United States v. State of Alabama

192 F. Supp. 677, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5164
CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Alabama
DecidedMarch 17, 1961
DocketCiv. A. 479-E
StatusPublished
Cited by21 cases

This text of 192 F. Supp. 677 (United States v. State of Alabama) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Alabama primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
United States v. State of Alabama, 192 F. Supp. 677, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5164 (M.D. Ala. 1961).

Opinion

JOHNSON, District Judge.

This cause was heard by the Court, sitting without a jury, on the issues made up by the pleadings and proof. Upon consideration of the evidence (consisting of the oral testimony of over seventy witnesses, together with approximately 250 exhibits thereto) and the stipulations of the parties, this Court now makes and enters the appropriate findings of fact and conclusions of law, and, as authorized by Rule 52, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., incorporates same in this memorandum opinion.

This action was brought by the United States as authorized by Part IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1957, as amended in 1960, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1971, and seeks to have this Court grant injunctive relief against acts and practices by the defendants which have deprived citizens of the United States, residing in Macon County, Alabama, of the right to register to vote without discrimination because of race or color.

The right to vote in Alabama is governed by both constitutional and statutory provisions. 1 This litigation does not involve the constitutionality of any of those laws.

Under the Constitution of Alabama, Section 178, registration is a prerequisite to voting at any election. In addition to the usual qualifications for registration, such as citizenship, age, and residence, applicants for registration must fill out a lengthy questionnaire, must be able to read and write any article of the United States Constitution which may be submitted to them by the registrars, and must be of good character and embrace the duties and obligations of citizenship. Registration is permanent in Alabama and a person once registered to vote is not required to re-register. The registration is conducted in each county by a board of registrars appointed by the Governor, Auditor, and Commissioner of Agriculture and Industries. Each board is to have three members, and the boards are authorized to make rules and regulations for the receipt and processing of applications and pass upon the qualifications of each applicant for registration.

Under the Civil Rights Act of 1957, as amended, and under the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, the registrars of each county have a duty to conduct registration in a fair and reasonable manner without distinction of race or color. They also have the duty not to use procedures and practices which deny or abridge or tend to deny or abridge the right of any citizen to vote on account of his race or color. United States v. Raines, 362 U.S. 17, 80 S.Ct. 519, 4 L.Ed.2d 524, and United States v. Thomas, 362 U.S. 58, 80 S.Ct. 612, 4 L.Ed.2d 535.

Macon County, Alabama, is divided into ten voting districts or beats. The population in Beat 1, wherein lies the city of Tuskegee, represents about sixty percent of the total population in the county. Seventy-five percent of the persons residing in Beat 1 are Negroes. The total population of Macon County is approximately 26,700, of which ap *679 proximately 4,400 are white and 22,300 are Negro. There are approximately 2,800 white persons of voting age in Macon County, and approximately 11,-900 Negroes of voting age in the county. Less than ten percent of the Negroes of voting age are registered to vote, and virtually all of the white persons in the county are so registered.

The evidence in this case is overwhelmingly to the effect that the State of Alabama, acting through its agents, including former members of the Board of Registrars of Macon County, has deliberately engaged in acts and practices designed to discriminate against qualified Negroes in their efforts to register to vote. Such acts and practices have brought about and perpetuated the disparity between the relative percentages of Negroes and whites registered to vote. In general, these acts and practices vary from the total absence of a functioning Board of Registrars for extended periods of time 2 to the use of a double standard in receiving and approving applications for registration from Negro and white applicants. Such acts and practices reached a peak by the Board’s “slowdown” tactics during 1960.

The double standard in receiving and processing applications of Negroes and whites has been applied by the Board of Registrars during the past five years in at least six different phases of the registration processes.

1. The Order of Accepting Applicants

The 1960 Board, consisting of Charles D. Scott and Wheeler Dyson, invariably made certain that the first applicants to take the time-consuming qualification tests were white applicants. For example, on June 20, 1960, seven white persons were given the first seven numbers on the “priority sheet”. Most of these applicants arrived later than Negroes who were waiting near the Registrar’s office on the second floor of the courthouse. Such conduct, as well as being patently discriminatory, had the effect of precluding any Negro from applying for registration at the courthouse beat (Beat 1) until almost two months after the Board assumed office. Such discriminatory tactics were also practiced by Scott and Dyson in the outlying beats during July and August of 1960.

2. The Assistance Rendered to White Applicants

The majority of the Negroes in Macon County live and work in the Tuskegee beat, which is the site of Tuskegee Institute and the Veterans Administration Hospital. Many of these Negroes are associated with one of these institutions and a large majority of them have college or high school educations. The discrimination against these Negroes has been so effective that many have been unable to qualify as voters, while many white persons who have not even finished grammar school have been registered. The registrars E. P. Livingston, Grady Rogers, Wheeler Dyson, and Charles D. Scott, could not explain the standards that permitted such to happen. It is quite obvious to this Court that applicants such as Mayebelle S. Hickman, David Austin Haywood, Lela Berry, Bea Leek, Rosia Lee Stringfellow, Mary Lee Yarbrough, Jodie R. MeGinty, Rupert McGinty, Ora M. Casaday, Junior Haywood, David Lewis, Edna Pearl Lewis, all white, 2 3 had received assistance in completing their forms. It is equally obvious that Negroes with high school and college educations who were rejected repeatedy for minor errors have not been given this assistance. While it is true that no applicant is entitled to assistance, it is not true that the law will permit assistance to whites, whether it be solicited or unsolicited, and the denial of *680 like assistance to members of the Negro race.

3. The Writing Test

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Dallas County Commission
548 F. Supp. 794 (S.D. Alabama, 1982)
Brown v. BOARD OF SCH. COM'RS OF MOBILE CTY., ALA.
542 F. Supp. 1078 (S.D. Alabama, 1982)
Hale County v. United States
496 F. Supp. 1206 (District of Columbia, 1980)
Whitfield v. Oliver
399 F. Supp. 348 (M.D. Alabama, 1975)
Carr v. Montgomery County Board of Education
377 F. Supp. 1123 (M.D. Alabama, 1974)
Yelverton v. Driggers
370 F. Supp. 612 (M.D. Alabama, 1974)
Carter v. Jury Comm'n of Greene Cty.
396 U.S. 320 (Supreme Court, 1970)
Miles v. Dickson
40 F.R.D. 386 (M.D. Alabama, 1966)
South Carolina v. Katzenbach
383 U.S. 301 (Supreme Court, 1966)
McGill v. Ryals
253 F. Supp. 374 (M.D. Alabama, 1966)
Sims v. Baggett
247 F. Supp. 96 (M.D. Alabama, 1965)
United States v. Parker
236 F. Supp. 511 (M.D. Alabama, 1964)
United States v. Cartwright
230 F. Supp. 873 (M.D. Alabama, 1964)
United States v. Penton
212 F. Supp. 193 (M.D. Alabama, 1962)
United States v. Fox
211 F. Supp. 25 (E.D. Louisiana, 1962)
State of Alabama v. United States
304 F.2d 583 (Fifth Circuit, 1962)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
192 F. Supp. 677, 1961 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5164, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/united-states-v-state-of-alabama-almd-1961.