City of Pleasant Grove v. United States

GROVE, Plaintiff, CITY OF PLEASANT America,

UNITED STATES of

Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 80-2589. Court,

United States District

District of Columbia.

Aug. Cronin, Corcoran,

Donald J. Thomas G. Jr., Corcoran, Rowe, Youngman & Wаsh- ington, D.C., Crawford, Jr., Thomas N. Coo- Crawford, per, Ala., Mitch & Birmingham, plaintiff. Jones, Gerald Hancock, W. Paul F. Jere- Schwartz, Tanner, I. John K. Dept, Justice, D.C., Washington, for defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER MacKinnon, Judge, Senior Circuit dis- MacKINNON, Before Senior Circuit sented and filed opinion. Judge, GREENE, and ROBINSON Dis- Judges. trict GREENE, HAROLD H. Judge: The City of Pleasant a residential Alabama, community County, in Jefferson area of Ala- racially mixed otherwise in an action Section brought this bama. 1965, 42 U.S.C. Rights Act of 1973c, seeking declaratory § the Vot- is whether issue here The basic of certain city by annexation by that the annexation forbids ing Rights or effect “the likely did have land1 or areas inhabited Grove of Pleasant to vote on right at a abridging by whites denying inhabited hereafter be Attorney refusing The race or color.” Grove is account of when Pleasant time the annex- which are inhabited preclearance for areas contiguous denied General demands of this issue contiguous by areas inhabited Resolution blacks. ations because subsidiary questions— two examination of petitioned for annexa- by at- be first, to discriminate an intent can by Pleasant Grove. not annexed tion were present to Pleasant Grove tributed plaintiff’s the Court Presently before such an record, second, assuming that and Plаintiff summary judgment.2 motion for prohibited exists, is Pleasant Grove intent no evidence that argues (1) there is that its annexations proceeding with from a purpose product were the annexations govern- any allegation absence of or had to vote right of blacks abridge will of blacks voting power ment that effect, pur- that even if such an impaired or diluted? established, it could be pose discriminate the refusal alone would not sustain II the annexations. to clear Attorney General evidence, which, government’s The regard must be the motions

