Roe v. Mobile County Appointing Bd.
| Decision Date | 29 September 1995 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 94-0085-AH-S. |
| Citation | 904 F. Supp. 1315 |
| Parties | Larry ROE, Perry O. Hooper, Sr., James D. Martin, and Willie J. Williams, Individually and on Behalf of a Class of Persons, Plaintiffs, v. MOBILE COUNTY APPOINTING, BOARD, Honorable Lionel W. Noonan, Wilcox County Appointing Board, Honorable Jerry Boggan, As Representatives of Those Persons Who are Designated by Alabama State Law as the Appointing Boards in Each of Alabama's Counties and Those Persons Who Are Designated by Law to Maintain the Possession and Security of All Materials Relating to the November 8, 1994 General Election; James Bennett, in His Official Capacity as Secretary of State of the State of Alabama; State of Alabama, By and Through its Attorney General, Jeff Sessions; Clarence T. Hellums, Jr., a Representative of a Class of Persons who sought to have their ballots counted in the November 8, 1994, General Election; et al., Defendants, Lucille Baxley, Defendant-Intervenor. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Alabama |
Albert L. Jordan, B. Glenn Murdock, Birmingham, AL, Joseph S. Johnston, J. Michael Druhan, Jr., Mobile, AL, Algert S. Agricola, Jr., Montgomery, AL, for plaintiffs.
William H. Pryor, Jr., Montgomery, AL, for State.
Joe R. Whatley, Jr., Sam Heldman, Birmingham, AL, Russell Jackson Drake, Tuscaloosa, AL, M. Clay Alspaugh, Birmingham, AL, for defendants.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit remanded this action to this Court for a trial on the merits. Roe v. State of Ala. by and through Evans, 52 F.3d 300 (11th Cir.1995). Pursuant to the remand of the Eleventh Circuit, this Court held a bench trial of this action beginning on September 18, 1995 and ending on September 20, 1995. Based on the evidence introduced at the temporary restraining order hearing (November 17, 1994), the preliminary injunction hearing (December 5, 1994), and at the trial, the Court makes the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.1
The Eleventh Circuit ordered this Court to make findings of fact on seventeen issues. Roe, 52 F.3d at 302-303.
The parties have stipulated to findings of fact for several of the issues. The "Agreed Facts" section of the Joint Pretrial Document list the stipulated findings. Joint Pretrial Document, pp. 9-12. This Court adopts the agreed facts as the findings of the Court. Said findings supply the answers to the following issues raised by the Eleventh Circuit:
The Eleventh Circuit ordered the Court to make Findings of Fact on six issues that address the practice of the sixty-seven counties with respect to contested ballots prior to the November 8, 1994 election. See Roe, 52 F.3d at 302 (issues 1-6). The Court makes the following Findings of Fact with regard to the practice in Alabama Counties prior to the November 8 election.4
In support of their contention that the regular practice of Alabama counties prior to the November 8 election was to exclude contested absentee ballots, Plaintiffs5 offered the answers to the interrogatories propounded by this Court6 and the testimony of voting officials for many of the counties of Alabama, both live7 and by deposition.
Defendant Hellums Class (formerly Davis Class) stipulated to the admissibility of the answers to the interrogatories for twenty-four counties.8 The twenty-four counties are: Barbour (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.103), Bullock (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.106), Butler (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.107), Chilton (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.), Clarke (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.113), Cleburne (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.115), Coffee (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.116), Conecuh (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.118), Crenshaw (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.121), Cullman (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.122), Dallas (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.124), Dekalb (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.125), Geneva (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.131), Greene (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.132), Lee (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.141), Limestone (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.142), Lowndes (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.143), Madison (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.145), Mobile (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.149), Monroe (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.150), Morgan (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.152), Pickens (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.154), Russell (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.157), Shelby (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.159), and Walker (Plaintiffs' Exh. 16.164). The Court has reviewed these counties' answers to the interrogatories and, based on those answers, the Court makes the following findings:
1. The extent to which, if at all, ballots such as the ballots at issue in this case were regularly excluded from the vote count in Alabama counties prior to the November 8 election. Roe, 52 F.3d at 302.
The Court FINDS that for the above-listed, twenty-four counties the regular practice prior to the November 8 election was TO EXCLUDE ballots such as the contested absentee ballots.
8. Whether county voting officials charged with running the elections instructed prospective voters that ballots such as the contested absentee ballots might be counted and, if so, the extent of this practice on the part of county voting officials. Id.
The Court FINDS that NO county voting official charged with running the election in the above-listed, twenty-four counties instructed prospective voters that ballots such as the contested absentee ballots might be counted.
16. Whether any of the vote totals initially certified from any county contained any contested absentee ballots. Id. at 303.
The Court FINDS none of the vote totals initially certified from the above-listed, twenty-four counties contained any contested absentee ballots.
Defendant Hellums contested the evidence presented by Plaintiffs with regard to the remaining forty-three counties. Defendant Hellums raised the following general objections to the remaining answers to interrogatories: hearsay and not the best evidence. The Court overruled the Hellums objections to all of the answers except for the answers submitted on behalf of Sumter County. The Court did sustain some objections to the answers to certain questions submitted by some of the counties. However, the majority of the interrogatories were admitted in their entirety. The Court FINDS that such interrogatories are exceptions to the hearsay rule under Rule 803(24). The Court FINDS that the answers have "equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness" and that Plaintiffs introduced the answers as evidence of a material fact, the answers are more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence, and the general purposes of the Federal Rules of Evidence will best be served by the admission of the answers. The record is clear that Defendant Hellums contends that the best evidence to answer the Eleventh...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ala. State Conference of N.A. for Advancement of Colored People v. Merrill
...district court found for the Republican challenger, and that decision was affirmed.Page 144 See Roe v. Mobile Cty. Appointing Bd., 904 F. Supp. 1315, 1336 (S.D. Ala.), aff'd sub nom. Roe v. Alabama, 68 F.3d 404 (11th Cir. 1995). That is how Hooper ended up winning the election, but the issu......
-
Hornsby v. Sessions
...of the State of Alabama that in any way conflict with the ruling of this Court are null and void and of no effect." Roe v. Alabama, 904 F.Supp. 1315, 1336 (S.D.Ala.), aff'd, 68 F.3d 404 (11th Cir.1995). On October 20, 1995, Hooper was certified as the winner of the election for Chief Justic......
- Palm v. US
-
The Democracy Canon.
...Id. at 1225. (268.) Id. at 1226. (269.) Roe v. Alabama, 52 F.3d 300 (11th Cir. 1995). (270.) Roe v. Mobile County Appointing Bd., 904 F. Supp. 1315, 1335 (S.D. Ala. (271.) Roe v. Alabama, 68 F.3d 404, 407-08 (11th Cir. 1995). For more context on the case, see Edward Felsenthal, Justice Dela......