*1 H61 disagree majority’s with the I continue al., Plaintiffs, not on a RYBICKI, case was tried Chester J. et
view segrega- racial theory of unconstitutional v. the matter was is true that tion. While it BOARD OF ELECTIONS STATE there can be no pleadings, from the unclear ILLINOIS, the et OF STATE OF the during trial doubt that al., Defendants. stigma result- segregation, and racial al., DelVALLE, Plaintiffs, Miguel et wall, clearly presented. I ing from the Crosby plain- motion of the would allow the v. conform complaint tiffs to amend The STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS proof. ILLINOIS, et STATE OF OF al., I the amendment Defendants. fail to see how change in Rights requires any Act Voting CROSBY, Plaintiffs, al., Bruce et opin- aрproved in its majority long as January ion of BOARD as one The STATE OF ELECTIONS to see this case majority continues ILLINOIS, et OF STATE OF issue, I involving no constitutional believe al., Defendants. evidentiary hearing will further that a essentially unproductive. “results” of Nos. 81 C 6052 and 81 C me map seem to to have been present C 6093. majority opinion fully analyzed by the in its United District States acceptable.3 January and found Illinois, N.D. E.D. agree majority that no I with the do Sept. 27, 1983. argument necessary regarding
further already has taken. been evidence agree I not retain Finally, we should reap- until the next
jurisdiction in this ease
portiоnment. To that extent I concur majority opinion. certainly majority frequently include “re- refers to "the ‘results circumstances 3. The Voting Rights redistricting, Act.” do not test’ of amended sults” of but the results are providing not read the amendment with the test. The test is totali- coterminous phrase circumstances, used to test. The define test "results" ty it seems to me that the protected group determining whether a has already exhaustively analyzed opportunity than other members “less circumstances in its political process participate electoratе analy- I do with that 1982. While not representatives elect of their choice" is and to sis, cursory. my it was criticism totality totality "the circumstances." The *2 sion to new in submit district lines several areas. January,
Since the Commission and the Crosby plaintiffs together have worked agreement an on reach the new We lines.1 us Agree- have before now Settlement ment.2 reviewing
After
Map
Settlement
(which
Opinion),
is attached to this
find
we
there has
a significant moving
been
away from coincidence of black-white
and
“boundaries”
the district
of dis-
lines
very high
tricts with a
percentage of
blacks.
example,
For
the lines of house
changed substantially
district 23 have
and
percentages
of blacks in the district has
been
Similarly,
reduced from
94% 84%.
in house district 24
percentage
CUDAHY,
blacks has been reduced
Judge,
Before
from
Circuit
GRA-
96% 89%
DY,
changes
with some moderate
in
Judge
BUA,
the district
District
and
District
boundary
lines. The western
of house dis-
Judge.
unchanged,
trict was left
expected
as we
be,
might
in order to maintain the black
RYBICKI III
population
in
senate district 18.
CUDAHY,
Judge.
Circuit
II at 1157-1158.
Finally,
Rybicki
See
boundaries
house district 31 were
This is the
and
think
chap
third
we
final
changed although
population
percent-
ter of this court’s review of Illinois’ 1981
ages remained the
large
same. All told a
legislative redistrieting.
Opin
state
In our
number of census tracts were affected and
20, 1983,
amended,
ion of
as
we
step
we think a substantial
has been taken.
Crosby
reevaluated
com
Therefore,
since
plaints about the South Side district
lines
plaintiffs
DelValle
and the defendants have
particularly
light
of the 1982 amend
differences,
settled their
hereby
incor-
Rybicki
Voting
ments
Rights
Act.
porate
Agreement
the Settlement
into the
Elections,
v. State Boаrd
F.Supp.
plan
redistricting
ordered
this
court
(N.D.Ill.
No. 81
1983)
C 6030
Jan.
January 12, 1982.3-
II”).
(“Rybicki
reading
Based on our
Act,
August 18,
the amended
we asked the Commis DATED:
12, 1983,
During
period,
J.,
1.
Dissenting opinion Grady,
Harold
trict lines. See
Washington
Chicago,
Mayor
was elected
N.D.IH.Jan.
F.Supp.
1082 at 1140-
first black
hold the
1142.
office.