for purposes I true,5 astounding pattern ed as shows an all аnd discrimination racial exclusion 7,086 population Grove has a Pleasant life. Pleasant Grove phases of Coun- Jefferson all of them white.3 people, 671,197 residents, one- 1940s, has ty as whole the Pleasant early as in the As municipalities of them black. Other con- prevent third acted to city Grove council have sub- County housing project” Jefferson in west central a “colored struction of are city and there attor- populations,4 city stantial black directed within the designed to unincorporated zoning black communities ordinance several to draft ney city has Pleas- The propеrty.” and southeast of “restrict colored directly to the south a dual consistently maintained thus accu- thereafter ant Pleasant Grove Grove. advertising and through market housing an all-white enclave rately be described as stipulate and other pared that the affidavits complaint initially sought with 1. relief The parties constitute the the two respect as the filed area referred to herein exhibits to an posi- has not taken On October trial record. Plaintiff Western Addition. full complaint plaintiff suggestion. to amend its Court ordered on this annexation, involving to include a second (see City Glasgow of Rome black, Addition Thirty-two but of the inhabitants (D.D.C. home; ‍‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍they nursing do not all live 1979)) plaintiff so amended. Glas vote; city appar- was and their residence city gow accomplished by a ently at the to the officials unknown even 3, 1971; May the Western Addi ordinance on Because of annexation. time of the latest Alabama a 1979 Act of the tion was annexed blacks, parties both peculiar these 32 status of legislature. Grove as treated the all-white, being will Court. and so summary judgment for 2. Plaintiff has moved for Addition and to the Western percent Birmingham’s population is over partial summary judgment to the per- black, percent, Hueytown 9.6 Bessemer 51 Addition, finding Glasgow requesting a cent, percent black. and Fairfield have the territories did not annexation of these will not have the effect of affidavits, ex- government has submitted 5. The to vote on account interroga- cerpts depositions, answers to government has not asked race color. like, facts tories, to all the to attest and the time, although judgment its counsel this alleged in its briefs. pre- argument it would stated at oral marketing (Pleasant directed exclusively to white Highlands and the Dolom- buyers. the city council area) petitioned ite for annexation. Both exclusionary zoning оrdinance which was rejected'.9 found a federal racially court have a Pleasant policies Grove’s restrictive effect.6 have not been housing, confined to annexa- Pleasant Grove’s policy fol- tions, and zoning.10 pattern. example, lowed similar For 1969, Prior to Pleasant Grove maintained city refused to annex the site on which the a rigidly segregated system: school black “black” Woodard was located in an School living children in proximity close to Pleas- attempt to avoid school desegregation or- ant Grove were bused elsewhere. When a issued a federal p. dеrs court. federal sys- court mandated an end to this infra. shortly refusal, after that 4, 1969,11 tem on August city council city annexed the Glasgow Addition voted to secede from the county sys- school which is located several miles outside the tem on the very evening day city limits past neighborhood black which Moreover, court order was issued.12 al- was not city annexed. The also declined though black, the County is one-third Pleas- various times parcels to annex two of land7 ant Grove itself has never had a black em- because of adjacent their location to black ployee.13 areas and the possibility thаt these areas facts, From all of these a court might, turn, press in could for annexation. 1979, appropriately draw the inference that began Pleasant Grove its effort to City of Pleasant which, annex the Western Grove had and has Addition togeth- Addition, er to Glasgow against with the discriminate is now di- blacks with rectly voting before the Court to as with respect this action.8 to other sure, While Western subjects. Addition annexation To be the incidents of dis- course, taking its two black areas crimination do not directly involve voting, Grove, Wheeler v. (D.D.C.1982) (three-judge Pleasant C.A. No. (N.D.Ala.1979). court). 