City of Richmond, Virginia v. United States

stated, it is For the reasons government’s (1)

Ordered same

mоtion to dismiss should be hereby further denied. It is (2) is remanded that the case Ordered Education, Secretary Health, to the pro- the evidence so

and Welfare be considered

vided the claimant only if re- to determine

studied judicata

quirements of res 404.937(a) met, but also wheth- CFR are reopen- they

er meet standards

ing of cases under 20 CFR 404.957 spe- should make

404.958. examiner findings fur- on issues. It is

cific both

ther sought if

Orde^od review is appropriate ad- and the

after remand ex- remedies have been

ministrative

hausted, government should raise including appeal,

whole record

transcripts hearings, of all the record claims, pre- prior and the evidence claim,

sented the new so that the Court

may properly review. VIRGINIA, RICHMOND,

CITY OF

Plaintiff America,

UNITED STATES Kleindienst, Richard Defendants Holt, Sr., al. and

Curtis et Crusade al., et Voters

Defendant Intervenors No.

Civ. A. 1718-72. Court,

United States District of Columbia.

May 29, 1974. Rhyne Dixon,

Charles S. and David M. Washington, D.C., and Daniel T. Bal- four, Richmond, Va., plaintiff. Sidney Bixler, Gerald W. Jones R. Dept, Justice, Attys., for defendants. H.W. C. Venable and M. Mc- John Carthy, Richmond, Va., for defendant Holt, intervenors Curtis and others. Sr. Derfner, James P. Parker and Armand Washington, C.,D. for defendant inter- venors Crusade for Voters of Richmond and others. WRIGHT, Judge,

