Election zone

RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1592 Office of Desegregation Monitoring DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR'. 'KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. "BILL" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS For their motion, defendants O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Jackson, Dr. Katherine Mitchell, W.D. "Bill" Hamilton and the Little Rock School District (LRSD) state: 1. The stated purpose of this lawsuit is to create new zones from which members of the LRSD Board of Education will be elected "in accordance with the 'one man one vote' principle and the principles of the Voting Rights Act". These defendants, however. have no duty and no authority to establish or to reform the boundaries of the zones from which LRSD board members are elected. 'ChMiIcn.MTDThe complaint does not allege that these defendants had a duty or the authority to reform the election zones. 2 . LRSD has an average daily attendance in excess of twenty- four thousand students. Under Arkansas law, it is the duty of the county board of education of each county encompassing a district the size of LRSD to "divide that school district into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors." Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607. 3 . The present LRSD election zones were established by court order in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, Case No. LR-C-82-866, on December 18, 1986. The plaintiffs should not be allowed to maintain a suit against these defendants which is premised upon defendants' compliance with the December 18, 1986 order of the district court. 4 . In order to resolve all issues concerning the election zones in LRSD expeditiously and in the proper forum, LRSD has filed in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. LR-C-82-866, concurrently with this motion. a motion asking the court to modify its December 18, 1986 order by either relinquishing jurisdiction of this issue so that the Board of Education of Pulaski County can establish appropriate election zones or by establishing a schedule pursuant to which the parties in that case can resolve the issue of appropriate election zones. 5. Both plaintiffs' counsel and the lead plaintiff in this case are also involved in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. LR-C-82-866 and therefore know or kihy\Charle.MTD 2should know that the present election zones have been established by court order in that prior pending case. Further, an investigation of the facts and the law prior to the filing of this lawsuit would have shown that these defendants are not responsible for redistricting the election zones within LRSD. Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted against these defendants and have raised issues which are controlled by a district court order in a prior pending lawsuit. WHEREFORE, for the reason^ set out above, the defendants pray . J " - for an order dismissing this case with prejudice and for all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, ( , , O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Mitchell, Jackson, W.D. Dr. "Bill Little Rock School District Katherine Hamilton, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Helle Bar No. 81083 tCHLby t tea. MT D 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss has been served on John W. Walker, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. , 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72201 by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st day of July, 1992. --------------- .ristopher Heller / ) !. iaihyXChsrlca.MTO 4U 1 'W '5
V 5X0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUS 3 1992 Office of Desegregation Moniioriuo DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR,'.-KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. "BILL" HAMILTON-, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DISMISS The plaintiffs in this case are African-American residents of the Little Rock School District. The defendants are the Little Rock School District and the members of the Board of Education the Little Rock School District. The stated purpose of this lawsuit is to create new zones from which members of the LRSD Board of Education will be elected "in accordance with the 'one man - one vote' principle and the principles of the Voting Rights Act." Complaint, p. 5. These defendants, however, have no duty and no authority to establish or to reform the boundaries of the zones from which the LRSD board members are elected. The complaint does lui(hy\Chr>Bri.MTDnot allege that these defendants have the duty or the authority to reform the election zones. The present LRSD election zones were established by district court order in Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. Case No. LR-C-82-866, on December 18, 1986 . That case remains pending in the Eastern District of Arkansas. A copy of the Order which established the present LRSD election zones is attached to this brief as Exhibit A. LRSD has an average daily^attendance in excess of twenty-four thousand students. Under Arkansas law, it is the duty of the county board of education of each county encompassing a district with more than twenty-four thousand students to "divide that school district into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors." Ark. Coc^e Ann. 6-13-607. The complaint does not allege that any elections in LRSD have been conducted in violation of the district court order which established the election zones. Even if the issue of LRSD election zones were not controlled by a district court order in a prior pending case, the responsibility for establishing election zones would rest with the Board of Education of Pulaski County and not with the Little Rock School District or the members of its board of directors. These defendants cannot be held responsible for failing to revise election zones which they had no responsibility to revise. McGruder v. Phillips County Election Com'n.. 850 F.2d 406, 410 (Sth Cir. 1988). laihy\Char-Bri.MTD 2Both plaintiffs' counsel and the lead plaintiff in this case are also involved in Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District. Case No. LR-C-82-866 and therefore know or should know that the present election zones have been established by court order in that prior pending case. See Exhibit B to this brief. This lawsuit is unnecessary and frivolous, it raises only issues that are controlled by a court order in a prior pending case, and it states no claim for which relief can be granted against these defendants. It should be dismissed with prejudice. Respectfully submitted. O.G. Jacovelli, Patricia Gee, Dr. George Cannon, John Moore, Dorsey Mitchell, Jackson, W.D. Dr. "Bill" Little Rock School District Katherine Hamilton, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: _________ Shristopher Heller Bar No. 81083 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss has been served on John W. WWaallkkeerr,, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A., 1723 Broadway, Little Rock, AR 72201 by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992. Christopher Hell'^r kaihy \Char* B ri. MTD 3 'i 'i c^Z2 KxiU '} if IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 3 1992 Cilice of Dessj.'ogation f,
! IQ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDANTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO POSTPONE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION AND TO REFORM LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONES For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The present LRSD election zones were established by this court on December 18, 1986. The order which established the U a '1 > present zones is attached as Exhibit A to this motion. 2. The LRSD election zones should be reformed on the basis of 1990 census information so that each zone contains a relatively equal population and in a way that does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote. 3 . LRSD has an average daily attendance in excess of twenty- four thousand students. Under Arkansas law, the responsibility to divide LRSD into zones for the purpose of electing members to the taihylLRiOVPCSSD.MTPLRSD Board of Education rests with the County Board of Education of Pulaski County. Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607. 4. The election zones were originally established by this court, but there are no findings in this case concerning any voting rights violations within LRSD. The election zones are not a part of any desegregation plan and the settlement agreement contains no particular requirements concerning election zones. There is no reason that responsibility for redrawing the zones should not now be relinquished to the Board of- Education for Pulaski County pursuant to Arkansas law. 5. In the alternative, the court should establish a schedule for resolution of the LRSD election zone issue in this case. 6. The deadline for filing as a candidate for a position on the LRSD Board of Education is July 31, 1992. The court should therefore order an extension of the filing period and any necessary postponement of the LRSD school board election so that school board members can be elected from zones which have been appropriately adjusted in response to the 1990 census. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, LRSD prays for an order relinquishing responsibility for redrawing the LRSD election zones to the Board of Education for Pulaski County, for any necessary extension of the filing period and postponement of the election so that the next school board election can be conducted 2 k*ihy\LK5DVPCSSD.MTPwith appropriately adjusted election zones, and for all other proper relief. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 7(501) 376-2011 By:' _ Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 kihy\LR5DVPC3SD.MTP 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Postpone Little Rock School District School Board Election and to Reform Little Rock School District Election Zones has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United states mail on this 31st, day of July, 1992: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 zJ. Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Chri^opher Helled kuhyvUUOVKSSD.MTP 4 07/29/92 13:45 URIGHT,LINDSEY>JEN 501/376-9442 NO. 464 R00i I little vs. EXHIBIT A Filed THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION IN THE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PULASKI --- district no. 1, et al MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al - ORDER Pursuant to the directions of conference Board tion U* OIITWCT COURT OSTCRN OHTRtCT ARMARlAt n
..',K':=96 carc r. brents, cleric By: PLAINT 3?B^ defendants INTERVENORS the court at the pre-Trial of December 9. 1986 the Little of Directors adopted a I i SSi I I I Rock ^school District proposal for the March, 1987 elec- of school board members. Pursuant to the proposal adopted I by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, the following order is hereby entered: I I 1. The Little Rock School District at the Juno, 1986 I hearing proposed dividing the district into seven (7) school board election zones with the following populations and black compositions: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population
81.50 % black zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 - 25,295 total population
- 25,210 total population
- 24,844 total population
- 25,016 total population
- 25,107 total population
68.90 % black 7.83 % black 2.96 % black 18.30 % black 17.30 % black Zone 7 - 25,043 total population
14.10 black 2. The Court finds that the seven (7) contiguous xonas07/29/92 13:45 UR IGHT.LINDSEY,JEN 501/576-9442 NC. 464 6005 I with comparable populations comports with the pr l^iple required by the constitution. one-man onevote that the Little Rock School Distri The Court further find^ compliance with the mandate of Cts redistricting plans are 'in Act (codified amended 52 of the Voting Rights 42 U.S.C .51973) and does the right of minorities not abridge or deny ' to vote. 3. It is also the intention of I allow incumbents to the election plan to serve the -fetnainder of thei r terms. for that purpose to be In order the seven (7) 4. realized it will be zone election plan. Zone Four (4) residing within the zone. election in March, 1987. necessary to phase ip presently has four (4) incumbents Two of the incumbents will be up for i These two incumbents will gible to run for re-election. not be eli5. In March, 1987, Zones One (1) and Six (6) will be combined for the purpose of electing one school board member to the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. 6. In March, 1987, Zones Five (5) and Seven combined for the (7) will be the Little Rock : purpose of electing one school board School District Board of Directors. member to 7, In March, 1988, the third incumbent Four (4) will be up for election. residing in Zone This incumbent will eligible to not be I 8. run for re-election in March, 1988. Zone Two (2) presently has two (2) incumbents residing within the zone. One of the incumbents will be election in March, 1988. up for This incumbent for re-election in March, 1988. will not eligible to I ru:| 9. Zone Three (3) presently has one (1) incumbent I I i07/29/92 13:46 URIGHT.LINDSEY.JEN 501/376-9442 NO. 464 P004 I ! I i residing within the zone. The incumbent's terra will expire in March, 1988. I' -Ti The incumbent will be eligible to run for eleJtion because re- no other incumbent presently resides in thi a zone. 10. In March of 1988, whichever zone between the two combined zones of one (1) and six (6) and five (5) and did not elect a school board member, seven {7> an election will be held I in that zone at this time. In other words, if the March, 1987 election provides representative from Zone One (1) an election will be held in Zone six (6) in March, 1988. If the March, 1987 election provides representation from Zone Five (5) an election will be held in Zone Seven (7) in March, 1988. By March, 1988 all seven zones will have duly elected representatives. In March, 1989 the terms of the incumbents in Zones Two (2) and Fou .r (4) will expire. The incumbents will be eligible to run for reelection since no other incumbent will reside in those zones. 11. The board member elected from a particular zone must reside within that zone