78-G-1150-S County 11. Stout v. Jefferson Board of Educa- 7. Known as Kohler and the Westminster tion, (N.D.Ala.1969). C.A. No. 65-396 areas. subsequent litigation, Ap 12. In the Court of undeveloped, 8. While the Western Addition is peals for the Fifth held that the Circuit Pleasant city’s plans its location and the indicate that it system recognized Grove school was not to be likely developed per- to for use white implementa thwarting if it has effect of only. sons unitary system. school v. Stout Jef Education, County ferson Board of 448 F.2d dispute parties 9. There is between the as to (5th When, remand, Cir.1971). on the Dis the relative economic benefits and detriments required provide trict Court transportation Pleasant to Grove to Pleasant Grove as between the white areas assigned to the black children disputes and the black areas. These cannot be schools, announced, mayor its approval with the summary judgment. resolved on a motion for council, city that Pleasant say pres- Suffice it to on the record as Ultimately, Grove would not do so. the court stands, ently genuine there are a minimum system abolished the Pleasant school issues of material fact these matters. The and transferred control of the schools back to proof is, burden of on Pleasant County. County Jefferson v. Stout Jefferson Katzenbach, Grove. Sоuth Carolina v. Education, (5th Board of 466 F.2d 1213 Cir. 301, 335, 803, 822, 15 L.Ed.2d 769 1972), denied, cert. 411 U.S. (1966); Georgia v. United 411 U.S. 36 L.Ed.2d 389 1702, 1709, 13. It also be noted that the council 10. Evidence of discrimination with chapter has authorized the formation of a matters other Council; than annexation or is rele- the White Citizens George tion; thanked Governor vant on the issue of fight against integra- Wallace for his - -, Rogers Lodge, Act cases. v. Birmingham and condemned the Bar As- -,-, 3272, 3278, 3280, expression support 73 L.Ed. sociation for its of moral (1982); Smith, Judge Busbee v. Pointer for his efforts Stout. vote in eligible no since there are blacks were and are there they, since nor could cannot government Pleasant in Pleasant vote Grove: eligible to This City of standard. meet the Richmond kept out. simply been all blacks by Beer buttressed conclusion said Nevertheless, 130, 96 said, background of deci the “historical [a] held that source, evidentiary particularly is one sion require pre does taken actions it reveals a series official for a failure clearance Village Arling purposes.” for invidious (as procedure distinguished practice or Devel Housing Heights Metropolitan ton practice of such a active alteration 252, 267, 97 S.Ct. opment Corp., since, regard Again, procedure). (1977). For here, Pleasant black areas at issue variety reason, proof of discrimination them, the simply failed to Grove proof in action may be used as of fields :an decision, reasoning goes, consti so the Beer note voting. See charging discrimination complete defense. tutes supra. 10 persuasive. The argument is not This unrebutted, record, would present other, similar and City Richmond case City the Pleasant finding that warrant applicable discuss the annexation decisions its purpose, annexation the an- of the effect of standard in terms decisions, “denying ” annexing on black voters nexation 42 of race.... right to vоte on account there in those eases community because question to be 1973c. The next U.S.C. § commu- to black voters in that happened be finding would is whether such determined did have the hence the annexations nity and its entitle the United States voting power. reducing their effect of thus, and, a trial would defeat favor after discuss, and hence cases do not These summary judgment. motions for plaintiff’s purpose of a reject, application do test, an not in the context particularly Ill here, are no where, there annexation as vigorously contends most Pleasant Grove annexing municipаlity. black voters in the case, proof especially in annexation of recent decisions a number insufficient; discriminatory is of a discriminatory effect make it clear that a proof there must be discriminato- that community) (on in a is already living that, since ry It further reasons effect. discrimina- yardstick (or persons ‍‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍even are no black voters there Rights Act in violation of the vote) city, there arguably eligible measured, de- that annexation may be effect, discriminatory proof could be no discriminatory pur- with a cisions made must therefore government’s claims constitute of effect —also pоse regardless — rejected. Amendment violations Fifteenth is fol- arguments for as The basis these Act. according City While of Richmond lows. Arthur, v. United of Port Texas 2296, v. United 530, 535, States, -U.S.-, 74 (1975), consti- L.Ed.2d 245 (1982), Court held that L.Ed.2d proce- practice tutes a particular] electoral ... even if [a dure, annexation vio- under that decision an be said reflect might scheme otherwise Act if it reduces lates strength of the political race in proportion particular of voters of nevertheless plan would community, race locality (or if the affected racially-discrimi- invalid if obtain opportunity has been denied added).14 (emрhasis purposes... natory to its representation reasonably equivalent v. United enlarged case Lockhart political strength in communi- The recent - -, plaintiff, that S.Ct. ty). follows, according It opinion. quote paragraph misstating from the charges an entire us 14. The dissent by failing Supreme ruling in that case Court’s CITY OF PLEASANT GROVE v. UNITED STATES (1983) Cite as 568 F.Supp. supports further this conclu- the franchise was limited before the an- added). nexation. . . . (emphasis ap-