Before Circuit Judges. GREEN, JONES and WRIGHT, Judge: J. SKELLY Circuit Virginia City Richmond, insti- seeking tuted this action pursuant judgment, 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 42 U.S.C. ap- 1973c that its annexation of proximately square adjacent miles of county land does not have the denying and will not have the effect abridging right to vote on ac- compelled ous,”2 by the record of race or color.1 sub- count change adopted de- meth- Master. We therefore sequently before the grant electing from its cline to declarato- od at-large system nine-ward, ry judgment рrevious to a it seeks. single-member plan. The district I requests approve under now that we Sec- by as modified tion 5 the annexation discussing the find- Before plan. 53(c) of Rule this ward Under ings case, in this we and record Procedure, we the Federal Rules of Civil appropriate to delineate and think the case to a Master to hold a referred heavy responsibility placed on stress hearing testimony take on and to Voting by 5 of this court Section annexa- “whether of Richmond origin Rights of 1965. The and Act purpose oi tion as amended has the eloquently meaning were of Section 5 diluting vote in the effect of the black Judge thoroughly by forth Rob- and set City.” The Master found that States, D.D.C., in Beer v. inson United carry im- had failed to the burden Judge (1974). Rob- 374 363 by posed proving on it 5 of Section pre- exposition, as well as several inson’s annexation, modified, even as did opinions Court,3 Supreme vious discriminatory purpose not have such a responsibility no our make clear that or find- effect. We conclude this less to realization of than ensure equal ing, being “clearly promise errone- Fifteenth Amendment’s of far right 5, person pro vote 42 shall be dеnied the 1. Section 1973c § U.S.C. to qualifica- comply with such vides : for failure to prerequisite, standard, practice, voting qualifications tion, or 1973c. Alteration of qualifica- by politi- procedure: Provided, procedures; such action state or That declaratory judgment tion, practice, prerequisite, standard, or cal subdivision for of abridgement voting rights; procedure may such enforced without no denial or three-judge prerequi- court; proceeding qualification, appeal district to Su- if procedure preme standard, practice, site, or Court. legal political officer Whenever a subdivision been submitted the chief State or respect prohibitions appropriate with set of such State to which the or other official upon Attorney (a) in forth based de- General section 1973b or subdivision to interposed not terminations made under the first sen- General has (b) objection sixty days after such tence of section of this title are an submission, except 1973b in Attor- effect shall neither enact or seek to administer object voting prerequisite ney qualification nor a de- or General’s failure to voting, procedure claratory judgment standard, practice, under this sec- or or entered respect subsequent with en- different from that tion shall bar a action to join qualification, 1, 1964, or enforcement of such force effect on November or proce- prerequisite, standard, practice, whenever a or State or subdivision respect prohibitions Any with shall to which the set dure. action under this section 1973b(a) forth in court of section this title be heard and determined judges provi- based determinations made under the three accordance with the 1973b(b) second sentence of section sions of section 2284 of Title 28 appeal title are effect shall enact or seek shall lie to the Court. any voting qualification to administer prerequisite or prac- voting, standard, 53(e)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., “In or Rule states: tice, procedure respect jury or action to be tried without accept findings different from that effect force or shall the master’s 1, 1968, clearly November such subdivi- fact unless State or erroneous.” may sion institute an action in the United Georgia 526, States District Court for the District of v. 411 93 United declaratory judgment 1702, (1973) ; Columbia fоr a L.Ed.2d Perkins S.Ct. 36 472 qualification, standard, prerequisite, Matthews, such 27 400 U.S. S.Ct. procedure practice, (1971) ; or does not have the L.Ed.2d Elections, Allen v. Board of State L. and will the effect of 393 U.S. 89 S.Ct. denying abridging right (1969) ; Katzen Ed.2d 1 bach, vote on South Carolina color, account of race or and unless and 15 L.Ed.2d until the court enters such no process.4 participation grounds.6 persistent legis- our electoral But the state Although need not retrace all latures seemed able to avert even this Judge comprehensive analy- power by delaying litigation Robinson’s turning evolution of sis the historical Section devices not gain appreciation injunctions order to full covered obtained.7 necessary responsibility Though Congress our it is to con- made further efforts significance, briefly sider the section’s in 1960 and accessible make especially expansion process as relevant to the electoral to all Americans re- gardless race, impact urban boundaries in those states covered on black registration the section. voter still Congress In substantial.8 acted language tracked Sec- again, this time with a “firm intention pro- tion of the Fifteenth Amendment country to rid the racial discrimina- right of citizens “[t]he claims voting” by complex tion in scheme of “a States to vote shall not be de- 9 stringent remedies.” abridged by nied or the United or States n color, by any race, working Act, on account of Section 5 of the State 1965 previous 4, part or condition of tandem with servitude.” Section is a central post-Civil suspended the of enactment of that scheme. Since War Section 4 use amendment, language any determining of has been test or device10 eligibility invoked to invalidate a host of devices to vote in states which were designed by procedures using and a certain test or device in 1964 and where deny participation states to Southern franchise to voter was below a mini However, year.11 our nation’s black citizens.5 mum 50 cent level in that legislatures