 1937, ch. 41; 1945, ch. 347; 1947, ch. 200; 1951, ch.

288; 1955, ch. 227; 1959, ch. 373; 1961, ch. 315; 1965, ch. 430

& 1967, ch. 270.

D. The lection Apportionment law bearing upon Gen.

eral Assembly constituencies, being a subject of all too

infrequent amendments: Acts 1921, ch, 271; 1965, ch. 430 &

1967, ch, 270,

Ki. The Small Loan Company es Acts 1917, ch, 125,

1933, ch. 154; 1951, eh. 86; 1963, eh. 23:

Statute governing city primaries and elections: Aets

IN45, ch. 220; 1947, ch, 29; 1949, eh. 25; 1998, eh. 289; 1957,

ch. 168; 1959, eh. 183,

GG. Registration of Voters: Aets 1945, eh. 208; 1951, ch,

12; 1958, eh. 289; 1957, eh. 235,

Hl. The Marion County Health and Hospital Corporation

statute and the free medical care and administration of

such care provided for thereunder: Aets 1959, eh, 287; 1961,

eh. 20,

I. The Building Regulations and Codes and Housing

Codes statutes being: Acts 1921, ch. 225; 1923, ch. 168:

1925, ch. 125,

J. The thoroughfare Plan in Cities of the Firat Class

: (Indianapolis being the only such city) statute: Acts 1923,

: ch. 169; 1925, eh. 1838; 1953, eh. 120.

; K. The Free School Text Books and Regulation of Con- |

: tent statute: Acts 1889, eh. 50; 1891, ch. 80; 1907, ch. 273;

: 1909, eh. 156; 1913, ch. 190 & 234; 1917, ch. 138; 1921, ch.

1953, ch. 36 & 1967, ch. 331. |

3 L. Apportionment of state funds for edueation: Acts

j 1943, ch. 268; 1949, ch. 247; 1959, eh. 215; 1957, eh. 292; 1959,

ch. 828; 1961, ch. 198,

M. Civil Rights and related legislation: Acts 1885, ch.

47; 1947, ch. 56; 1961, ch. 256; 1961, ch. 208; 1963, ch. 173;

1965, ch. 368.

N. Income Tax exemptions & credits: Acts 1933, eh. 50;

1937, ch. 117; 1943, ch. 291; 1959, ch. 375; 1963 (Spec. Sess, )

ch. 30; 1965, ch. 232,

MEMORANDUM 8

THE GHETTO ARIKA’S INHABITANTS DO NOT LIVE

THERE VOLUNTARILY. THI MAJORITY OF ‘THE

POPULATION AND 'THIE GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

OF MARION COUNTY HAVE ACTED AND CONTINUE

TO ACT OUT OF MALICE ‘TO CAUSK MARION

COUNTY TO BECOME AND REMAIN A SEGREGATED

COMMUNITY

In the 1920 and 1930 United States Censuses, the City of

Indianapolis, Indiana which contains all of the Ghetto

Area as alleged and defined and which contains most of the

population of Marion County, was divided into 15 wards,

As of the 1920 census all of these wards contained negro in-

habitants. The ward containing the most negro inhabitants

contained a total of 5079 sueh inhabitants and the ward

containing the least negro inhabitants contained a total of

30 such inhabitants, Also, as of the 1920 census there were

nine wards containing one thousand or more negro inhabi-

fants which had a total of 31,479 such inhabitants while the

remaining six wards contained a total of 3199 such inhabi-

ants. As of the 1930 census there were 9269 additional]

negroes in the City of Indianapolis and this entire increase

‘ook place in the nine wards having more than one thousand

“gro inhabitants as of the 1920 census. The negro popula-

tea of these wards, as a whole, increased in the amount of

448% while the negro population in the remaining wards

deereased slightly. By the time of the 1930 census the afore-

id ward with the largest number of negro inhabitants in-

teased from 5079 to 7002 negro inhabitants while the afore-

aid ward with the smallest number of negro inhabitants

increased only from 380 such inhabitants to 383 such in-

habitants. This change in the pattern of distribution of the

negro population in Marion County, Indiana coincided with

and was caused by the rapid growth of the Twentieth

Century Ku Klux Klan and similar organizations who insti-

gated and encouraged hatred of and fear toward negro and

other ethnic minorities. The result of these activities by

the Ku Klux Klan and other similar organizations was that

otherwise respectable white citizens and neighborhood and

civic organizations joined in activities calculated to keep

negro housing in Marion County segregated.

The rapid increase in Negro population created

new tensions, especially in housing. The parts of

the city which had been the Negro districts simply

could not house both the older residents and the

newcomers. As immigrants from the South took over

these districts, older residents sought to buy homes

in hitherto all-white reighborhoods, The largest

concentration of Negroes in Indianapolis had always

been just northwest of the down town business area.

After the war this area began to expand northward

—toward the upper middle class white neighbor.

hoods. Property owners, faced with the prospect of

Negro neighbors and fearful of a decline in real

estate values, organized themselves into local civil

leagues, which had as their chief purpose the bar

ring of Negro residents. One novel defice to which

one group, the Capitol Avenue Protective Associ-

ation, resorted was to try to isolate and humiliate

Negroes who bought property by building spite

fences on either side of his property. But a young

Negro dentist, faced with this form of retaliation.

obtained an injunction which prohibited the prac

tice.

Sometimes opposition to Negro neighbors took

more sinister form. When, despite warnings, a Negro

family moved into a white neighborhood in 1924, 8

hand grenade was thrown through a window of their

house. Following this episode handbills were cireu

lated in an adjacent neighborhood asking “DO YOU

WANT A NIGGER FOR A NEIGHBOR?” The

handbills appear to have been the work of a group

which unabashedly called itself the White Suprem-

acy League and which had as its objective not only

barring Negroes from white neighborhoods but ex-

cluding them from most forms of employment as

well. Members were bound by oath not to employ

Negroes in their homes or trade at stores which em.

ployed Negroes. This group represented an extrem-

ist element, but its president was also active in the

Mapleton Civie Association, an organization which

ineluded in its membership eminently respecte ble

businessmen. A printed statement of the aims of the

Mapleton group frankly stated: “One of ow chief

concerns is to prevent members of the colored race

from moving into our midst, thereby depreciating

property values fifty percent or more.” Members of

the association pledged themselves not to sell or

lease property to anyone except a white person. The

agreement was reported to have worked so well that

for three years no more Negroes had moved into the

Mapleton area, and some who were already residents

had moved away,

Segregation In Indiana During the Klan Era Of

the 1920s, Miss. Val. Hist. Rev. Vol. XLVI, No. 4,

M., 1961, pgs. 597, 598, Thornbrough.

The following excerpt from an issue of The Freeman, a

‘National Negro Newsweekly” which was published in

Marion County, Indiana during the first part of this century

sself-explanatory:

SEPARATE HIGH SCHOOL PROVES OLD PLOT

Mapleton Civic Association Boasts

of Solon’s Pledge

Would ‘‘Help Make a More Beautiful City’’ By

“Lilly White” Colonization

In a booklet edited by Edward C. Snethen, under

the caption of “The Indianapolis Federation of Civic

Clubs, 1923, we find this illuminating report of the

activities of the Mapleton Civie League.

Mapleton Civic Association

The present officers of the Association are as fol-

lows:

George W. Beamon, president, 3815 N. Capitol

Avenue.

J. G. Bowen, vice president, 3824 N. Illinois St.

Nannie Moffitt, secretary, 3950 Kenwood Ave-

nue,

Ray Mock, Treasurer, 3749 Graceland Ave.

The Mapleton Civie Association was organized in

1920 with a membership of 360.

The purpose of this organization is to give pro

tection to all property holders within its boundary

lines.

As this is strictly a residence district we have no

railroad nor factory problem, but one of our chief

concerns is to prevent members of the colored race

from moving into our midst, thereby depreciating

the property values fifty percent or more. For this

reason each member of the association has pledged

himself not to sell or lease property to other than

white persons, consequently some negroes have

moved out and none have moved into the district

since we organized. Through our efforts the School

Board has promised to provide separate schools for

oe Eo

the colored pupils ef the city, especially a high

school this season, and we believe this will be as-

sistance in Segregatiig these people.

This association has done a great amount of work

toward securing Fainwview Park for Butler College.

Most of the member; have donated money toward

the park for the college.

We are striving tc make this territory a better

place in which to live, particularly a place morally

and in every other wiy, safe for the rearing of our

children into better mn and women.

We are lending tle Federation of Community

Civic Clubs all the assstance possible as we fee] that

it has accomplished wonders in advocating and

carrying through measures that are of lasting bene-

fit to our city,

The association me:ts the first Tuesday of each

month at the Community Building, corner of 40th

and Capitol Avenue.

It seems that the cat is ou of the bag and all the high

sounding reasons given by th: school commissioners to the

wlored committees protesting against the establishing of a

high school were just so muck camouflage to hide the real

issue. The booklet foes on te name the various civic or-

ganizations federated under one banner and then follow

these remarkable ideals:

“To Co-ordinate Comnunity effort

To encourage a more aseful citizenship

To co-operate in escuing (sic.)

better public servie

To help make a more deautiful city.

The Freeman, A Natioml Illustrated Colored News-

paper, March 1, 1924 page 1.

These activities received the samction and assistance of the

‘eal government in Marion County when, in 1924 the

Zoning Board prohibited a negro church from being erected

in an integrated neighborhood:

WHITE RESIDENTS OUST COLORED CHURCH

Claim Presence Will Depreciate Property

=—— ( —

Board Refuses Permit to

Build to Zion Methodists

Once more Jim-Crow-come-North scored in Indi-

anapolis when the board of zoning appeals denied a

petition presented by a congregation of St. Mark's

A.M.E. Zion Church to erect a new church structure

at the northeast corner of Palmer and Olive Streets.

Members of the neighborhood property owners

appeared before the board complaining that the—

(Missing from Indiana Historical Library copy)—

would depreciate the evalue (sie) of their property.

Most of the residents of this neighborhood are white.

It is considered of marked significance that this

refusal should be handed down at the time of the

General Conference of the A.M.K. Zion Church in

the City. Just what steps of prosecution the church

congregation will take on whatever their—(balance

of article missing. )

The Freeman, A National Illustrated Colored

Newspaper, Indianapolis, May 17, 1964, pg. 1

In 1926 the City Counsel of Indianapolis enacted a sepa-

ration of the races orginance prohibiting negroes from

moving into mostly white neighborhoods and prohibited

whites from moving into mostly negro neighborhoods:

General Ordinance No. 15, 1926

AN ORDINANCE, relating to the establishment by

white persons of a home-residence in a negro com-

munity, and the establishment by negroes of a home

residence in a white community, providing a pen-

alty for the violation thereof, and declaring a time

when the same shall take effect.