sion. The Court there referred proval recognition to the court’s district category The second mentioned the Per “that must both the prove absence kins court is that involved in of Riсh mond, cases; discriminatory discriminatory supra, effect and and similar the first ...,” category presented this case. id. 103 and that also, Smith, Busbee view of its on discriminatory decision “[i]n 515-16; Allen v. State Board Elec effect, unnecessary for the District tions, 544, 567-68, to reach the issue of purpose.”15 Id. 103 at n. 4. The remark of the Fifth Circuit in United Indeed, Court has described Board, Country States v. Hinds School as discriminatory very fact situation (5th F.2d Cir.1969) “nothing presented by this case. In Perkins v. Mat emphatic as zero” is particularly apt thews, incongruous here. It would be if the said, (1971), the Court having succeeded in Clearly, revision of boundary lines has out, keeping all blacks could now successful- an effect ways: in two ly ground defend on the there including certain voters within the right whose to vote would outside, leaving and others it determines by white, diluted the annexation of but who may municipal vote in the election black, not subdivisions. This Court is not not; may who it dilutes prepared to endorse such an anomalous re- weight of the votes of the voters to whom sult.16 complaint validity Judge That however, would have if correct, 1463. This would be assumption MacKinnon were correct in his that municipality’s grant permit building of a Supreme Court meant to limit its condem- change practices pro- considerеd a of purposes discriminatory of nation to situations Voting Rights cedures under the Act. While existing minority voting rights were be- Supreme repeatedly Court has held that ing (as distinguished diluted from those where boundary changing lines annexations consti- not, cannot, such an effect does indeed exist “standard, practice, tutes a of a completely because blacks are denied the procedure voting” respect with under the by being kept particular to vote voting area). out of the assumption Voting Rights Act, preclearance such that the clearly But that requirements of section 5 of the Act must be correct, for it does not account for the satisfied, see, Matthews, e.g., Perkins v. Supreme explicit Court’s reference to discrimi- at S.Ct. at we are un- natory purpose both in of Port Arthur and any holding grant aware of decision that the of (where Judge in Lockhart MacKinnon’s single building permit triggers likewise discriminatory view reliance on effect would preclearance requirements of the Act. Because sufficed) equally explicit or to the refer- changing of the obvious differences between ence in Perkins v. Matthews to revisions in boundary granting permits, building lines and municipal keep boundaries which blacks out. unlikеly we with the dissent that it is light, portion Viewed in that the quoted of the of Congress intended the Act to opinion dissenting Port Arthur our apply to the latter. colleague nothing more than one illustration general voting prac- Judge of the rule that MacKinnon’s discriminatory purpose point building tices which have permit vio- broader which the exam Voting Act, late the ple presumably prove and it is therefore intended —that holding. irrelevant to our discriminatory neither nor an effect on currently particular individuals not com sure, 15. To be Court there held munity is, view, enough are in our mistak —it prong that the “effect” of the Act is not violat- proved en. If it could be that the decision of a by changes ed laws which are not municipality permits building retrogressive course, holding, in effect. That of keep had as its blacks out of the “purpose” prong. is irrelevant to the particular neighborhood, its actions would vio See, e.g., Judge suggests late the Fourteenth Amendment. MacKinnon it follows Dalley Lawton, (10th holding Voting from our Rights of 425 F.2d 1037 in this case that the grant Cir.1970) Act would be violated which held that the Fourteenth building permit racially priced for condominiums at a Amendment was violated moti range beyond building Kennedy permit; at reach blacks. Dissent vated denial of mean, that Pleas does not This that the Attor noteworthy It is also community would any other ant Grove Voting General,