We continue to
approach
believe this
and,
misguided
they point
out in their mo-
emphatically
Judge
We
2.
do not
Gra-
tion,
help Crosby plaintiffs
would be
no
dy's
only
evaluation
aof
settlement reached
quest
legislative representation.
for fair
vigorous
persistent
after the
efforts of сoun-
Judge Grady's
alsoWe
think that
comments on
trying
arguing
complex
sel
case and
attorneys’
premature
and irrelevant to
pursuing
settlement
in the face of serious
the merits of
and that
obstacles.
generally
counsel on both sides have
gent
dili-
been
presenting
settling
and effective in
Grady,
Judge
response
3.
ato motion of the
complex
issues in
criticisms,
Crosby plaintiffs protesting his
7, 1983,
August
revised
dissent
On October
his
and sub-
for the
dissent,
expanded
stituted a
somewhat
27,
dated
filed a
defendant
motion,
September
appears
Gra-
further
Motion,”
denominated a “Joint Post-Trial
dy
anything
response
still
Judge Grady’s
be dissatisfied with
less
revised
dissent,
attempted
drawing
September
than an
"color-blind"
of dis-
filed
verified
slight
losing
risk of
preme
DISSENT TO CONSENT
AMENDED
gained in this
It is
they
court.3
clear
DATED
AUGUST
DECREE
plaintiffs’ attorneys
to me that
do
have
GRADY,
Judge.
District
independent understanding of the ef-
sign
the consent
and decline
dissent
boundary
new
lines
fects
Despite
changes,
minor
some
decree.
rely,
continue to
*3
intact,
substantially
and
remains
racial wall
throughout
litigation, upon
the attor-
impermissi-
by the
it is still motivated
same
ney for
Commission
the
to advise them
prompted my dis-
ble considerations which
demographics
the
concerning the
of
12,
January
1982.
the
of
sent from
decision
hearing
proposed
At the
consent
decree,
now
By
of this consent
it is
virtue
27,1983,
May
the
decree which
held
voting district
of this Circuit that
law
attorneys
Crosby plaintiffs
for the
indeed,
be
may
lines
be
should
maps
explain
showing the
unable to
drawn—
preferences
suit
of whites
drawn—to
changes
rely upon
latest
and had
wish to associate with blacks
who do not
interpret
who
politicians
to accommodate black
them.
predominantly
dis-
desire
run in
black
My
dissatisfaction with the sеttlement
justifica-
the primary
tricts.1 These were
heightened by the
fact
it includes not
at the trial
tions of the racial wall advanced
just
impor
the merits of the case
in
majority
the deci-
approved by
question
plaintiffs’ attorneys
of
tant
12,
Today’s majori-
January
1982.2
sion of
possible
appearance
as well. The
of a
recent revi-
ty opinion states that
trade-off is hard to avoid in those circum
incorpo-
plan which are
the court
sions of
stances, and, for that
reason
courts
decree,
“sig-
there is a
rated in the consent
repeatedly
that any
have
admonished
ef
of
moving away of the coincidence
nificant
negotiate
postponed
fees should
fort
be
district
black-white ‘boundaries’
judicial
of the merits.
until after
resolution
high percent-
a very
lines of districts with
Hampshire Department
New
White v.
See
Assuming that to
true
age of
be
blacks.”
445,
Employment Security, 455 U.S.
of
discussion,
a
purposes of
there is still
for
453-54,
15,
1162, 1167-68,
102
n.
n.
S.Ct.
incidence of
“black-white
substantial
(simultaneous
15,
(1982)
71
325
ne
L.Ed.2d
wall)
(i.e., the
to be
racial
boundaries”
liability “may
gotiation
fees and
raise
over
map.
found in the revised
plaintiff’s
issues for a
at
difficult ethical
”);
Anderson,
attorneys
torney
Parker v.
and their
...
A),
have,
1204,
(5th
view,
they had a F.2d
Cir. Unit
cert.
my
settled a case
—
-,
63,
denied,
winning in
U.S.
103 S.Ct.
chance of
the Su-
substantial
1127,
(p.
points
n.
Motion,
out
attorneys,
majority
Joint
filed
these
Post-Trial
As
1.
black,
1),
Washington, a
was elected
Harold
their account of the events involved
details
Mayor
mayor
Chicago April
Wash-
Agreement.
1983.
reaching
an ef-
the Settlement
ington’s
attorneys
election seems not inconsistent with
partici-
fort to be fair to the various
1982,
12,
and,
my January
expressed
dissent
view
pating
in the lawsuit
the settlement
1138-1140)
quota-based
(pp.
effect that
Crosby plain-
particular, to the
for
unconstitutional,
are
districts
tiffs,
Mo-
have attached this Joint Post-Trial
unnecessary.
tion,
events,
containing
an
version
Appendix
opinion.
pp.