abridging protects state of desirous Section 5 the effectiveness of voting rights proved of blacks them- 4. To Section ensure that covered ingenious erecting selves resilient and states not resort to the “strata 12 voting. gem contriving new obstructions to black Of new rules” to evade Congress, employing rights efforts to secure to blacks their equal proc vested in it participation Section 2 the Fif- of in the electoral ess, effectively teenth Amendment “to enforce this this section “freezes legisla- by appropriate election [amendment] laws”13 of states covered tion,” Attorney authorized the General 4. Before one of states Section these injunctions against any “voting to seek qualifi interference can administer new right voting, prerequisite vote on racial or or cation Elections, subject, (3) possess good character, 4. See Allen v. State Board su- moral pra 3, (4) prove qualifications note 393 U.S. at 556. or his registered voucher of voters or members Katzenbach, supra 5. See South Carolina v. other class. 3, note 383 U.S. at 311-312. (c) (1970). § U.S.C. 1973b 85-315, 131(b) (c), 6. Pub.L. § & 42 U.S.C. § 1971(a) (c) (1970). suspension period & 11. The a covered minimum years originally of five as the Act was en- Katzenbach, ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‍supra 7. See South Carolina v. 1, 4, 89-110, acted in 1965. Pub.L. Title § note 383 U.S. at 313-314. However, 79 Stat. 438. a 1970 amendment H.R.Rep.No.439, Sess., Cong., See 89th suspension period years. 1st extended (1965), Cong. Admin.News, 9-11 1973b(a). U.S.Code 91-285, & Pub.L. § U.S.C. § 1965, p. 2437. Section was also amended to cover states or subdivisions of states in 1968 em- which Katzenbach, supra 9. South Carolina v. note plоyed par- a test or device and where voter 3, 383 U.S. at 315. ticipation year. was below 50% phrase 10. The “test or device” shall mean (b). 91-285, § Pub.L. 1973b U.S.C. any requirement person pre- that a as a requisite voting registration for or Katzenbach, South Carolina voting (1) ability read, demonstrate 383 U.S. at 335. write, understand, interpret any matter, or (2) Georgia demonstrate educational achieve- v. United knowledge any particular ment or his ” voting,’ respect re is covered practice, procedure with thus standard, or ap rea- voting,” Perkins Court spect it obtain must city expands de when proval or soned General three-judge citizens boundaries voting adds new claratory its old citizens rolls the votes of District Colum Quoting Rey- inevitably procedure practice diluted. or are new that the bia (2) Sims, nolds 1362, not have the denying or 12 L.Ed.2d 506 not have effect will suffrage right can right that “the abridging stressed on account to vote dilution just denied a debasement or of race or color.14 As weight ef- clear, of a vote as repeatedly citizen’s Con made Court has fectively wholly prohibiting the gress proof shifted the burden thus 19 Per- rights free exercise of the franchise.” litigation vоting to the implicit If the prove kins left the obvious: states,15 requiring both them to citizenry proportion of discriminatory purpose blacks in the new the absence appreciably from the annexed area ef and the absence living proportion instituting procedures less than the of blacks before new fect city’s boundaries, abridging any potential old history particularly rights if there is a ra- denying voting blacks.16 city, cial bloc Elections, v. of In Allen State Board di- of black citizens as a class is 817, 1 544, 22 L.Ed.2d U.S. 89 S.Ct. 393 abridged.20 luted and thus Supreme determined (1969), Court August “Voting Rights determined 1965 it was aimed Act was that Virginia obvious,” cov- subtle, that was one of states as well as at voting rights 4 denying ered Section and thus state schemes responsibility Congress It un- is therefore our and that thus intended that deny approval 5 to given possible der Section to Rich- the Act be “broadest involving voters unless mond’s of new scope.”17 In its next decision carry prov- 5, Matthews, Richmond can of the burden v. 400 U.S. Section Perkins ing annexation, 431, as modified 379, L.Ed.2d 476 91 S.Ct. 27 plan, (1) change (1971), the ward does not held that a Court abridging voting power boundary of city's black a large en lines “which city’s eligible will not have such an effect. number оf [s] heavy change “This a for a communi- burden voters also constitutes the history ty Virginia’s ‘standard, practice, a state with procedure’ with constitutionality. supra. Katzen- v. South Carolina 14. 1 See note 3, bach, supra note at 334-335. 383 U.S. 3, Georgia States, supra 15. note United 565, 17. at 393 U.S. 567. 411 538: “It U.S. at is well established 5, a 18. 400 U.S. § action plaintiff proof.” State the burden emphasized the Allen Id. Perkins also Katzenbach, See also su South Carolina v. had decided dilution of black Court pra 3, 335; City Peters note 383 U.S. at voting power a follow could burg, D.D.C., States, F. Va. v. 354 single-member change an from a district Supp. 1021, affirmed, (1972), 410 1027-1028 required at-large county officials election of 962, 1441, 93 L.Ed.2d 698 U.S. S.Ct. 35 subjected change that such a 5 scru- § be (1973). tiny. right vote can be Id. at 390. “The voting power by a as affected dilution of 16. The Court 5 has characterized casting prohibition as well absolute unusual, aspects as “an and in some se- Elections, a ballot.” Allen v. Board of State vere, procedure insuring States 3, 393 note would not discriminate of race on the basis meaning 20. This of Perkins was assumed in voting in the laws.” enforcement their States, Petersburg, su- Va. v. United Elections, Allen v. State Board of pra F.Supp. 354 at 1024-1025. 393 U.S. at The did not however, hesitate, uphold Fed.Reg. (1965). the section’s 21. 30 9897

1349 by compromise resulting m of Pe- 1969 past discrimination.” in the racial D.D.C., tersburg, approximately annexation in v. United suit of Va. 23 (1972), F.Supp. originally sought square 1027 51 af- firmed, period 93 S.Ct. miles.26 The of the suit’s dor mancy significant growth L.Ed.2d 698 witnessed a voting strength in Richmond.

