{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"hbcula_abco_0371","title":"Dr. Bernard Lafayette and Students on Campus, circa 1993","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["1992/1999"],"dcterms_description":["Civil rights activist and American Baptist College president, Dr. Bernard Lafayette, is shown observing a book with two students. Dr. Lafayette served as the President of American Baptist College from 1993 to 1999."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Buildings and grounds","Campus life","Universities and colleges--Employees"],"dcterms_title":["Dr. Bernard Lafayette and Students on Campus, circa 1993"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0371"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["color slides"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_abco_0270","title":"Dr. Bernard Lafayette and Students on Campus, circa 1993","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["1992/1999"],"dcterms_description":["Civil rights activist and American Baptist College president, Dr. Bernard Lafayette, is shown talking with a group of students. Dr. Lafayette served as the President of American Baptist College from 1993 to 1999."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Buildings and grounds","Campus life","Universities and colleges--Employees","College presidents"],"dcterms_title":["Dr. Bernard Lafayette and Students on Campus, circa 1993"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0270"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["negatives (photographs)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_abco_0271","title":"Dr. Bernard Lafayette and Students on Campus, circa 1993","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["1992/1999"],"dcterms_description":["Civil rights activist and American Baptist College president, Dr. Bernard Lafayette, is shown talking with two students on campus. Dr. Lafayette served as the President of American Baptist College from 1993 to 1999. The National Baptist World Center can be seen in the background."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Buildings and grounds","Campus life","Universities and colleges--Employees","College presidents"],"dcterms_title":["Dr. Bernard Lafayette and Students on Campus, circa 1993"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0271"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["negatives (photographs)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"hbcula_abco_0179","title":"Dr. Bernard Lafayette and Students on Campus, circa 1993","collection_id":"hbcula_abco","collection_title":"American Baptist College Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Tennessee, Davidson County, Nashville, 36.16589, -86.78444"],"dcterms_creator":["American Baptist College"],"dc_date":["1992/1999"],"dcterms_description":["Civil rights activist and American Baptist College president, Dr. Bernard Lafayette, is shown talking with a group of students. Dr. Lafayette served as the President of American Baptist College from 1993 to 1999."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["African American universities and colleges","African American students","Buildings and grounds","Campus life","Universities and colleges--Employees"],"dcterms_title":["Dr. Bernard Lafayette and Students on Campus, circa 1993"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCU) Library Alliance"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hbcudigitallibrary.auctr.edu/digital/collection/abco/id/0179"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["The Susie McClure Library of American Baptist College believes that the items presented in our digital collections are not encumbered by copyright or related rights. Nonetheless, as these materials are accessible to the public, certain limitations on subsequent usage may be in effect. Authorized uses for these items are confined to research, educational, and scholarly endeavors by U.S. Copyright Law Title 17, §108 U.S.C. In addition to educational purposes, individuals seeking to engage in other forms of utilization must secure explicit permission from the Susie McClure Library by contacting us at 615-687-6935."],"dcterms_medium":["color slides"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_464","title":"Early childhood enrollment","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1996"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Educational planning","Childhood development","School enrollment"],"dcterms_title":["Early childhood enrollment"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/464"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nTO: FROM: SUBJECT: Little Rock School District J anuary 27 , 1992 KJ \u0026amp; --- OiUca 3 ' Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring James Jennings, Associate Superintendent for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services Rockefeller Early Childhood Enrollment 1989/90 and 1990/91 In response to your request, please find listed below the enrollment figures for the Early Childhood Education Program, at Rockefeller School (Infant through Three Year Old) for 1989/90 and 1990/91: 1989/90: White Black Other Total %Black Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 1 3 2 6 10 12 0 0 0 7 13 14 8 6% 7 7% 8 6% Total 6 28 0 34 8 2% 1990/91: Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 4 6 6 4 10 8 0 0 0 g 16 14 50% 63% 57% Total 16 22 0 38 58% 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-3361...  - A. i. . , ? z Little Rock School District January 27, 1992 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: GiViC3 Cl iCli Ann Brown, Office of Desegregation Monitoring J.aines Jennings, Associate Superintendent 1 'r}^2 J for Desegregation Monitoring and Community Services o Rockefeller Early Childhood Enrollment 1989/90 and 1990/91 In response to your request, lease find listed below the enroll- ment figures for the Early Childhood Education Program at Rockefeller School (Infant through Three Year Old) for 1989/90 and 1990/91: 1989/90: White Black Other Total %Black Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 1 3 2 6 10 1 o 0 0 0 7 13 14 3 6% 77% 8 6% Total 6 28 0 34 82% 1990/91: Infant/Toddler 2 Year Old 3 Year Old 4 6 6 4 10 8 0 0 0 o 16 1 i 14 50% 63% 57% Total 16 22 0 33 58% 810 West Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)374-33617 r IS h '2 { f M c  s ------ 10/27/93 c (  u 17 IS 19 10 12 ^5 Ja2LL'S^PJfS a*'7 s?