only the electors within a zone will be eligible to vote for candidates from that zone. 12. Howard Dieraer, the Pulaski county elections coordinator, and the. Pulaski County election commission are directed to implement the necessary voting maps, ballots and other necessary steps to insure the election of school board members ir the Little Rock School District pursuant to this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December, 1986. HBHRYz' U.S. District Judge This dccuraent entered on docket sheet in compliance with1* i I I j I I I r 07--31z'92 11:31 UR IGHT.LINDSEY> JEN 501z 376-9442 NO, 4S5 P002 FILED _ (i>a>iMereoHV ::h the united states district could EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAIU1989 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CMC O Byf OBW F. II V. NO. LR-C-82-86e PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, NO. 1, ET AL. defendants , MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS : KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS STIPULATED AMENDMENT TO COMPLAINT The partiei submit the following stipulation for Court approval: The Complai
be amended in on filed by the "Joshua intervenors" herein der to: f nay 1. Ac I d Marcellus Person, Parent and Next Friend of Ameerah Person, as a party plaintiff. Aneerah Person is a black school child whi J*-----------* -------------------------s-i. a is eligible to attend and who attends the public ' iMmw MtiiHcr I I t J I I I schools of the lulaski County Special School District, defendant herein. The parties further stipulate that Marcellus Person, j I parent and next friend of Aneerah Person, may adopt by reference i all allegations Intervenors"
an heretofore made in this proceeding by the "Joshua j d I I 2. Substitute Dale Charles for Reverend Robert Willingham as Pn al Association li esident of the Little Rock Chapter of the Nation- ! or the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP). I EXHIBIT BI 1 I ) 07/29/92 13:45 UR IGHT,LINDSEY,JEN 501/376-9442 Nu. 464 P002 little V3 . . EXHIBIT A FiLtD IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION COUR?' UA. OHTWCT eOMWT OlTWeT R-o tf.'sses carl r. brents, clerk By
i i i CT ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIVE'"*" ! I I COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL PULASKI --- DISTRICT NO. 1, et al DEFENDANTS I MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al 1 INTERVENORS Pursuant conference ORDER to the directions of December 9, 1986, the of the court at the Pre-Trial Little Rock^school District Board of Directors adopted a proposal for the March, 1987 election of school board members. Pursuant to the proposal adopted I by the Little Rock School District Board of Directors, the following Order is hereby entered: 1. The Little Rock School District at the June, 1986 I hearing proposed dividing the district into seven (7) school board election rones with the following populations and black compositions: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population
81.50 % black zone 2 - 25,295 total population
68.90 t black Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 zone 6 - 25,210 total population
- 24,844 total population
- 25,016 total population
- 25,107 total population
7.83 % black 2.96 % black 18.30 black 17.30 % black Zone 7 - 25,043 total population
14.10 % black 2. The court finds that the seven (7) contiguous zones07/29/92 13: 45 UR IGHT.LINDSEY.JEN 501/376-9442 NG, 454 r00j I with comparable populations comports with the pr H^iple required by the one-man onevote constitution. that the Little Rock School The Court further findls compliance with the mandate of amended 52 of District's redistricting plans are in Act (codified the Voting Rights 42 U.S.C .51973) and does the right of minorities to ,vote. not abridge or deny i 3. It is also the intention allow incumbents to of the election plan to i serve the -remainder of thei for that purpose to be r terms. In order the seven (7) 4. realized it will be zone election plan. Zone Four (4) residing within the zone lotion in March, 1987, gible to" run for S. t necessary to phase in presently has four (4) incumbents . Two of the incumbei^ts will be up for These two incumbents will not be elire- election. In March, 1987, Zones One (1) and Six combined for the (6) will be purpose of electing one the Little Rock School school board member to 6. District Board of Directo ra, In March, 1987, Zones Five (5) and Seven combined for the (7) will be the Little Rock purpose of electing one school board member to 7, School District Board of Directors. In March, 1988, the third incumbent Four (4) will be up for election. residing in Zone This incumbent will eligible to not be 8. run for re-election in March, 1988. Zone Two (2) presently has two (2) incumbents residing within the zone. One of the incumbents will be election in March, 1988. for re-election in March, This incumbent 1988. 9. Zone Throe (3) up for will not eligible to run Pr..enny one ,1, icu.b.nt 07/29/92 13:46 UR IGHT,L1NDSEY.JEN 501/376-9442 NO. 464 P004 I t i residing within the zone. The incumbent's term will expire in March, 1988. I' -Ti The incumbent will be eligible to elec/tion because no zone. 10. run for re- I I I other incumbent presently resides in thia In Maren of 1988, whichever zone between the two combined zones of did not elect a school board member. one (1) and six (g) and five (5) and seven (7) an election will be held i in that zone at this time. election provides In other words, if the March. 1987 representative from Zone One (1) an election will be held in Zone six (6) in March, 1988. If the March, 1987 election provides representation from Zone Five (5) an election will be held in Zone Seven all seven zones will have . (7) in March, 1988. By March, 1988 ves. In March, 1989 the terms of the incumbents in Zones Two (2) and Pour (4) will expire, election since no The incumbents will be eligibl other incumbent will reside in e to run for re- those zones. 11. The board member elected from a particular zone must reside within that zone
only the electors within a zona will be eligible to vote for candidates from that zone. 12. Howard Dieraer, the Pulaski county elections coordinator, and the. Pulaski County election commission are directed to implement the necessary voting maps, ballots and other necessary steps to insure the election of school board members ir the Little Rock School District pursuant to this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this day of December, 1986. HfiNRy, U.S. District Judge This dccuraent entered on docket sheet In compliance with / J Zif/// iiRECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION AUG 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Moniioring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OP JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58, FED.R.CIV.P., ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21, 1993 Come the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors by and through their undersigned counsel, and move the Court to make "an express determination that there is no just reason for delay" in having a final judgment entered in this case regarding the statutory and constitutional voting rights claims which were the subject of tho Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order entered on June 21, 1993. Plaintiffs herewith submit a brief more fully explaining the need for such an Order and Judgment. Respectfully submitted, ,1 Mark Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed, postage,pre-paid, by regular mail, to all opposing counsel this -^O day of . k i (' <__________/ 1993. Mark Burnette, Bar # 880781^ECEED AUG 2 1V93 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58, FED.R.CIV.P., ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21, 1993 On June 21, 1993, the Court filed a document entitled "Memorandum Opinion and Order" which recited the pleadings and claims of the Charles Plaintiffs, and went on to set out findings of fact and conclusions of law in compliance with Rule 52(a), FRCP, regarding the "Charles" Plaintiffs/Intervenors constitutional and statutory voting rights claims. The clerk of the court marked that Mem. Op. and Order as being "entered on the docket sheet in compliance with Rule 58 and/or 79(a), FRCP. II The I single entry on the docket of that Mem. Op. and Order does not. however, comply with the "Separate Document" requirement of Rule 58. See St. Marv's Health Center v. Bowen. 821 F.2d 493, 496 (Sth Cir. 1987)(stating the separate document requirement)
ands^, Moore v. Warwick Public School Dist., 794 F.2d 322, 325 n.1 (Sth Cir. 1986)("We previously have stressed to the district judges that the rule is mandatory and is more than a mere formality in that it plays an important role in making a judgment final for purposes of determining when the time for filing ppst- judgment motions or notice of appeal starts to_run Id. (emphasis added)(citations ommitted). Clearly, the single Order entered by the clerk does not constitute a judgment, and does not constitute compliance with Rule 58, 1 although it does comply with Rule 79(a). Entry of a "Judgment" is made pursuant to Rule 58. The first sentence in Rule 58 states however that it is "Subject to the provisions of Rule 54(b)." The treatment of the June 21, 1993 Mem. Op. and Order is controlled by the language of Rule 54(b). This action was consolidated by the court with LRSD v. PCSSD on motion by the LRSD plaintiffs. The Court had previously made findings on voting rights issues involved in the case prior to the Charles plaintiffs entry into the case, and may well enter further orders on this issue pursuant to its continuing 1 Charles plaintiffs also point out that the Courtis June 21, 1993 Mem. Op. and Order does not comply with the definition * "Judgment" because it includes a and form requirements of a recital of of the claims and is not a final appealable order. II Judgment 11 as used in these rules includes a decree and any order from which an appeal lies. A judgment shall not contain a recital of the pleadings, a report of a master. or the record of prior proceedings. 11 Rule 54(a), FRCP
and see. St. Marv's Health Center v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 493, 497 (Sth Cir. 1987).jurisdiction. This case is ongoing and the court has certainly not lost jurisdiction over these parties based upon one order issued on June 21, 1993. If that were the case, this Court would have long lost jurisdiction based upon other similarly entered Orders filed and stamped by clerk with the identical language i.e. "this document entered in compliance with Rule 58 and/or 79(a). II Because the Court clearly has continuing jurisdiction in this case, Rule 54(b) imposes another requirement before an Order which deals with one issue or issues becomes a final appealable order
specifically: When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action ... or when multiple parties are involved ... the court may direct the entry of final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment^ In the absence of such determination and direction, an order or other form of decision, however designated which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties. This Court has not ruled on all the rights and liabilities of all of the parties in this consolidated case, and no "order or other form of decision, however designated. II can make the June 21, 1993 Order a final judgment until the Court makes "an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment." This Court has not done that yet. Plaintiffs are now seeking such an "express determination and direction" by motion so that the order willbecome an appealable order after entry of Judgment. Reading Rule 58 alone, and thus assuming that the Court's Mem. Op. and Order was an adjudication of all claims as to all parties such that Rule 54(b) were not controlling, then "the clerk, unless the court otherwise orders, shall prepare, sign. and enter the judgment without awaiting any direction by the court
" Rule 58, FRCP. Rule 58 is explicit, and requires that "Every judgment shall be set forth on a separate document. A judgment is effective only when so set forth and when entered as provided in Rule 79(a)." The district clerk has not done so in this case. The only document recorded on the clerk's docket sheet is the Court's own Mem. Op. and Order. St. Marvs, supra, and Moore, supra. To fully comply with Rule 58 and 54(b), the Court must further direct the clerk as stated above so that a separate entry of judgment can be entered. Respectfully submitted. M^rk Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was mailed, postage pre-paid, by regular mail, to all opposing counsel this 30th day of July, 1993. '/J Mark Burnette, Bar # 88078. n (I n:S' TRICT COUR I i', IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1 6 1993
'a:: :-l ?jT CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET 2^. ISy: \J . jYa PLAINTIFFS CHP. CL^ V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS HRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RECEIVED DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. 4UG 1 7 WJ LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Office oi Dssegregalion Monitcnng ORDER Defendant, Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), has moved for a one week extension of time in which to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P. , on Claims that were Subject to Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993. Plaintiff has no objection to the Court granting this motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that defendant be granted a one week extension of time to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., on Claims that were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered on June 21, 1993. HONORABLE SUSAN SIGNATURE APPROVED BY: JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. U' A j THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN irtMMi lANfc '.vT!-