II rapidly becoming majority Blacks were population, “[wjhile of the proof in 1968 Richmond’s burden With Negroes there more were whites than of the mind, examination turn to an registered vote, about report of the the facts of Master’s 50% registered Negroes against ap voted parties stipulated as to the The case. proximately registered the white E.D. record in Holt 30% reversed, voters.”27 (1971), Racial bloc Va., was evi organization dent and a black denied, U. civic Cir., cert. 459 F.2d —in tervenor Crusade L.Ed.2d 343 Voters —had S. gained power, substantial previous electoral Amend rival Fifteenth ing counterpart against brought ment suit —Richmond at-large City Forward. In the annexation,22 his the Master based elections, Council findings as on Crusade-endorsed can on this record as well testimony didates won him. three of the nine days before three seats primary findings of fact of the Forward Most findings endorsees.28 ulti indi derived his from which Master developments cate that finding these caused the Richmond had failed mate leadership Richmond white proving carry the an its burden great concern that amended, nexation, without dis bloc able, majority criminatory purpose elect were not to the and effect City Council in challenged parties.23 1970 elections. The We mayor, city Richmond white incumbent to set forth most of are thus able councilmen, city attorney, history and other for which of the annexation representatives City of the approval direct and its without white Richmond seeks leadership expressed their senti to the record. reference County ments officials, to Chesterfield history began in 1962 when This studying to a state commission Rich against City suit filed an annexation expansion, mond’s and to residents of seeking County contiguous Chesterfield City. expressions These reflected a territory24 square miles of obtain part conviction that annexation of of years, lay dormant for several This suit County necessary Chesterfield was during unsuccess which time Richmond keep population gaining the black from fully attempted land from an to annex аdjacent county.25 city It was control of the other settled in the 1970 elections.29 22. 25. 24. 26. 23. for Voters were allowed to F.Supp. 228, 231 community. this action as Defendants’ Exhibit Holt Master’s See note 43 Holt Intervenors Curtis City Findings Findings City infra. representatives Richmond, of Holt, Facts, Facts, Sr. No. 3. No. 2. participate E.D.Va., of the Crusade 29. Finding of Fact No. 6: Executive ber City Councilman proceedings ership-type 6. officials made City tion as follows: The Master (b) (a) ^[*] During 12, 1968, City Manager, About Between of Richmond needed ^[*] white affluent Secretary the course of set forth Alan F. ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‍statements July 16, and Melvin W. James Wheat thereafter, ^[*] at Farmville, Kiepper, 1968 and people. his ^[*] on the annexa- the Board the annexation various unchallenged 44,000 stated that Richmond Virginia, Burnett, ^[*] Septem- lead- City unchallenged findings mayor required from of the The assurances Further strong- County him Chesterfield officials that at the record Master on ly suggest before 44,000 citizens motivated least additional white that this conviction City negotiation acceptance be obtained before he would Richmond’s agree upon settlement of an- suit settlement of the 1969 annexation mayor agreement And and one nexation suit.32 it now seeks Sec- for which city final aрproval. of the councilmen conditioned annexation tion 5 agreement County negotiations acceptance settlement with Chesterfield going into effect on the annexation for Richmond were conducted mayor-city councilman, in the Phil J. sufficient time to make citizens white eligible City During Bagley. in the of these ne- annexed area to vote the course meetings Mayor Bagley gotiations, elections of 1970.33 The annexa- held Council concerning prog- tion suit settlement to which six and conferences their Richmond Forward-backed members of ress with the other five members agreed election the obtained Council whose per popu- For- Richmond 60 cent of the total had been endorsed school-age per ward, predominantly citizens lation and 59 of the white cent children, only per group; val- the three of the but cent of the members Coun- property ue cil who had been Crusade of tax assessable and 46 endorsed origi- Voters, predominantly area, black citi- cent total land organization, County portion zens were excluded nal of Chesterfield meetings.30 sought.34 all of these which annexation was negotiations in the Richmond’s focus The annexation seemed to have the sup impact white vot- was the number of new the Richmond officials who ported it census re by annexation; desired. The it could it ex- ers obtain population geo- within pressed vealed that no interest economic old of Richmond was graphic boundaries as tax reve- considerations such per cent, expanded nues, utilities, bound land, but vacant or schools.31 Ed At J. Chesterfield ginia, stated study dleton, member of sion the annex a Conrad B. Chairman of the Board of races to be annexed. City Supervisors (c) (d) the black íí ^[*] negotiate Bagley the 1970 those City Willey the going all (created by At a At a the about March of people of Richmond City part Mr. meetings, City’s expansion) ^{[*] [*]} Mattox, meeting indicated population. meeting and others County, of Chesterfield and black black. was concerned about City Kiepper of Chesterfield pending the State the :1: ^[*] said to of the Mayor Crowe, the. in that would be taken over House of Williamsburg, Richmond Council people Irvin G. Aldhiser representing ^[*] Donald G. ^[*] the the number Supervisors Legislature in City County, consideration in the ' July, 1968, County City Delegates, Attorney and Phil Commis- M: ^[*] Horner, results must Pеn- suit. area Vir- met the or 32. 31. 30. niggers of the with Leland Bassett long Bagley D. C. man Nathan Oaks pose Richmond Richmond the City town.” Virginia, Id., Id., Id., Id. (f) (e) (g) ^{[*] [*]} No. 9. 4.No. No. 7. as I am the In the fall of On Country Virginia Municipal stated are not the annexation Findings September February Mayor Bagley Mi Forward, ^[*] going becoming to James Forb was concerned about niggers Club, qualified all black. ^{[*] [*]} Mayor Facts, stated another Henry won’t G. was to stated Mi Mi at League, No. Carpenter Charlottesville, that take over this at City run Valentine at a Washington, the 5. keep the the Council- ^[*] Mi meeting meeting Willow Mayor city. pur- “As the only per cent.35 The the annexation. On December aries it was Sr., Holt, living citizenry Curtis a black citizen increased the annexa was citizenry by 45,705, within the old Richmond boundaries and the black tion while bar, an intervenor in 1,557.36 the filed an only case increased was action on an elections were held councilmanic Virginia seeking Eastern District of at-large Chester with the annexed basis judgment that the annexation with- was County participating. Can field citizens prior approval by out effect for lack of by the white citizens didates endorsed Attorney General or this court.40 organization mа maintained their 6-3 August 25, 1972, days prior On five to a City only jority on one Council and hearing Virginia scheduled in this Dis- councilman elected. None was year trict Court case more than a aft- en the six eouncilmen who were elected Attorney objected er General to the organization dorsed the white citizens 5; annexation under Section and almost received cent more than years two had after conducted its black vote.37 1970 councilmanic in violation elections It is conceded here City finally of Section filed the illegally in vio conducted these elections instant suit this court. not, prior to lation of -5. It did Section diluting by originally filed, annexation the votes of the As suit residing nondiscriminatory the old Rich citizens asked us to declare iri boundaries, ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‍approval purpose mond obtain the and effect Attorney changes practices or a concomitant General election hardly from this court that this dilu instituted It could tion did not háve the and would clearer on the Master’s unchal abridging lenged fully supported not have effect of find factual right ings to vote on account of race we could not have issued such a City apparently color.38 Richmond has held no council- declaration. The was 39; ille manic elections since 1970 moved 1962 to file its annexation suit against gally legiti County by elected Council continues Chesterfield goals expansion.42 serve to this time. It was after the mate of urban How supra, Matthews, again ever, Richmond, empha decision in Perkins which we Attorney carry in and after the had General size must under Section 5 heavy proving formed Richmond that it was viola burden of the absence Voting Rights Act, discriminatory purpose tion as well as the attempts discriminatory effect, made its belated to con absence of a of why explain form to the commands of 5. On fered no evidence to by negotiations March 1971 Richmond submitted suit settled in changes focusing annexation and the concomitant on the number of white citizens Attorney practices in its election to the would obtain and after May City’s controlling General. On 1971 the white officials had interposed objection necessary General stated the annexation was changes resulting practice election from in 1969 to avert a take- Id., standing bring 35. 10 & ll. 40. Nos. Holt’s such an action Suprеme had been affirmed in the Court Id., 36. 11. No. Elections, Allen v. State Board of 37. 9. Defendants’ Exhibit 3, 393 U.S. at 554-557. supra. 38. 12-21 See text at notes independently brought § Holt’s 5 ease was City 39. The 1972 elections were en- of his earlier direct 15th Amendment chal- joined by Supreme § 5. the under lenge Court to the annexation. See text at note 903, City Richmond, 92 Holt v. 406 U.S. 22 and note 43 infra. (1972). Rich- 31 L.Ed.2d 814 S.Ct. any presently enjoined holding City Richmond, supra mond is from v. See Holt three-judge F.Supp. elections under an order of 334 at 231. Virginia. in District Court 1352 City.43 given addition, over of the discriminatory purpose In not have a or ef- unchallenged finding