WHEREAS, In the interest of public peace, good

order and the general welfare, it is advisable to

foster the separation of white and negro residential

communities,

Therefore,

Be it Ordained by the Common Council of the City

of Indianapolis, Indiana;

Section 1. That it shall be unlawful for any white

person to hereafter establish a home-residence on

any property located in a negro community, a por-

tion of the municipality inhabited principally by

negroes, or for any negro to establish a home resi-

dence on any property located in a white community

or portion of the municipality inhabited principally

by white people, except on the written consent of a

majority of the persons of the opposite race inhabit-

ing such community or portion of the city to be af-

fected; the aforesaid written consent to be filed of

record with the city clerk.

Provided, however, that a White person owning

property in a colored community or a colored person

owning property in a white community, before the

passage of the ordinance may exercise his or her

vested right to hereafter move into and reside there

without obtaining the consent of a majority of the

persons of the opposite race occupying such com-

munity. Provided further, that a white person may

exercise his vested right to sell his property in a

negro community to a white person, but the pur-

chasor in either case after the passage of this ordi-

nance cannot take up his residence therein without

first obtaining the written consent of a majority of

the citizens of the other race inhabiting such com-

munity, as hereinbefore provided.

Section 2. That it shall be unlawful to maintain any

home-residence established in violation of Section 1

of this ordinance.

Section 3. That each seven (7) days maintenance of

any home-residencee established in violation of See-

tion 1 of the ordimance shall be deemed to be and

shall constitute a separate and distinct offense.

Section 4. That tlhe terms ‘white community’ and

‘negro community’ as used in this ordinance shall be

taken and held to mean and embrace every residence

fronting on either: side of any street within three

hundred feet of tthe location of the property in-

volved, measuring along the middle of the streets in

any and all direccions.

Section 5. That any person violating any of the

provisions of this ordinance shall on conviction be

punished for each offense by a fine not exceeding

fifty dollars, or ‘by imprisonment not exceeding

thirty days, or by both such fine and such imprison-

ment, in the discretion of the court having juris-

diction.

Journal of the Common Council of Indianapolis

1926, pp. 53-54 ((enacted March 15, 1926, see p. 78)

During the year 1924 the Indianapolis School Board

reached its decision to @rect an all-negro high school and

prohibit negro children ffrom attending other high schools

regardless of the distancee of their homes from the all-negro

high school and the proximity of their homes to other

schools. An injunction against this action by the School

Board was sought and when a demurrer to the complaint

was sustained the mattter was appealed to the Indiana

Supreme Court which mpheld the “constitutionality” of

this deliberate administirative act of achieving segregation

in housing through indirect means.

COURT UPHOLDS JIM-cROW RULING

Action To Block New High School

Fails. Judge Mull in Handing

Down Decision States Segregation

of Colored School Children is

Legal—To Appeal Case

Following the filings of a suit against the school

board by Archie Greathouse to prevent the erection

of a colored high school, the school pled a demurrer

through their counsel which was sustained by Judge

Moll of the Superior Court last friday.

Judge Moll — (missing from the Indiana His-

torical Library copy) — are immaterial and the

courts may not interfere with courses of study pre-

scribed consistently to law.” He held that Mr. Great-

house did not state a cause of action.

In his complaint, Mr, Greathouse raised the issue

that more money was spent for other schools than is

planned in the erection of a colored high school, that

the courses of study would not be equal and other-

wise attacked the discrimination of the school board.

Mr. Greathouse was not in the city at the time the

decision was rendered by Judge Moll, but his at-

torney stated that he was positive his client would

renew his attack on this discriminatory measure.

Mr. Greathouse is represented by Attornew (sic.)

Henderson.

The Freeman, A National Illustrated Colored

Newspaper, Indianapolis, May 24, 1924, page 1

Mr. Greathouse’s case was affirmed on appeal: Greathouse

School Board, (1926) 198 Ind. 95-107.

Also in the nineteen twenties, in 1927, the General As-

embly of Indiana abandoned its duty under the Constitu-

tion of Indiana to reapportion the legislature every six

years. This took place partly because of the increase in the

number of negro and white-ethnic inhabitants in metro-

politan areas. This abandonment of the General Assembly’s

duty under the Constitution of Indiana continued until

1965 when action by the federal courts appeared imminent

and after an election which featured a strong public re-

sponse in favor of civil rights had resulted in a General

Assembly sympathetic to such interests. Between 1927 and

1965 attempts at accomplishing legislative reapportion-

ment repeatedly were rebuffed, frequently with the co-

operation of Assemblymen elected from Marion County,

Indiana whose personal base of popular support was solely

outside the above-alleged Ghetto Area and other ethnic

areas in Marion County and whose supporters had eco-

nomic and social interests similar to those of the inhabi-

tants of the smaller counties which dominated the General

Assembly.

Another result of the objected to “at large” provisions in

the questioned statutes (and the alienation of the Ghetto

Area which has taken place under the political structure

fashioned by the said statutes) has been that of causing

quasi-political groups to form among the inhabitants of the

Ghetto Area and of causing such quasi-political groups to

operate outside the elective process and to seek redress of

their grievances by threats, by civil disobedience and by

various resorts to the bizarre in order to focus public atten-

tion on the said grievances. This is no new development.

The current hostility of Marion County negroes toward our

“main-stream foreign and domestic politics actually pre-

dates the turn of this century:

Negroes showed little interest in national politi-

cal issues except those which had a distinct racial

appeal. Although colored orators and newspapers

might discuss the issues which divided the political

parties, their interest in such matters as the tariff

or bi-metalism seemed perfunctory. Indiana Negroes

were aroused over the increasing number of out-

rages in the south and the movement to disenfran-

chise Southern Negroes but under Harrison and Me-

Kinley they became increasingly distrustful of the

Republican Party because of its acquiescence in con-

ditions in the South. Their feelings of disillusion-

ment and alarm over the future of their race were

growing at the end of the century as the result of

the aftermath of the war with Spain. Negroes had

hailed the war to liberate Cuba and had enthusiasti-

cally volunteered for service because many of the

Cubans were persons of “Colored” blood. But as

the fighting in the Phillippines more and more to

assume the aspects of a race war, it became in-

creasingly distasteful to Negroes. The Indianapolis

Work declared: “Negroes of America ought to stand

as a man against the effort to conquer the Phil-

lipinos (sic) and force upon them an alien colonial

government.” Moreover, racial prejudice in the

United States seemed to be accentuated by the war.

The subjugation of a colored people overseas seemed

to sanction doctrines of White Supremacy at home.

Some of the opinions expressed by white Republi-

cans to justify imperialism were similar to those

used by Southern White Democrats to serve as an

apology for their racial program.

As Negroes became disillusioned with white Re-

publican leadership, white politicians were also be-

comming indifferent to the Negro vote, taking it

for granted or even regarding it as a liability to the

party. In 1896 the Republicans began a long period

of control of State Government in Indiana during

which the margin of their victories was a large

enough one that they no longer felt it necessary to

cultivate colored support. In 1898 and 1900 and

thereafter Negroes were completely ignored in nam-

ing candidates for state office. In the Republican

State Convention of 1900 there were fewer Negro

delegates than for many years. The humanitarian in-

terest in the advancement of the colored race, or

heritage of the abolition movement whieh had ip.

fused the Republican Party in an earlier period, was

dissipated by the end of the century. In Indiana, as

well as in the South, there was a Villy white’ move.

ment developing within the party, An editorial jn

the Indianapolis News on the subject of alleged

buying of Negro votes by the Democrats in the 1899

mayoralty election was disparaging to both South.

ern and Northern Negroes. It asked: “Have they

(Negroes) ever thought that people who have not

the courage fo exercise their rights in the South,

even in the communities where they have a mat jority,

and who are looked upon in the North as being

particularly susceptible to the wiles of the seoun

drals who purchase votes, must necessarily be re.

garded with some distrust by their white neigh.

bors?”

The Negro in Indiana Before 1900, Yanma ton

Thornbrough, Indiana Historical Bureau, 1957,

pgs. 314-516.

The above-noted circumstances and conditions never

have been acquiesced in by the inhabitants of the Ghetto

Area and the continued disregard of their condition by

the General Assembly has not been because the inhabitants

of the Ghetto Area were silent, it has been beeause they

were ignored. The dillution of their vote has at all times

made their petitions for redress of their grievances a matter

which a Marion County legislator could safely disregard

and which a Marion County legislator probably would be

well-advised to dis-regard in view of the number of Marion

County constituents who probably would be hostile to the

ends sought by all such petitions.

One of the most improper and harmful bills ever enacted

by the Indiana General Assembly was that which made

miscegination a felony. The previously quoted statistic

showing a substantially higher percentage of illegitiinate

°.

Hye)

births among negro births (ineluding mixed births) than

among White births can be largely attributed to this statute

and the social prejudice against mixed marriages which it

sanctioned and fostered while comaining a part of the

Criminal Code of Indiana long after it censed to be eon

sidered an enforceable statute, This statute withstood all

threats of repeal until only a short time before the United

States Supreme Court finally was given the opportunity

to declare the long recognized unconstitutionality of such

long unenforced but nonetheless insulting statutes, This

daiate survived even after it became practically meaning:

less notwithstanding the fact that the people of the Ghetto

Area had protested its existence from its very ineeption:

IN CONCLAVIs

It was carefully whispered among the colored men

on Sunday and yesterday that at night there was

“goin to be an indignation meetin.” At the Colored

Baptist Church and with its customary enterprise,

the News dispatched a representative there, al

though it was impossible to learn upon what they

infented to “indignate.”

i ia on Vr oe oe ce ae

The following petition, drafted by Mr. Russell was

adopted.

To the General Assembly of the State of Indiana:

The undersigned citizens of Marion County in the

State of Indiana, respectfully, but earnestly, petition

your honorable body for the repeal of that section

of your Criminal Code which makes it a felony for

white and colored persons to intermarry.

And the Hons. Thompson and Oliver, Senators,

and Kimball, King, Johnson and Billingsley, Rep-

reseiitatives, are requested to present this petition

to their respective houses, and to use their votes

and influence to secure the repeal of said section.

And as in duty bound, your petitioners will ever

pray.’