\n14:09:17 Uni versa! Student ID Student last name 'i^.' c\u0026gt;F' t Student f i rst name 94_Q229^MCJ5JR 950636 939845 939949 STIEL WALESZONIA WALESZONIA 939Blih MASSERY 950018 950050 940025 939949 AXELSON OMALLEY TOWNSEND MEVAWALA BAILEY 939617 MORRIS 939750 940131 939'93 940015 9 4 0 0 5 7 WINKLER GILBERT NOBLE HOLLIS THOM AS SSMT3 ^REEN\" CHRISTINE ZACHARY BRANDON WjSSST\" CHRISTOPHE PATRICK ANDREW GEORGE ARIEL \"KSHte*  LATASHA COLTON CODY CLARENCE TROY CAictON as\no g?-.^1 O r'  LAST YEAR SCHOOL LAST YEAR CLASS Ethnic Group,. Sex Current class year 1 Current school no. ( 017, jL PA P4 P4 P4 w P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 w P4 P4 P4 P4 w 3ZL 940206 939944 951404 940070 FINIGAN MARTINEZ LAY JONES 9^0107 TYGART hQ2T7 940109 93979 93 994 1 939946 940082 950209 939? 13 ^^99 9 o o o o T CLOUGH GRAY KELLEY WILLIAMS AHOPRSOH' SHOCKLEY SORKINS g pnwM B pnwM SHEENA NICOLE AMBER JENNIFER ^eSAM\"\" TIMOTHY MATTHEW kEnyatTa TERICA NIKITA NVSHIA----- SHAYLA RICKITA \"ASHLEY KEENO^!E 019 P4 P4 PU P4 T P4 P4 T4 PU P4 TT P4 P4 TT P4 01 01 01 r 01 .01. 01 01 02, \"TF 02 02 tr Q2 02 F, F M M TM M M M F \"r F M IT M M IT K 01? __________ 017 Moved out of District Moved out of District inr 017 01? 020 018 \"557 043 002\n1577 017 017 irrr a: }\u0026lt; . X ' J] a c o   (J ( I 01 01 01 01 UT 01 01 QT 02 02 DT ' 02 02 07 02 F F F F TM M T F F TF FV M K Moved out of District (Cabot) 019 019 03\u0026amp;^ WT 019 038 i-fa)l4{iLlY \u0026amp;! (.y O Assigned Ulg - ufiTnot enroll 019 019 THT 019 027*, QTcr 019 S( 67 68 59 7( 71 72 73 e 75 f r t t ( 12 13 ' IS ts N Q 10 u 1  I. n o 1 1 9 ? 9 9 5 \" Qcn1QC o ? a e f. n 940255 O OB 1 o 939700 93991? 939933 o A n n o B 950174 940054 939918 950217 939779 10/27/93 ^'ICH'\"L? WILLIAM? MnOOTC RIG Y MTCI CCM SILKWOOD CALHOUN HELMICK MURDOCH WA.IJCC TORRES E RATTON AUSTIN JACOBS CRAIG U:09: 1? Uni versa! Student ID Student last name 025 LAUREN c A e AU c A o A LAURA HARRISON JUSTIN DIRK . TIMOTHY ROBERT KYLE JOSEPH KYLE JOSEPH Student first name LAST YEAR SCHOOL 939872 939797 939950 939912 93S86? 939868 950290 939910 939839 CARVER CLOUD STRIQEL DANESHMANDI YACKETT WASHINGTON WASHINGTON \"KRE IE CONWAY PERKINS 9398S9 5KTH' 939959 940057 90 0 6 5 940089 950045 HERBERT BOZEMAN PARKER DAVIS SEAVERS 640115 JSftoAfT 9^0056 939865 939650 939901 929905 JONES THOMAS DEAN r A w A n Y 933835 PEOPLES 939870 939970 94 *^ 02 9 940054 940058 540090 94009? 940152 54 0'153 940305 95001 WHITE CALDWELL \"T'AMBD Cl_|....... MQnpc JOHNSON DAvrs...... BOYKINS DAVIS M ACKIN!RUSH MrpOTHF WILLIAM? TIMOTHY MATTHEW WILLIAM KEVIN TSES------ CLAY CLINT ALfex SHANTESA YANITRA JA2MIHe MINNELLI CHENAIDA AMBER ERICA PRECIOUS EftXiGK-------- JAMES JR ANTHONY JAMES JAMAL LONDON WICHAEL ANTHONY CORRELL wv JOHN JR ANTONIYO L'tUHIC---- TEORICK JOKEEMO PHILLIP WILLIAM TAv,A RONE 04 R4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 Ph P4 Ph P4 P4 pT P4 P4 LAST YEAR CLASS b\u0026amp; P4 T5 pk P4 l\u0026lt; P4 Ph VK P4 Ph P4 P4 rti Ph P4 75 P4 P4 TC------ Ph Ph T5 P4 . P4 in\n P4 P4 Tli--- P4 Ph m\n Ph Ph 0 1 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 0 1 01 01 0 1 F T c F F m\" M M M M M M M M K 025 Wivate^cfeol *1. Moved to North Little Rock Moved to,Texa^ 020 625 025 PAGE 2 3 5 K 12 i  r n o n K ,  e Ethnic Group 01 TT 01 01 ot 01 TTT 02 02 IJT 02 02 TTT 02 02 02 02 TTT 02 02 Tfr 02 02 UT 02 02 irr 02 02 irr 02 02 Sex M TT M M TT M M TT F F T' F F -p- F F \"T\" M M JT M M TT M M TT M M TT M M R M M Current class year Current school no. 1} t1 31 31 3: U ( ( K 02? TTW 038 Qh.7  Qhl 025 025 725--------- 025 025 775 025 025 025 025 77S--------- 025 025 -------------- 026 025 -025--------- 025 025 1725--------------------- 025 025 C\n31 ti 0 St  K M S SI K 6! u SJ u M S u M N n n n c. (. C I c ! I i O ! o cI 0 9 neoo 9 ' 0 5 5 950055 950055 UUTTP \u0026lt;2 A c r T A MAUAMHIIP GANGOSO nUTi I Tp, SARAH ______________________ PA PA Pk Pfi 02 OA 05 M F M 10 93975  950936 9 3 9 7 A 7 939952 939953 939553 939709 93 9 77,0 9397A9 939955 MAAMCV HOOP.E JORDAN HERBERT BLUE CARRICK LEE JORDAN BULLOCK LINDSEV CHRISIma JEREMY SELENA SHANNON NICOLE STEVEN KENNETH DEVIN MELVIN STEVEN 1$ 025 Untold, PA PA PA PA PA PU PA PA PA PA 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 F M F F F M M M H H K ( c c c ( 12 (  43 i* 47 lQ/27/9a UzOOlt? Uni versal Student ID Student 1 sst name Student f i rst name 7 ^kQQit2 9A0039 9500A0 WHITE NANCE HASLAUER 4j96i8 iSJWJStSOtt 9A0010 939899 939820 9A0189 9518A2 MYERS CASH KOONE BEUMEL EPPERSON 939980 COLLIHS 939770 939S60 9A0037 9A0 1 99 939635 939696 939963 9A0005 950301 939533 XZAVI.ER JR LAST YEAR SCHOOL LAST YEAR CLASS Ethnic Group Sex Current class year 026 PA 035 038 0A8 021 (5^ f 026 026 Private School 026____________ 026 026 026 PAGE  3   Current school no. o , '9 20 u WILLIAMS BAKER WAYNE FLENOY jqwmson WATMRS ROSS BREWER MARTINEZ KATELYN CARA RESAN  MEAGAN HUBERT DANIEL WILLIAM MATTHEW BRITNEY CANDACE LAUREN AMANDA LARENZO RALPH DOMINIQUE SERREUL KORDARRELL OASARIS ~S. 031 02 M K 026 BERRY 3 9609 HLW6R 9528A2 9A0199 3{tQ233 9A0053 BAGGETT MC5RIER HICKS PREWIT ROBINSON 939S55 DICKERSOM 939878 9A005S 939979 93987? 9 A 0 0 A 9 CLARK FORD LEONARD WILLIAH S HCCUIN LEAH COREY ERIC TOMMY \"J'VSTIN WESLEY TIFFANY whitMey MORGAN WHITNEY CALVIN JR HARRISON GRECOP'^ 03A Pk Pk PA PA PA PA PA PA ..PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 01 01 w 01 .01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 JU. 03 F F T F ..M. M M M T F F F M M M M :K F K c 046 \u0026gt;1 Moved to Bryant 03 1 031 . 03 1 , , : (  1 031 03 1 022\n028 031 031 03 1 017 51 ULW t. a J PA w Pk Pk TT PA PA TC PA PA PA PA PA .i) l\u0026gt; 5 01 TST 01 01 UT 01 02 02 02 02 02 ft 7 F TT M M TT M F T F F M M M K 033 033 H Q3k' 03 5. . .iL, 0A8h 002 I TO5~ 03A 03A 03A 03 4 d u u 751 ra10 12 13 14 li 17 ( \u0026gt;0 90 2 1 9^000? o. n n 7 c 9U0155 950125 9 U 0 1 2 6 9U0292 93U205 9U0973 9U0137 9399U3 f M B C \" c ( u u M 9 lOl 12 IJ ' 45 ^L \u0026amp;21 hl UAUOTriM J_ C T I A GARRISON ZIMMERMAN SCHLUETER MOTLEY MUAWAD FISHER HARE WEYANO SELLS 10/27/93 U\nO3:17 Uni versa! Student IO student 1 ast name A D l_ Tn4.| A^!D^EA cvo^isy MTDAMnA ANDREA VICTORIA MEGAN CHRISTINE EVELYN HAILE BRANDY EMILY Student f i rst name'^' 03 6 LAST YEAR SCHOOL Pit PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU LAST YEAR CLASS 03 02Q 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 01 Ethnic Group F F F F F F F F F Sex K K Current class year Returned to home district (NLl ') I Returned to home district (NLRSD) Returned to home district (NLRSD) -Returned to home district (NLRSD) oovlSluSz^ 006 U 036^  * .  