# Appendix — Whitcomb v. Chavis

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0300%3A01

## Record

- **Collection:** Supreme Court brief
- **Document type:** Appendix
- **Published:** January 1, 1971
- **Citation:** 403 U.S. 124

## 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

Nr Hin cached a @Aehin eis

10

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)

1]

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

12
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

*

13

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

15

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

V
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

A
ae PEPER OE OVI

16

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.

(c) That the declaration prayed for be made at the con-
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

17
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.

18

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

19

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-

20

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,

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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 " 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.

31

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

32

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

33

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

|
|
.

34

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

ee
— 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.

39

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

40

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

41

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.

42

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.
© 68; 1935, ch, 105; 1939, eh. 85; 1943, ch. 249; 1945, ch. 243:
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.

43

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

44

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

45

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:

46

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

47

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

48

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-

49

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.

50

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.

51

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

52

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

53

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

D4

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.

56

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

57

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

59

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.

60

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%

61

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-

62

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

63

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

64

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-

65

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-

66

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-

67

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%

68

————
———

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 _ ‘= — =! —

69
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

70

“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

71

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.

72

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-

-"
io

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-

74

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

75

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

76

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

78

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

79

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

80

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%

4B

81

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

82

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

83

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

84

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

85

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.

86

——

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

87

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.

a

Pe ae ele ee

be AGLI NG:

ala 2: ahaa MAb eli sib i aE RPM ES

88

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

J

89

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 .asse

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40386413_0300%3A01. Public record. Not legal advice.