Indianapolis Evening News, Tuesday, Jan. 14,

1873 Page 4, Col. 1.

MEMORANDUM 9

AN EXAMPLE OF THE SEVERE HARM BEING DONE

TO THE GHETTO AREA BY AN UNSYMPATHETIC

GENERAL ASSEMBLY IS THE “TAXATION-BY.

TOWNSHIP & ADMINISTRATION-BY-COUNTY"

WELFARE SYSTEM ESTABLISHED BY LAW.

Under the laws of the State of Indiana as enacted by

the defendant, General Assembly there are departments

of public welfare in each county which are to be ad-

ministered by a county welfare board (Burns Ann. Stat.

52-1117) which is to be appointed by the Circuit Judge of

each county (Burns 52-1118) who is elected county-wide.

The county welfare board is charged with the administra-

tion of matters of great importance generally to negroes

and poor persons including: a. assistance to dependent

children, b. old-age assistance, ¢. service and assistance

to handicapped, d. care and treatment of neglected or

handicapped children and, e. supervision of the proba-

tion officers for the courts. Although this board is con-

trolled at the county-wide level the taxes for welfare as-

sistance are levied at the township level (Burns 64-1908).

The entire Ghetto Area is within Center Township of

Marion County and thus, while the Ghetto Area is required

by the statutes enacted by the defendant, General Assembly

to bear the financial burden of its own poor, the administra-

tion of poor relief is controlled by an official who is elected

at large. This results in an administration of poor relief of

Marion County which is hostile to the true needs of the

Ghetto Area notwithstanding the fact that the Ghetto

Area is itself bearing its own, separate and dis-proportion-

ate tax burden. Ghetto residents who seek poor relief are

asually investigated instead of assisted and insulted instead

of counseled. The poor relief administrators who are under

the patronage of the county-wide elected cireuit judge are

prejudiced against negroes to the extent that they will not

permit homeless negro children to he placed in white foster

homes notwithstanding the willingness of certain prospec-

tive white foster parents to have such children and not-

withstanding a chronic lack of foster homes for homeless

negro children, In 1965, after an election which featured

widespread voter sympathy for negro and civil rights

causes, the defendant, General Assembly enacted a law

which empowered the Mayor of Indianapolis to appoint a

bare majority of the members of the county welfare board.

Before the Mayor could make any such appointment he

was enjoined from doing so by a count

y-wide elected superi-

oreourt judge and the matter now is in an appellate limbo.

It is very unlikely that the near future will include an

election expressing voter sympathies such as those ex-

pressed in 1964 and it is very unlikely that the Ghetto

Area will have the opportunity to be the

uch sympathies within the next decade. The only oppor-

tmity for the Ghetto Area to right such injustices as those

ntlined above through substantive legislation lies in the

direct exercise of its voting power with respect to the Gen-

al Assembly without the dillution inherent in multi-

member districting. Under single member districting the

Shetto Area would be in a position to provide safe seats

‘or sufficiently militant and persistent legislators who could

wticulate the Ghetto Area’s needs and apply a

wlitical pressures

‘nure in office.

beneficiary of

ppropriate

on the basis of their prospective long

MEMORANDUM 10

THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY CONTROLS TAXING

UNITS AND UNITS OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AL.

MOST WITHOUT LIMIT.

The Indiana Constitution vests power in the General

Assembly with the following sweeping terms:

Sec. 16. Power of each house-—KEach House shall

have all powers necessary for a branch of the legis.

lative department of a free and independent State.

Article 4, Section 16, Constitution of Indiana

The Indiana Constitution makes no provision for city,

township or county government other than to provide for

the offices of County clerk, auditor, recorder, treasurer,

Sheriff, coroner and surveyor (Article 6, Section 2) and to

provide that no county of less than 400 square miles can

thereafter be created and that no county of a lesser area

ean be further reduced in size. (Article 15, Sec. 7). There

are no limitations on the powers of the General Assembly

to control the shape of local government other than the

foregoing. In view of this it is submitted that the de.

fendant, General Assembly has absolute, autocratic con-

trol over the form of local government in this State and it

is responsible for all inequities which arise therefrom.

MEMORANDUM 11

WITH SINGLE MEMBER DISTRICTING THE

GHETTO AREA AND GHETTO VOTING AREA

WOULD CONTROL THE NOMINATION AND

ELECTION OF THREE MEMBERS OF THE

INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND

ONE MEMBER OF THE INDIANA SENATE.

The 1967 Ghetto Voting Area includes approximately

one fifth of the Marion County population entitling it to

three delegates to the Indiana House of Representatives and

2) a ee. a a ee a a a i

more than one delegate in the Indiana Senate. Only the

most blatant, pie-shaped gerrymandering cognizable under

Gomillion v Lightfoot, supra, could deprive the Ghetto

Area of such representation in the event of single member

districting in Marion County. Any gerrymandering suffi-

ciently subtle to avoid a successful cause of action against

itin the state or federal courts would result, merely in a

waste of votes for the gerrymandering party which could

well be used elsewhere. With certain exceptions the 1967

Ghetto Area consists of Wards 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 23 which

are clustered together at the center of the said county.

To the southwest there are wards which, like the Ghetto

Area, returned a heavy Democrat vote in the 1968 General

Assembly election and so no dillution of the Ghetto Vote

could be accomplished by a merger of an outside area with

the Ghetto in that direction. Such a merger to the south-

east would include Wards 2 and 9 which returned a 16.95 %

and 7.04% Republican margin in the 1968 General As-

sembly election. This merger, however, would include

Ghetto Wards 1 and 23 which returned a Democrat margin

of 18.45% and 81.63% respectively in said election and

% such a merger would merely increase the scope of

Ghetto voting influence rather than dilluting it. A

merger to the north-east would pit wards 1 and 23

o wards 31 and 22 against the said Ghetto Wards.

While wards 28, 31 and 22 returned Republican margins

of 22.70%, 34.76% and 30.20% in the said election this

vould not equal the Democrat margins returned by the

aid Ghetto wards. This coupled with the fact that the

Ghetto Area presently is expanding rapidly toward the

tortheast would militate against such a merger. To the

worth a merger would pit wards 22 and 20 which returned

‘Republican margin of 30.20% and a Democrat Margin of

10.44% respectively against Ghetto Wards 4 and 5 which

returned Democrat margins of 29.84 & 68.86% respectively.

Added to the above figures is the fact that they are figures

from an election which featured substantial voting apathy

in the Ghetto area. Under circumstances giving the Ghetto

a real voice in the outcome of an election, as would be the

case in a General Assembly election with single-member

districting, the Ghetto Vote would increase very substanti.

ally and any attempt at gerrymandering based upon recent

voting statistics would backfire. In view of the fore.

going it is claimed that multi-member districting is depriy.

ing the Ghetto Area of at least four delegates to the Indi.

ana General Assembly which it otherwise would have if

single member districting prevailed.

MEMORANDUM 12

THE GHETTO AREA, EVEN WHEN IT ENGAGES IN

EXTREME BLOC VOTING, HAS ALMOST NO EFFECT

OVER THE RESULTS OF AT-LARGE MARION

COUNTY ELECTIONS. MULTI-MEMBER DISTRICT.

ING AT LARGE, THEREFORE, DILLUTES ITS VOTE

TO THE POINT OF NEARLY ELIMINATING IT.

In the 1968 Indiana Presidential Primary held on May

8, there were four major candidates before the voters of

Marion County who were standing for the presidency.

These included the now president-elect (at the time of

the filing of this compaint), the late Senator Robert Francis

Kennedy, Senator Eugene McCarthy and Governor Roger

Branigin. In percentages the wards and precincts of

Marion County, Indiana which are outside the Ghetto

Voting area cast their total vote for these four candidates

as follows:

Richard Milhous Nixon ....51.43%

Senator Robert Kennedy 18.12%

Governor Roger Branigin 17.92%

Senator Eugene McCarthy 12.53%

Again in percentages, the wards and precincts of Marion

County, Indiana which are within the Ghetto Voting area

cast their total vote for these four candidates as follows:

Senator Robert Kennedy -...............62.43%

Governor Roger Branigin ..........................-- 21.33%

Richard Milhous Nixon ~~ —-.........13.32%

Senator Eugene McCarthy —............... 2.92%

The total Marion County vote including Ghetto and non-

Ghetto voting wards and precincts was as follows:

Richard Milhous Nixon — 43.97%

Senator Robert Kennedy ene

Governor Roger Branigin — 18.58%

Senator Eugene McCarthy —.............10.65%

The raw vote totals represented by the above-recited per-

centages were as follows:

Nixon Kennedy Branigin McCarthy

Ghetto Vote 4,828 22,632 7,732 1,062

Non-Ghetto 76,677 27,001 26,715 18,691

Marion County 81,505 49,633 34,447 19,753

In the campaign which took place prior to the above

described primary vote, Candidate Nixon took a main-

stream position expressing no substantial disagreement

with the foreign and domestic policies of the incumbant ad-

ministration but asserting that the country was in need of

more competent management. Candidate Branigin ran

as a stand-in for the incumbant administration and actively

sought the support of potential Nixon voters, appealing to

them to assist him in defeating Candidate Kennedy in the

Democrat primary. Candidate McCarthy expressed sub-

stantial disagreement with the foreign and domestic poli-

cies of the incumbant administration but he made little

if any, mention of civil rights or negro rights. Candidate

Kennedy, while expressing the same substantial disagree.

ment with the foreign and domestic policies of the in.

cumbant administration also made a very strong presenta.

tion in favor of negro rights and advancement and in favor

of the advancement of the rights of poor people and on

the evening of the Assassination of the Reverand Martin

Luther King he appeared in the heart of The Ghetto Area

and made a moving presentation to an assembled crowd

comparing the assassination of the Reverend King with

that of his brother, stating: “My brother too was killed by

a white man.” The result of the said campaigning was the

above-demonstrated substantial Ghetto bloc vote in favor

of Candidate Kennedy which bloc had no effect on the

outcome of the said election in Marion County at large

because of the size of Marion County in relation to the

Ghetto Area and because the said negro bloc vote was

largely cancelled out by an anti-negro rights vote that also

exists in Marion County. With or without the Ghetto vote

the order of finish of the said candidates in Marion County

was Nixon, Kennedy, Branigin and McCarthy and with or

without the Ghetto vote the order of finish in the Democrat

primary was Kennedy, Branigin, McCarthy.