g 036 PASE A Current school no. 8 1 3 -3C- ^39993 9396UU 939882 MANN  KIRBY LAWHON MA.RY . JOCELYN BRET 036 n PU PU PU 01 01 01 F T M K 0U7_ OUS Moved d to Janson\nsonvine 3! J7 939916 HAa5' \"ST \"Jr r c. c 9U0O69 95012U 9U0179 939992 950086 9501U8 ELLIS HIPPS PAGE STRAWN HARPER STEADMAN 9399A5 .LOCKER 950122 950099 939623 HALLENBECK JOHNSON SMITH 939636 TURNER ANDREW . STEVEN PATRICK ERIC_________ NICKOLAS KYtE .SPENCER JOSHUA JACKEE DES22ARRAY 9396U2 939652 939669 939983 939995 MAXWELL JACKSON BUCKLEY BERRY LEE 939995 COOkSeV 9U0106 9U0155 9 U 0 1 5 6 9U019U 9 U 0 2 2 2 HOLMES ELLIS ELLIS NASH MEYERS 9A0270 CASkEft 9500U1 9500U2 GLASS BERRY RakETA CLAUDIA SHAVONDA VICTORIA BRITTANY WHITNEY TAsmine KRYSTAL SHARHONOA DASHONDA SARESSA TIFFANY CEODIS TAMARA AMBER .PU. PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU PU W PU PU Tr PU PU TV PU PU \"Pu PU PU PU PU .QJ 01 01 01 9 5 2 3 9 '4 onwDv eu/^^TMIcrc PU 01 01 01 57 02 57 02 02 77 02 02 77 02 02 77 02 02 77 02 02 02 M M M M M M M M F F T F F T F F T F F 7 F F T F F K Hoved to Conway : ci Returned to home district (NLRSD)  ooBfied^ 036 oW 036 03 8: 0U3 J ill ' F Pit lioved to North Little Rock 036 THT 036 036 TST 036 036 THT 036 036 OTT 036 036 OTF 038 038 036 13 72 o o e( \u0026lt; r c ( h 1\" 4( Iz M E 1 1 030707 030700 9 A 0 0 7 Q. n e 9A 0 11 9 9 F^ 0 2 9500A3 950255 950525 9396A0 93982? \"96 025 3 939802 939927 10/27/93 CTCWAPT CM $TEVE!SON in.i 17 s MCCOY ANDERSON WATSON THOMAS CP.OOK BUTLER PAMPLIN SAILEY BAYAA MAOTTM 1'4:09: 17 L'ni versal Student ID Student last name 93933A BitOO33 951518 939930 STOOTS WILKERSON KEMP ELLIS 9388*1 I7ET 939921 939811 9398i\u0026lt;3 940302 9i.0303 PERKINS KENDLE ROSBY CLARK CLARK 939823 HOUSE 9A0125 95002A 950025 9509AU CONEY BEASLEY LONG MARSHALL 951030 SHWnr 950577 951551 ?5'2'560 9526SA 95159? 95O8A5 9A0032 9A018A \"grg'2'0'1' 950003 939665 939593 939705 9AQ035 9A 0203 WAID tnHNtCAM ARNOLD SI K E Y ALLEN KaRshall ' LEWIS SMITH -frwT------------------ HART WASHINGTON TTTTV------------- NATION BROWN -------- otnn 1 u A o\\/c V jrin Tu Afci cuceuAXi TERRANCE C ?. R L TON VOTCTOOUCO ALEX KELSEY AARON DANNY WILLIAM Of, PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA PA 02 02 02 02 02 02 .\u0026amp; 02 02 06 M M M M M M H M M K 036 036 035 036 036 036 036 036 038 036 ! c 3 LESLIE ILIA LINA MELISSA Student first name MICHELLE 'S'umm Af^' TIFFANY BRENT TOST\"-------- HADIYAH ELISHIA , LORA LEANNA KEANNA WILFRED JR NICHOLAS lakelanC TERA ----- CHRISTOPHE CLEO T'R'Avrs---------- SHAWN BRANDON CLAY IOH--- NICHOLE TAELOR ^79^----------------- JONATHAN MICHEAL MVCHALL-------- KENDRIC JOHNNY -JR --------------- CASSANDRA Q37 LAST YEAR SCHOOL Q37 tT 039 11 0^0 PA PA PA PA 01 01 01 01 F F F F K ? Moved \u0026gt; 006 037 037 2 19 ZD 21 23 n 2\u0026lt; J LAST YEAR CLASS 'VaM^ PAGE 5 o o r* Ethni c Group Sex Current class year Current school I no. PA PA w PA _PA PA PA PA 'W PA PA PV PA TT PA PA W PA PA TF PA PA PTT PA PA PIT PA PA TF Pt^ -0- 01 rr 01 01 ST 02 02 02 02 02 757 02 02 Try ot irr 01 01 \"OT 01 01 TIT 02 02 UT 02 02 TT 02 02 TT Q 1 F T F M HZ F F F F F IT H M TT F T\" M M TT M M S F F T M M TT M M R\" c K K 037 TTST-------------- 037 037 037 ~ O2T.{^f4U 037 037 037 037 TTJT---------------- 03? 03? 0T7 0*2 yii\niRroi .Assigned Fled toTj\u0026lt; 03 5^^1 040 MW'Jb c ( ( lakefield-did not enr 035 k5F^ 039.' Trrg^------------------- 035  075n------------ 035. | 039 TTIT*------------------ 65 61 6i 6! n Z1 7? ZJ Z4i Z6^ IS Moved out of district - Crossett c. u l_I O'S OPT g Q-J PC O Qcnn 1 3 939745 940092 Q 6 n n 9 /, ^hQQ99 ShQ^QQ 950001 950095 934195 939720 940084 940085 939737 SADC'ULY KIRKWOnn TUnOMTAM M'^ATT PERKINS lYORDLOlY HARRIS E ROWN HARRISON VEASLEY 'YELLS uTrve DAVIS DAVIS TURNER htACTACCTJl MAU CATHERINE SPEl'ICER NE AH LARONDA Jasmine DESHANNA SRANOIACE E RI K_* LEWCIOUS nAooci I -PETER PAUL TONY f c c ( It 13' M H K n M II o IS r Uni versa! Student ID 952339 95297 940167 940060 940143 94023? 1? Student 1 ast name Student first name LAST YEAR SCHOOL Hoees DONALD SUMMERVILLE DAVIS PEOPLES HARRIS ?9ii00f8 BEASLEV 940039 940066 940163 saoGas 039987 939928 902fj4 MATLOCK TOLBERT EASTER BENSON MARTIN NOBLE DANIELS 9feo\u0026lt;27 RAyr 940240 950121 939647 939649 939690 939901 939921 939927 9 4 0 1 5 1 95029 950529 939669 939637 939508 030910 939920 OPPOPC SNIEGOCKI KALKBRENNER A EDINGTON MILLARD Xmers6n HALE GUTHRIE YOCQUE GEARY SHUDAK DANN BALL BOOTH HE A on W5MOTA(4 PHIL LIPS -EVELYN DAVID ERICA JASMINE BRITTANY JESSICA AHOREK  CALION JAMES CORY JR PA 1 LADONNA 942 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 PU Pk LAST YEAR CLASS P4. P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 PU P4 PU T 01 01 0 1 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 06 Ethnic Group QJ 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 F F F M F F F F F M M M M M Sex F_ M F F y F M. M M M I Current class year K X._____________ 040 040 040 040 040_______________________ 040 040 040 040 040_______________________ 040- 2 9 la PAGE Current school 6 no. 3 020 032 04 1 q?? 04 1 P18 04 r 041 04 1 o r c 4 3* SARAH MICHELLE SYDNEY CAROLZME RENEE KYLE REID ANDREW MICHAEL BRIAN HOUSTON JAME-S JOSHUA BUSTER PARKER COD.Y KEIORA CAPMEN DESTINEY VICTOeity P4 01 F 7 P4 P4 P4 W PU P4 TT P4 P4 TV Ph Ph P4 P4 TV P4 P4 TV P6 Pti 01 01 01 TT 01 01 TT 01 01 7T 01 01 *CT 01 01 TT 01 03 T7 02 02 F F F T F M TT M M IT M M V M M V M F TT F K Trrr 042 042 GTS\" i 020 i 042 042 G5T' Qh2 042. 042 04 2 iWiy It- G go 048 V 042 Tpr2-------------- 042 042 ?i( ( f C ( ,^o' M t: IS u E \u0026lt;5 h 4 p bl be Q oo n 950029 ocnno? 93 oeec 9399 1 1 o? no 1 c 939923 939929 940029 940243 950079 oc no on 950092 940290 10/27/93 cMccn TfJpMCD CMnru HEARD mvMco COUChT SMITH LUSTER u H u p u p c y ROSS JENNY LAWRENCE ROQI^ 14:09\n17 'Jni versa! Student 10 Student last name ai978tt. .BROOKS 939786 939788 939942 940193 940004 COFFMAN COFFMAN CAMPBELL SKINNER WILDER 933795 BRYANT 939632 940294 940295 939526' 939698 939775 940 1 14 OSOO* ROBERTS RAINEY RAINEY gaTlij? WASHINGTON HAMPTON W.