Moore v. LEFLORE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COM'RS, GC 71-84-K.
| Decision Date | 04 June 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. GC 71-84-K.,GC 71-84-K. |
| Citation | 361 F. Supp. 609 |
| Parties | James MOORE et al., Plaintiffs, v. LEFLORE COUNTY BOARD OF ELECTION COMMISSIONERS et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi |
David M. Lipman, Oxford, Miss., Frank R. Parker, Jackson, Miss., Johnnie E. Walls, Jr., Greenwood, Miss., for plaintiffs.
R. C. McBee, Greenwood, Miss., for defendant Board of Supervisors; James W. Burgoon, Jr., Greenwood, Miss., for defendants' dissenting supervisors.
The court on May 11, 1973, conducted an evidentiary hearing on the plan submitted by the special master for the redistricting of supervisors' districts of Leflore County, Mississippi, matters related thereto, and objections filed both by the defendant Board of Supervisors and the plaintiffs. Two dissenting supervisors, Robert L. Kyle and Ray Tribble, concurred in the report. Following the introduction of evidence, oral and documentary, and arguments of counsel, the court now withdraws its bench rulings made orally at the conclusion of trial and makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law.1
1. The redistricting plan devised by Hoyt T. Holland, Jr., Special Master heretofore appointed by this court, divides the total population of Leflore County (42,111 by the 1970 U. S. Census) into 5 almost equal portions. When compared to an "ideal" of 8,422.2 persons ( 1/5 th of whole), the districts are structured as follows:
District % Variance
Number Population % of Total From Ideal
1 8,470 20.11 +0.57
2 8,492 20.17 +0.83
3 8,384 19.91 -0.45
4 8,415 19.98 -0.09
5 8,350 19.83 -0.86
______ ______
42,111 100.00
2. Having thus achieved equality of population as closely as possible, the master also equalized as nearly as practicable under the circumstances such subsidiary factors as road and bridge mileage and land area, assigning to each district substantial numbers of both urban and rural residents. With precise population equality as the primary goal and allocation of substantially equal road and bridge mileage and land area as secondary considerations, the master caused to be split only a minimal number of enumeration districts; and whenever enumeration districts were split, he obtained census office separations to assure accuracy of ascertaining population thus affected. In some split enumeration districts, only territory and not people were involved; in another case an enumeration district was split to provide an appropriate polling place. Accuracy in counting population was, however, maintained in dividing the enumeration districts determined to be necessary to accomplish proper redistricting.
3. To the maximum extent possible, the new district lines follow either natural boundaries such as rivers and bayous, or man-made boundaries like highways and roads, or other well known landmarks as section lines traditionally used to mark beat boundaries. The boundaries utilized to form the new districts are sensible, do not confuse, and may be readily understood by persons residing within the affected areas. Obviously, in dealing with a county of the configuration of Leflore County and with its population center contained in a single city, Greenwood, which is situated near the county's eastern boundary, maximum compactness could not be achieved for the newly formed districts. Yet, the master's utilization of a corridor into Greenwood from each rural land mass was altogether proper and rational, especially to achieve a division of population and approximate equalization of road mileage and land area. Criticism has been chiefly directed at proposed District 1, which is virtually compact except for the long finger or corridor which extends into North Greenwood. To a lesser extent the same observation may be made of other districts, particularly Districts 3 and 4, while District 5 has marked irregularities on the south boundary due largely to the configuration of the county line. Even so, the evidence supports a conclusion that the lines of all districts are well within the bounds of reasonable discretion and do not offend good planning. The criticism that some districts are not compact because of relatively lengthy perimeters is without factual or logical support, considering the physical conditions that prevail. The districts are indeed as reasonably compact and convenient as practicable for them to be made and still accomplish legitimate planning objectives for Leflore County. Moreover, the district lines are in every case contiguous and are reasonably symmetrical.
4. The road mileages as ascertained by the special master are reliably accurate. He has accounted for both paved and unpaved roads, and to an extent considered traffic counts. The road compilations disclosed in his report were made after conferring at length with the county engineer. No evidence has been submitted which substantially contradicts the accuracy or reliability of the data compiled by the master respecting road and bridge mileages and land area. From the standpoint of considering a supervisor's responsibility under state law and practice, all those obligations and responsibilities which the supervisor primarily owes to the district in which he resides and from which he was elected are, by the plan, evenly or as near evenly distributed as possible among the five supervisors.