Majority opinion
We
do not believe that
p.
opinion,
dissenting
See also
1114-1115.
Grady’s
fact
revised dissent raises
issues of
n. 2.
hearings
require
to determine
us to hold
surrounding the
the circumstances
important
for ourselves
is not
It is
to note
one
Agreement.
near-hopeless
litigant
with
Settlement
We are satisfied
situations where
Motion,
persuade
thе Joint Post-Trial
court to take
the recitations of
must
that overburdened
We,
certiorari;
Appendix
opinion.
appeal by way
as an
to this
is instead one
attached
course,
Agree-
approved
appeal
Settlement
cases
an
would be
have
of those rare
where
Therefore,
right.
complete
our
satisfac-
there is little doubt
ment and
indicated
reiterate,
question
emphasis,
Supreme
our
Court would address the
tion
it. We
approval
the racial wall.
and satisfaction.
(1982);
L.Ed.2d 65
pay
Obin
Dist. No.
has
that defendants will
Assoc, Mаchinists,
International
strong
his fees
so to
motive
conduct
(8th
582-83
F.2d
n. 10
Cir. himself that
defendants will not
1981) (“This
may
situation
raise a serious
oppose
or
the amount for which he ulti
ethical concern ... because counsel would mately applies
fee”);
as a
Norman v.
placed
position
of negotiating
a McKee,
F.Supp.
(N.D.Cal.1968),
ultimately
pocket
destined
his
at the
(9th Cir.1979).
aff'd,
APPENDIX IN THE UNITED DISTRICT STATES COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS DIVISION
EASTERN CROSBY, al., ) et BRUCE No. 81 C 6093 ), Plaintiffs, ) (Consolidated with ) Case Nos. 81 C 6052 and ) 6030) 81 C ) ) Cudahy THE STATE OF Hon. Richard D. BOARD ELECTIONS ILLINOIS, ) OF THE OF Grady STATE Hon. John F. al., ) et Hon. Nicholas J. Bua ) Defendants. just
JOINT POST-TRIAL MOTION the merits of the case but important question attor- Plaintiff, al., Crosby, by Bruce et their neys’ appearance as well. counsel, Sullivan, Jeffrey Thomas P. D. possible trade-off is hard to avoid Block, Moseley Colman and Jenner & Carol circumstances, and, for that rea- Newhouse, Jr., Braun Richard H. son, repeatedly the courts have admon- defendant, Legislative Redistricting negotiate ished that effort Commission, al., counsel, by et Wil- postponed judi- fees should be until after Harte, jointly J. move this liam Court for cial resolution of the merits. entry granting of an order the follow- Judge goes Grady then on to outline (a) ing Judge relief: the modification of sequence he calls the “unfortunate” Grady’s dissenting opinion amended to re- leading up events settlement of relating negotiation flect facts litigation. Crosby litigation, and settlement of the “appearance possible of a trade-off” (b) entry by of an and order by Judge Grady repre- referred to does not majority specifically finding Cоurt’s “reality” sent the of what occurred. by negotiated the consent decree counsel in by Judge very insinuations Grady made are compliance case was in full done serious, wrong. law and the ethical standards of our profession. the Crosby plaintiffs Counsel for Legislative Redistricting defendant Pending motion, the resolution Grady that move, parties pursuant to Federal Rules of any trade-off was made attor- between 60(b), 59(a), 62(b) Procedure Civil and/or neys’ fees and the settlement of the merits consent decree entered case, of this the settlement August be arrested and ap- consent decree should not have been abeyance prejudice held so as not to proved the consent de- case, rights Rybicki cree should be vacated the Court at this appeal. desire take an should time. This matter warrants the attention *8 motion, support In of this counsel state all the members this Court. following: the below, 3. As demonstrated it never 1. In his Amended Dissent to the Con- the intent of for to in counsel either side August 1983, Judge Decree sent dated any way link a settlement the merits of Grady states: this case with a settlement of the attor- My the neys’ dissatisfaction with settlement is fees issues. Counsel for sides both heightened by legal principles the fact that it includes were mindful of the cited