"J' II 1^ c* aNn/OR TWa) FRCP wn\0orto\lrW-pcM.er^ ON BY WRIGHT F.Y.I. Date: cs^Ann c/ Bill Boj Connie 53^ Horace Linda Margie Melissa Polly Return to: r TP?.: i! COUrtV IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 1 6 1993 /'A y: A 5, CLErK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS CEP. Gt
X V. NO. LR<-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RECEIVED DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. 4UG I 7 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. Office of DessyreQSuCii L-jni.c-ios ORDER Defendant, Little Rock School District ("LRSD), has moved for a one week extension of time in which to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P. , on Claims that were Subject to Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993. Plaintiff has no objection to the Court granting this motion. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED, that defendant be granted a one week extension of time to answer plaintiff's Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54 (B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., on Claims that were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered on June 21, 1993. HONORABLE SSUUSSAANN WEBBER WRIGHT SIGNATURE APPROVED BY
JOHN C. FEJIULEY, JR. A J rwis DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN lANCt: .A/TM n AND/OR 79/Af FRCP ON BY pc wi I AUG-18-92 TUE 15:18 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 p.02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OP ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CAf?, Sy. 1992 DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. "BILL" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS The STIPULATION parties hereto are in agreement that it would be 'Jr>r appropriate to defer the forthcoming school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the "one man one vote" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required a as consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the commun'ty. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them, shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the Pulaski BAUG-18-92 TUE 15:19 U.S, DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 County Board of Education as a party defendant herein. P.03 It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles Vj Jacovelli. No. LR-C-92-476 and LRSD v, PCSSD, No. LR-C- 82'866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE Approved: ^ohh W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (506) 374-3758 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN CCOCMMPPLLIIAANNCCEE WWrIIHRULE 58 AND/<------ ON BY '9(aJ FRCP ' .^^r Heller Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE Se CLARK 2000 First Comnercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 RECEIVED -i X -'5 C'STPiCT cnicr AUG 19 1992 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION m fS92 CARJ. 5v: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL DEFENDTkNTS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS STIPULATION The parties hereto are in agreement that it would be ( LERK Cth.-t/'' appropriate to defer the forthcoming school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the "one man one vote" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required as a consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the community. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them. shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the Pulaski County Board of Education as a party defendant herein. It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending lathy\P'Electkxx.Sd further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles v. Jacovelli. No. LR-C-92-476 and LRSD v. PC5SD. No. LR-C- 82-866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT ZTUDGE Approved: Ji J/ Walker IN W. WALKER, P.A. Broadway Little Rock, AR 122Q6 (506) 374-3758 document a ON - c. BY 1 L.-. Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 ka(l]y\P-Elect>on.Sd 2 AUG-18-92 TUE 15:18 U.S, DIST. CT. LR ARK, FAX NO, 7406096 P, 02 EAsie, CCU/?r IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION J 71992 dale CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR,, GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER oep PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G, JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. "BILL" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS The STIPULATION parties hereto are in agreement that it would be appropriate to defer the forthcoiaing school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the "one man one vote" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required as a consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the community. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them, shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the PulaskiAUG-18-92 TUE 15:19 U.S, DIST, CT, LR ARK, FAX NO, 7406096 County Board of Education as a party defendant herein. P. 03 It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles v. Jacovelli. No. IiR-C-92-476 and LRSD v, PCSSD, No. LR-C- 82-866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE Approved: John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (506) 374-3758 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE W1 RULE 58 AND/(------ ON BY :9(a) FRCP Chri' stoph .eirx HHeelllleerr FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Conaaercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 AUG-18-92 TUE 15:18 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P.02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS >IS. WESTERN DIVISION CAR, Hy- DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, DR. GEORGE CANNON, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. "BILL" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and In Their Official Capacities and THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate DEFENDANTS The STIPULATION parties hereto are in agreement that it would be appropriate to defer the forthcoming school election in the Little Rock School District until a date to be determined by the Court after the Pulaski County Board of Education has been added as a party defendant hereto. The parties hereto are also in agreement that the school zone lines presently in use do not conform to the requirement of the "one man one vote" principle and that adjustments to the existing zone lines may be required as a consequence of the new census and demographic changes within the community. Pursuant to their stipulation, the parties or either of them, shall be expected to move in a timely fashion to add the PulaskiAUG-18-92 TUE 15:19 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 county Board of Education as a party defendant herein. P. 03 It is therefore the Order of the Court that the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District be stayed pending further orders of this Court. It is also the order of this court that the current directors remain in their present positions until new elections are held. This stipulation is filed simultaneously in Charles v, Jacovelli. No. LR-C-92-476 and LRSD v, PCSSD, No. LR-C- 82-866, without prejudice to defendants' position that Charles should be dismissed. UNITED STATES DISTRICT/JUDGE Approved
^ohh W.Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (506) 374-3758 THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET W COMPLIANCE WIT^ULE 58 AND/Q^9(a) FRCP ON BBYY vV Chri's toph ^err HHeelllleerr FRIDAY, ELDREDGE Se CLARK 2000 First Comaercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 RECEIVED tUG 2 4 1993 Ottice o! Dssegregaiion Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS DALECHARLES, ET AL V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. RESPONSE TO MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58 FED.R.CIV.P. ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21. 1993 Defendant, Little Rock School District ("LRSD"), for its Response to the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors' Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rules 54(B) and 58 , Fed.R.Civ. P. , on Claims That Were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993, states: 1. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors have waived any right to request a separate entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 54(B) and 58 by their filing of a Motion to Alter and Amend the Judgment on June 6, 1993 . It is clear from the Court's June 21, 1993 , Order that the Court intended the Order to constitute a final judgment. -1- cvaifcndleyMrud.rtniThe Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors treated the June 21, 1993, Order as a final judgment in their Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment filed June 6, 1993 . Moreover, in the long history of the litigation between these parties, a separate order of judgment has usually has not been entered, and the parties in earlier appeals have never raised the District Court's failure to enter a separate judgment. 2. The docket sheet for this case indicates that the parties have not before insisted upon separate judgements and have waived the requirement of a separate entry of judgment in prior appeals. WHEREFORE, LRSD prays that the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors' Motion Requesting Separate Entry of Judgment Pursuant to Rule 54(B) and 58, Fed.R.Civ.P., On Claims That Were Subject to the Order of the Court Entered June 21, 1993, be denied. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: i^r No. 92182 Iz -2- eva \fend ley M rad. runCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion has been served the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this , day of August, 1993: on Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 -3- evaUendfeyUrad.rtm beceiveo ^Ug 2 1993 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT ,Office ot Desegregation Monitoring EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS DALECHARLES, ET AL V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT'S RESPONSE TO THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS/INTERVENORS' MOTION REQUESTING SEPARATE ENTRY OF JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO RULES 54(B) AND 58 FED.R.CIV.P. ON CLAIMS THAT WERE SUBJECT TO THE ORDER OF THE COURT ENTERED ON JUNE 21, 1993 In Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1988), the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals on facts identical to those in the present case held that the Rule 58 separate document requirement had been waived. In that case, the plaintiff, Terry Wayne Sanders, appealed from orders of the District Court granting summary judgment for Clemco Industries and Ingersoll-Rand Company and denying Sanders motion to reconsider and set aside the summary judgment order. -1- eva\fendleyMnd2.briThe court in Sanders reached the merits of Sanders' appea1 only with regard to the denial of his motion for reconsideration. The court found the appeal with regard to the order of summary judgment was untimely. Although Sanders had filed his notice of appeal with regard to the summary judgment order within thirty days after the District Court had denied his motion for reconsideration, the motion for reconsideration was filed more than ten days after the order for summary judgment, and therefore, that motion did not toll the deadline for the filing of the notice of appeal of the summary judgment order. Sanders. 862 F. 2d at See Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 59(e) (1993)
Fed.R.App.P. Rule 4(a)(4) (1993)
Spinar v. South Dakota Board of Regents, 796 F.2d 1060, 1062 (Sth Cir. 1986). In order to preserve his right to appeal the summary judgment order, Sanders had argued that the District Court had never entered a final judgment on a separate document as required by Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and consequently, the time period for filing of a notice of appeal had never begun. The court rejected this argument and determined "that the parties have waived the separate document requirement." Sanders. 862 F.2d at 166. The court identified four factors indicating that the parties waived the separate document requirement during the course of that litigation. One factor was Sanders' motion "for Reconsideration 164 . and to Set Aside Summary Judgment" which referred to the District Court's order as "the court's granting of summary judgment. 11 Likewise in the present case. on June 6, 1993 , the Charles -2- evtifendleyMndZ.briPlaintiffs/Intervenors filed a "Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment" referring to the Court's Order entered June 21, 1993. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors in their Brief in Support of the Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment state that "plaintiffs seek to alter the Judgment" Brief in Support of Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, p.l. That the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors consider the Court's Order of June 21, 1993, to constitute a final judgment is further evidenced by the fact they requested to be awarded attorneys' fees as prevailing parties based on the Court's Order. See, Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment, p.4. Next, the court in Sanders stated that the trial court's consideration of its summary judgment order as a final judgment provided further support to the conclusion that the parties had waived the separate document requirement. In the present case, the final two paragraphs of this Court's June 21, 1993, Order read as follows: The Court finds that the Complaint should be dismissed and that the proposal adopted by PCBE on December 29, 1992 and submitted to the Court in 1983 should be accepted. and is hereby The Court adopts the plan submitted on January 6, 1993, and sets the election which was postponed from September of 1992 to coincide with the annual school election of September 21, 1993, implemented elections. and for orders that that and the future plan be school Order, June 21, 1993 , p.29. This language clearly evidences the Court's intent that its June 21, 1993 Order constitute the final -3- evaMendfeyUrad2.briX resolution of the claims set forth in the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors Complaint. The court in Sanders also found it important that the parties in prior appeals had not raised the District Court's failure to enter a separate judgment. Numerous orders of this Court have been appealed without a separate judgment having been entered or requested in accordance with Rule 58. Hence, the past history of this litigation provides further evidence that the Charles . Plaintiffs/Intervenors waived the separate document requirement of Rule 58. The court in Sanders also noted that neither party had raised the question of noncompliance with Rule 58 prior to the appeal being filed. However, this fact should not distinguish the case at hand. The acts constituting a waiver of the Rule 58 separate document requirement were complete prior to the filing of the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors' present Motion. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors should not now be allowed to recover rights already waived. The Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors will undoubtedly emphasize language from Sanders which indicates that a finding of waiver may be inappropriate when the right of appeal may be lost. However, the Eighth Circuit in Sanders responded to this argument as follows: We recognize that if we remanded for the entry of a separate judgment, Sanders could appeal on the merits of the case, not merely on the question of whether the trial judge abused his discretion in denying reconsideration of his -4- cva\fendlcy\lrd2.bri4 order. As we have noted, however, when parties have proceeded in a district court and in this court on two occasions memorandum order constituted as though a as final and appealable judgment, and where the appeal is not entirely lost, we should accept appellate jurisdiction to the extent that we can. Sanders. 862 F.2d at 167. Hence, the court in Sanders recognized that by finding that Sanders had waived the Rule 58 separate document requirement he would be unable to appeal the court's summary judgment order. It noted that Sanders' right to appeal was "not entirely lost" because he retained the right to appeal the court's denial of his motion for reconsideration. Similarly, the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors could appeal this Court's resolution of its Motion to Alter and Amend Judgment should the Court find that they have waived the separate document requirement of Rule 58. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate that the Court conclude that the Rule 58 separate document requirement has been waived by the Charles Plaintiffs/Intervenors. Respectfully submitted. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT CHRISTOPHER HELLER JOHN C. FENDLEY, JR. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE -5- ev\fer)dky\Jnd2.bn I certify that a copy of the foregoing Brief is Support has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this day of August, 1993: Mr. John W. Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72205 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 L. C. Fendley, Jr. -6- evti\fendley\lRd2.bn IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JUDGMENT h filed CARL R. By: AUG 2^1993 p: I S, CLER NQSKE.ERX DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The claims of the Charles plaintiffs that the election zones for members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors violate the Voting Rights Act of 1964 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution came on for trial before the Court, Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge, presiding. The Court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay of entry of judgment as to these claims, which are a part of this consolidated case. Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b)
Fed.R.Civ.P. 58. The issues having been duly tried and a decision having been duly rendered pursuant to the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this matter on June 21, 1993, IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Voting Rights Act claims raised in the complaint filed by the Charles plaintiffs, which was consolidated with the above-styled case, be and are hereby, denied. The Clerk is directed to enter the judgment accordingly. DATED this day of August, 1993. V. UNITED STATES DISTRIOT JJIUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON COMPI ON_^ ULE S Ai EY (OCKET SHEET IN VOR^f^CP 1 9'5 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS ' WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. ORDER ',.3 ^L'G o ^993 Sy:. :p. CLep,^ PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Before the Court is the Charles plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend the Court's Memorandum Opinion and Order of June 21, 1993, and their subsequent motion requesting separate entry of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and 58. Defendants have responded to the motions and the Charles' plaintiffs filed a reply to the Little Rock School District's response to their motion to alter or amend. The Court entered its Memorandum Opinion and Order on June 21, 1993, dismissing the Charles plaintiffs' complaint challenging the election zones for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors. The Charles plaintiffs filed a motion to alter or amend on July 6, 1993 but did not serve the defendants until July 9, 1993 . The defendants contend the Charles plaintiffs' motion is untimely according to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), which requires that such motion must be served not later than 10 days after entry of judgment. The defendants also argue that the motion should be denied on the merits. In reply, the Charles plaintiffs assert the motion is not untimely because no final judgment has been entered. On the same day that they filed their reply to the defendants' response to the motion to alter or amend the judgment, the Charles plaintiffs filed a motion requesting separate entry of judgment pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) and 58. In response, the defendants contend the Charles plaintiffs waived the Rule 58 separate-document requirement. Having considered the motions, responses, and reply. the Court finds that the motion for separate entry of judgment should be granted and the motion to alter or amend should be denied. In support of their argument that the Rule 58 separatedocument requirement was waived, the defendants cite Sanders v. Clemco Industries, 862 F.2d 161 (8th Cir. 1988). In Sanders, the plaintiff appealed from a Memorandum and Order granting summary judgment and an order denying his motion for reconsideration. The appeals court concluded that the parties waived the separatedocument requirement for several reasons. The court noted that neither party raised the issue of non-compliance with Rule 58 and proceeded as if the Memorandum and Order constituted a final judgment. In addition, the court pointed out that the plaintiff labeled his motion as one 11 for reconsideration and to set aside summary judgment" and referred to the district court's action as "granting of summary judgment." Next, the court stated that the trial court considered the Memorandum and Order as a final judgment when it denied plaintiff's motion to set aside summary judgment. Finally, the court noted that the parties in prior appeals in the -2- case had not raised the district court's failure to enter a separate judgment. In holding the parties waived the separate-document requirement, the Sanders court stated: "Although we determine that the parties waived the separate-document requirement in this case, we stress that such a determination is not to be made routinely. Waiver may be entirely inappropriate, and the separate-document requirement enforced, when the right to appeal otherwise would be lost. II Sanders, 862 F.2d at 167. Defendants contend this language should not influence the Court's decision whether to enter separate entry of judgment because the Charles plaintiffs could still appeal this Court's resolution of their motion to alter or amend. In this case. No. LR-C-82-866, the Court's orders are typically in the nature of equitable decrees from which the parties may appeal without the entry of judgment pursuant to Rule 58. However, the claims adjudicated in the Charles' complaint address matters that are separate and distinct from those issues about which the Court routinely enters orders, and which the parties almost as routinely appeal, concerning the settlement plans and agreement. The Charles plaintiffs brought their voting rights claims in a separate lawsuit which the Court consolidated with LR- C-82-866. The facts here are not identical to Sanders and the Court cannot find that the parties waived the requirement for a separate document in this instance. The Court therefore determines that the Charles plaintiffs' claims have been adjudicated and that there is no just reason to -3-delay entry of judgment as to these claims. In accordance with Rule 54(b), the motion requesting separate entry of judgment is granted. In their motion to alter or amend judgment, the Charles plaintiffs argue that the Court erred in finding that the plan adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education did not violate 2 of the Voting Rights Act when viewed in light of the standards set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) or the standards for retrogression set out in Turner v. State of Arkansas, 784 F.Supp. 553 (E.D.Ark. 1991). They contend the PCBE plan is retrogressive because, applying the 65% minority population benchmark for a "safe" district, the number of minority districts is reduced from two "safe" districts to one. Additionally, the Charles plaintiff argue the Court misapplied the requirements under Thornburg. The Charles plaintiffs also ask the Court to amend its Order and find that they are the prevailing parties on their claim that the 1986 plan violated the one-man one-vote principle. They contend they are the prevailing parties on the other claims as well because as a result of their lawsuit, regardless of the disposition of the motion to amend or alter, they will be better off under the plan approved by the Court because there is less packing and there is a zone established in which they have a stronger impact as well as a clear chance that the zone will become a third majority minority zone in the future. In Hagerman v. Yukon Energy Corp., 839 F.2d 407, 414 (8th Cir. -4-1988), the court cited with approval a Seventh Circuit case which stated
"'Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly discovered evidence. . . . Nor should a motion for reconsideration serve as the occasion to tender new legal theories for the first time.'" The Court finds that the Charles plaintiffs' motion attempts to re-argue issues already decided by this Court and to raise issues that could have been made at trial. Therefore, it will be denied.* IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Charles plaintiffs' motion for separate entry of judgment [doc. # 1924] is granted. Their motion to amend or alter [doc. # 1885] is hereby denied. DATED this 'day of August, 1993. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JI X.'JMENT c.NTF ON DOCKET SH' M JUDGE W Pi ,1 02^- ON UY ' The Charles plaintiffs may renew their argument that they are the prevailing parties when they submit a motion for attorneys fees. -5-'Ot t < recesved SEP 2 1993 Office of Desegregation Monitoring IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS SEP 0 1 1993 CARL R.BRENTS, CLERK 8z:. R.,BREN7 DlEE PP. .CCLLEERRKlC-LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER The Clerk is hereby directed to substitute the attached pages. nos. 20, 23, 24, and 26, for the corresponding pages in the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this matter on June 21, 1993 as Document No. 1853. The Court directs this action in order to more appropriately cite Thornburg V. Gingles in subsequent references in the opinion. DATED this day of August, 1993. 1 UNITED STAATTEESS DISTRICT' JJUUEDGE rms DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET kN COMPLIANCE WITH P ON tE AND/OR 79(a) FRCP ev r' W'W.. been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Gingles, 478 U.S. at 30, 44-45 (1986). Additional factors that in some cases have had probative value as part of plaintiffs' evidence to establish a violation are unresponsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of the contested practice is tenuous. Id. at 45. 9. Consideration of the Senate factors in determining whether a violation of 2 exists has been criticized because the factors often take attention away from the real issue. In this regard, the court in Whitfield v. Democratic Party of Arkansas, 686 F.Supp. 1365 (E.D.Ark. 1988), aff'd 902 F.2d 15 (Sth Cir. 1990) wrote: Having reviewed the Senate Report factors and some of the proof relating thereto, the Court must determine whether its positive findings with respect to many of those factors make it more probably true than not true that the challenged runoff provision makes the political processes not tl equally open to participation" by blacks in that blacks have "less opportunity than whites to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. II It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with respect to the Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. The truth is that focusing on some of those factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws. Id. at 1386-87. See also, Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 232 (federal courts have felt the need to make findings concerning the Senate factors whether or not they have any relevance to the issues at hand). An evaluation of the Senate factors adds little to the -20-to give a remedy solely on the latter basis." Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 237. Therefore, the Charles plaintiffs have not proved that they have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by the PCBE. 11. The second element of a Voting Rights Act claim which the Charles plaintiffs have the burden to establish is that they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE than under the 1986 districting plan. The Supreme Court has identified three "necessary preconditions" to a finding that a districting scheme impairs minority voters' ability to elect representatives of their choice: First, that [the minority group] is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district. 7" '' - - - If it is not, as would be the case in a substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive, politically cohesive, it If the minority group is not cannot be said that the selection of a multi-member electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. Third, the minority must be able to demonstrate that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it in the absence of special circumstances, such as a minority candidate running unopposed . . . usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multi-member district impedes its ability to elect representation. representatives of its chosen Gingles, 478 U.S. at 50-51. These "necessary preconditions" will -23-be discussed in turn.^ 12. More than mere numerical superiority needs to be considered in determining whether the Charles plaintiffs constitute a sufficient majority in a single-member district to elect representatives of their choice. They must constitute more than a simple majority in order to ensure that they have the opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. As the court explained in Smith v. Clinton, 687 F.Supp. 1361, 1363 (E.D.Ark. 1988)