ney who administers contiguous areas required to instance, has consist the first Rights Act in be inhabited may areas merely because which were to annexations ently objected that a commu mean But it does by blacks. policies. selective racially product adjacent white areas not annex nity Memorandum Supplemental different standard wholly applying while and attachments. pp. United failing to annex them to black areas interpretation Attorney General’s standard. See on that based Rights Act requirements 339, 81 Lightfoot, Gomillion is, defer course, entitled to considerable aIf com 5 L.Ed.2d Matthews, supra, 400 Perkins v. ence. See Voting Rights Act subject to the munity 437-39; 390-94, at at engaged ‍‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍it is not cannot demonstrate Commissioners, v. Sheffield Board States discrimination, Attorney Gener in such grant clearance will al and the Court Attorney General’s L.Ed.2d 148 white areas. the annexation to and submitted objection letters were stated, is this 3rd of reasons For the Congress17 part of the record made August, times, time when including various motion for That plaintiff’s the extension ORDERED Congress recently considered par- motion for and its summary H.R.Rep. Act. See summary judgment be tial Sess., p. 13 Cong.2d 97th No. hereby denied. (1982).18 Judge (dis- MacKINNON, Circuit Senior precedents thus clear It is senting): annexations, (1) that in the context of if there is a applies Act the here vot- Neither irrespective of discriminatory purpose any of minor- rights single member ing Therefore, is no also a discriminato because there group. whether or not there is ity of rights to is (2) failure whatsoever ry effect and the minority, I cannot any any discrimina member of a violation of the provided the two an- majority that with the tory is shown. purpose prove plaintiff Assoc., to discrimi- the will be able Park Inc. v. of Lackawan- Homes court, natory of Cir.1971) purpose, on the basis na, (2d it is clear 436 108 where the F.2d proof, Clark, upon precedent opinion by the cited in sustained an Justice would be Amendment finding of the Fifteenth of Fourteenth Amend- violation of violation interpre- for property There basis established. ment where officials rezoned had housing project Voting Act which would for tation of had been selected provided protections provide those fewer than in a moratorium new subdivisions declared on Amendment, deny for that Act was housing the Fifteenth families. order to power also, pursuant Metropolitan vested Con- Arlington Heights v. enacted See pro- 252, 264-68, Housing Corp., gress 2 the Amendment section 97 of 429 S.Ct. U.S. 555, 562-65, protections Similarly, in that vital area. 50 450 vide additional L.Ed.2d Katzenbach, 383 U.S. v. South is violated re- Carolina the Fifteenth Amendment 803, 817-18, 823, 301, 326-27, 337, 15 86 S.Ct. definition of which is under- boundaries depriving purpose 769 for of blacks of the L.Ed.2d taken municipality, benefits in a includ- of residence summary Interestingly, of the Pleas- case municipal ing, vote elections. litigation in one of included ant 339, Lightfoot, Gomiilion v. S.Ct. reports. these also, 125, (1960); Mobile v. see Bolden, 55, 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 446 U.S. which, Heights, supra, significance of reenactment Arlington For the like Congress emphasized importance the statutе conditions interpreta approval designed of administrative purpose voices its actions in the context of tion, Board v. Sheffield protection or Fif- see United States invoke the Fourteenth Commissioners, supra, 423 U.S. this motion for sum- teenth Amendment. On must, mary judgment, assume at 980. we nexations at issue in Maj. this case are “viola- Op. failing at 1458. quote [Voting Rights] complete Act provided majority sentence the grossly mis- tion[s] discriminatory purpose Maj. ruling is shown.” states the Op. Court’s and as- serts that an annexation at 1460. made with dis- criminatory purpose regardless of effect— — The majority opinion refers to three Su Rights Act. Id. аt violates preme Court decisions holding certain an 1458-1459. subject nexations to preclearance under sec complete quotation from the Su Act, tion 5 of the City of Port Arthur v. preme opinion of Port Arthur States, -U.S.-, United States, v. supra, United 103 S.Ct. at 535-36 (1982); 74 L.Ed.2d v. of Richmond added), (emphasis reads as follows: United if the 4-2-3 electoral scheme [E]ven (1975); Matthews, Perkins v. might otherwise be said to reflect political strength of commu- (1971), but in each of those cases the annex nity, the plan would nevertheless be in- clearly ations changed existing voting valid racially if for discriminato- rights of Typical minorities. of these is i.e., ry purposes, majority-vote re- Richmond, where the Court held: quirement in the two at-large districts Section 5 forbids voting changes taken imposed been purpose for the of ex- with the the vote on cluding any blacks from opportu- realistic the grounds of race or Congress color. nity represent those districts to ex- surely power to prevent such any ercise influence council members gross slurs, only racial point of which elected to those positions. citizens, is ‘to despoil colored reading A fair of this sentence does not citizens, colored of their theretofore en- support position assertеd col- joyed voting rights.’ ... An annexation leagues. What the Court truly saying is proved to be of this kind change in the [a that an electoral scheme will be pre- denied voting rights- of some minority citizens] clearance, even if minority are prop- votes and not proved justifiable to have a basis erly represented apportionment, if it is forbidden by 5 whatever its [section] is continued with an electoral actual may effect been or be. scheme that includes a discriminatory ma- City of Richmond jority voting requirement at-large dis- 422 U.S. at imposed tricts of excluding (quoting Gomillion Lightfoot, minorities from any opportunity realistiс 5 L.Ed.2d 110 represent those incomplete districts. The (1960)) (emphasis added). princi Thus the quotation City from of Port Arthur thus ples these cases announce are not applicable does not fairly represent the factual basis to this case where there is no change in the of the or decision the ruling expressed by existing voting rights any single minori Supreme the Court. ty individual. Matthews, Perkins v. The majority upon relies the following (1971), S.Ct. relied on partial quotation City from of Port Arthur: the is majority, contrary. not There the City Arthur, In the of Port Texas v. annexation eligible increased the number of States, United [— U.S.