H69 chambers, and Gra- Judges Bua arriving in Grady negotiated they by Judge they something when the that had dy indicated represent of this Bua indi- settlement case. Counsel say to counsel. to wanted change his to all unequivocally though might three members he cated that — post-trial case materials— reviewing that the merits of this were Court mind after the against the to prior any to discussion of attor- inclined rule strongly sеttled he was in- present proven neys’ issues. decided to had not Hispanics We because discrimination, Repub- against complete settlement tentional plaintiffs (wrongly, licans, Court because believed as it in favor of the black out) presen- was suf- a consolidated their evidence has turned he believed because the total and final discrimination. prove tation would facilitate to intentional ficient that, might he resolution of indicated while Judge Grady of the Judge Bua as to some differ Judge Grady outlined in his basically agreed with findings, he speсific dissenting he amended under- Follow- his conclusions. Judge Bua as to sequence of events. Be- stands remarks, encour- parties were ing these Judge Grady him did not have before cause try out by to work aged the Court facts, necessary all for counsel the liti- map that resolve settlement negotiations in describe settlement gation. by As this motion. reflected attached verifications, Jeffrey D. Colman and Wil- (c) suggestion, to the Court’s Pursuant Harte swear under oath that the liam J. in again participated settle- counsel once motion are true and facts contained plaintiffs Hispanic The negotiations. ment any If of this Court de- correct. member However, despite litigation. settled their evidentiary presentation, sires an counsel efforts, plaintiffs were significant black opportunity appear would welcome the Com- a settlement with unable to reach before the Court. mission. (a) negotiations in this (d) Following of Jan- the Court’s decision during case commenced the trial of this 12, 1982, plaintiffs defendants uary November, cause initial set- prepa- expended enormous effort an negotiаtions prompted by tlement were numerous post-trial motions and ration record, made off in open comments motions. support of those memoranda court, by Judges Grady. Bua and After peti- addition, filed fee plaintiffs’ counsel days trial, Judge several Bua indicated noted, which, Judge Grady has tions an off-the-record comment he was objected by Commission. aspects extremely by troubled certain (e) January On the Court is- presented by plaintiffs. evidence ruling post-trial its motions sued time, Judge At Grady indicated that he plaintiffs. filed too was troubled some of evidence transmitted the Court’s counsel As a these the case. result of com- (see 1) opinions clients Exhibit to their ments, stayed for counsel the Commission began proposed map. of a preparation compromise up night working pro- all posals presentation for to counsel for the (f) January through April From Hispanic plaintiffs. After black and settle- 14, 1983, sides counsel both devoted negotiations, proposals ment were re- mer- their attention to the resolution of the jected plaintiffs by the and were subse- 5, Appendix its of As the cause. Exhibit A quently defendants submitted to Plaintiffs’ Petition Consolidated Court as court exhibits. Attorneys^ Award and Costs re- .Fees (b) flects, discussions continued be- Settlement the Crosby no Crosby plaintiffs and the April tween the defend- spent any time between throughout 14,1983, working relating ants the course trial. matter Then, closing (On arguments, attorneys’ after fees. anticipation Upon to see counsel in chambers. of a settlement of asked *9 placed
City Chicago would have that back her exist- merits, Senator Earleen Collins into began prepare Mr. to Colman agreed that ing senatorial distriсt. was supplemental petition.) Between Janu- every make effort would to 14, ary 20 April and counsel for the that accommodate Senator Collins and plaintiffs and Commission worked Court, necessary, to seek go would to map proposals, various alternative met change in approval Court’s clients, with and communicated with map. participated and in numerous conversations opposing regard counsel with to the 27, 1983, (j) April May until From settlement of the merits of At this case. day agreement pro- and the settlement prior April 20, 1988, no timе did counsel posed presented consent decree were parties for these discuss with one another Court, (i) parties discussed how to any proposal relating to the settlement of (ii) change, whether facilitate Collins attorneys’ April fees issues. Prior to publica- the defendants would 20, 1983, only op- discussion between decisions, (iii) tion Court’s earlier of the posing relating attorneys’ counsel fees going whether the defendants were to seek was that up would be taken changes findings re- certain the Court’s only only agreement if and after аn was lating intentional discrimination. map. reached on a new presented was to this The issue Collins (g) map, ultimately new which was Judicial during the Circuit Seventh Court, approved by agreed to at reported session at in a court Conference Springfield, April Illinois 2,May West Hotel on the Ambassador Speaker Madigan, Newhouse, Mr. Ms. in