A guideline of 65% of total population is frequently used, and is derived by supplementing a simple majority with an additional 5% to offset the fact that minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the registration, minorities. well-documented and 5% for pattern low voter of low turnout voter among See also Fletcher v. Golder, 959 F.2d 106, 110 (Sth Cir. 1992). Therefore, the minority group must be sufficiently large and geographically compact that one or more zones with at least 65% minority population may be created. The Charles plaintiffs argue that three majority black districts should be created. The zones they propose, however, all fall below the 65% guideline. The Charles plaintiffs' proposed Zone 1 is 64.7% black, but it encompasses an area of declining black population and has an initial population variance of -4.5%. The other two proposed majority black zones are 61.7% and 64% black. The minority group is apparently not sufficiently large and ^Thc Court follows the Gingles preconditions but notes that Gingles addressed alleged voting rights violations in the context of a multi-member structure. In Growe, supra, the Supreme Court held that the Gingles preconditions apply in challenges to single-member districts. -24-In fact, racial polarization may not be shown where, in six of ten races with a black candidate facing a white candidate head to head, the black candidate won. 14. In general, "a white bloc vote that normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus white 'crossover' votes rises to the level of legally significant white bloc voting." Gingles, 478 U.S. at 56. This situation simply does not exist in Little Rock. In 1980, Judge Eisele, after careful review of a voluminous amount of data, concluded that Little Rock does not have racially polarized voting. Leadership Roundtable, supra. This Court also concludes that racially polarized voting does not exist in Little Rock. The Court is mindful of Mr. Lynch's testimony that many factors other than race determine the outcomes of elections. This evidence is relevant to determine whether "bloc voting by white voters will consistently defeat minority candidates." Gingles, 478 U.S. at 100 (O'Connor, J., concurring). It also "would suggest that another candidate, equally preferred by the minority group. might be able to attract greater white support in future elections." Id. The Charles plaintiffs have not set forth proof that other factors usually determinative of political success, i.e. the candidates' platforms and policies, their ability as speakers. their II track records" in the community. their name recognition, their financial support, were not the factors which attracted white voters. See Jeffers, 730 F. Supp at 246 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). -26-SEP-'3-92 THU 10:44 U.S, DIST. CT, LR ARK, FAX NO, 7406096 P, 02 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT' EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SE^-1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT by- V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS MOTION TO POSTPONE ELECTION For their motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) state: 1. Members of PCBE are elected both at large and from zones from within the boundaries of the three school districts in Pulaski County, Arkansas. PCBE elections normally coincide with the wc- r (? regularly scheduled school elections each year. 2. The only PCBE election scheduled for 1992 is in Zone 5, a zone situated entirely within the boundaries of LRSD. The regularly scheduled school elections in LRSD have been postponed by the court. The PCBE . Zone 5 election remains scheduled for September 15, 1992. 3. The incumbent in PCBE Zone 5, Mr. E. Grainger Williams, is unopposed for reelection. He will continue to serve Zone 5 whether or not an election is held on September 15, 1992.SEP- 3-92 THU 10:45 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 03 4. LRSD will be required to pay the cost of the PCBE Zone 5 election. There will be no significant additional cost to LRSD if the PCBE Zone 5 election is held at the same time as the LRSD Board of Education election. There will be a significant cost to LRSD if the PCBE election is held as scheduled. The PCBE election should be rescheduled to coincide with the LRSD Board of Education election to avoid a waste of money which will be better spent for education and implementation of LRSD's desegregation plan. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set out above, the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education pray for an order postponing the Pulaski County Board of Education Zone S election until the time of the Little Rock School District 1992 Board of Education election. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 PULASKI county BOARD OF EDUCATION PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY Pulaski County Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 By: L:a.ra
r?y Vahght kidyVP-PoiipcBB.Eieciiqa 2 SEP- 3-92 THU 10:45 U.S. DIST. CT. LR ARK. FAX NO. 7406096 P. 04 - \ I CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Postpone Election has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the united states mail on this 1st day of September, 1992
Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 > Christopher Heller 3 F> W.w: V T? C,"- ii ILse Laan FILED U.S. DISJ-RlCT COURT r .r.n , ni/**! e nu'iMOAe SEP 9 1992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 04 1992 CARL R. liritft Office of Desesregation Mcnitoring LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEW.tlERK INTIFFS V. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE 'fJOSHUA, ET AL INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER On motion of the Little Rock School District (LRSD) and the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE), and without objection from any of the parties to this action, the PCBE Zone 5 election currently scheduled for September 15, 1992, is hereby postponed until the time of the LRSD 1992 Board of Education election. IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of September, 1992. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE THIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN :OMPU, ON WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(a) FRCP BYRECEIVED RLP.0 SEP 1 0 1992 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Cj Office of Desegregation Moni'^rjfigTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS SEP 09 1992 im WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO MOTION TO POSTPONE ELECTION The Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education have moved to delay the election for Pulaski County School Board Election Zone 5 until such time as the Court determines Little Rock School Board Elections. The Joshua Intervenors have no objections to an Order granting the requested delay herein. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 Joli: Bar No. 64046 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, John W. Walker, hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing document has been served upon the following, by placing same in U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this 9th day September, 1992: of Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldq. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Larry Vauqht Pulaski County Attorney Pulaski County Courthouse Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON & JONES 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ms. Ann Brown Office of Desegregation Monitoring Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham St. Little Rock, AR 72201 ohn W. Walker Jobreceived FILED u e oisrnici COURT eastern OISTRIAT ARKANSAS Office OCT 1 1992 of Desegregation Monitofing IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION SEP 24 1992 CARji Ry^ftENTS, CLERK DEP. CLeSt DALE CHARLES, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-92-476 O.G. JACOVELLI, ET AL. DEFENDANTS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866V PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS ORDER Pending in both of the above-named cases are motions to consolidate. The motions are granted. The Clerk is directed to close LR-C-92-476 and to transfer any pleadings that are not duplicates to LR-C-82-866. Any further pleadings in LR-C-92-476 should be filed in LR-C-82-866. 1 On August 18,1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order in LR-C-92-476, postponing the election for school directors for the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") until further orders of the Court. The Court also granted the motion of the LRSD and the Pulaski County Board of Education ("County Board") to postpone the County Board's Zone 5 election. Upon review of the pleadings filed in both cases concerning the matter of rezoning. the Court The motions to dismiss filed in former Case No. LR-C-92-476 (Doc. HH 3, 11, and 12) arc moot, the case having been consolidated with LR-C-82-866. 0 determines that it is appropriate for the County Board to address the issue of LRSD election zones. By law, the County Board is charged with the responsibility of dividing the LRSD into zones for the purpose of electing members to that District's Board of Directors. Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607 (Michie 1991). The County Board will determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the "one mafi* - one vote" principle, and if they are, will rezone the LRSD accordingly. 3 Should the County Board find it necessary to redraw the zones, the Court asks it to be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones. A IT IS SO ORDERED this / day of September, 1992. UMITOD STATES DISTRICT , JUDGE TMis 00! ON > 1/-C WiTi i Ri 0 ON DOCKET SHENIN 79{a) FRCP BY.______ i: In responseto the LRSDs motion for joinder (Doc. # 1664), the County Board entered an appearancein LR-C-82-866 for the limited purpoic of complying with the orders of this Court to rezone the LRSD. The Court finds this appearance is appropriate and the motion for joinder is granted. in December 1986, the Court approved a proposal adopted by the LRSD dividing the district into seven election zones. Those zones have remained unchanged under the 1986 order of the Court. -2-UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk P.O. Box 869 Little Rock, Arkansas 72203-0869 September 30, 1993 Mr. Michael E. Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St, Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DISTRICT PULASKI COUNTY vs. Dear Sir: Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] Docket Entries [certified] Order filed 8/24/93 Judgment filed 8/24/93 Amended Notice of Appeal Sincerely, Carl R. Brents, Clerk Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk cc: w/encs. All Counsel of Record Lois Lambert-Court ReporterFILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COWF'* district Arkansas EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ,SFP ? ? 1995 CARL R. BRENTS, CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL By: PT.ATNTTFFS DEP. CLERK V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHLA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ET AL. V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiffs and the Joshua Intervenors appeal the Judgment of the Court entered herein on August 24, 1993 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Respectfully submitted. No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed. postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this 22nd day of September, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT UOURT p., EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS' - WESTERN DIVISION ! LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, As next Friend of Minors Leslie Joshua, Stacy Joshua
SARA MATTHEWS
As Next Friend of KHAYYAM DAVIS
ALEXA ARMSTRONG
tARLOS ARMSTRONG
ALVIN HUDSON
TATIA HUDSON
MRS. HILTON TAYLOR, As Next Friend of HILTON TAYLOR, JR., PARSHA TAYLOR and BRIAN TAYLOR
REV. JOHN M. MILES, As Next Friend of JANICE MILES and DERRICK MILES
NAACP