-] voters and the weight diluted of minority 530, 535 (Dec. 13, 1982), [74 334] votes. Neither fact exists here. The Court the court held noted that § Act ... even if practical] electoral scheme [a designed “was changes cover having a might otherwise be said to reflect the potential for racial in voting, discrimination political strength of the minority commu- potential and such inheres change in a in nity, plan the would nevertheless in- the composition of the electorate affected adopted valid if for racially-discriminato- 388-89, an annexation.” Id. at ry purposes (emphasis added). ... at (emphasis added). Clearly the Court change there is no whatsoever including certain where “by was concerned that voting rights of minorities leaving existing within the voters [actual] place which take any changes might annexation serve outside” an could others speculative. in the future community to discriminate as means for a community against minority voters in this case at issue The two annexations composition the of the elector- by changing voting rights changed not simply have at 382 n. ate to their detriment. Id. larger, 1979 annexation The minorities. n. at 434 436-37. See S.Ct. change not involves vacant land does Maj. 1458-1459. Op. at single person, much rights of a voting smaller, 1971 annexa- less minorities. City also contends majority family approxi- one tion incorporated States, -U.S.-, v. United Lockhart City. whites into the mately fourteen (1983) sup S.Ct. in results at least While this conclusion, in that case the ports its but voting rights in change in de minimus three-judge reversed dis Court change it not City of Pleasant does that the panel trict court “conclude[d] minority rights because any existing 1973_ introduced election City voters in the there are no City will not have the Lockhart Charter territory.1 of the annexed Since any in effect of any not annexations at issue do race, or member vote on account color rights and Vot- existing minority voting Id. 103 ship language group.” in a is when thеre ing Rights applies holding, the at 1004. In so Court S.Ct. of racial “retrogression position in some Spotts position Judge of Chief to their effective respect with minorities Robinson of the United States Court wood franchise,” v. Beer exercise the electoral of Columbia Appeals States, 130, 141, 96 United Circuit, because who dissented Lockhart (1976), 1357, 1364, 47 L.Ed.2d 629 is strength “the of Lockhart’s minori annexations, two one view that ties, enhanced, whether would not non-minority one inhabited City one whit.” of Lockhart diminished a violation of the cannot constitute family, (D.D.C. United Act, the mo- regardless of Robinson, C.J., 1981) (S. dissenting) (quoted summary Accordingly, City. tives of the ‍‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍States, supra, of Lockhart v. United appropriate. 1004). recog the majority As nizes, “pur did not consider the the motives suggest I wish to do not be pose” prong of section in Lockhart pure. I Grove are panel cause the district court the facts majority reached that issue. See of Lockhart record, appropriately “a court could n. at 1001 & Pleas that the draw inference 4; unlike Maj. at 1458. Op. to dis ant Grove had and has upon by my colleagues, other cases relied against criminate blacks with Lockhart involved a fact situation where to other voting as as] [well may, of minorities existing voting rights subjeсts.” Maj. Op. There fact, decisions such viola being altered. Judicial actionable constitutional City. Gomillion occurring as situations tions Lockhart which involve factual 339, 341, 81 minority voting rights changed Lightfoot, are where (1960).2 violations to situations 5 L.Ed.2d Such simply applicable are not Depart- significant Act is “entitled to considera- 1. I find it the Justice Maj. Op. object at 1460. annexations of ment failed to several ble deference.” Alabama, they Bessemer, because of the elimination Gomillion involved Of populated or areas involved “areas that are Negro practically from the elective of all voters population at most a de of which have Tuskegee, Alabama. franchise in the of minority voting strength.” minimus effect on remarked: As the Memorandum, Supplemental At- Defendant’s majority recog- effect of this redefini- The essential inevitable 2-3. As the tachment at Tuskegee’s nizes, to remove Attorney interpretation of tion of boundaries General’s are not issues before purpose us.3 U.S.C. 1973c (emphasis added). § prevent 5 is to communities from avoid- § The italicized language setting forth the ing requirements the Act’s provision enforcement indicate that Con- —elimination literacy tests and other like voting qualifi- gress only intended the Act apply by simply enacting slightly differ- minority individual voters were in- actually cations — voting ent qualifications having the same volved. impact. Allen State question this action is whether the Elections, 544, 548-50, Board of annexation of vacant land to the west and 817, 822-23, north of the of Pleasant Grove is a Where, here, as an annexation way in no “qualification, standard, prerequisite, prac- changes existing voting rights minorities, procedure” tice or having or or directly even a single involves identifia- effect of denying or abridging right to ble member of any minority group, the Vot- color, vote on account of race or or member- ing Rights implicated. Act is not ship in a language minority group. The Support for summary judgment in this mere annexation of property upon no case is language also found in the of section voters reside cannot be “a qualifica- termed itself; statutory scheme does not con- tion, prerequisite, standard, practice, or pro- template its application to annexations of cedure with to voting” because the vacant property. provides: Section preclearance and enforcement requirement Whenever a political State or subdivi- contemplates situations where at § sion ... shall enact or seek to administer least some individuals’ any voting qualification or prerequisite rights changed “qualification, standard, voting, practice, or or procedure standard, prerequisite, practice, proce- or different language dure” at issue. The of the statute in force or effect on November 1964 thus indicates that implicitly Congress did ... such State or subdivision insti- section 5 to apply intend to annexations tute an action in the United Dis- States having impact voting rights no on the trict Court for the District of Columbia minorities, such as the Western and Glas-