5. The special master's plan for county redistricting, devised to achieve population equality and approximate equalization of road and bridge mileage and land area, was structured without regard to the race or political affiliations of the county's residents. Persons allocated to each of the five districts were assigned logically by the location of their places of residence, and generally placed in a district by a rule of proximity. Thus, race was wholly disregarded as a factor in fashioning district lines. The master, having first structured as heretofore outlined the proposed district lines, then ascertained the racial distribution of the general population and voting age population of each new district. Also, he determined from the best available information the racial distribution of those persons who are presently registered voters in each such district. Accordingly, the data thus ascertained consist of the following facts:
(a) The racial distribution of the population is:
District
Number White % Non-white % Total
1 6331 75 2139 25 8470
2 3306 39 5186 61 8492
3 2742 33 5642 67 8384
4 3043 36 5372 64 8415
5 2128 25 6222 75 8350
_____ __ _____ __ _____
17550 42 24561 58 42111
(b) The racial distribution of the voting age population is:
District
Number White % Non-white % Total
1 4278 81 994 19 5272
2 2191 45 2667 55 4858
3 1930 38 3099 62 5029
4 2019 41 2927 59 4946
5 1399 30 3282 70 4681
_____ __ _____ __ _____
11817 48 12969 52 24786
(c) The racial distribution of presently registered voters is substantially thus:
District
Number White % Non-white % Total
1 4170 88 569 12 4739
2 1779 49 1833 51 3612
3 1551 42 2156 58 3707
4 1713 50 1736 50 3449
5 1172 34 2276 66 3448
_____ __ ____ __ _____
10385 55 8570 45 18955
6. Analyzing the above figures, the court rejects the complaint that including in District 1 that portion of North Greenwood bounded on the south and east by the Yazoo River and populated almost exclusively by white persons results in an impermissible racial imbalance. It was wholly logical for that portion of North Greenwood to be brought into District 1 if the district was to be served with a corridor into the metropolitan center, a plain necessity for achieving population equality. Although new District 1 has a white majority of 75%, a voting age population majority of 81%, and a registered white voter majority of 88%, almost the direct reverse obtains in District 5. Non-whites in District 5 have a 75% population majority, a 70% voting age population majority and a 66% registered voter majority. As in the case of North Greenwood concerning District 1, a large portion of Southeast Greenwood populated by blacks was brought into District 5 since that area directly lay within the path of the corridor extended into...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reese v. Dallas County, Alabama
...of a subdistrict from electing representatives living in their own area is undeniably an injury. See Moore v. Leflore County Bd. of Election Com'rs, N.D.Miss., 1973, 361 F.Supp. 609, 613, aff'd, 5 Cir., 1974, 502 F.2d Dallas County has a subdistrict residency requirement, but it falls upon ......
-
Gary W. v. State of La.
...Aff'd, 512 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1975); Davis v. Watkins, 384 F.Supp. 1196 (N.D.Ohio 1974); Moore v. Leflore County Board of Election Commissioners, 361 F.Supp. 609 (N.D.Miss.1973), Aff'd, 502 F.2d 621 (5th Cir. 1974); Pennsylvania Ass'n for Retarded Children v. Pennsylvania, 334 F.Supp. 1257 (E......
-
Moore v. Leflore County Bd. of Election Com'rs, 73-3090
...satisfied constitutional requirements and ordered it implemented immediately in district elections. Moore v. Leflore County Board of Election Commissioners, 361 F.Supp. 609 (D.C.1973). A majority of the Board appealed, and plaintiffs cross appealed. A two member minority of the Board are ap......
-
Brown v. Dean, Civ. A. No. 82-0701.
...James v. Humphreys County Board of Election Commissioners, 384 F.Supp. 114, 132 (N.D.Miss. 1974); Moore v. LeFlore County Board of Election Commissioners, 361 F.Supp. 609 (N.D.Miss.1973). In light of these authorities and the evidence introduced, the Court finds that plaintiff has sustained......