the City that fect. The thus directs its on attack finding report there was uncontroverted evidence of in that ra- the the Master’s cial plan bloc in Richmond and the the ward does not remove the dis- fact criminatory that almost all the annexed citi- taint from the annexation. white, say zens were we cannot that the develop Richmond undertook to a ward expansion of Richmond’s boundaries and City plan after in of Peters the decision changes the concomitant in its election burg, States, supra, Va. v. it practices instituted in the council- 1970 argue Petersburg now relies on that effect, manic elections did not have the the annexation was made lawful the purpose, diluting as well as the the adoption single-member of its district black vote. plan. Petersburg court asked to approve under an annexation Section 5 conclude, then, We that Rich population which ma eliminated a black changes prac mond’s 1970 in its election jority Petersburg. light of evi following upon tices the annexation were along history dence of racial discriminatory purpose and effect and Petersburg, lines in the court held that thus violative of Section 5’s substantive prove the could not submit its proce standards as well as the section’s plan the ted annexation prior dural approval command that be However, diluting effect of black votes. obtained from General or emphasizing legitimate financial and primary this court. The thrust of Rich Petersburg geographic interests present arguments mond’s before this the annexation and the absence of court, however, evidence that the annexation was accom is that discrimina tory plished purpose purpose diluting and effect annexa purged by voting power,44 suggested City’s tion was adoption, court April 25, 1973, single-member City changed at-large if the of a from an district, system electing plan city nine-ward for future its council to coun system cilmanic elections. ward “calculated Richmond amended to neutralize complaint possible any its this action and adverse effect now asks extent^ changes us to declare participation its elec practices resulting voters,”45 tion pass from annexation could the annex scrutiny. ation as modified 5 ward do not, contrary City’s argu (1968) ; We are to the 20 L.Ed.2d 672 Fletcher ments, precluded finding Peck, (6 Crunch) 87, 130, that Rich 10 U.S. 3 L.Ed. prove (1810). mond failed to absence dis 162 The Holt court found that criminatory negotiating plaintiff the 1969 Holt in that had case not carried heavy proof. annexation the decision of Circuit such a the 4th burden of This case brought directly in Holt v. 459 F.2d the 15th Amend- denied, cert. 92 ment and S.Ct. is not controlled the constitu- reversing E.D.Va., L.Ed.2d 343 tional cases cited the Holt court. As F.Supp. above, Supreme The Holt re stated Court has made versed a District Court decision that clear in a 5§ compromise carry proof violated suit the state must the burden of disсriminatory 15th Amendment purpose. because of it did not have a However, predi motivation. Circuit, the 4th Circuit Indeed the 4th like the District cated reversed, fully reversal on a line of understood that holding legisla Court cases that actions of decision had no effect whatever on the de- tures are voided for unconstitutional termination we must make under 5. 459 only in 1100; motivation rarest instances after F.2d at convincing showing legisla the most specifically 44. The court found that legitimate goals. tors could not have had “expanded into those areas were Compare 459 F.2d at 1097-1100. Gomillion reasonably most available and which were Lightfoot, S.Ct. accomplishing the most desirable for the le- Thomp gitimate L.Ed.2d 110 Palmer purposes with of annexation.” of son, Petersburg, 224-225, States, supra S.Ct. Va. v. United (1971) ; L.Ed.2d States O’Brien, 367, 382-386, 45. Id. at S.Ct. 1031. by concluded that Richmond sion not The Master is motivated a desire to di- voting plan not, Petersburg, purge power, its an- lute black ward did under a cal- by illegality adoption any of culated to nexation its minimize dilution that of agree should, plan. a ward for two reasons. could occur as in Peters- We stated burg, First, initially illegality distin- find this case save the we annexation from signif- guishable Petersburg However, 5. one when such a city Rights Voting by respect: Peters- icant unlike violates Act burg, proceeding, proved approval not ex- that it did without of the has not At- purpose torney of court, pand General or for the with an- its boundaries rights abridging large black of its of nexation number white cit- Second, any case, cannot, we purpose diluting citizens. izens for Petersburg toas find that standard citizens, vote of its an extra black bur- by effect met Richmond. We city has been purge den on that rests itself of plan that the ward discriminatory are not convinced as to taint as well show by adopted Richmond was “calculated that the annexation will not have the possible ad- to the extent prohibited neutralize effect. To court convince a political participa- upon verse by effect city, adoption that such a of a ward purged tion of black voters.” plan, has a itself of discrimina- tory purpose in an annexation of new importance first We will address voters, it would have to be demonstrated prove, Pe- failure to Richmond’s by (1) substantial evidence that tersburg did, not that its annexation did plan only reduced, ward not but also ef- discriminatory purpose. do have a We fectively eliminated, the dilution agree the Master’s conclusion with black caused city originally that a has annexed which annexation,46 city that has maintaining purpose territory for verifiable, objectively legitimate some voting majority a white could never purpose for annexation. prove longer that it no a dis- had such retaining criminatory purpose the an- In this case Richmond has failed to adoption single- present nexed area after a substantial evidence However, plan. original discriminatory member district ward purpose did not agree adoption also do not with Richmond that plan. survive the ward showing city’s a it made “City has mere Master concluded that counterbalancing effort to remove the some discrimina- failed establish tory by adoption effect of an annexation economic administrative benefits of prove of a ward is sufficient the annexation.”47 The Master’s conclu- vot- predicated findings it not retain the annexed sion was purpose. ers for supported testimony a We fаct direct be- realize that of ra- cities histories fore him. The Master further found voting in cial discrimination and bloc the return of the annexed area to County actually states covered even Sections 4 and Chesterfield save cities in which number of citi- operat- at least million of $8.5 may approaching majority, ing year per zens loss million of re- $21.3 legitimate outlay. for de- quired capital economic reasons The Master also siring expand their into boundaries found that cent va- surrounding coincidentally areas cant land received Richmond in the many contain more white capable than black cit- settlement annexation was city development.48 izens. think that when We such He further concluded expan- boundary testimony demonstrates from the of a Chesterfield Petersburg fully voting power 46. The aware dilution caused the ex- “calculated to neutralize annexation. Id. at 1031. possible” tent standard which established Law, discrim- not motivated 47. annexations Master’s Conclusions No. inatory requires city minimize entirely any necessarily Findings Facts, but to remove No. County County Moreover, official that is not City because the hаs failed only financially administratively plan demonstrate that its ward effec- willing tively control over able to reassume removes the dilution of black vot- ing power by annexation, annexed area and to reimburse the caused City expenditures previous in its even if we were convinced that Rich- area, signif any legitimate but could'do so without mond now has reasons for an- resisting icant inconvenience to or detrimental nexation and for de-annexa- tion, effect on the annexed citizens.49 Rich we would still not be convinced that any testimony City’s discriminatory mond did not offer before findings. linger. City the Master to controvert these The its maintains that however, objects, plan actually It to the Master’s con ward enhances black power clusion that there no single-member are economic or ad in Richmond. The districting plan adopted City by reasons retain an ministrative in- nexed area on the basis of the record four heavy pop- cludes wards with white City majorities, and decision Holt of Rich ulation heavy four wards mond, supra. City population majorities, cites this record per an estimate that revenues from one wаrd which is 40.9 cent black.53 year the annexed area for fiscal 1971-72 Richmond contends that as- appropriations exceeded citizenry from it sures the black of four seats on gives about million. Richmond further $1.5 and at least them some quotes portion hope capturing of the Holt decision a fifth seat. Rich- containing opinion argues mond more this is City Manager power that de-annexation would than blacks could have in an at- job “boggle large system be a mind” and the within old Richmond’s opinion of the because, Holt court that Rich boundaries population while blacks have a bargain mond majority in a weak bound- these ing position any they aries, comprise de-annexation still negotiations.50 evidentiary voting-age population. cent of the These refer Al- were, course, though argument ences Holt considered Richmond’s has consid- making findings.51 the Master in surface, his erable force we are They persuade do not us that the convinced Mas that Richmond’s ward findings system wrong, they sufficiently ter’s dissipate are compensates nor do for the illegal purpose evidence of dilution of black caused permеates this record.52 the annexation. Id., desegregation Nos. 23-25. vated the cause of school expansion to maintain of Richmond’s 50. 