fоr a declaratory judgment that such gow the City additions to of Pleasant standard, qualification, prerequisite, prac- Grove. tice, procedure or pur- does not have the majority’s If the interpretation of the Act pose deny- and will not have the effect correct, the granting building ing or abridging right to vote on permit Grove for color, [membership account of race or or $125,000 condominiums estimated to sell for in a language minority group], and unless each could denied preclearance and until the court enters such section 5 Act if non- person right shall be denied the vote resident minorities demonstrated that comply qual- for failure to with such ification, standard, prerequisite, practice purchase could not afford to the condomini- procedure.... or Congress ums. view did not intend phasis original). provide from the all save four or five of its The Act does some Negro voters; removing single protections voters while not additional sec- by placing white voter resident. tion 5 does so the burden on munici- demonstrate, palities Lightfoot, prior implementa- Gomillion v. Gomillion, changes existing voting rights involving does minorities, “unequivocal solely do “not have the withdrawal vote citizens,” cry and will not havе the effect of from colored a far from the to vote account of annexations at issue here. Id. at race color ....” U.S.C. 1973c § at 130. Act, however, Nothing majority’s suggestion imposes municipalities I cannot with the the burden on to dis- incorporates prove allegations Act all of violations of the Four- protections Amendment, Fifteenth teenth Amendments of ‍‌​‌‌‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​​​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌​‌​​​​‌​‌‍the sort and Fifteenth providing protections majority. well as “additional involved the cases cited Maj. Op. n. 16. Maj. (em- Op. that vital at 1460 n. 16 area.” expanded an given such to be section 5

construction; expressed the intent support 5 does section

language of interpretation. necessary dissent.

I therefore find extend the attempting to majority to which it to a factual situation apply.

never intended Plaintiff, COLLINS,

Charles ROBINSON,

Tommy of Pulaski Sheriff Individually Arkansas, and in

County, Capacity, Coun and Pulaski

his Official Defendants, Arkansas,

ty, McNeely, Woody Intervenor.

James LR-C-82-358.

No. Court,

United States Arkansas, W.D.

E.D.

Aug.

Case Details

Case Name: City of Pleasant Grove v. United States

Court Name: District Court, District of Columbia

Date Published: Aug 3, 1983

Citation: 568 F. Supp. 1455

Docket Number: Civ. A. 80-2589

Court Abbreviation: D.D.C.