MEMORANDUM 13

WHILE THERE IS VOTER APATHY IN THE GHETTO

AREA THE SAID AREA RESPONDS STRONGLY

WHEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO VOTE ON IS.

SUES RELEVANT TO ITS PARTICULAR INTERESTS

AND TO CAST A MEANINGFUL VOTE THEREON.

In the Spring, 1968 presidential primary the Ghetto Vot-

ing Area voted at a rate of 34.26% of the population of the

Ghetto Area while the remainder of Marion County voted

at a rate of 25.10% of its population. In the Fall, 1968

e . pe one eh! ll eo | ee pt

presidential election the Ghetto Voting Area voted at a

rate of 32.06% of the population of the Ghetto Area while

the remainder of Marion County voted at a rate of 46.53%

of its population. Thus the Ghetto voting rate was 136.49 %

of that of the non-Ghetto voting rate in the Spring, 1968

presidential primary but it was only 68.89% that of the

non-Ghetto voting rate in the Fall, 1968 presidential elec-

tion. The above figures are for total population and not

voting population. Since there is a slightly greater pro-

portion of minors in the Ghetto Area the result is to slightly

exaggerate the overall voter apathy in the Ghetto Area

and to understate the dramatic difference between the

Ghetto Voting response in the Spring primary as opposed

to the Fall election.

It is noted and granted that the above given votes-per-

inhabitant statistics are unusual and that votes-per-eligible-

voter statistics normally would be considered more ap-

propriate. But it is submitted that the above-given

statistics are the more appropriate in this case because

they include an additional factor very pertinent to this

case. Negroes and poor persons (as has heretofore been

shown) have a higher percentage of ineligible voters (eg.

minors and felons whose civil rights have not been re-

stored) among their number than do other classes of

people. Thus the Ghetto Area automatically has fewer

votes-per-body yet all of the bodies, i.e. inhabitants in the

Ghetto Area have equal if not greater need for govern-

mental attention as compared to inhabitants outside the

aid area. Since apportionment normally is based upon

the number of inhabitants and not the number of votes

cast (at least for purposes of determining the size although

perhaps not the shape of a district) multi-member dis-

trieting as opposed to single member districting automati-

ally causes a dillution of the voting power of those cog-

tizable classes which contain fewer eligble voters, where

such cognizable classes live close together in a geographic

area cognizable by known landmarks which is large enough

to be equal in population to what would constitute a single

district if such multi-member district were changed to

single-districting system. This latter point is not a claim

that multi-member districts are invidious per se. What is

being said, rather, is that there automatically is a dillution

of a minority’s voting power in all multi-member districts

which contain what are commonly called “ghettos” wher

the ghetto is of substantial size.

MEMORANDUM 15

THE THREE NEGROES WHO PRESENTLY ARE ON

THE 23 MEMBER MARION COUNTY GENERAL AS.

SEMBLY DELEGATION ARE NOT REPRESENTA.

TIVES OF THE GHETTO AREA.

In the fall election of 1968, Marion County residents cast

ballots for the Indiana General Assembly and the Presi-

dency of the United States. In the General Assembly elec.

tion there were fifteen candidates from each of the two

major parties for the Indiana House of Representatives.

All fifteen of the Republican candidates were elected in-

cluding the three negroes who were on the said party's

slate. These three negroes were elected to the General

Assembly by Republican Party support and not by the

support of the Ghetto Voting Area. In the Ghetto Voting

Area the said three negro candidates received 8128, 8609

and 7902 votes respectively or a total of 24,639 votes. Their

losing white Democrat opponent with the least alphabetical

advantage on the ballot received 26,295 votes from the

Ghetto Voting Area or more than the three said Republican

negro candidates combined. In the Perry Township ward

the same three negre candidates received a combined vote

of 52841 while the aforesaid white Democrat House of

Representatives candidate with the least alphabetical ad-

vantage on the ballot received a vote of 8,262 or 15.63%

of the combined vote received by the said three negro

candidates. Thus the political fortunes of the said three

negro Republican Candidates and the said Democrat candi-

date varied by a ratio of more than six to one between the

Ghetto Voting Area and the Perry Township Ward. In

the same election one George Wallace whose political

philosophy was generally recognized as anti-negro and anti-

civil-rights received 3.49% of the total vote cast for the

presidency of the United States in the Ghetto Voting Area.

The same George Wallace received 11.21% of the total vote

cast for the presidency of the United States in the aforesaid

Perry Township Ward. Thus the Perry Township Ward of

Marion County gave the anti-negro presidential candidate,

George Wallace more than three times the support he re-

ceived in the Ghetto Voting Area while the said Perry

Township Ward, on the same ballots gave the aforesaid

three negro Republican candidates six times the support

given them on the ballots cast in the Ghetto Voting Area.

In Ward 16 of Marion County, Indiana, in the said 1968 fall

ection, the voters gave each of the aforesaid negro Repub-

lian Candidates approximately the same number of votes

that were cast for the aforesaid white, Democrat losing can-

didate while the aforesaid George Wallace received 19.89%

of the total presidential vote, the largest percentage he re-

ceived in any ward of Marion County and more than five

times the support he received in the Ghetto Voting Area.

In the same election, Presidential candidate, Hubert

Humphrey, who had over a period of more than two dec-

ades, been a strong spokesman for Negro and civil rights,

received 73.07% of the vote cast in the Ghetto Area for the

Presidency of the United States while each of the three

iforesaid Republican Negro candidates received not more

than 24.66% of the said Ghetto Voting Area vote. In the

Perry Township Ward of Marion County, Hubert Hum-

phrey received only 26.08% of the Presidential vote while

the said three negro Republican candidates each received

a minimum of 68.86% of the General Assembly vote east.

Thus Hubert Humphrey received two and one half times

the support from the Ghetto Voting Area that was given

any of the three Republican Negro Indiana House of Repre.

sentatives Candidates by the said Voting Area and he re.

ceived the exact opposite degree of support in the Perry

Township Ward as compared to the said negro candidates,

all of whom received two and one half times the percentage

of support given Hubert Humphrey in said ward. Because

of the foregoing facts it is hereby and herein claimed that

the bloc vote hereinbefore noted in the Ghetto Area is not

a black, racist vote. It is, rather, a vote based upon a

political philosophy which has arisen out of true and

practical needs. Because of the foregoing facts it is here-

by and herein further claimed that the said bloc vote is

automatically frustrated when it is confronted with a

nameless and practically invisible slate of fifteen Indiana

House of Representative Candidates and eight Senatorial

candidates whose individual propensities and political

philosophies are submerged in a county-wide party plat-

form which constitutes a melting pot of pre-arrainged

political bargains on the part of the political party leaders

of Marion County to achieve a ticket-wide, county-wide

presentation calculated to include a sufficient percentage

of centrist tendancies to acquire maximal support from

the independent voters of the said county. Because of

the said circumstances the plaintiffs herein complain that

they, as inhabitants of the Marion County multi-member

Indiana General Assembly constituency, are unable to ob-

tain the state-legislative representation available to the

single-member constituencies of this state.

In the May 8, 1968 Indiana Primary the three Marion

County negroes who now are among defendant’s member-

ship ran in the state representatives Republican primary

with numerous other candidates for the 15 representatives

seats which were at stake in the Marion County District.

All three of the said negro candidates were on the Republi-

can Party Slate. Defendant’s member, Representative Har-

riet Bailey Conn is a negro woman who ran in said primary

on the Republican Party Slate and defendant's member,

Representative Doris Dorbecker is a white woman who ran

in said primary on the same Republican Party slate. Both

of the said woman candidates had about the same alpha-

betical advantage on the said ballot and the number of

votes which each received in each ward of Marion County

in the said primary and the difference in the number of

votes they received in each ward in terms of raw vote and

percentage was as follows:

Dorbecker

Conn Vote Vote Difference Difference %

784 873 —3.34%

686 742 —3.22%

156 +1.26%

737 —3.22%

+8.72%

+9.21%

+ 82%

—3.33%

—4.87%

—4.94%

+0.017%

—0.37%

—4.95%

— 2.05%

—0.62%

—4.42%

—1.94%

—3.73%

—1.72%

—0.011%

—3.24%

—4.12%

+0.55%

—0.06%

————

———

Dorbecker

Ward Conn Vote Vote Difference _ Difference 9,

25th 1013 1112 —99 —0.42%,

26th 416 502 ~—86 —9.35%

27th 2198 2374 —176 —3,85%

28th 2173 2369 —196 —4.31%

29th 2223 2375 —152 —3,33%

30th 695 788 —93 —0,68%

31st 763 789 —26 —1.67%

32nd 224 233 — 9 —0.19%

Cent. Out 200 228 —28 —6,25%

Decatur 624 718 -—94 —0.79%

Franklin 582 672 —90 —7.18%

Lawrence 2646 2925 ——279 —4.89%

Perry 4772 5604 —832 8.01%

Pike 1191 1175 +16 +0.67%

Warren 3126 3365 —239 —3.68%

Wash. 7835 8334 —499 —3.08%

Wayne 3589 3813 —224 —3.02%

Total 51203 55334 4131 Avg. 3.19% (+)

The highest vote which the aforesaid negro woman

candidate received over her white woman co-candidate in

any ward equaled 9.35% of the total vote cast for both

of them and the highest vote which the aforesaid white

woman co-candidate received over the said negro woman

co-candidate in any one ward stated in percentage of the

tital vote cast for both of them in that ward was 9.21%

Instances where the disparity approached the above-noted

highest disparities were unusual, the median disparity

being 3.02%. On the basis of the foregoing it is alleged

that individual General Assembly candidates are almost

invisible to the Marion County Voter. This allegation is

further supported in a following memorandum. It also

is contended that these aforesaid negro candidates were

not selected by their party as persons who probably would

support negro causes. This contention is supported by the

following:

ll _ ‘= — =! —

NOTRE DAME DEAN RESIGNS STATE POST

The dean of the University of Notre Dame Law

School has resigned from the Fair Employment

Practices Commission with a bitter blast at Gov-

ernor Matthew E. Welsh whom he accused of failing

to keep promises, it was learned yesterday.

Dean Joseph O’Meara quit the commission over

the issuance of an executive order by Welsh re-

quiring non-discrimination by firms doing business

with the state.

O’Meara contends the order is weak and nothing

more than “an empty gesture.”

He claimed the essential provisions of the order

were eliminated before it was issued by the Gov-

ernor.