324 at 238-239. Intervenor Cru boundaries. argues sade for Voters the addition of study white children from the annexation would Richmond also refers the desegregation showing aid school efforts Rich the Urban Institute fiscal year Bradley surplus mond. take We note of v. School from the annexed area. This Richmond, Va., study Cir., part Board of was not made be- of the record (1972), by equally Master, however, Transcript F.2d 1058 divid fore the see affirmed Court, Hearing (hereinafter Tr.) 606-607, ed S.Ct. 36 L. (1973), Ed.2d 771 which held and it the 14th could not case remove require by testimony hearing. Amendment merge did not doubts created system its school with those of sur emphasize again 52. We that we do not doubt rounding Henrico and Chesterfield Counties leadership that Richmond’s was motivated integration in order to effect full of these by nondiscriminatory goals filing systems. However, history school simply question 1962 annexation suit. We Richmond’s resistance to the mandate benign pur- has established Education, Brown v. Board of poses particular retaining com- 98 L.Ed. 873 see Brad promise negotiated рur- ley v. School Board of pose diluting voting power. Va., supra, (Winter, J., at 1074-1076 dis senting), plaintiff’s 18; causes us to doubt that Richmond’s Tr. Attachment Exhibit leadership has at time been moti- responsi time m First, say, it our the 1970’s. cannot think We in light population growth bility thwart at 5 to under Section trends po Richmond, tempts to dilute the that the of covered states voting power of black citi Council was not still future motivated that tential voting adopting present fear as their ward to avoid zens as well percentage strength. de-annexation.55 The fact that the voting age ap is of Richmond blacks Second, it is not clear to us that Rich- percentage preciably than less citizenry mond’s black would not have population of course in the total blacks greater political power actual in an at- proportionately that there are means large, system de-annexed than in a sin- We, youngsters. like more black gle-member ward, system annexed even political leadership of white population majority before their overall present anticipate black can that voting-age majority.56 resulted in a population majority Richmond’s witin findings on the The concerns in a few old boundaries will translate City’s leadership, white as well as years voting-age majority.54 In into a testimony of the black Richmond leader- system majority at-large such an ship suggest Master,57 before the that nine none of the would ensure that political power in Richmond turns on occupied by a candi was seats controlling majority five seats on appealed only to a white date who City Council58; three or even four seats ignoring aspirations bloc, the needs provide forums from voice dis- un of Richmond’s black citizens. The sents, power. not to but wield effective challenged findings indi of the Master good There is reason to think that political cate greater opportunity blacks would have a leadership in the late 1960’s feared that responsive to elect five councilmen population annexation the black absent their concerns and interests in an at- large system gain majority electoral some Richmond’s old apportionment population figures first, schemes, which Rich- one The equal the 1970 census man’s vote should another man’s mond relies are taken from nеarly population practicable; second, ma- vote as as Translation of results. majority may assuming voting-age equality, jority substantial into already operate scheme must not to minimize or occurred. voting strength cancel of racial el out the suggested to us that we 55. Richmond has not voting population. Both ements of registered percentage voters focus on the Supreme and this court have Court course be who are black. To do so would long differentiated between these two regis primary why circular; black reason population propositions. although And that of relative tration has been low proper equality appor measure of awareness that citizen’s whites is the black Chavis, tionment, in Whitcomb v. U.S. traditionally impact. had less his vote has 149-150, 1858, 124, 29 L.Ed.2d 91 S.Ct. Cir., McKeithen, 5 485 F.2d Zimmer v. Cf. Regester, supra, and White v. banc) (1973) (en ; Beer Unit 412 U.S. at at 37 L. States, D.D.C., 396-397 ed Supreme an Ed.2d at Rights Voting was en The Act proc political nounced access to the transformation render a future acted to population ess and not the barometer reality that black aware on which minority voting strength. of dilution of stressing In the total ness was based. McKeithen, supra F. Zimmer v. note population percentage, we look toward (footnotes omitted). Georgia 2d at 1303 that future transformation. States, supra v. United beyond percentages, wheth- We must look 5§ Court admonished voting- populations they changed or of reality er of total is practices concerned “with age populations, effect of they Negro determine the affect voters.” voting power boundary expansion on the 57. Tr. at 617-618. political their access to the blacks and recently mayor process. 5th has has been elected As the Circuit Council. stated: * * * concept Inherent propositions: representation fair are two system oper- plan,61 appears than in a ward the white boundaries ating expanded leadership presently boundaries. in control of Rich within the adopted system mond the ward that, past because re We they doing could what along roughly cent been maintain the dilution of the vote lines, racial three councilmen who by produced annexation. did predominantly appealed to voters black carry heavy nоt the burden we think in 1970 in the face of a were elected argues imposed city must be on a which per voting-age minority 37.3 single-member adoption that a dis voting-age minority If cent.59 the black plan purges trict ward its discrimina by to 44.8 was increased de-annexation annexing tory purpose citiz white cent, per two or candi more additional ens.62 appealed to black voters dates who might potential discriminatory well elected. The pur- be In addition to a greater happening may than the pose, this be the annexation had a discrim- also potential Petersburg inatory for election of a fifth black under effect the voting bloc-supported from councilman plan standard since the ward was City what the as the has characterized “calculated to neutralize to the extent “swing system. in their possible any par- ward” ward upon effect the adverse though per City For the stresses a 40.9 ticipation of voters.” The Master population percentage find, cent overall black did not and indeed on the basis voting-age ward, popu find, this the black the evidence him could not before only per lation sub cent.60 Since plan that Richmond fashioned its ward stantial dilution of doubt exists that the possible” “to the neutralize to the extent by the the by black vote caused power dilution of black caused by adoption eliminated the by was ward annexation.63 As found the Mas- proof Tr. at 219. but the burden two interrelated on (1) there will issues: whether indeimndent be 60. Tr. at 616. discriminatory effect, a whether understanding polit- discriminatory purpose. See, 61. Because of our of the e. there was a obtaining majority importance City on g., Petersburg, ical v. United Va. City Council, Carry- F.Supp. included we have not note analysis ing annexation on our the effect of the re- issue cannot the burden on the first elec- the black bloc’s influence on the verse the burden on the second. City’s tion of the five “constitutional” offi- Petersburg interpret 63. Richmond