\u0026lt;Li\u0026lt;ER GILLIAM CR''STAL DERICK rAWCOAtil E^SIE KWAME PICKV FRANK MARION ROLANDO p T r V e V HAL JAPE student first \"name CARRIE CHERRie WILLIAM LARRY LADONNA _ NATAISHA TARA TASHA Jhgel^ KENDALt STEVEN REGINALD EDWARD 044 LAST YEAR SCHOOL j(. P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 4 77^ LAST YEAR CLASS P4 P4 P4 \u0026gt;4 pit _Ptt pit P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 02 0? 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 Ethnic Group ,01 01 01 01 01 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 c T M M M M M ' M M M M M  Sex _F F F F M M F F F F TT M M M M Current class year A Qt2 Q\u0026gt;t2 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 042 04 2 I J -OAZ.ItaJ.d PAGE 7 Current school no. .0_44_____ 044 044 044 Private school 044 044 044 Qlttt 044 044 044 :Jo IS 11 70 2t a n l:  2\n2! X - 31 K x )\u0026lt; X X  J} s X L (. ( 939961 940158 939716 939958 950096 939800 940154 939612 939956 939960 940164 940239 940288' 950072 939952 O 3 Q o c , 939799 o o 7 WRAY TYLER KERR GRADY GOODNIGHT FENTON CLEM'dNS OGBULAFOR HADLEY S T U 5 P S FACEN HARRIS CROCKETT JAMES NEWTON TgAl'IgR--------- CHIDAMBARAM CTMrtCD ^ARA MARCIA CATHERINE RACHEL JENNA MATTHEW ^ONES JASMINE AMBER LAUREN TIFFANY MARISSA kRYSTIAN CARLOS KEVIN PREETHI 045 li  P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 Z ^4 P4 P4 P4 P4 P4 ^P4\" P4 Pit PIT Pit _____94. 'J 01 01 cyi 01 01 irr 02 02 02 02 02 15T Q2 02 sr 04 JiS_ T F F F F M z F F F F F T M M IT TT Moved out of district - Perryvill enroll 04S 045 045 d4S --------- 045 045 -------------------------------------------------------- 045 045 ------------------------------------------------------------ 030 l\\ Qlt3 X M ' iJ  K . K 91 92 U ' 65 W c 252\n045 no? k. (j \"I N? 13 c c i c (, k 4 \u0026gt;0 S3| \u0026amp;4I H\" \"o C 1 O T O 0 5 1 ij ,j 9 Q9oocn 940030 9 4 0 ^7'' 940200 950057 940020 939679 939709 939965 940215 950336 10/27/93 Jackson WAJ-TriM BUS noAOco WT I I HUDSON PHILLIPS HOOD AL5RIGH'' CHAM2 E RS HICKS MILAM GLOVER 14:09:17 Uni versa! Student IO Student last name 950059. flASSAS 940161 940235 940258 940132 940186 940229 952419 94014? nt o DAVISON BROWN RATLIFF ' tWTOOhSSr DAWSON BROWN HUTSON BAILEY PERRY nous BLACK 940195 940218 940^^^ 1 TOWNSEND PARKER 5llI^0M END 0 F SHAQUITA r Api_yM KHAY^tA RAYLE BRITTNI DONNIE FRED CORNELIUS BRITTANY JESSICA JACKLYN Student f 1 r st name SHERIEF JUSTIN TRE-Y KEVIN \"JOTIS------- SHATERRICA pOMINUftijE REGINA^ AMANDA KEVIN VSR------------ DEANTRE COURTNEY FTOAiT REPORT   * 052 LAST VEAR SCHOOL OSi It PA PA PA PA TT PA PA PA PA Pft P4 PA LAST YEAR CLASS .P4_ P4 P4 P4 'RF P4 P4 Ta\" P4 PA PA PA Tr 0 ' 01 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 02 01 01 01 Ethnic Group 01 01 01 01 w 02 02 \"CT 02 02 VC 02 02 TT T F F F F F F M M M F F F Sex M M H M T F F r F M TT M M TT K Current class year K Assigned to King-did not 035 OTT 035 035 575* 035 033 035 035 K -7--------------- Moved out of district 052 Current school 028 052 052 052 3 no. 052 m- 052 052 1157 052 052 IHT to 2d 21 21 23 SI N a c o ( ( ( c ri M u 1/Arkansas Deinocrat (gazette SATURDAY, AUGUST 27, 1994 Cnnwri^ O I IttlA ROCk NOWSOapefS. IflC. Give black 4-year-olds seats, district asks BY CYNTHIA HOWELL Democrat-Gazette Education Writer The Little Rock School District has 129 vacant seats  onetenth the number of children on the waiting list  in its early- childhood education program for 4-year-olds. The problem, district officials explained this week in documents submitted to U.S. District Judge Susan Webber Wright, is that the vacant seats in the program are reserved for white children, and the waiting list consists mostly of black children. In the court briefs, school district administrators said they had vigorously recruited white children last spring for the program, but would now like permission to release the unfilled, reserved seats to black children on the waiting list. The vacant seats represent almost 18 percent of all the seats in the free, full-day program. Since seats still remain vacant as the 1994-95 school year gets under way, the district submits that the vacant seats should now be released to black students who can benefit from the educational opportunities that will be provided, the legal brief said. The districts early-childhood education program is a component of its desegregation plan. The program was designed to attract both black and white children to 20 schools that have been difficult to desegregate and to prepare children for kindergarten and elementary school. The program has the capacity to serve 720 children in classes of 18 children each. So far, the district has enrolled 357 black children and 234 white children in the program. The districts goal was to racially balance each of the classes. But not enough white children signed up for all the available seats at 15 of the schools. The following elementaries had the largest number of vacancies: Badgett, 23\nBaseline, 12\nCloverdale, 14\nFranklin, 16\nGarland, 8\nMitchell, 9\nRightsell, 8\nWashington, 12\nand Watson, 12. The district has 1,120 black children and 84 white children on the waiting lists for the early- childhood program. The white children are on the waiting lists for schools that have filled all their allotted seats.SEP 61994 Otiico 01 DoiogfC-gaiion Mortorii'g IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION r I  U.S- St? C1 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT. ET AL. PLAINTfFI y. 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 JOSHUA INTERVENORS RESPONSE TO LRSDS MOTION TO RELEASE KINDERGARTEN SEATS AND FOUR YEAR OLD PROGRAM SEATS AND OPPOSITION TO LRSDS RECRUITMENT EFFORTS The LRSD filed with the Court on or about August 25, 1994 its motion requesting release of kindergarten and four year old program seats. In response to the LRSDs motion, Joshua states first that we have qualified opposition to the conditional release of said seats for the 1994 school term only and agrees that the vacant seats should be released to eligible black students\nbut, second, the LRSD is retreating from the Plan. Therefore, Joshua prays that the Court limit its possible approval to this year only and further prays for sanctions for this reason and the others which follow. The recruitment efforts by LRSD have been misrepresented. The district simply engaged in a proforma effort to obtain or recruit white eligible pupils for the program. Moreover, the Associate Superintendent for Desegregation, Dr. Russ Mayo, neither c:\\wp60\\lrsd.pledeveloped nor required the development of a recruitment plan which was tailored to address white enrollment in these schools. The districts non-directed efforts were therefore neither \"sustained,\" \"vigorous,\" nor \"out of the ordinary.