“When I began work on the executive order which

the Fair Employment Practices Commission ap-

proved and submitted to you on Oct. 18, 1961, I said

to those who were collaborating with me that the

proposed order would soon make clear whether you

are really interested in civil rights. It has done

exactly that,” the dean said in his letter of resig-

nation to Welsh.

“You talk a good civil rights program, but you

are unwilling to do what must be done to effectuate

the State’s policy against non-discrimination in em-

ployment. You are not interested enough to act,”

O’Meara said.

The law school dean declared that Welsh had

promised he would confer with him on any possible

changes in the order.

“This promise you did not keep,” he said.

“In place of the essential provisions which you

eliminated from the order before issuing it, you sub-

stituted simply the language of the statute itself.

ee Teme eed

“What is accomplished by repeating the statute!

Nothing, it is an empty gesture, as you know,”

O’Meara wrote.

In accepting the dean’s resignation the governor

apologized for failing to discuss the changes with

O’Meara.

He said the changes to the order were worked out

by the Attorney General’s office,

“It was felt unwise at this early stage in the life

of the new commission to differ or be at cross pur.

poses with the Attorney General, and for this reason

his, (the Attorney General’s) recommendations were

accepted, and I understand that the other members

of the commission were in agreement,” the goy-

ernor wrote O’Meara.

Deputy Attorney General, Mrs. Harriette B. Conn

who drafted the changes in the order, explained that

the order O’Meara had proposed went far beyond

the provisions of the 1961 law that established the

F.E.P.C.

The dean’s proposed order contained a stipula-

tion that would have required firms doing business

with the state to post signs throughout their plants

stipulating that they will not discriminate.

She said this very provision was removed from

the F.E.P.C. bill when the bill was approved by

the legislature. The order also would have forced

the firms to prove to the state that they were not

discriminating rather than placing the burden on

the Commission to investigate possible discrimina-

tion.

Attorney General Edwin K. Steers said that an

executive order cannot contain civil rights pro-

visions which the legislature sought to delete.

O’Meara said that Dean Leon H. Wallace of the

Indiana University Law School, Alan T, Nolan of

the Indianapolis Bar Association and two professors

from the Notre Dame Law School assisted him in

this proposed order.

The Notre Dame dean charged that the Attorney

General’s unofficial opinion on his order “was very

weak,”

Indianapolis Star, Jan. 18, 1962, pg. 1, col. 8.

In view of the foregoing it is submitted that there is no

basis for asserting that the Ghetto Area and its interests

can be said to have representation in the General Assembly

merely because there are three negroes on the Marion

County delegation to the General Assembly,

MEMORANDUM 16

THE WHITE SUBURBAN BELT IS SOCIALLY, ECO-

NOMICALLY, POLITICALLY, AND GEOGRAPHICAL.

LY COGNIZABLE AS AN INTEREST GROUP.

The said White-Suburbanite Belt has the following

characteristics which distinguish it from the remainder of

Marion County:

A. The median family income in the said belt is $7,667

while in the remainder of Marion County it is $6,106.

B. Although the said belt contains 31.68% of the popu-

lation of Marion County, Indiana it contains 44.20% of

the families in Marion County which have a family in-

come of more than $9,000.

C. Although the said belt contains 31.68% of the popu-

lation of Marion County it contains only 18.37% of the

families which have a family income of less than $4,000.

D. The annual family income of the families in the said

belt is 125.56% the family income of the families in the

remainder of the County.

Kk. Although the said belt contains 31.68% of the popv-

lation of Marion County it contains among its inhabitants,

38.68% of the college graduates in Marion County.

F. Although the said belt contains 31.68% of the popu-

lation it contains among its inhabitants only 1.86% of

the negroes who live in Marion County.

H. Although the said belt contains 31.68% of the popn.

lation of Marion County it contains only 13.46% of the

dwelling units built before 1939.

I. Although the said belt contains 31.68% of the popv-

lation of Marion County it contains only 14.43% of the

deteriorating or dillapidated houses in Marion County.

K. Although the said belt contains only 31.68% of the

population of Marion County it contains 51.51% of the

houses with more than one bathroom in the said county.

K. Although the said belt contains only 31.68% of the

population of Marion County it returned 48.73% of the

Republican vote cast in Marion County in the fall election

of 1968.

(All except the last of the given statistics are taken from

the 1960 census. This latter fact detracts from the signifi-

cance of the last given statistic.

MEMORANDUM 17

UNDER SINGLE-MEMBER DISTRICTING THE WHITE

SUBURBAN BELT WOULD ELECT FIVE REPRESEN.

TATIVES TO THE INDIANA HOUSE OF REPRESEN.

TATIVES AND TWO SENATORS TO THE INDIANA

SENATE AS ITS VOTERS WOULD BE ABLE 10

RECOGNIZE AND DEFEAT IN THE PRIMARY ANY

REPUBLICAN SLATED CANDIDATES WHO WOULD

NOT MAKE SUITABLE REPRESENTATIVES. UNDER

MULTI-MEMBER DISTRICTING THEIR VOTE IS DIL-

WTED AND THE BELT IS AT THE MERCY OF A

PARTY ORGANIZATION OVER WHICH IT HAS A

LESS THAN PROPORTIONATE AMOUNT OF CON-

TROL.

Although, because of its said characteristics and because

of the voting response of its inhabitants to their felt needs,

the said White-Suburbanite Belt returned almost one half

of the Republican vote cast in Marion County in the fall

election of 1968, and although the said belt regularly casts

similar strong Republican votes and although the vote of

the said belt is necessary to most Republican victories

which take place in Marion County, Indiana and although

the said belt is proportionally entitled to five representa-

tives in the Indiana House of Representatives and two

Senators in the Indiana Senate, the inhabitants of the said

belt, because of the complained of statutes and other usages

described hereinafter, are effectively deprived of any sub-

stantial voice in the selection of the fifteen member Marion

County delegation to the Indiana House of Representatives

and the eight member Marion County delegation to the

Indiana Senate.

Each major party in Marion County produces a slate of

recommended candidates prior to each primary election

and the selection of this slate is controlled by the County

Chairmen of each party and the precinct workers of each

party. Such slates can be beaten in the primary only by

rival slates in times of intra-party upheaval. It is virtually

impossible for an individual candidate to be nominated to

the Indiana General Assembly in the Marion County pri-

mary election if he is not slated. Because of this the in-

habitants of the White-Suburbanite Belt, while they reg-

ularly return approximately one half of the Republican

vote in Marion County, they have less than one fourth of

the actual voice in the selection of General Assembly

candidates for the Republican slate which selection con-

trols the actual nomination and they are left with no real

voice other than a vote for or against the said slate on a

take-it-or-leave-it basis and their vote and voice in the

Indiana General Assembly is thus invidiously dilluted,

This latter dillution takes place largely because of the

following statute:

29-2903 Time and place of organization of party

committees.—At one o’clock p.m. on the Saturday

following their election, the precinct committeemen

and the vice-committeemen of each party coming

under the provisions of this act pertaining to pri-

mary elections shall meet at some place at the

county seat to be fixed by the retiring chairman,

and shall organize the county committee by electing

the officers required by this article. The state central

committee of each political party coming under the

provisions of this act shall provide, by proper rules,

regulations or resolutions, for the organization of

other committees herein provided for, which organ-

ization shall take place within one hundred twenty

(120) days after such primary, except the city com.

mittees of such parties, which shall be organized at

any time not later than sixty (60) days before the

city primary, the time of such organization to be

fixed by such state committees, and to be uniform as

to each party throughout the state, and said state

central committees shall adopt proper and efficient

rules for the government of each and all of such

committees.

(Acts 1945, ch. 208, sec. 6, p. 680; 1949, ch. 25,

sec. 3, p. 43; 1965, ch. 261, sec. 2, p. 683.)

Thus, each precinct, regardless of whether it is heavily

Republican, heavily Democrat, or evenly divided, casts two

votes at each party organization convention. There are 661

precincts in Marion County, Indiana. 206 of tiem are in the

White Suburban Belt and 84 of them are in the Ghetto

Voting Area.

as ——- oo en. fy fo ee + tt ce oe ee hhlClUrO

Thus, while the Ghetto Voting Area cast 30.67% of the

total Democrat vote cast in the 1968 Presidential primary

the said area was able to elect and send only 11.19% of

the delegates to the party organization convention the

following Saturday and while the White Suburbanite Belt

east 48.73% of the Republican votes cast in the Fall, 1968

election in Marion County it was able to elect and send only

31.16% of the delegates to the 1968 Republican organization

convention. Conversely, both areas contain “rotton bur-

roughs” in the party which they do not support and which

largely are under the control of the County Chairmen.

MEMORANDUM 20

THE COMPACT SIZE OF MARION COUNTY INDIANA

DOES NOT PROVIDE A RATIONAL BASIS FOR THE

MULTI-MEMBER DISTRICTING THEREOF. THE POP-

ULATION OF MARION COUNTY IS FAR MORE

HETEROGENOUS THAN A MUCH LARGER THIRTY

siX COUNTY AREA TO BE FOUND IN SOUTHERN

INDIANA WHICH HAS A TOTAL POPULATION

SIMILAR TO THAT OF MARION COUNTY.

Marion County, Indiana occupies a very small portion of

the State of Indiana but, comparatively, it has a very large

portion of the state’s population. The fact that Marion

County’s inhabitants necessarily live very close together

has not made them a homogenous group politically.

Marion County is divided into 41 voting wards and there

sas much of a variation in political preference among

these wards as there is among any equally populous group

of single member constituencies as could be found in the

State of Indiana, however large in geographic size. In the

lll, 1968 election the Republican Party won a very sub-

tantial victory in Marion County. The first alphabetically

listed Republican candidate for the General Assembly

House of Representatives achieved a margin of 15.77% of

the total vote over the first alphabetically listed Democrat

candidate for the said House. Stated in raw figures this

margin amounted to a total of 47,331 votes. But notwith-

standing the said Republican landslide on a county wide

basis, the aforesaid Democrat candidate achieved a very

substantial voter margin over the aforesaid Republican

candidate in many wards of this County:

Rep. Dem. Raw

Ward Cand. Cand. Margin o/ Margin Safe?