seems to city attorney, : trea- cers Commonwealth’s surer, city city that, to mean where a elects its revenue, sheriff, and commissioner of expansion system, any council under a ward posi- officers, ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‍clerk of court. These whose challenge. of its boundaries 5§ can defeat provided Virginia tions are Con- interpretation only This is contradicted stitution, VII, (1973) ; see see also § Art. plain language requir- Petersburg, necessity Va.Code are of § 15.1-40.1 ing city pos- to the extent to “neutralize at-large re- elected on basis. Thus with political sible adverse effect spect system to these officers the ward participation voters,” of black nothing of the to counteract dilution collapses (emphasis added), at 1031 but also black vote caused the annexation. See simple analysis. under if Richmond’s For generally City Petersburg, Va. position adopted, were the incumbent white States, supra F.Supp. at 1029- already political leadership city aof single-member elected its under a councilmen running system could, 62. The above discussion of our doubts district ward without many plan 5, selectively Richmond’s ward eliminated afoul of annex as addi- the dilution voting power anticipated of black caused the annexa- tional white it needed wards as city’s predom- tion renders academic Richmond’s claim that to maintain the Surely Congress when a state intend 5’s§ or subdivision demonstrates inance. did not * * * procedure insuring change practice procedurе in a “severe no discriminatory effect the absence of would not discriminate on States presumed their should be basis of race in the enforcement of pause, register voting laws,” however, of Elec- § We Allen State Board disagreement posi- tions, firm so our to be with Richmond’s requires carry easily tion. Section 5 the state to circumvented. undisputed testimony- basis of ter could have done more to compensate him, Richmond’s ward for the dilution of black vot- before planner ing Oslin, senior Dallas H. drawn caused annexation. City, ra- placed reference Thus even if for the without Richmond had Oslin, living patterns posture Petersburg by in Richmond. in the case cial proving worker, testified before a lone-wolf absence discrimina- tory re- purpose, he direction Master it would still an abuse keep heavy responsibility placed upon was to ceived grant var- to five cent us wards within a four Section 5 to equality64 population iance from seeks. rough know, beyond did not he even impressions, of Richmond’s the locations Ill population.65 the framed Oslin request Our denial Richmond’s for of plan of such on the factors ward basis dеclaratory judgment a does this not end boundaries,” “physical “compactness,” as Holt, for it end case intervenor nor did Rich- “likeness While and of area.”66 requests for the case the Master. Holt legitimately these taken mond could have the and Master recommends that this they account, have into should factors enjoin to court de-annex the goal mini- the of to been accommodated County land obtained from Chesterfield mizing vote.67 dilution of the black in order that new elec- a eouncilmanic immediately tion can be held within the City’s the ward Our conclusion old boundaries of Richmond.69 possible” plan “to the extent does not is vote of the black strong minimize dilution equities in There are indeed by an alternative buttressed injunction. further favor of such those an Since to plan developed and submitted ward individuals who annexed Rich- were for Vot- the court intervenor Crusade permitted to vot- mond must be full be plan provides four for The ing community ers. Crusade the in which citizens of wards, heavily heavily four they reside, which a Richmond election “swing wards, a 59 a ward” with these individuals the vote would denied this per population.68 cent blaсk Since require the citi- a de-annexation.70 Yet “swing ward,” living more than the much the old zens of Richmond within “swing the strong ward” cent black can voice a claim boundaries sup- City’s plan, provides a candidate of election conduct an immediate opportunity ported be blacks to remove old boundaries fifth critical seat City elected citizens present These Council. suggests Council, plan City Crusade’s opportunity 1968 not had an since ap 5, however, 64. Tr. at 293-294. is function under cial respect practices procedures prove with Tr. at 65. 306-308. or states submitted covered Facts, Findings 19. adopt 66. Master’s No. not Richmond has their subdivisions. Though plan. ed or submitted Crusade’s living pat- reference to racial Without plan may anticipated in ad effect of plans terns, which ward Oslin drew four City Petersburg, adoption, vance of its cf. Attorney dur- General were submitted to ing we can note Va. Attorney pendency suit. The of this city give full not consideration whether made if it notified Richmond that General adopting purpose has a these one of some minor modifications actually plan so. before it Petersburg plans would meet ward it plan properly as modified It ward standard. Master titled his recommen- 69. The Attorney General’s in accordance order a conclusion dation de-annexation City adopted give suggestion sub- such, it which the need law. As not “clearly mits to us. stand- erroneous” deference 53(e) appropriate find- Rule ard 21 of defendant-in- Exhibit Attachment ings supra. of fact. Bee asks Voters. Crusade for Crusade tervenor City City’s approve Holt 70. See that we spe- plan. F.Supp. Our ward modified Crusade’s States, D.D.C., opinion in Beer in an v. United to cast ballot election which was Rights (hereinafter Voting violative of I). court present was Beer The Beer I was asked Act. The Orleans, de serves of New Louisiana to in the 1970 elections and elected nondiscriminatory today years after several clare plan redistricting held in notified elections were for council- that these effect a 5. The 1970 elec- violation manic elections. New Orleans had illegal they con- tions because were held elections under new were prac- change sought pursuant approval. to a in a ducted Several non- ap- procedure tice or without for the incumbent candidates Coun being proval petitioned I from this court in New Beer obtained cil Orleans during court, Our denial of New General. its consideration post ap- request request, for ex Richmond’s to establish a schedule Orleans’ facto proval change in election for councilmanic The elections. illegality practices underscores refused to consider the merits of the petition, stating these elections. candidates’ that it was grant stated that Section without the relief re quested. essentially laws of freezes the election the covered unless a declarato- States distinguisha- thinkWe the Beer I case ry judgment is obtained in the Dis- merely ble its facts. are asked We trict for the District of Colum- Court employ power equitable our to enforce change holding proposed bia that a is the mandate of Section 5 that election discriminatory purpose or without ef- procedures be covered frozen states * * * fect. declaratory judgment approval until a has obtained been from this court. We Georgia 526, States, 411 v. United U.S. are asked to declare and void remоve 538, 1702, 1709, 472 93 36 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. procedures practices effects those and (1973).71 years four Rich- For now implemented which were not to be with- mond ing” “freez- has avoided this intended approval ap- out the this court—an only effect; intervenor Holt asks deny. proval which we Beer herein The position that we return Richmond to the court, presented I not as are today it would inbe had it followed accompli past we with the elec- procedures of 5 in accordance fait illegal practices pro- tion held under and congressional intent.72 cedures, enjoined itself future elections The Richmond and unapproved under New Orleans’ redis- argue Attorney that, General whatever tricting plan.73 only The Beer I court ju equities, court does not have this balked when it was asked to lo- schedule risdiction to order We de-annexation. cal councilmanic elections and thus disagree. Richmond and the probe “tangential”74 issues to the com- argument General base their on the first practices mand Section 5 that election 71. See also Views of Joint 10 Members of enacting [in tention § 5] the States Judiciary Relating the [Senate] Committee subdivisions, rather than citizens seek- Voting Rights to Extension Act of ing rights, to exercise their bear the bur- 1965, Cong.Rec. (Part 4) 5517, 116 5519 delays litigation. den (March 2, quoted 1970), of Peters (footnote omitted). 