\" Joshua prays for a hearing to establish these points on a bad faith contention against the LRSD. Furthermore, the district's plan proposes to enhance the racial imbalances in the schools as the upper grade levels become affected by the promotions. This factor will also be evidenced thereafter as the children in these schools in the form of racial percentages even higher than at present. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors pray that the Court set the matter for hearing and thereafter impose sanctions against the LRSD officials who are official responsible for the misrepresentations made, and for other appropriate relief. Respectfully submitted. JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (501) 374-3758 By: ^John ' / W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 V c:\\wp60\\lrsd.ple 2CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE was I, John W. Walker, do hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing plqs^g forwarded to all counsel of record, by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this cz-^z^ay of September, 1994. John W. Walker T c\n\\wp60\\lrsd.ple 3CO: (%/\u0026gt;/ Little Rock School District December 6,1994 TO: From: Thru: Subject\nMEMORANDUM Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, Coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent (A received DK 1 5 iqq^ Office of Desegregit'  '\u0026gt; Filling spaces in the Rockefeller infants and Two year program 1. The capacity and number of vacancies in the infant and Two-year old program are as follows\nInfant capacity Two-year old 10 17 Current vacancies Current vacancies 1 6 2. The length of time the vacancies have been open are as follows: The infant vacancy occurred in November 1994. The Two-year old vacancies occurred in September 1994 with seven vacancies, in October we enrolled (3) two-year olds and dropped (3). In November (2) seats were filled , in December (2) seats were filled and (11) two-year olds are currently enrolled. 3. The timeline for filling vacancies is as follows: Since the program is functioning on a 12 month cycle we are continuously offering seats from the waiting list on a monthly basis. Our goal is to keep the enrollment at capacity at all times. 4. Why Infant and Two-year-old programs have been running at less than capacity is as follows: The Infant and Two-year old Caucasian capacity is maximized . The remaining seats have been consistently offered to African American families from the waiting list. The cost has been the primary reason for these families declining the seats. The Department of Human services offers assistance, but it is my understanding that the list has a two-year waiting period. 1 810 West Markham street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72301  (501)324-20005. The current placement policies and practices are as follows\nFirst preference, is given to students who live in the attendance zone and have sibling attending the school. Second, is given to students who live in the attendance zone. Third, is given to students who do not live in attendance zone but have sibling attending the school. Fourth, is staff preference. Fifth, is desegregation transfer. 6. How and when we will modify the policies and practices to expedite student placement is as follows: Starting the month of December we have began to telephone parents and offer seats where vacancies exist. After the parent is called, a follow-up letter is sent to confirm the parent's response. 7. The date as each of the current vacancies are filled. Since we have started the telephone procedure we have filled the (1) infant seat and (5) two-year-old seats. These seats were filled 12/5- 12/8/94. 2z\u0026gt; February 3,1995 To: From: Thru: Subject: Little Rock School District receive^ Memorandum Ann Brown, Federal Monitor Audrey Lee, coordinator of SA information Dr. Russell Mayo, Associate Superintendent Rockefeller Early Childhood Programs FEB 8 1995 C' S J As Of January 19, 1995 the enrollment in the early childhood programs are as follows: infant (Pl) Two-year old(P2) 10 enrolled 15 enrolled Three-year old (P3) 11 enrolled 0 vacancies 2 vacancies 7 vacancies E 5 6 7 MB 5 9 4 e Students were assigned to the Two and Three-year-old programs from January 9 through January 17,1995. At the present time there are no two-year olds on the waiting list. There are no nonblack students on the Three-year-old waiting list to fill the five available seats. The two black vacancies in the Three-year program have been offered and we are waiting for a response from the parents. 810 West Markham Street  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501)324-3000z Ci FiLSD U.S OIS75 uASTcRM OiST JCT COURT RiCT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION st? - 7 1995 JAMES Bv: lORiMACK, CLERK I P CLERiT LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF VS. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AI. INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL INTERVENORS ORDER The Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") has filed a motion and supplemental motion seeking permission to release to black students those unfilled seats in the incentive schools that the district had reserved for white kindergarten students and those unfilled seats reserved for white four-year-olds at both incentive and area schools. The LRSD stated it engaged in vigorous recruitment efforts for the programs for the 1995-96 school year, and that while these recruitment efforts yielded some positive results, a large number of seats remained vacant. More--than- once. the Court has expressed its reluctance to condone releasing_ seats set aside for white students because relinquishing those seats will make desegregating the schools more difficult. especially the incentive schools. The Court has addressed the long-term effects of this course of action in previous order dated September 7, 1994 and will not repeat that a analysis here. [Doc. # 2304.] From a review of the recent record, the Court is not convinced that the district's efforts satisfy the 2 5 13requirement for recruitment that is timely, vigorous, and sustained. The Court is particularly concerned that, during the pre-school registration period early last spring. the