Ellis v. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY
| Decision Date | 03 May 1967 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 14555. |
| Citation | 267 F. Supp. 263 |
| Parties | Frank J. ELLIS, in his own right and on Behalf of numerous other voters of Baltimore City who are similarly situated, v. MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL OF BALTIMORE CITY and Board of Supervisors of Elections for Baltimore City. Cross Claim of Lawrence S. Best, Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Archie D. Williams, Baltimore, Md., for plaintiff.
Ambrose T. Hartman, Deputy City Sol., Baltimore, Md., for Mayor & City Council.
Edward L. Blanton, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Baltimore, Md., for Supervisors of Elections.
Leon H. A. Pierson, Baltimore, Md., for Best, Intervenor.
This action has run an unusual and tortuous course. Its history through October 1965 is set out in the opinion which Judge Winter wrote for this Court, 234 F.Supp. 945 (1964), and in the opinion of the Fourth Circuit, 352 F.2d 123 (1965).
The original complaint filed in April 1963 challenged on equal protection grounds (one man, one vote) the then existing apportionment of City Councilmen, as prescribed by section 16 of the Charter and Public Local Laws of Baltimore City (1949 ed.). That apportionment will be referred to in this opinion as the Old Plan.
Also in April 1963, a Commission known as the Bard Commission submitted a proposed redistricting plan, which was called Plan X. The City Council proposed, by Resolution No. 9, a modified version of that plan, which became known as Modified Plan X, to be submitted to the voters at the 1964 election.
Plaintiff's second amended complaint challenged both the Old Plan and Modified Plan X, on equal protection (one man, one vote) grounds. This Court concluded that both the Old Plan and Modified Plan X violated that principle and, for reasons set out in Judge Winter's opinion, enjoined the holding of any further elections under the Old Plan, and enjoined the submission of Resolution No. 9 (Modified Plan X) to the voters at the November 1964 election. Judge Winter's opinion concluded:
234 F.Supp. at 959.1
The Fourth Circuit affirmed and remanded the case to this Court to exercise its retained jurisdiction. 352 F.2d 123, 130.
Early in 1966, the Bard Commission reported another reapportionment plan (referred to herein as the Bard Plan) which was never adopted by the City Council.
In May 1966 the City Council proposed, by Resolution No. 1652, a reapportionment plan, known as the Best Plan, named for its sponsor, Councilman Lawrence S. Best, which was submitted to the voters at the November 1966 election.
In July 1966, pursuant to Article XI-A of the Constitution of Maryland, more than 10,000 registered voters of the City of Baltimore duly filed a petition proposing amendments to the Charter, embodying a redistricting plan which came to be known as the Modified Bard Plan. That plan was also submitted to the voters in the November 1966 election.
Meanwhile, plaintiff had filed a petition for further relief, and after sundry mesne proceedings filed an amended petition, in which he attacked both Resolution 1652 (the Best Plan) and the Petition of Registered Voters (the Modified Bard Plan) on grounds which are no longer material, since he dismissed all his claims for relief at the hearing on May 1, 1967.
In August 1966, Councilman Best was granted leave to intervene as a party defendant in order that he might defend the constitutionality of the Best Plan. The Court concluded, however, that no trial of the pending issues should be held before the November 1966 election.
At that election the voters rejected Resolution No. 1652 (the Best Plan) and adopted the Amendment proposed by the Petition of Registered Voters (the Modified Bard Plan).
At the hearing on the amended cross-claim held on May 1, 1967, a stipulation of facts and a number of exhibits were filed, on which all parties submitted their case.2 The stipulated facts do not support the allegation of the amended cross-claim, quoted above.
The Health Department of Baltimore City reports that as of April 27, 1967, the total population of Baltimore City is about 914,000, consisting of 538,000 whites (59%) and 376,000 non-whites (41%). The percentage of registered voters as of March 23, 1967, is 65% white, 35% non-white.
The voter registration figures under the Old Plan (under which the present City Council was elected in 1963), using March 1967 registration figures, essentially the same as the 1966 figures, show:
Total
Population
White Non-White Total 1960
District Registrants Registrants Registrants % White % Non-White Census
First 33,861 3,774 37,635 90% 10% 94,761
Second 15,355 14,870 30,225 50.8% 49.2% 84,213
Third 117,668 21,451 139,119 84.6% 15.4% 278,759
Fourth 13,776 33,921 47,697 28.8% 71.2% 118,339
Fifth 52,922 54,882 107,804 49.4% 50.6% 223,417
Sixth 33,576 13,687 47,262 71.4% 28.6% 139,535
Under the Old Plan the Third and Fifth Districts had four Councilmen, the other Districts three. Obviously, a large number of precincts had to be transferred from one district to another in order to meet the one man, one vote principle if the district system was to be retained and the Council was to be kept to a reasonable size. Those who proposed the Modified Bard Plan called for six approximately equal districts, each with three Councilmen. That result could not have been accomplished without altering in some way the racial composition of the districts, since every transfer of a precinct from one district to another alters the ratio in some way. The Modified Bard Plan, adopted by the voters in November 1966, solved the problems fairly. Its figures show:
Total
Population
White Non-White Total 1960
District Registrants Registrants Registrants % White % Non-White Census
First 54,347 7,061 61,408 88.5% 11.5% 158,429
Second 28,035 33,656 61,691 45.7% 54.3% 163,985
Third 92,156 660 92,816 92.8% 7.2% 158,086
Fourth 13,353 51,489 64,842 20.5% 79.5% 155,692
Fifth 48,726 28,899 77,625 63% 37% 151,212
Sixth 30,540 20,803 51,343 59.5% 40.5% 151,620
In short, the Old Plan districts had large white majorities of registered voters in three districts, a large non-white majority in one, with two districts about even. Under the Modified Bard Plan, the three old districts with large white majorities still have large white majorities, and the one old district with a large non-white majority still has a large non-white majority. The Plan results in a white majority in one of the even districts and a non-white majority in the other. In view of the population ratio (59-41) and the ratio of registered voters (65-35), any other result than a white majority in four districts and a non-white majority in two would have been subject to serious question.
There is no geographical gerrymandering. The several districts are compact. The only contention...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dobson v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, Civ. No. 71-772.
...Winter. The Fourth Circuit affirmed. 352 F.2d 123 (4th Cir. 1965). A later plan was upheld by Judge Thomsen in Ellis v. Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City, 267 F.Supp. 263 (D. Md.1967). For a better understanding of the issues presented in this case, particular events leading up to th......
-
Plastic Suppliers Inc v. Cenveo Inc, Civ. Action No. 3:10-CV-0512 (TJM/DEP)
... ... plants, including one located in Jersey City, New Jersey. 3 In or about the summer of 2009 ... ...