Ist 2993 4360 1367 18.45% DS

2nd 2311 1641 670 16.95% R

3rd 488 4024 3736 80.58% DS

4th 1791 3297 1501 29.86% DS

5th 809 4384 3575 6: 84% DS

6th 548 6127 5579 83.59% DS

7th 840 2450 1610 48.51% DS

8th 1215 1286 71 2.83% D

9th 4052 3171 881 7.04% E

10th 2347 2641 294 5.89% D

llth 1073 1521 282 21.12% DS

12th 675 2538 1863 57.98% DS

13th 2198 2699 501 11.86% D

14th 1165 1010 155 8.04% R

15th 535 1005 470 30.51% DS

16th 2256 2472 212 45.70% DS

17th 1774 2862 1088 23.46% DS

18th 4700 2618 2682 28.42% R

19th 1720 3283 1563 51.23% DS

20th 3785 4668 1903 10.44% D

21st 9087 2997 7090 50.39% RS

22nd 4323 2266 2057 30.20% RS

23rd 527 5212 4685 81.63% DS

24th 1423 1407 16 66% R

25th 3280 2326 854 14.29% R

26th 1485 898 587 20.52% R

27th 7185 2907 4278 48.28% RS

28th 7421 4679 2772 22.70% R

29th 7385 4368 3017 25.69% R

30th 2661 2277 384 7.77% R

31st 2233 1081 1152 34.76% RS

32nd 755 377 348 33.39% RS

Cen. Out 1042 914 128 6.54% R

Decatur 3064 1706 1258 28.40% R

Franklin 2573 1296 1277 33.00% RS

Cand. Raw % Margin Safe?

3279 5769 47.35% RS

8295 9435 36.25% RS

1140 2995 49.39% RS

4854 5710 36.96% RS

8236 14265 46.41% RS

7757 6997 32.08% RS

Total 173678 126347 Avg. 32.87%

Med. 30.20%

The extremes in political preference shown by the above-

listed wards are the 6th Ward wherein the Democrat

margin over the Republican vote was equal to 83.59% of

the total vote cast in the said ward and in Ward twenty

one where the Republican margin over the Democrat vote

was equal to 50.39% of the total vote cast. The closest vote

occurred in the twenty fourth ward which was the only

ward where the margin was less than one percent. The

“average” margin of 32.87% which is iisted at the bottom

of the fourth column of the above chart is not the county-

wide margin but the average of the various margins in the

forty one wards. The Republican county-wide margin was

1.77%, less than one half the average margin among the

wards. Looked at from another statistical viewpoint the

significance of the 32.87% average margin figure is that

in the typical ward of Marion County, one or the other of

the major political parties achieved a two to one “victory”

in the General Assembly race. Only nine of the forty one

wards came within ten percent of the county-wide margin,

that is, gave the Republican Assembly candidate a margin

of not less than 5.77% nor more than 25.77% and only

16.30% of the total votes cast came from those said wards

which showed some ressemblance to the county wide politi-

tal preference. The heterogeniety of Marion County is so

great that with single member districting more than one

half of the fifteen Marion County seats in the Indiana

House of Representatives probably would be among the

so-called “safe seats” in the fall elections and the subject

of serious contest only in the primary elections. In the fall,

1968 election the Democrat party’s General Assembly can-

didate carried seventeen of the forty one wards in Marion

County by an average margin of 39.57% of the total vote.

Stated in other terms, the Democrat Assembly slate won

seventy percent of the vote in those wards in which it was

“victorious.” 26.80% or four fifteenths of the total vote cast

in Marion County was cast in these wards. These said

Democrat wards are largely negro and largely contiguous

and any reasonable single member districting of Marion

County would result in these wards producing four “safe

seats” in the Indiana House of Representatives. In the same

fall, 1968 election the Republican General Assembly candi-

date whose votes are noted on the above chart carried

twenty four wards and he carried twelve of them by an

average margin of 40.71%. Stated in other terms, the

Republican Assembly slate won seventy percent of the vote

in those wards. 46.58% or seven fifteenths of the total vote

cast in Marion County was cast in those wards. These said

Republican wards are largely white suburbanite and

largely contiguous and any reasonable single member dis-

tricting of Marion County would result in these wards

producing seven “safe seats” in the Indiana House of

Representatives. These eleven “safe seats”, seven Re

publican and four Democrat, would be safe only in fall

elections between the major parties. Their incumbants

would be subject to voter-scrutiny and voter-pressures in

the spring primary election and free from voter-pressures

and party pressures from outside the constituency. Where

a single-member legislator would succeed in gaining the

confidence of a substantial majority in one of the af« resaid

bloc voting constituencies he would be able to go to the

General Assembly armed with voting statistics demonstra-

ting the probability of his having a long tenure in office

and his ability to reward allies and punish foes over a long

period of time. In this manner, single member constituen-

cies would enable the bloc voting portions of Marion County

to give their representatives influence in the legislature

proportionate to the needs which create those propensities

in the same manner that those rural single-member consti-

tuencies which engage in bloc voting are able to arm their

representatives. Among Marion County Democrat voters

and the Democrat Party in Marion County, single-member

constituencies would have the additional effect of giving

the aforesaid Ghetto Area voters a dominant or near-domi-

nant position in the Marion County Democrat Party during

any period following successive defeats in general elections.

The General Assemblymen elected by the Ghetto Area

would, in such years be the only major spokesmen for the

Marion County Democrat Party. This would not be an

unconscionable advantage; it merely would be the natural

result of the very substantial bloc voting support repeat-

edly given the Democrat Party by the Ghetto Area and

there would be a similar but converse result should the

Ghetto Area change, en mass, to supporting the Republican

Party as it once did. Under the complained of statutes the

Ghetto Area is prevented from obtaining and exercising

such power because of the dissipation of its vote through

the practice of holding multi-member, county-wide elections

‘ven though there is no rational basis for such an appor-

tionment.

Marion County, Indiana has 699,567 inhabitants and 0c-

cupies 402 square miles. There are thirty six counties in

southern Indiana which are hereinafter listed on the chart

ich appears below and which have a total population of

107,510 inhabitants and which occupy 12,341 square miles

or 30.7 times the area occupied by Marion County. In the

1968 fall election these counties cast their vote for Secretary

of State as follows:

County Pop. Sq. Mi. Repub. Demo. Spread Result

Posey 19,214 414 4,715 4.726 0.00% OD

Warrick 23,577 391 5,711 5,408 2.72% R

Spencer 16,074 396 4,659 4,106 6.31% R

Perry 17,232 384 3,960 4,769 9.26% D

Crawford 8,379 312 2,112 1,838 6.93% R

Harrison 19,207 479 4,119 4,888 8.53% D

Gibson 29,949 499 7,347 7,794 2.95% D

Pike 12,797 335 3,052 3,388 5.23% D

Dubois 27,463 433 4,912 7,838 22.94% D

Orange 16,877 405 4,617 3,567 12.95% R

Washington 17,819 516 3,909 3,383 7.21% D

Seott 14,643 193 2,423 3,242 16.24% D

Jefferson 24,061 366 5,554 5,196 3.33% R

Switzerland 7,092 221 1,460 1,756 9.20% D

Ohio 4,165 27 1,027 1,156 5.61% D

Dearborn 28,674 306 5,577 6,244 5.55% D

Ripley 20,641 442 5,126 4,871 2.55% R

Jennings 17,267 377 4,193 3,641 7.04% R

Jackson 30,556 520 7,314 6,249 7.85% R

Lawrence 36,564 459 8,570 6,286 15.38% R

Martin 10,608 345 2,390 2,746 6.93% D

Knox 41,561 517 8,385 9,113 4.73% D

Davies 26,636 433 6,861 4,884 16.83% R

Sullivan 21,721 457 3,895 5,092 13.32% D

Greene 26,327 549 6,239 6,386 1.24% D

Owen 11,400 385 2,782 2,492 5.56% R

Brown 7,024 324 1,853 1,701 4.26% R

Decatur 20,019 370 5,436 4,114 13.85% R

Franklin 17,015 394 = 3,101 3,045 91% R

Rush 20,393 409 4,966 3,092 23.13% R

Fayette 24,454 215 5,436 5,590 1.31% D

Union 6,457 168 1,643 1,181 16.53% R

Clay 24,207 364 85,461 5,223 2.32% R

Putnam 24,927 488 5,899 4,896 9.29% R

Parke 14,804 451 3,688 3,109 8.52% R

Fountain 18,706 397 44,861 4,252 6.66% R

Totals Pop. 707,510 12,341 163,353 157,262 Avg. 8.15%

36 Counties Med. 5.91%

The extremes in political preference shown by the above-

listed counties are Dubois County which returned a 22.84%

Democrat margin and Rush County which returned a

23.13% Republican margin, (the margin being the number

of total votes cast divided into the difference between the

two candidates as was the case with the Marion County

table, supra.) This contrasted with the extremes among

the wards of Marion County where the said extremes were

83.59% and 50.39% respectively. There were two of the

thirty six counties which had a margin of less than one

percent in contrast to the forty one wards of Marion County

which contained only one such unit. The average margin

among the above-listed counties was 8.15% or less than one

fourth the average margin that obtained among the pre-

viously listed Marion County wards and, in further contrast

to Marion County, the said average constitutes an under-

statement as to the homogeniety of the said thirty six

counties because the median margin was only 72.51% of

the average margin while the average margin in Marion

County constituted no overstatement of its heterogeniety

because the median margin therein was 94.92% of the

average margin. The Republican thirty-six-county-wide

margin in the said counties was 1.86%. In contrast to the

previously listed Marion County Wards where 85.70% of

the total votes cast came from wards where the result

deviated more than ten percentage points from the overall

result, only 33.13% of the inhabitants of the said thirty-six

counties lived in counties where the local result deviated

from the general result to that extent. On the basis of the

foregoing it is asserted that there is no rational basis for the

multi-member, at-large districting of Marion County in the

apportioning of General Assembly seats. The geographic

compactness of the General Assembly seats which exists in

Marion County provides no such basis because there is a

greater heterogeniety among the forty one various voting

wards of Marion County than there is among the above.

listed thirty six counties notwithstanding the fact that the

said thirty six counties contain a number of inhabitants

similar to the number of inhabitants of Marion County but

over an area more than thirty times the physical size of

Marion County. All of the above-listed counties are part of

the single member constituencies of the State of Indiana,

there being no multi-member constituencies among them.

All of the inhabitants and voters of the said thirty-six

counties, therefore, are able to exert a very substantial in-

fluence over their respective representatives in the Indiana

General Assembly because of the relatively narrow margins

of political preference which exist in the said counties.

MEMORANDUM 21

THE POLITICAL LEADERS AND INHABITANTS OF

THE STATE OF INDIANA OUTSIDE MARION

COUNTY ARE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO ANY

CHANGE WHICH MIGHT INCREASE THE POLITICAL

POWER OF MARION COUNTY IN THE STATE.