district informed parents by means of brightly colored flyers that the availability of the four-year-old' program might be reduced during the 1995-96 school year due to projected budget cuts. As a result. parents could not be confident of their access to the program, and doubtless some were thereby dissuaded from enrolling their children. Furthermore, in this year's filings, which are virtually identical to last  motion and brief to release seats. the LRSD once again has cited its quarterly program planning and budgeting document status reports and its monthly project management tool as sources of additional recruitment documentation. In last year's Order granting the motion to release seats, the Court noted that the nature of the project management tool is such that it does not contain additional information on recruitment. Such is still the case. The data supplied through exhibits illustrates that the district will fall far short of its desegregation goals if the seats reserved for white kindergarten students in the incentive schools go to black children instead. The percentages will be 94% black at Franklirr. 100% at Garland, 100% at Mitchell, 98% at Rightsell, and 70% at Rockefeller if the current vacancies are filled with black students. The LRSD would also fall short of its racial balance goals for four-year-old assignments in 14 of the 20 schools which offer the program if seats reserved for white 2students are filled by black students. Those schools outside the range would be Badgett (81% black), Baseline (81%), Brady (61%), Chicot (67%), Cloverdale (83%), Franklin (93%), Garland (72%), King (63%), Mitchell (89%), Rightsell (83%), Rockefeller (54%), Romine (78%), Watson (78%), and Wilson (61%). Exhibits filed by the LRSD on September 7, 1995 offer information indicating the LRSD has reserved the targeted number of seats for white four-year-old students in the incentive, interdistrict. and area schools. However, the data shows that Rightsell is the only incentive school in which the district reserved half of the seats for white kindergarten students. If the number of currently empty kindergarten seats were filled with white students, in addition to those whites already enrolled. the proportions would be 53% black at Franklin, 63% at Garland, 73% at Mitchell, and 67% at Rockefeller. These numbers indicate that the district either has already released seats to black children or never reserved them for whites in the first place. Even though the LRSD has failed to reserve all of the requisite number of seats and despite the inadequate job LRSD has done in recruiting white children for these programs, the Court recognizes that another major goal of the programs, in addition to racial integration. is to assist in increasing the achievement of black students. The parties previously have agreed that vacant seats reserved for white children will not remain unfilled. (LRSD Except for Mitchell and Rockefeller, these proportions are an improvement over those noted last year. 3Desegregation Plan, pg. 140.) Since the school year is underway, and the release of the seats will benefit black children, motion is granted. the The Court once again directs the LRSD to reserve half of all incentive school kindergarten seats for 1996-97 and subsequent school years for white children and to continue to reserve the targeted number of seats for four-year-old students in all schools with a four-year-old program. Also, the district is to remain mindful of the target racial balance in the other elementary schools so as to recruit and assign students accordingly. The Court will continue to require the LRSD to seek court permission before releasing any reserved seats in future school years. Also, the Office of Desegregation Monitoring (ODM\") is to continue closely monitoring the LRSD's recruitment of white children for the seats reserved for them in the four-year-old and kindergarten classes in the incentive schools and in the four-year-old programs at the other schools. IT IS SO ORDERED this 7-- day of September 1995. UNITED STATES /DISTO ISTRICT JUDGE docket aKrrjN Y 4 4n o kJ CL LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT Clam Black Male Black Female Total Black White Male White Female Total While Other Male Other Female Total Other Total Count Black white % Other % Min.% Black Uax.% Black Mu. Cap K 18 24 42 4 9 13 0 3 3 S8 72.4 22.4 S.2 50.0 50.0 60 s: :z. CD cn tn Ld Q O I (f) Q tn CE 00 c^ CM CM cn S) If) o ID If) CP CP P1 P2 P3 P4 TOTAl 4 2 6 2 2 4 0 0 0 10 60.0 40.0 .0 50/1 50.0 10 2 4 6 4 4 8 0 0 0 14 42.9 57.1 .0 50.0 50.0 17 5 4 9 4 3 1 1 2 18 50.0 38.9 11.1 50.0 50.0 18 13 12 25 14 9 23 0 3 3 51 49.0 45.1 5.9 50.0 50.0 54 42 46 88 28 27 55 1 7 B 151 58.3 36.4 5.3 159 (S10/17/1995 16:04 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 02 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72202 MEMORANDUM TO: Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor FROM: Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment DATE: October 17, 1995 SUBJECT\nEariy Childhood Enrollment Report/Capacity Figures Attached is the report you requested on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Program. In response to your October 12 memo to Dr. Mayo, the capacity figures we are currently using are those found on our October 2 enrollment count that you received. Let me know if we can be of further assistance. NA\npt Attachment c: Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate Superintendent, 10/17/1995 16:04 5013242281 LRSD STUDENT ASSIGNM PAGE 01  DiRECTOR of SwdENT AssiqNMENT  UniE Rock School Dismicr \"501 ShcRMAN Link Rock, AR 72202 TdephoNE 501-5 24-2109  Fax 501J 24-2281 eo'^ss. MTl TO - 0 I - 0 / o 0 fncf^ St^EClAL INSTBUCnONS NUMBEK OF PAG^ INCLUOING COyEB 3 MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT STUDENT ASSIGNMENT OFFICE 501 SHERMAN ST. LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72202 Melissa Guldin, Associate Monitor Nancy Acre, Director of Student Assignment October 17, 1995 OCT 1 3 1995 Office of Desegrsvatiai iV'lV! J SUBJECT: Early Childhood Enrollment Report/Capacity Figures Attached is the report you requested on the Rockefeller Early Childhood Program. In response to your October 12 memo to Dr. Mayo, the capacity figures we are currently using are those found on our October 2 enrollment count that you received. Let me know if we can be of further assistance. NA:pt Attachment c: Dr. Russ Mayo, Associate SuperintendentClass K PI P2 P3 P4 TOTAL Black Male 18 4 2 5 13 42 Black Female 24 2 4 4 12 46 Total Black 42 6 6 9 25 88 White Male 4 2 4 4 14 28 White Female 9 2 4 3 9 27 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT ROCKEFELLER EARLY CHILDHOOD PROGRAM OCTOBER 2, 1995 ENROLLMENT Total White 13 4 8 7 23 55 Other Male 0 0 0 1 0 1 Other Female 3 0 0 1 3 7 Total Other 3 0 0 1 3 8 Total Count 58 10 14 18 51 151 Black % 72.4 60.0 42.9 50.0 49.0 58.3 White % 22.4 40.0 57.1 38.9 45.1 36.4 Other % 5.2 .0 .0 11.1 5.9 5.3 Min.