a subsequently resolved and was Braun, Mr. Colman and Mr. Harte. Prior plain- to the satisfactory manner agreeing map, to this counsel for the remaining regard to the two tiffs. With Crosby plaintiffs consulted with every issues,” the Crosby “substantive legislator blaсk Chicago from leg- each the settle- paragraph one from withdrew islator —be “independent” or “ma- stated agreement ment vehemently objected to alternative chine”— publication agreed to the proposals map and endorsed the which was opinions and the Commission’s this Court’s subsequently presented to this Court. Ms. seek revisions of counsel decided not to Braun and Mr. Newhouse conditioned their 2.) (See Exhibit opinions. approval map on the concurrence of Mayor-elect Washington. Harold (k) Plaintiffs finalized a draft of their April Consolidated Fee Petition on (h) 17, 1983, On Sunday, April Mr. Col- (see 3). time, Exhibit At that discussions man, Ms. Braun Mr. Newhouse met parties between counsel for the with re- Mayor-elect Washington. Harold gard commenced—this was after map ultimately approved by the map. was reached on the new alternatives, well as various were shown to Mayor-elect and discussed with Wash- April On plaintiffs’ counsel sent ington, who approved map ultimately drafts of the petition consolidated to First approved by the Court. Assistant Attorney General Paul Biebel (i) day, April The next Mr. Cоl- and William J. Harte order to facilitate a man, Braun, Harte, Ms. Mayor-elect Mr. possible resolution of the attorneys’ fees Washington Speaker Madigan (See met in 4.) issues. Exhibit As noted in Mayor-elect Washington’s congressional letter, of- position was the plain- Chicago. meeting, fice in At this tiffs’ map counsel that if there were a settle- ultimately approved by (i) this Court was ment of the fee dis- issues counsel approved by present. forego cussed and all would petitioning multiplier for a greater than relating (ii) issue to the that was left 20% Mr. Newhouse meeting unresolved as of this related Ms. Braun request waive their for fees for proposed changes period subsequent West Side of time February, 1982. [In the Seventh redistricting enth Circuit attorneys’ fees issue great Several other ing awarded before the attorneys’ fees attorney for sued between attorney, import filing is multiplier Court on attached case. returned who discussions Circuit issues their redistricting also parties relative May April, hereto as prior to the interim its happened acknowledged 20% decision decision, copy Congressional 1983. in this meetings en- petitions cases Exhibit to be the Sev- hearing prevail- a to the case.] going best of his der set forth therein are 312/726-5015 Chicago, William 5533 South Cornell *10 Carol Moseley Braun Richard H. 5434 South Hyde Park Blvd. Chicago, Chicago, IL Jeffrey West oath, J. Harte Joint IL IL Washington Newhouse, states that D. knowledge. Post-Trial VERIFICATION Colman, St. Jr. true and correct to he has read the being Motion and the /s/ William J. Harte Defendants One duly attorneys sworn facts fore- for the un- Jeffrey /s/ D. Colman chronology outlined above sum- 5. issues in in which the the manner marizes me before SUBSCRIBED SWORN no time were settled. At case werе this October, day this 7 linked attorneys’ fees issues Lynne B. /s/ Braver in this issues the substantive Notary Public negotiated at a The settlement City in this and whites blacks time when personalities over the greatly divided VERIFICATION mayoral heated election. involved Harte, duly being sworn under William J. clients, incumbent dealt Counsel oath, foregoing that he has read the other in an effort states politicians and each that was fair this in a manner case resolve facts set Motion and the Joint Post-Trial people bring to- just and that would and correct to the forth therein true the sole divide them. With gеther —not knowledge. best of his Grady, everyone Judge exception J. Harte /s/ William regardless of race— we have whom dealt — gratitude for ef- expressed their me before and SWORN SUBSCRIBED achieved expended and results forts October, day trying extremely circumstances. under Lynne B. Braver /s/ litigation should settlement of Notary Public in the cloud enveloped not be correct, he charges. If Grady’s obligation set aside the has an wrong, he as we Decree. If Consent is, Judge Grady and this he know both acknowledge should Court’s negotiated in accord- settlement was and the ethical standards
ance with law profession.
of our
Respectfully submitted,
Thomas P. Jeffrey JENNER One IBM Plaza Chicago, 312/222-9350 D. IL & BLOCK Colman Sullivan /s/ Jeffrey D. One Plaintiffs Colman