and ROBERT WILLINGHAM, Next Friend of TONYA WILLINGHAM INTERVENORS DALE CHARLES, ROBERT L. BROWN, SR., GWEN HEVEY JACKSON, DIANE DAVIS, and RAYMOND FRAZIER PLAINTIFFS V. O.G. JACOVELLI, Individually and As President of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, PATRICIA GEE, JOHN RIGGS, III, JOHN MOORE, DORSEY JACKSON, DR. KATHERINE MITCHELL and W.D. "BILL" HAMILTON, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as Members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, A Public Body, Individually and in their Official Capacities
THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate
CECIL BAILEY, THOMAS BROUGHTON, DR. GEORGE McCRARY, DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY, and E. GRAINGER 4 19 8 4 WILLIAMS, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as members of the Pulaski County Board of Education
and THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporate DEFENDANTS AMENDED NOTICE OF APPEAL Notice is hereby given that the Plaintiffs, Dale Charles, et al. and the Joshua Intervenors appeal the Judgment of the Court entered herein on August 24, 1993 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Appellants will request the transcript from the Court Reporter and make arrangements for payment therefor within five (5) days. z-n Respectful/ly submitted ) John alker Bar No. 64046 jo: 17, . WALKER, P.A. Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this ___ day of September, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Johhnn^z^. Walker COUNTY ATTORNEY COUNT PULASKI Pulaski County ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 SOUTH BROADWAY Lime ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-377-6285 501-377-6282 FAX RECEfVEo CITIES ALEXANDER CAMMACK VILLAGE JACKSONVILLE LITTLE ROCK MAUMELLE NORTH LITTLE ROCK SHERWOOD WRIGHTSVILLE UNINCORPORATED AREA 600 SQUARE MILES MILITARY BASES LRAFB CAMP ROBINSON October 20, 1993 OCr 2 1 1995 Office of Desegregation c Docket Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Eight Circuit No.: 93-3469 Dear Clerk: Nelwyn Davis and I recently filed f<^on!toring entries of appearance in the above appeal on behalf of the Pulaski County Board of Education, an appellee. We received notice from you that the Board was not listed as an appellee. Since the Board is the body that created the zones that are being attacked, and since we defended them in the District Court, I hereby request that the Pulaski County Board of Education be added as a party appellee and be allowed to participate in the appeal. sincerely, Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney LDV:sd cc: All Counsel of Record COUNTPULASW CITIES ALEXANDER CAMMACK VILLAGE JACKSONVILLE LITTLEROCK MAUMELLE NORTH LITTLEROCK SHERWOOD WRIGHTSVILLE UNINCORPORATED AREA 600 SOUARE MILES MILITARY BASES LRAFB CAMP ROBINSON Pulaski County COUNH ATTORNEY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 SOUTH BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 501-377-6285 501-377-6282 FAX ED October 20, 1993 OCT 2 J 1993 Of'ics of Desi Docket Clerk Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 Re: Little Rock School District v. PCSSD Eight Circuit No-: 93-3469 Dear Clerk: Nelwyn Davis and I recently filed Mcnircring entries of appearance in the above appeal on behalf of the Pulaski County Board of Education, an appellee. We received notice from you that the Board was not listed as an appellee. Since the Board is the body that created the zones that are being attacked, and since we defended them in the District Court, I hereby request that the Pulaski County Board of Education be added as a party appellee and be allowed to participate in the appeal. Sincerely, Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney LDV:sd cc: All Counsel of Record RECEIVED JiN 2 8 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office of Desegregation Monitoring NO. 93-3592 PULASKI CTY. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE MOTION TO EXPAND PAGE LIMIT FOR APPELLANTS' BRIEF The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, by and through undersigned counsel, for their Motion to Expand the Page Limit for Appellants' Brief, state as follows: 1. Because the three above-referenced appeals have been consolidated, the 50-page limit may be inadequate to permit the Appellants to adequately brief the issues on appeal. 2. A maximum limit of 75 pages would be sufficient. WHEREFORE, Appellants pray that the page limit be increased to / 75 pages. Respectfully submitted. r / / I. DaVid SchoenDAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of January, 1994 . Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 \) I / I J' --- David SchoenRECEIVIE?D JAW y 8 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office of Desegregation Monitoring NO. 93-3592 PULASKI CTY. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT SPECIAL SCH. DIST. V. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. JOSHUA V. LORENE APPEAL ] FOR FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT I THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE SECOND MOTION FOR APPELLANTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEFS The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Briefs, stated that: 1. The Appellants' Briefs in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on January 27, 1994 . 2. Due to the press of business in counsels' office. an additional extension of time of two weeks is necessary in which to file the briefs for the Appellants. WHEREFORE, Appellants Dale Charles and the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through Febiuary 10, Respectfully submitted, 1994.c- ( s. David Schoen DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of January, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 / ( } - David Schoen UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECE!VFS| lO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. FEB 1 1994 PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK Office of Desegre^. SCHOOL DIST. iioring NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE THIRD MOTION FOR APPELLANTS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE THEIR BRIEF The Appellants Dale Charles, et al., and the Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Brief, stated that: 1. The Appellants' Brief in the above referenced consolidated appeals is due on February 10, 1994. This court has previously granted the appellants two extensions. 2. The Appellants Brief is prepared at the office of John W. Walker, one of the counsel for the appellants. A fire at said counsel's office caused the office to be without heat and electricity for a period of one week, created confusion as to the location of documents, and has necessitated noisy and distracting repairs which continue to the present. Such conditions have substantially interfered with completion of the brief.3. The appellants' brief is substantially completed as of the date of this motion, but additional time is needed to prepare the appendix, and to copy, bind and mail the brief and appendix. WHEREFORE, Appellants Dale Charles and the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through February 15, Respectfully submitted. 1994. David Schoen DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed. postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of February, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon & Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. #15 Hickory Creek Drive Little Rock, AR 72212 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 J__ David Schoen L Z)ii't'fr-f Clt,t-1~ ^i-lt-f-i IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS RECEIV* No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 No. FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT FEB 2 2 1994 Office of Desegregation Mori,iu,...a LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO FILE BRIEF OPT OF TIME For its motion, the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. The Little Rock School District is an Appellant in Case 93-3592 and an Appellee in the other two of these consolidated cases. 2. LRSD and the Joshua Intervenors both appealed the district court's order of September 27, 1993. LRSD expected to join Joshua's brief in Case No. 93-3592. 3. Upon reviewing Joshua's brief, LRSD determined that its position is somewhat different than that of the Joshua Intervenors and that it would be necessary to file a separate brief. 4 . LRSD has prepared its brief as expeditiously as possible and requests that the clerk file its brief out of time. WHEREFORE, for the reasons set forth above, LRSD moves for permission to file the attached brief out of time. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201(501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellants Little Roc: School District B >a: J^topher Heller 4no. 81083 CERTIFICATE T SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion For Permission to File Brief Out of Time been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 18th day of February, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Chri fer Heller ! IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cifioa cf Dcsegr
C.1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affirmed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School..............................38 Conclusion 50 iR J i=i rXTTJ q IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS No. 93-3592 NO. 93-3469 NO. 93-3594 FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT APR 2 0 1994 Cifico cf Dcsegr .uCil LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA Appeals From The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Arkansas Western Division Honorable Susan Webber Wright, District Judge BRIEF FOR APPELLEE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT IN NOS. 93-3469 AND 93-3594 Christopher Heller John Clayburn Fendley, Jr. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg, 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 37602911 Attorneys for Little Rock School DistrictTable of Contents Statement Of The Case 1 I. The Voting Rights Act Issue 1 II. The Desegregation Plan Modification Issue 3 Summary Of Argument 11 Argument 13 I. The District Court's Finding That The Charles Plaintiffs Failed To Establish A Violation Of The Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, Is Not Clearly Erroneous And Should Be Affiraed .............................................. 13 II. The District Court Properly Approved The Closing Of Ish School And The Assignment Of Ish Students To The New And Integrated King Interdistrict School 38 Conclusion 50 1^PH 2 2 'W IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Oliico oS No. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA MOTION TO RE-OPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellees, Little Rock School District ("LRSD") and Pulaski County Board of Education ("PCBE"), for their motion to re-open and supplement the record state
1. This appeal concerns the alleged violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (Supp. 1993). Appellants, the "Charles Plaintiffs," contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE violates Section 2. A trial was conducted on April 13 and 14, 1993. The district court by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21, 1993, held that the Charles Plaintiffs had failed to establish a violation of Section 2. On August 24, 1993, the district court entered judgment dismissing the Charles Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint from which the Charles Plaintiffs appeal. 2. On September 21, 1993, LRSD elections where conducted under the PCBE plan. In that election, a black candidate was elected from a majority white zone, and a white candidate was elected from a majority black zone. T. Kevin O'Malley, who is white, received a majority of the vote and defeated two black opponents in the LRSD Zone 2 election, and Linda Poindexter, who is black, defeated a white candidate in the LRSD Zone 5 election. Zone 2 is 59.4% black, and Zone 5 is 19.1% black. Certified copies of the election results are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must establish racially polarized voting. Thornburg v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 25, 50-51 (1986). The results of the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections provide further support for the district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from racially polarized voting. 4. At trial, LRSD entered into evidence without objection by the Charles Plaintiffs certified copies of election results from past LRSD election. WHEREFORE, LRSD and PCBE move that the record in this matter be re-opened and supplemented to include the results from the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections. Respectfully submitted, FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellants Little Rock School District By: Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 <CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Re-Open and to Supplement the Record has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Ms. Nelwyn Davis Pulaski County Attorney 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller I LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Pulaski County Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in Pulaski County on September 21, 1993, i i } SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 5 "D C LINDA PONDEXTER 191 </)O co CZ5 m re JIM GONZALES 160 um 47 STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI cn WE, VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF VOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF s: lER, 1993. CHAIRMA MEMBER ^MfeMl^ER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME. A NOTARY PUBUC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. zM KES I s ( ! I I X LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FILS 93SEP 30 PM |: 13 The Pulaski County Election Commission heaiby certifies the Election held in PulasH^County^PY COUHTY CLERK on September 21, 1993, PULASKI COUNTY. ARK SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 EMMETT WILLIS uO to I 23 T. KEVIN OMALLEY 3'^ DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI WE VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF .
VOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF S
, 1993. cha: MEMBER o 3:r IMMX 0 MEWB^ SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND AFORESAID, THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. PUBLIC, MY COMMISSION E: I 38t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 1 '::n ' w J 93 SEP 30 PH n 13 The PulesU County Election Commission hearty certifies the Election held in PulgM Cju^^l^ on September 21, 1993, COUHTY CLERK PULASKI CCJHTY. AR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 EMMETT WILLIS T. KEVIN OMALLEY DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE -lire vATTPTiM MCDTIARY MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AWU uctM , PuaSKI county ELECTioN CO^SSION 7u?akkac nN THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF .
VOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMB 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. :S OUR HANDS AS WITNESS Ab CH? OF SEPTEMK^, 1993. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH 5 chai: MEMBER . \ , member SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. aforesaid, iX^IRES tfflTARY PUBLIC, MY COMMISSION E: 3eo IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS ..... xsonVwC' "3 CiViCQ Ct FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. LORENE JOSHUA MOTION TO RE-OPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellees, Little Rock School District ("LRSD") and Pulaski County Board of Education ("PCBE"), for their motion to re-open and supplement the record state: 1. This appeal concerns the alleged violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (Supp. 1993). Appellants, the "Charles Plaintiffs," contend that the plan for LRSD election zones adopted by PCBE violates Section 2. A trial was conducted on April 13 and 14, 1993. The district court by Memorandum Opinion and Order dated June 21, 1993, held that the Charles Plaintiffs had failed to establish a violation of Section 2. On August 24, 1993, the district court entered judgment dismissing the Charles Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint from which the Charles Plaintiffs appeal. 2. On September 21, 1993, LRSD elections where conducted under the PCBE plan. In that election, a black candidate was elected from a majority white zone, and a white candidate was elected from a majority black zone. T. Kevin O'Malley, who is white, received a majority of the vote and defeated two blackopponents in the LRSD Zone 2 election, and Linda Poindexter, who is black, defeated a white candidate in the LRSD Zone 5 election. Zone 2 is 59.4% black, and Zone 5 is 19.1% black. Certified copies of the election results are attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. In order to establish a violation of Section 2, a minority group must establish racially polarized voting. Thornburg v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 25, 50-51 (1986). The results of the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections provide further support for the district court's finding that LRSD does not suffer from racially polarized voting. 4. At trial, LRSD entered into evidence without objection by the Charles Plaintiffs certified copies of election results from past LRSD election. WHEREFORE, LRSD and PCBE move that the record in this matter be re-opened and supplemented to include the results from the September 21, 1993, LRSD elections. Respectfully submitted. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellants Little Rock School District By: Christopher Helle: Bar No. 81083 < CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Motion to Re-Open and to Supplement the Record has been served on the following people by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 20th day of April, 1994: Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roache11 and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Elizabeth Boyter Arkansas Dept, of Education 4 State Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201-1071 Ms. Nelwyn Davis Pulaski County Attorney 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller !/ t LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT The Pulaski County Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in Pulaski County on September 21, 1993, I I } SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 5 "D c: LINDA PONDEXTER 191 t/>O xO co GO m TS JIM GONZALES 160 Cot/' u C STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI cn WE, VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF VOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF s: ER, 1993. CH ER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND .AFORESAID, IN THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. j s4 ITARY PUBLIC, MY COMMISSION i/9tr r I The Pulaski County little rock school district PI V 5 n 'r 93 SEP 30 Pf
H 13 Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in Pulasla^County[_p on September 21, 1993, COUNTY CLERK PULASKI COUNTY. ARK SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 c co co EMMETT WILLIS cn2 T. KEVIN OMALLEY 3^ o I DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI czrjco 231-- tm > > cn cn WE VAUGHN MCQUARY, MARY LOUISE WILLIAMS AND BECKY TERRIEN, THE PULASKI COUNTY ELECTION COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, ARKANSAS ON THIS DAY DO FIND AND HEREBY CERTIFY THE ABSTRACT OF .
VOTES CAST IN THE 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. WITNESS OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH DAY OF S: ., 1993. cha: MEMBER SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBLIC, FOR AND WITHIN THE COUNTY AND AFORESAID, THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. PUBUC, MY COMMISSIOONN EElXPIRES 7 38 The Pulaski County LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT I? V 1 93 SEP 20 PH H 13 Election Commission hearby certifies the Election held in P^^^^Couji^lEY on September 21, 1993, COUHT-Y CLERK PULASKI COUNTY. AR SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER, ZONE 2 EMMETT WILLIS T. KEVIN OMALLEY r S' DR. ALDA MOORE STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI WE, VAUGHN LOWSE Wn^S^^^ PULASKI COUNTY rT .PmON COMMISSION, WITHIN AND FOR PULASKI COUNTY, day do find and hereby certify the abstract of . ARKANSAS ON THIS 1993 ELECTION HELD IN PULASKI COUNTY ON SEPTEMBER VOTES CAST IN THE 21, 1993 AS SHOWN BY THE ATTACHED RETURNS. S OUR HANDS AS CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF SAID BOARD THIS 24TH cha: septPeEmM: B^, 11999933. .N MEMBER z M:^EfeR SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN BEFORE ME, A NOTARY PUBUC, FOR AND ^V^rHIN THE COUNTY AND aforesaid, THIS 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1993. Jbhjjr PUBUC, MY COMMISSION E
iXI^IRES 3 /''A Co/Y Jack, Lyon & Jones, p.a. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 3400 TOBY TOWER 425 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 -3472 (501) 375-1 122 TELECOPIER (501) 375-1027 Nashvill* Office *11 Music Circle South Nashville. Tennessee 37203 (615) 259-4664 Telecopier (61S) 259-4668 April 26, 1994 RECEIVED Ms. Mary Loida Deputy Clerk United States Court of Appeal U.S. COURT & CUSTOM HOUSE 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 APR 2 8 tW OfJics of Desegregatioi! Moiiiiuiuig
RE: Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, Appeal Nos. 93-3469 and 93-3594 Dear Ms. Loida: In response to your inquiry, neither the North Little Rock School District nor the Pulaski County Special School District intended to enter an appearance as an appellee in the above referenced appeals which involve respectively the election of members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District (No. 93-3469) and the closing of Ish Elementary School in the LRSD (No. 93-3594). Rather, it was our mutual intent only to enter an appearance and file a brief in Case No. 93-3592 which involves the District Court's order of September 27, 1993 ruling out the old Stephens Elementary School site as a potential location for construction of a new Stephens interdistrict school. Please be advised that I have been authorized by the attorney for the PCSSD, Sam Jones, to communicate to the Court the position of the Pulaski County Special School District. I hope this resolves any confusion regarding the appearance of the PCSSD or NLRSD in the above referenced appeals, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you have any questions. SWJ:le Very truly yours. cc: Sam Jones Christopher Heller John Walker Ann Brown Richard Roachell James Smith Elizabeth Boyter Jerry Malone JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. 667 Betty Jo Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to the counsel of record listed below on this day of April, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON & JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. ROCHELL & STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol & Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 ^rk Burnette M^r' SiLR School Board OKs new election zones As the filing date nears, officials hope redrawn districts will be in place by Sept. 18 BY CHRISTOPHER SPENCER , ' ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE The Little Rock School Board adopted new election zone boundaries Thursday night, but theres some doubt as to whether the new zones will be in place be-i fore the Sept. 18 School Board elections. Were operating on the assumption that this process will be complete, based on what our lawyers have told us, Superintendent Ken James said. Redrawing the districts seven election zones is needed so the zones will mirror the demographic data from the 2000 Census, said Clay Fendley, the school districts attorney. Earlier this week, Sandy Dyer, Pulaski County election coordinator, expressed alarm about changing the election zones so close to the Aug. 6 filing date for candidates. I think it will be a very tight squeeze for us to effect all the changes that would be necessary to accomplish a redistricting project six weeks out from a fullblown [School Board] election, Dyer said Tuesday. James told the board he felt the process would work out. During a School Board meeting Thursday night, board member Baker Kurrus questioned Fendley on the status of the by the adoption of the