% Black 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Max.% Black 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.0 Max. Cap. 60 10 17 18 54 159CF - 3 High School Kindergartens The Little Rock School District has maintained kindergartens in the high schools for a number of years. Originally they served a purpose by being associated with high school Child Development offerings or family life classes. As that kind of class offering has changed in the district the high school kindergartens have been used to place children that enrolled too late to get into their attendance zone school. It is time to re-examine the roll that these kindergarten sections play in the school district. The Little Rock School District has not given sufficient attention to the provisions of its Desgregation Plan Citywide Early Childhood Education Program that says it will address three objectives. (Page 9) (1) to provide parenting education for the parents of early childhood students\n(2) to provide quality child care arrangements for low income parents which stress social development and school readiness\nand (3) to provide a quality pre-school program for disadvantaged students. These objectives are not being met in the high school kindergarten setting. Further the use of these high schools as a placement of last resort shows the plan provision on page 11 calling for assistance to  disadvantaged parents in the kindergarten pre-registration process is ineffective or non-existent and the available magnet school seats indicate that the provision also on page 11 to make these parents aware of magnet opportunities in their neighborhoods is not working. The kindergartens in the elementary schools offer more than the high schools can provide. One of the advantages is the association in the building with other children. They can get a glimpse of the educational opportunities of the first grade and can begin to develop those behaviors that will make them successful. In high schools they dont get to participate in school assemblies, dont get a chance to participate in the team building activities that all the elementary schools offer and dont get the staff services that are available to their peers. There is no counseling service available, no social worker, no music teacher, no P. E. instruction, no oversight by an elementary principal, and no elementary health services. In private, elementary principals will say that they see problems that high school kindergartners have in adjusting to regular school settings. Eighty seven percent of these children are black and most come from impoverished backgrounds. The kindergarten experience for them should be a needed leg up instead of a boot. In addition, at the high school kindergartens, five out of seven classes or three of the five schools are racially isolated with all black classes. In the school system a lack of white students may result in some cases of racial isolation and the eighth circuit court tolerated some isolation in the incentive schools but these children do not have the advantages offered by incentive schools to compensate for isolation and at the beginning of these childrens school experience this isolation should not be tolerated. There appears to be adequate space available in existing class sections to accommodate the high school kindergarten children. Consideration might also be given to new sections at interdistrict and stipulation magnet schools to reduce the competition for seats at the kindergarten level and perhaps attract white parents that might otherwise opt for private school. It also would help solve the difficulty in recruiting to fill the three additional seats in first grade. (Class size standards are 20 for kindergarten and 23 for first grade so assuming all 20 kindergartners move on to first grade 3 seats are available for recruiting). A chart is attached showing potential available seats and the attendance zone schools of high school kindergartners. Significant savings could be realized by reducing the number of kindergartens offered while still keeping within standards and shifting more shidents into the magnet schools transfers the cost from the operational budget to the magnet budget where half the cost is paid by the state. District administrators might want to look into the use of the kindergarten space to be used as day care for school age mothers as an attempt to assist them in completion of their high school work.Kindergarten Enrollment School Name Badgett Bale Baseline Booker Brady Carver Chicot Cloverdale Elem Dodd Fair Park Forest Park Franklin Fullbrig ht Garland Geyer Springs Gibbs Jefferson M.L King Mablevale Elem McDermott Meadowcliff Mitchell Otter Creek Pulaski Heights Rightsell Rockefeller Romine Terry Wakefield Washington Watson Western Hills Williams Wilson Woodruff Grand Total Grade K Black 12 28 42 38 43 31 35 45 29 28 22 98 32 33 29 17 23 57 49 24 37 36 12 30 37 31 33 29 42 53 44 29 31 35 26 1220 63% Ethnic White 8 14 14 33 30 29 22 13 9 11 38 9 45 6 11 17 38 38 12 31 18 1 27 28 1 21 16 49 16 25 15 10 29 11 7 702 37% K Total Grand Total Potential Available Seats In High School Kindergarten 20 42 56 71 73 60 57 58 38 39 60 107 77 39 40 34 61 95 61 55 55 37 39 58 38 52 49 78 58 78 59 39 60 46 33 1922 20 42 56 71 73 60 57 58 38 39 60 107 77 39 40 34 61 95 61 55 55 37 39 58 38 52 49 78 58 78 59 39 60 46 33 1922 0 0 4 9 7 0 3 2 2 1 0 0 3 1 0 6 0 5 0 5 5 3 1 2 2 8 11 2 2 2 1 1 0 14 7 109 3 2 3 5 7 1 4 2 2 10 5 5 '9 4 4 1 2 5 2 5 6 24 3 3 117 + 2 NozoneKindergarten Enrollment in High Schools Count of Studio Grade K I Ethnic K Total Name Central Fair Hall McClellan Community High Sch Parkview Grand Total Black 50 12 7 20 14 103 White 0 3 13 0 0 16 50 15 20 20 14 119Paerficus? Hore + - RECEIV^'^ FEB 1 ? 