400 U.S. at 396 burg, 15, Va. v. United Petersburg court, 73. The F.Supp. also not confronted 354 already illegal the effects of an conducted Matthews, 72. Words from Perkins election, injunction, issued a similar restrain- 3, loudly against also reverberate Rich- Petersburg ing holding any elections mond’s evasion of 5’s intent: expanded within its boundaries 5 before § * * * proof ample ased [B] approval the annexation was obtained. repeated evasion of court and of decrees See 354 at 1023-1024. litigation delay designed extended implementation States, D.D.C., federal constitutional 74. Beer v. F. 374 rights, Congress expressly (1974). in- Supp. its 357, indicated changed procedures inferences, without or doubtful construction.” Swann, prior approval. Brown v. U.S. [35 497] * * * 497, 508], Pet. L.Ed. language [9 do not assent We suggest opinion Beer I which does Co., supra, Holding Porter v. Warner jurisdiction this perceive no U.S. 398.75 We clear deny grant or Rights Voting indication in the or Act sought by or its subdivi a covered state legislative history Congress, power limitation оn our sion. Such a entrusting respon- when this court with equi us “the broad would remove from sibility under Section meant to limit jurisdiction inheres courts” table power our to enforce the section’s direct legisla give policy of the effect to the voting practices pro- command that they oversee, Porter v. ture which War changed prior cedures not be without Holding Co., ner approval.76 The Beer I court stressed 90 L.Ed. 1332 S.Ct. Elections, that Allen v. State Board of again made clear supra, that, made clear while a local year presumed that a court is to be able three-judge District Court can deter- eq powers to wield “the inherent of an given mine whether administrative congres uity implementing court” in change covered is Section 5 and can policy it entrusted. sional with which is enjoin implementation prior ap- Renegotiation Board Bannercraft proval covered, only if it a three- Clothing Co., judge District Court in the District of 39 L.Ed.2d 42 U.S.L.Week. can Columbia declare that a covered 19, 1974). (February change have a * * * Unless a statute so or effect. not think But do many necessary words, evident that Section 5’s limitation on inferenсe, inescapable three-judge restricts of local jurisdiction equity, by placing declaratory judgment in’ the full court’s Courts scope jurisdiction authority exclusively is to be rec- of that in our hands limits ognized great applied. prin- equitable jurisdiction making “The our securing ciples equity, complete authority declaratory this exclusive yielded light power.77 justice, should not be all other preme also See Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jew Court has at least made clear that lo- elry, Inc., 288, 290-291, three-judge 361 U.S. cal ty District have authori- Courts (1960) ; Scripps-Howard requests private parties 4 L.Ed.2d 323 to consider Radio, FCC, 4, 16-17, illegal Inc. v. 316 U.S. S. the con- invalidate elections and order Ct. 86 L.Ed. 1229 It is inter duct new Board ones. See Allen State esting declaratory judgment Elections, to note that at 554- provides equitable relief, at statute itself for declaratory judgment grant least when “strong” 77. The the Allen reason which ed. interpretation Court offered of § for its 5’s necessary proper Further based or relief power three-judge limitation on the of local may declaratory judgment on a or decree recipro- support District Courts granted, be after reasonable notice cal limitation on the of this court. party hearing, against adverse whose that, The Allen Court noted whereas suits judg- rights have been such determined require change submission of an electoral ment. approval brought by ag- will often be 2202(1970). § U.S.C. grieved private might greatly be citizens who Voting Rights by having 76. The fact Act does burdened to come to the District explicitly empower bring suit, court this issue states Columbia to who injunctions private parties bring declaratory judgment the motion of must actions can voiding past implementation practices litigating afford the costs of here. procedures ap- already private which have failed to obtain If citizen has proval declaratory an does not constitute such intervened in a state-initiated Congress explicitly judgment court, au- indication. did not action it would before this injunctions grant thorize to enter such be in- ridiculous for us to refuse to yet private parties, junction on the motion of the Su- because it less of a been Though However, we believe we do have think obtained.79 the local jurisdiction familiarity to enforce the direct com District Court’s “with the by enjoining mand of the an nuances of the local situation” is as rele- Perkins; nexation order that councilmanic elec vant here no we are tions within Richmond’s old boundaries more aware in our case of these nuances immediately held, Supreme can be we nonetheless in Perkins. than was the Court doing refrain restraint from so. Our local District can better bal- factors, including from derives the same considerations ance all relevant our suspect grant ultimately underlay declaratory which we refusal deciding judgment, hesitancy the Beer I court’s decision: order whether “to become involved in the intricacies of de-annexation. * * * redistricting local above, noted As intervenor Holt * * * to take over the traditional re already filed the District Court sponsibility of a local court to resolve Virginia the Eastern District of an ac- questions conveniently litigable more be seeking judgment tion the annex- I, fore its swpra, bench.” Beer F. ation was without effect lack of Supp. at 362. prior approval by General Proceedings or this court. in that ac- particularly We are influenced stayed pending tion have been decision handling Court’s remedi- of the why perceive in this case. We no reason Matthews, supra. al issue in Perkins v. repair Holt cannot to the District Court Though the Perkins Court held that Virginia only fair, and obtain not but Canton, Mississippi had violated Section fully informed, also more consideration allowing by5 annexed citizens to vote in request of his for de-annexation. obtaining its 1969 without elections prior approval totally point, court or the It should this clear Attorney General, however, the Court refused to that our refusal to order de-an- set aside the 1969 elections and nexation and order immediate new elections immediate new elections within does not Canton’s mean that Richmond is free to old boundaries. The Court hold expanded instead re- more elections within its three-judge manded the case to the local boundaries. Because of our denial of Court, emphasizing sought, since the local court was “more familiar with continues be restrained holding the nuances of the Section 5 from local situation than elections we,” question residing are appropriate “the individuals within the remedy permitted partici- annexed area are determine, for that court to * * pate. the first instance *.”78 Perkins involved review local District Court’s application judg- The require failure to Canton to submit ment is denied. changed procedures approval, and JONES, Judge: WILLIAM B. Supreme suggested Court ordering case for new elections old under I concur in the result as well as in . procedures stronger if, Judge would be Wright’s Parts I and II opin- case, approval sought our and not ion. I dissent from Part III of that requested burden on him refraining to have in a lo- the Court’s stated reason for is in cal District Court. neither case relevant here. In Allen the coverage ques- Court stressed that 5“§ 78. 400 U.S. both Allen v. State complex tions involve im- [d] issues first Elections, Board of Geor- pression.” Georgia at 572. And in U.S. gia v. United states the Court noted that the elections had been practices had also held elections under new disputed proce- conducted under new procedures respect with- stay dures reason of its own order. obtaining requisite prior approval. out ordering refrained from prac- immediate new elections the old 79. 400 U.S. at 396-397. procedures However, tices in each case. that this Court opinion states

jurisdiction the direct com- “to enforce enjoining the an-

mand councilmanic elec- in order that

nexation old boundaries within Richmond’s

tions ** immediately held can

BEN O'CALLAGHAN COMPANY al., Defendants

Helen et SCHMINCKE Plaintiffs, ‍‌‌‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌‌​‌‌​‌​​‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​‌​‌​​‌‌‌​​‌​‌‌​​​​‍Third-Party Acquisitions, Arlen

Bruce R. DAVIS and Third-Party corporation, Inc., a

Defendants. A. No. 18811.

Civ. Court, States District Georgia, D.N.

Atlanta Division.

June

Case Details

Case Name: City of Richmond, Virginia v. United States

Court Name: District Court, District of Columbia

Date Published: May 29, 1974

Citation: 376 F. Supp. 1344

Docket Number: Civ. A. 1718-72

Court Abbreviation: D.D.C.