There is a prejudice against Marion County which pre-

vails in the other counties of this State. This prejudice

exists among both the voters and the political leaders of

the counties other than Marion County of this state and it

is considered by and implemented by the said political

leaders of the said other counties. Marion County contains

more than one seventh of the citizens, inhabitants and_

voters of this state. The existence of the said prejudice is"

demonstrable by the fact that Marion County has been able

to achieve far less than the election of its inhabitants to

one seventh of the meaningful elective offices which are the

subject of state wide elections. In the past 80 years, which

marks the point at which Marion County achieved a demo-

graphically significant plurality among the counties of

Indiana, twenty two men have been elected to serve twenty

three terms as Governor of this State and only one of them

was a resident of Marion County and he was elected as a

blatant, outspoken, Ku Klux Klan candidate and not as a

Marion County candidate. Since 1816, the year that Indiana

was admitted to the Union, there have been 39 Lieutenant

Governors of Indiana. Only one Lieutenant Governor of

this state has been from Marion County. Since the enact-

ment of the present Indiana Constitution in 1851, forty one

individauls have served as Auditor of the State of Indiana

and only two of these have been from Marion County. Since

the enactment of the said present Indiana Constitution,

thirty five men have served as Superintendent of Public

Instruction in this state and only one of these has been from

Marion County and he was elected in 1867, There are three

other state-wide elective offices where Marion County has

achieved substantial representation. Ten of the forty seven

Treasurers in the history of this State have been from

Marion County. Nine of the fifty one Secretaries of State

in the course of this State’s history have been from Marion

County and seven of the Attorney Generals elected since

the office was created shortly after the enactment of the

present Indiana Constitution have been from Marion

County. But all three of these latter offices, until very re-

cently, were minor offices which provided neither the

monetary renumeration nor the political power which

would motivate a truly qualified prospective candidate for

such offiee-to undertake to devote full time to the duties of

the said office and so Marion County inhabitants were

often the only willing competent candidates. The fact that

Marion County is the seat of government in this state has

been the factor resulting in the ascendancy of Marion

County inhabitants to the latter offices while the size and

potential influence of Marion County has not been a factor.

At all times since it achieved a plurality among the various

constituencies of the State of Indiana, Marion County has

been significantly incapable of achieving a proportionate

representation among the state-wide elective offices in this

state. On the basis of this it is asserted that there is an

active hostility in the defendant, General Assembly against

any measure, including single-member districting, which’ |

might enhance the political power of Marion County.

At all times since the enactment of the present Indiana

Constitution in 1851 there has been. in force and effect a

constitutional provision requiring a state census -and re. .

apportionment of the Indiana General Assembly every

sixth year. This requirement of the Constitution of Indiana

has been observed only once as only one reapportionment

in Indiana ever has taken place in the sixth year after a

preceeding apportionment. There presently is no statute

providing for the taking of such a census. The last such

statute was repealed in 1961 and the last state census was

taken in 1931, ten and not six years after the last preceed-

ing apportionment. No reapportionment ever took place

while this 1931 state census remained demographically

meaningful or reasonably current. At almost all times

until the recent intervention of the federal courts, appor-

tionment in Indiana has been in a lawless state in which

dominating factions deprived smaller factions of their vot-

ing rights. In 1857 an apportionment of the Indiana Gen-

eral Assembly seats went into effect which resulted from 4

Republican-Democrat rural coalition’s efforts to weaken the

urban areas of the state including Marion County. Marion

County was severely under-represented.

Elsewhere in this morning’s Sentinel we present

the apportionment of 1857, which will allow a com-

parison with the present inequity. It is sophistically

claimed by the apologists of the present abominable

piece of legislation that it is impossible to frame a

bill that will suit all. Admitted; but a bill can be

framed that will not affront the moral sense of the

whole people. With the exception of a single press,

we have yet to see a journal that has given the

measure any consideration, which does not stigma-

tize it as a criminal piece of legislation, the papers

that represent themselves as exponents of the Re-

publican party, taking the lead in the severity and

earnestness of reproach and denunciation. The ap-

portionment of 1857 was framed by Democrats, and

on examination will be seen to fairly represent the

two parties on the lines apportioned to the districts.

Indeed, when the status of the whole vote for gov-

ernor in 1854 is examined, it will be seen that the

Democrats did not give themselves 100 votes to

spare in some districts while in the majority the

lines are made comfortably close. The district having

a Senator on the least number of votes is Republi-

can, Fayette and Union (2,726 votes). The Demo-

crats giving a Republican Senator to so small a

number of votes does not speak bad for them as to

fairness. And the district having the largest num-

ber of votes (but one) is Democratic, Warrick,

Spencer and Terry, 7,130, not so bad again, to give

only one Democratic Senator to 7,130 votes, and a

Republican Senator to a district of only 2,726 votes.

Marion, in 1857, hadn’t votes enough to have two

senators, so obtained one Senator on 7,379 votes.

The district having the highest number of votes

comes under 6,200 and it is democratic.

Sentinel, Indianapolis, Jan 14, 1873, pg. 4, Col. 4 & 5.

Then in 1879, 1891, 1893, 1895, 1897, 1903 and 1905, during

4 period of urban and Marion County ascendancy, there

was a series of apportonments (many of them caused by

rulings of the Indiana Supreme Court that the existing act

was in violation of the voting rights of certain rural in-

habitants) in which Marion County repeatedly was given

more senators and representatives that it was entitled to.

The last apportionment in which Mairon County was over-

represented took place in 1921.

——

No.of No.of

M.C.% Year M.C. MC.

Year State pop. M.C.pop. ofstate ofapp. Sen. Rep.

1850 988,416 24103 233% 1879 241° 5

1860 1,350,428 39,855 294% 1891 34+1= 6+4i#

1870 —-1,680,637 «71,939 4 «4.27% +«=3«_«'1893 841= = G++ 1#

1880 1,978,301 102,782 5.21% 1895 3+1= 641%

1890 2,192,404 141,156 643% 1897 3+1& 74+1@

1900 2,516,462 197,227 7.83% 1903 4+1$ 8+1@

1910 2,700,876 263,661 9.77% 1905 4+l¢ 8

1920 2,930,390 348,061 11.02% 1921 6 1141"

* Shared with Hancock and Shelby counties

= Shared with Hendricks County

# Shared with Shelby County

$ Shared with Hendricks and Boone Counties

& Shared with Morgan County

@ Shared with Hancock County

¢ Shared with Morgan and Putnam Counties

” Shared with Johnson County

In all except the first of the above-listed apportionments,

Marion County, in sharing a senator or representative with

another county, achieved more than its proportionate vot-

ing power in the Indiana General Assembly. At the time of

the last of the above-listed apportionments, Marion County

was in a major period of ascendancy in state politics. From

1916 through 1928 the office of Secretary of State was held

by residents of Marion County and from 1926 through 1931

the office of State Treasurer was held by residents of

Marion County while from 1925 through 1929 Marion

County had its only Indiana Governor in this century. This

final ascendancy of Marion County in state politics paral-

leled and was a part of the ascendancy of the Ku Klux Klan

in Indiana politics under the leadership of one D. C.

Stephenson. D. C. Stephenson personally dominated Indiana

polities during the said Marion County ascendancy and his

career ended in a sex scandal murder trial which shocked

the entire state. As a result of the said lurid events which

occurred in the course of the last ascendancy of Marion

County, Indiana as a major force in state politics, the po-

litical leaders and inhabitants of the other counties have

had and do have a lasting distrust of any development

which would favor the potential ascendancy of Marion

County, Indiana in state politics. The partition of Marion

County into single member districts would constitute such

a development because it automatically would enhance its

position in state polities by giving its various factions the

opportunity and ability to return a substantial portion of

its representatives and senators to the General Assembly

for long periods of service notwithstanding county-wide

shifts in party preference by which the said factions now

cancel out the force of each other's vote. This presently

existing phenomenom is demonstrated in the following

memorandum.

MEMORANDUM 22

UNDER MULTI-MEMBER DISTRICTING, SHIFTS IN

COUNTY-WIDE PARTY PREFERENCE OPERATE TO

DIMINISH THE OVERALL EFFECTIVENESS OF

MARION COUNTY’S LEGISLATORS

Marion County, Indiana shares the general tendancy of

urban populated, multi-member constituencies in Indiana

to have General Assembly delegations with less experience

and seniority than the single member constituencies and

this tendancy has a long history and the effect of same has

been cumulative in its detriment to the interests and po-

litieal influence of all of the voters and inhabitants of

Marion County, Indiana and the Ghetto Area except those

voters and inhabitants of Marion County, Indiana whose

interests are in common with those of the majority of voters

in rural Indiana and the rural dominated parts of Indiana.

This detriment to the classes represented by the plaintiffs

in this lawsuit is demonstrated by the following facts.

Pe ae ele ee

be AGLI NG:

ala 2: ahaa MAb eli sib i aE RPM ES

Historically in Indiana the multi-member constituencies

in the General Assembly always have had less experienced

representatives because the representatives of such constit-

uencies are too anonymous to survive general voter shifts

in party preference. The larger counties in Indiana his.

torically have had more shifts in voter party preference.

Between 1916 and 1934, sixty six of the ninety two counties

shifted in party control at least once. These sixty six

counties contained eighty two percent of the Indiana pop.

ulation. The other twenty six counties which did not shift

in voter preference during that period represented only

eighteen percent of the Indiana population. This rural

eighteen percent had the advantage of being represented

by the bulk of the experienced legislators in Indiana.

From 1925 through 1933 these constituencies which had

80% or more of their population in incorporated areas

with more than 300,000 population were represented by

General Assemblymen who had substantially less experi-

ence than the Assemblymen representing constituencies

with eighty percent or more of their population in rural

areas or in incorporated places of less than 5000 population:

Assemblymen Assemblymen

from heavy pop. from

urban area Rural Area

No experience __......................68.1% 41.0%

In 2nd session -..........................23.4% 31.4%

In 3rd session _........................... 43% 14.8%

EEE, 6.6%

In 5th to 9th Session _......... 1.6% 1.6%

10 or more sess. exp... .3% 1.6%

The said historic trend has continued to the present day

and during the past decade the said trend has become

increasingly marked and Marion County has become nique

inits lack of experienced legislators. The following chart

depicts in percentages the number of experienced legisla-

tors on the house delegation of a. The single-member con-

stituencies, c. the Marion County multi-member constit-

uency, b. all multi-member constituencies and, d. all multi-

member constituencies other than Marion County.