new zones, change. School district officials plan to We have an upcoming elec- contact the Pulaski County Election, I know because Im running. tion Commission today to discuss Do we anticipate these zones be-ing used for the election? Kur- __ _ rus asked. proved the first of three election The election commission is zone plans prepared by the staff responsible for approval. I dont of Metroplan, a council of local know if they anticipate these governments in central Arkansas, changes, Fendley said. in the plan, population loss in Kurrus is an incumbent board 2one 1 the easternmost zone member running for re-election jg balanced with westward ex-in Zone 4, which encompasses northwest Little Rock. He has become a certified candidate with a petition signed by at least 20 people in his zone, but some of those signatures might be invalidated implementation of the new zones. The board unanimously ap- In pansion. The zone will now take in the Capitol View and Stifft Station neighborhoods. Four of the seven zones will See ZONES, Page 4B Zones Continued from Page IB be comprised of a majority black population with three majority white zones. The current zone boundaries allow for two majority black zones. Arkansas law requires school districts with black or Hispanic populations of 10 percent or greater to have zoned elections. The plan also calls for the Robinwood and Foxcroft neighborhoods, now in Zone 4, to become part of Zone 3, represented by board member Judy Magness. James said after the meeting that it became apparent soon after he took office in mid-June that the rezoning project, initially begun in April, had become stymied somewhere between the School Board administration and the mayors office. We hit the ground running with this, James said. This needs to be done as soon as possible. Information for this article was contributed by Cynthia Howell of the Arkansas Revised Little Rock School Board Election Zones Little Rock School Board has revised the boundaries of its election zones to make the populations in each of the zones approximately equal based on 2000 U.S. Census data. Population has shifted out of east 3 2 7 6 Little Rock, making it necessary to expand the area encompassed in Zone 1, which set off a \ chain reaction in the other zones. 1 POPULATION ZOIE Tinu PERCENTAGE 1 3 5 1 24,926 25,994 25,715 26,206 WHTE 22.7% 90.2 71.4 41.3 BUCK 75.1 % 6.7 22.3 ,, 53.5 SATURDAY, MARCH 24, 2001 Gamine told to study census data, need to redraw LR election zones BY CYNTHIA HOWELL before the candidate filing dates ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE fop the September 2001 school The release of 2000 Census fig- board election. The filing dead- ures means the Little Rock School line is usually in early August. Board election zones may need Sv The seven Little Rock School Board members are elected solely some adjustments. ____________ School Board members this voters who live in the zone week directed Superintendent Les they are running. Gamine and his staff to review the population numbers in each zone to determine whether the zone boundary lines need to be changed to make the populations in each area about the same. There are no at-large positions on i the Little Rock board. The 1992 Little Rock School Board election was delayed a year and combined with the 1993 election after civil rights lawyer John Walker sued in federal court to Early reports from the census show that there has been an in- -------- ------------- .. crease in population in the west- equalize the populations in the ern part of the city and a decline zones. He also asked in the lawsuit in piirts of the citys core. that the zone boundanes be re- Camine said an effort would be drawn so that three of the zones made to complete the review and would have majority black popula- make any necessary recommenda- t----------------------- tions for changes to the board well ed at the time. tions instead of the two that exist-o CM lf> CM Dyer also noted that the filing deadline for School Board candi- J~ dates is Aug. 6, less than two weeks away, and that the zoning changes could affect who is eligi-oping the boundary proposals. ble to run for two open board seats Walker represented the Nation- in September. ................. ' She said board candidate Bak- Board Continued from Page 1B Joshua intervenors, before devel- Current Little Rock School District election zones tween Markham Street and Kanis the zones had majority-black popRoad. ulations and five were predomi- D al Association (or the Advance- ment of Colored People in a 1992 er Kurrus has already become a lawsuit to force changes in the certified candidate on the basis of boundary lines that existed at the a petition signed by at least 20 peo-time. The NAACP had said the pie in his zone. zones should be redrawn on the The candidacy could become basis of updated 1990 population invalid if the zones change and the figures and should in.c..l.u..d..e.. ..t.h ree petition signers no longer live in majority-black election zones instead of two. Kumis zone, she said. Kumis is an incumbent board The lawsuit, which was ulti- m---e-m---b-e--r- r-u--n--n ing for reelection in mately decided by the Sth U.S. Cir- Zone 4, which encompasses north- -cuit Court of Appeals, resulted in west Little Rock. A' one-year delay in what should -A--c-c--o-r-d--i-n-g- to each of the three ive been the 1992 School Board Metroplan proposals, the Robin-lection. News that the School Board is wood and Foxcroft neighborhoods north of Cantrell Road, now in ^7 The Little Rock School Board is considering changes to current School Board election boundaries so that the population in each of the seven zones will be approximately the same. iJbnsidering zone changes for the Zone 4, would become part of Zone , elec.t.i.o..n.. .a..l.a..r..m...e..d.- S an,d y_ D yer, P_u - J 2one 3 is represented on the 'iaski County election coordinator. V I think it will be a very tight ^ueeze for us to effect ^1 the board by Judy Magness. Arkansas law requires school districts that have black or His- Ranges that would be necessary panic populations of 10 percent or Id accomplish a redistricting pro- greater based on the 2000 Census ject six weeks out from a fullblown [school board] election, to have zoned elections. Those new or redrawn zones were sup-ecutive director, said in a letter to Little Rock Superintendent Ken James last week that east Little Rock has lost population over the past decade. As a result, boundaries for Zone 1 which is the school districts eastern most zone would be expanded westward into the Capitol View or even Stifft Station neighborhoods, setting off a chain reaction of boundary she said Tuesday night posed to be in place by the middle Dyer said neither she nor the of last month. But the law specifi- Pulaski County Election Commis- cally exempts from its require-sion had been approached about ments those school districts such . the possibility of zone changes for as Little Rock that are operating changes tn the other election the election although she believed under federal court desegregation " " the Election Commission would orders. have to approve such changes. I Jim McKenzie, Metroplans ex-zones. Zone 2, which encompasses central Little Rock and is repre- Arkansas Democrat-Gazette sented by board member Mike Daugherty, would lose some of its eastern territory to Zone 1. But the western border of Zone 2 would move from Mississippi Street and Boyle Park to Interstate 430 in ail three Metroplan proposals. In two of the three proposals.
Zone 2 would take in the area north of Markham Street and south of Rodney Parham Road all I the way to 1-430. In the third proposal, Zone 2 5 would remain south of Markham Street but extend west to 1-430 be-op <g3 g gc -gS-S si 1 o Ila'S g.-2gg^=l c tfl mOO*35 a Q Ow Cc/j3 O Besides Kurrus Zone 4 seat, nantly white. The demographic Daughertys Zone 2 seat is the only changes occurred over time in board seat up for election this Zones 8 and 7, which are in south year. Daugherty has not yet filed central and southwestern Little with the Pulaski County clerks of- Rock. The other majority-black flee for re-election but has said he - - intends to by the filing deadline. As another example of the changes, the southern border of Zone 5 and the northern border of Zone 7 may be tweaked. In two of the proposals, Zone 5 would take in territory east of Stagecoach Road, almost to Chicot Road, which is contrary to the current zone makeup. zones are 1 and 2. Zones 3,4 and 5 remain predominantly white. The zone populations would range from a low of 24243 to a high of 26,438 depending bn the zone and which of the three plans is selected. Metroplan attempted to balance the populations within an accepted range of plus or minus 5 percent of the average. In each of the three Metroplan The Little Rock district ha.s. .o-p-proposals, four of the seven board erated for about 15 years with a zones would be made up of major- single-member election zone sys-ity black populations and three tent School Board members are would have majority white popula- elected by voters in the zones in tions. When the zones were last re-which they reside. There are no citywide or at-large School Board drawn in the early 1990s, two of positions in Little Rock. 2^ '2.2'2^ I? i.ri.Hri.So 2o *5 (Q g w ojS a i 2 o fl T1 > a " *9 -n 5 -2 -5 S <3 .. o Ty3 COQ ? MCB b S fl O G fo C3 G W} yoot-' tfl S fi r* . 2*2 .fl zM cii G -"M S ^11^ g ^9 W flj o o .S2-2$SS-2 s g o 73 g a-s I = is I la " 0-2 "S '9 g'-ri'^P g c a SmS -2 - G Q.S 2-5^ y y O 2 d g-G y G fa >,00 S gy 'aoSG'-
xs-fi o UnagSea OGyu^ C .2g^x3 -Hy.Otz3s onO.gP coiSyooiao wSSisy 430 >>-.4) 'O --.g' 2 2 w S yni bc Sep Q gyj eg <U t- s .2 -" e ri 9 if
S <u a> 2 vi ^5 . o U3 5-. o G g U2 cn c fl <u C "3 rH O 2 - .99 o OJ CO iX33 Xy5 oO. <O.- QOO .S Si 'o,2i Sis y aj5 S u U O-C gro 6^0 2
2yfMyOyoo5i ri .G-O S - 2 SS-'s y g g.2 jfl>- G rti a o j3 ts .-^95 S 3 Jh U ^=2 S S <u co 2 S X3 O 4} - ri g S ri ffll 2 ..5S3 owt u G I So^So-hsIs- Saigas! I ssi G .Ss 'isS2 uSuT tSn3 'afl j- . Q) CQ g S3 cn -ri Si s a-i CQ o 2 cUo. a3 3S iSG' Cco ? 9? .2 O O M V
This project was supported in part by a Digitizing Hidden Special Collections and Archives project grant from The Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Council on Library and Information Resoources.