ALL MMCS

SMCS MMCS MARION C. Exe. MC.

159 62% 79% 100% 70%

161 58% 74% 100% 61%

163 30% 40% 45% 52%

1%5 68% 61% 100% 43%

167 65% 50% 100% 26%

Avg. 56% 60% 85% 50%

The ephemeral quality of large, multi-member constituency

delegations in legislative assemblies results not only from

the tendancy toward more frequent shifts in party-voter-

preference in the larger constituencies, it also results from

the fact that the individual members of a multi-member

iedlegation are unable to form their own following and their

wlitical life is thus at the mercy of the county chairman

and differing pressures placed upon such county chairmen

ud changes in such county chairmen. In a large, multi-

member constituency, the disapproval of a county chair-

man can cause almost certain defeat to the multi-member

bgislator in the party primary. Almost one-half of the

above noted 1925-1933 attrition rate of General Assembly-

nen was caused by primary defeats, the number of defeated

Assemblymen in elections being 77 house members and 20

nate members and the number of defeated .assemblymen

u primaries being 57 house members and 20 senate mem-

ters,

MEMORANDUM 24

THE MATTERS DEMONSTRATED IN MEMORANDA

22 AND 23 HAVE AN INVIDIOUS EFFECT UPON THE

VOTING POWER OF MARION COUNTY VOTERS.

The aforesaid circumstances have an invidious effect

upon Marion County voters in both major parties because

inexperienced legislators are less able to propose and sue.

cessfully sponser needed legislation than experienced leg.

islators. This can be demonstrated by the fact that in 1965,

Marion County elected five Democrat Senators who had

not served during the preceeding session of the General

Assembly. These senators were able to sponsor the enact-

ment of 6.2 laws per senator. The average experienced

senator in the General Assembly during the 1965 session

was able to sponsor the enactment of 7.51 bills. While the

success of no individual or small number of individual leg-

islators at becomming the sponsor of subsequently enacted

bills can be used as a valid measure of the effectiveness of

such individual or small number of individual lawmakers,

the legislative record of the entire Indiana Senate during

the past decade provides enough instances to assure the

cancelling out of all independent variables and to establish

the claim that effectiveness has a positive correlation with

seniority with statistical certainty.

1959 1961 1963 1965 1967

Successful bills sponsored

per experienced Senator 8.21 6.31 5.34 7.51 6.09

Successful bills sponsored

per inexperienced Senator 5.00 3.00 3.50 5.22 5.08

Average number of successful bills sponsored

per experienced Senator over decade —._. 6.68

Average number of successful bills sponsored

per inexperienced senator over decade —......__. 4.31

Not only did the said trend prevail overall; it prevailed in

each individual session. It also has prevailed in the Indiana

House of Representatives during the past decade. During

the four sessions at which there had been a complete iurn-

over of representatives in the Marion County House Dele-

gation the Marion County House Legislative “Team” was

able to achieve the enactment of only 24.38% of the bills it

introduced while during the one session where there was

only a 45% turnover of Marion County House legislators

the Marion County House Legislative “Team” was able to

achieve the enactment of 34.11% of the bills which its mem-

bers introduced. This practical dillution of the Marion

County vote exists and will continue to exist unless this

Court as a court of equity provides the voters of this county

with a redress of its grievances because the opportunity of

the voters of this, Marion County, Indiana to ever obtain

such redress in the Indiana General Assembly is almost

non-existent.

JAMES BEATTY

JAMES MANAHAN

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

James Beatty

Bamburger & Feibleman

900 Union Federal Bldg.

Indianapolis, Indiana

ph. 632-3571

James Manahan

3224 N. Pennsylvania

Indianapolis, Indiana

ph. ME 4-6236

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

Patrick Cuavis et al

Plaintiffs

Vs.

Epear D. Wurrcoms, + CAUSE NO. IP 69-C-23

as Governor of the

State of Indiana

Defendant |

PLAINTIFFS’ REQUESTS FOR ADMISSIONS

Plaintiffs, by counsel, acting under Rule 36 of the Fed-

eral Rules of Civil Procedure, requests defendants, within

10 days after this request, to make the following admis.

sions for the purpose of this action only and subject to all

pertinent objections to admissibility which may be inter

posed at the trial or to deny same under oath.

Plaintiffs counsel, recognizing that some of the facts

alleged in the complaint which the plaintiffs are seeking j

to have admitted come from obscure sources and it is rep-

resented that the source material which has led to the said

allegations will be provided upon request.

1. That the questioned statutes, Indiana Acts 1965, (2nd

Spec. Sess.) ch. 5, sec. 3, p. 18 and Acts 1965 (2nd Spee.

Sess.), ch. 4, sec. 3, p. 15 are quoted correctly in pertinent

part on page 3 of the complaint and they are the statutes in

effect effecting the present state legislative districting of

Marion County, Indiana.

2. That 1960 United States Census tracts 220, 501, 502,

503, 508, 510, 511, 512, 513, 514, 515, 516, 517, 518, 519, 520,

528, 529, 530, 531, 534, 535, 536 and 540 are contiguous

tracts in Marion County, Indiana.

3. That the census tracts listed in Request for Admission

No. 2, supra, are in a cluster which is bounded by the streets

and other landmarks in the manner described in the first

paragraph of Memorandum 4 on page 18 of the complaint

if lines six and seven of the said paragraph were to be

amended. The said lines six and seven of the said para-

graph now read:

“sylvania Avenue to 34th Street and then east on

34th Street to Keystone Avenue and then south on

Keystone Avenue to 30th

And should be amended to read:

“sylvania avenue to 34th Street and then east on

34th Street to Central Avenue and then south on

Central to Fall Creek and then north east on Fall

Creek to 34th Street and then east on 34th Street to

Keystone Avenue and then south on Keystone Ave-

nue to 30th. ...”

And if so amended the said paragraph would correctly

describe the boundaries of the 1960 Ghetto Area.

4. That the 1967 Ghetto Area described in the second

paragraph of Memorandum 4 on pages 18 and 19 of the

complaint corresponds closely to the Ghetto Voting Area

described in Memorandum 6 on page 31 of the complaint.

5. That as of the 1960 United States Census the 1960

Ghetto Area described in requests numbered 2 and 3, supra,

and in the parts of the complaint referred to therein con-

tamed 105,808 inhabitants including 75,221 negro or non-

white inhabitants and about 30,587 white inhabitants.

6. That as of the 1960 United States Census the afore-

said 1960 Ghetto Area was about 71.09% negro or non-white

give or take one percent as opposed to Marion County as a

whole which was 15.18% (give or take one tenth of one

percent) negro or non-white as of the 1960 census.

7. That the ignoring of the differences between “nop.

whites” and “negroes” as those terms were used by the 196)

Census and the using of census figures applying to each of

the said groups interchangeably cannot create an error of

as much as one percent in any Marion County, county-wide

1960 census figure.

8. That the voting precincts and wards of Marion

County, Indiana that are listed in the paragraph numbered

2 on page 4 of the complaint form a cluster which is bound.

ed by the landmarks recited in Memorandum 6 on page 31

of the complaint.

9. That as of the 1960 census the balance of Marion

County, Indiana, outside the 1960 Ghetto Area consisted of

only about 4.17% negro inhabitants.

10. That as of the 1960 census the aforesaid 1960 Ghetto

Area contained 15.80% (give or take one half of one per:

cent) of the inhabitants of Marion County, Indiana.

11. That the 1960 census showed the aforesaid 1960

Ghetto Area to contain about 40.45% of the dillapidated

housing units in Marion County.

12. That the 1960 census showed the aforesaid 1960

Ghetto Area to contain about 29.12% of the Marion County

population dependent upon public transportation to go to

and from work.

13. That the 1960 census showed the aforesaid 1960

Ghetto Area to contain about 22.00% of the Marion County

: population housed in dwellings containing fewer rooms

than inhabitants.

14. That the 1960 census showed the aforesaid 1960

’ Ghetto Area to contain 28.74% of the unemployed Marion

: County population.

sth lade Bin iba i iN ftox

15. That one half of the families of Marion County,

Indiana interviewed during the 1960 census had a family

— *

income of $6,609 and half of the said families had incomes

of less than that figure.

16. That half of the negro families living in Marion

County Census tracts with more than 400 such families had

a family income of more than $4,390 and half of the said

families had a family income of less than that figure.

17. That as of the 1960 census, 31.47% of the persons in-

terviewed in that census who had four years or less of

formal education and were living in Marion County, Indi-

ana, lived in the 1960 Ghetto Area. (Persons under 25 not

included in figure)

18. That as of the 1960 census, among the persons in

Marion County, Indiana who were interviewed or other-

wise covered in said census, the median years of education

was 11.5 years. (Aged 25+)

19. That as of the 1960 census the median years of edu-

cation for non-whites over 25 in Marion County, Indiana

among those covered by the said census was 9.2 years.

20. That there is in Marion County, Indiana, primarily

to the immediate and near south of Butler University, a

community known as the Butler-Tarkington Community

which has achieved racial housing integration in a peace-

ful and lawful manner to a degree seldom rivaled by any

other initially middle-class-white community in the United

States during the past twenty years.

21. That the aforesaid 1960 Ghetto Area contains only

about 3.86% of the college graduates of Marion County,

Indiana when census tracts 220, 503, 510, & 511 are ab-

‘tracted from the said area (as of the 1960 census).

22. That a large number of persons connected with the

tensus tracts listed in the immediate preceding request

for admission are, (or were as of the 1960 census) white,

en Re vi Posi ie RANGE TIE iS

5 NWR See!

SES SAGO U PRE SI fos oie ae ica eb

middle-class employees or graduate students of Jat Butler

University or the John Herron Art Institute.

23. That the map-diagram presented on page 22 of the

complaint presents an accurate portrayal of the inward

movement of the non-white population of Marion County,

Indiana during the 1950-1960 deeade and the same was

prepared in good faith and not in contemplation of this

lawsuit by the Community Service Counsel of Metropolitay

Indianapolis on a base map furnished by the Metropolitan

Planning Department of Marion County, Indiana.

24. That the map-diagram presented on page 23 of the

complaint presents an accurate portrayal of the outward

movement of the white population of Marion County, Indi.

ana during the 1950-1960 decade and the same was pre.

pared, not in contemplation of this lawsuit, by the Com.

munity Service Counsel of Metropolitan Indianapolis.

25. That the 2nd table appearing on page 24 of the com

plaint is

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.