1996 Office of Desesregaiion Monitorinfl OILPS' P.kSE 1 sQffli COWS ey school l9S6/02/i2 SOfiCl: 06 raEFELLES SCSfraE SCHOOL C15SS Slack Black Other Other Total Hint HaxJ Hax Count Percent Camt Percent Count Black Black Capacity 06 06 30 2k ?5.01 i2.n 10 9 26.01 ll.n ko ko. eo.ot 3 kO.OJ 60.01 kO kO Total 260 6).rt 165 so.-n k06 F2=Screen leit F=Exit F6=Tcp line F9=Retrieee F!0=Top Fll^Bottae Ft2=Break f!k=yieK PI P2 P3 P4 Class Black 37 6 8 8 21 Total 80 ROCKEFELLER ECE ENROLLMENT As Of 2/11/96 White Total Change since last report % Black Maximum Capacity 20 57 0 65 60 4 8 9 29 70 10 16 17 50 150 0 0 -1 +2 +1 60 10 50 47 42 53 17 18 54 159Class Black K 37 P1 5 P2 9 P3 a P4 21 Total 80 ROCKEFELLER ECE ENROLLMENT As of 3/7/96 White 20 5 8 9 28 70 Total Enrollment % Black Maximum Capacity Difference (plus or minus) in total enrollment since last report 57 65 60 No change 10 17 17 49 150 50 53 47 43 53 10 17 18 54 159 No change +1 No change -1 No changePowerHouse QDIZ .'1 LPSO PAGE SCHOOL COUHIS eV SCHOOL 1 HOOL\n036 ROCKEfELLEf INCENTIVE SCHOOL Class Slack Slack Other Count Percent Count Other Percent Total Count Hin t Black i\u0026gt;^ 1 RC.'- Oilice ot Desegtegalicn Monitonna Hor? + 1996/03/O? Max i Black Hax Caoacity k Pl P2 P3 P4 SP 01 02 03 04 33 5 9 S 21 0 3? 33 25 21 64.9$ 50.0$ 52.9$ 4?.!$ 42.9$ .0$ 64.9$ ?8.6$ 56.8$ 53.8$ 20 5 5 9 28 0 20 9 19 18 35.1$ 60.0$ !i?.l$ 52.9$ 5?.l$ .0$ 35.1$ 2t.ii$ 43.2$ 46.2$ 5.' 10 1? 1? 49 0 5/ 42 44 39 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ .0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 40.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ 50.0$ .0$ 60.0$ 60.0$ 60.0$ 60.0$ 60 10 1? 18 54 0 60 60 60 60 F2=Scpeen salt F3=Exit F6=Top line F9=Setrie/e F10=Top FlbBotto ?t2=Sre3k FU=Vies PoserHous? QUIZ Hore + - OlficQ ^996 Of Di 29. .'! LRSD PACE 2  CHOOL: SCHOOL COONTS 6? SCHOOL 036 gOCKEFELLEg IHCLNTIVE SCHOOL i' 1 a c c Black Count Black Other Othff Total Percent Count Percent Count Hin J Black Hax S Black 1996/03/0? Hax Capacity 05 06 30 26 ?6.QS ?5.0S 10  25.OS 25.OS 60 32 60.01 60.OS 60.OS 60.OS 60 60 Total 250 61.9J 156 38.H POP 2=Screen e/ait =12=8reak F3=Exit Ft6=l?ie P6=Too line F9=Retrieve F10=Top FlbBottoiauz. GRADE AF AM Pl 0 1 P2 0 1 P3 1 1 P4 7 0 GRAND TOTAL\n8 3 Rockefeller October 1, 2001 BF BM HF HM NF NM WF WM TOTAL 3 5 7 0 15 2 0 0 0 0 3 3 12 3 9 11 25 0 0 0 0 4 3 16 0 0 0 0 5 7 30 1 I 0 0 0 7 8 34 0 0 0 19 21 92\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"nge_ngen_mlk-day-2","title":"Ebenezer Baptist Church","collection_id":"nge_ngen","collection_title":"New Georgia Encyclopedia","dcterms_contributor":["Atlanta Journal-Constitution"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":["The Ebenezer Baptist Church in downtown Atlanta—in which King was ordained and from which he conducted many of his civil rights campaigns in the 1950s and 1960s—is now preserved as part of the Martin Luther King Jr. Historic Site.","This photograph shows the Ebenezer Baptist Church sign in downtown Atlanta. The church, in which King was ordained and from which he conducted many of his civil rights campaigns in the 1950s and 1960s, is now preserved as part of the Martin Luther King Jr. Historic Site."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Church signs--Georgia--Atlanta","Church buildings--Georgia--Atlanta","Baptist church buildings--Georgia--Atlanta","African American churches--Georgia--Atlanta","Banners--Georgia--Atlanta","African Americans--Civil rights--Georgia--Atlanta","Neon signs--Georgia--Atlanta","Crosses--Georgia--Atlanta","Buildings--Georgia--Atlanta","Historic buildings--Georgia--Atlanta","Martin Luther King, Jr., National Historic Site (Atlanta, Ga.)","Ebenezer Baptist Church (Atlanta, Ga.)","Martin Luther King, Jr., Day--Georgia--Atlanta","Atlanta (Ga.)--Buildings, structures, etc."],"dcterms_title":["Ebenezer Baptist Church"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["New Georgia Encyclopedia (Project)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/arts-culture/ebenezer-baptist-church/mlk-day-2/"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":null,"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47373","title":"[Elaine Steele talking with another woman, likely during promotional event for Parks' autobiography \"Rosa Parks, My Story,\" published 1992] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff.","Printing date on photo processing envelope: \"07/92\"."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":null,"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Elaine Steele talking with another woman, likely during promotional event for Parks' autobiography \"Rosa Parks, My Story,\" published 1992] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47373"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Please contact holding institution for information regarding use and copyright status."],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Steele, Elaine Eason"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"loc_rosaparks_47168","title":"[Elaine Steele, Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder, Rosa Parks and another unidentified woman] [graphic].","collection_id":"loc_rosaparks","collection_title":"Rosa Parks Papers","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992"],"dcterms_description":["Title devised by Library staff."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Forms part of: Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers (Library of Congress)."],"dcterms_subject":null,"dcterms_title":["[Elaine Steele, Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder, Rosa Parks and another unidentified woman] [graphic]."],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Library of Congress"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.47168"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Use digital image. Original served only by appointment because material requires special handling. For more information, see (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/info/617_apptonly.html)","Publication may be restricted. For general information see \"Visual Materials from the Rosa Parks Papers...,\" (http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/res/689_park.html)"],"dcterms_medium":["photographic printscolor1990-2000.gmgpc","portrait photographs1990-2000.gmgpc","group portraits"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","Steele, Elaine Eason","Wilder, Lawrence Douglas, 1931-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_429","title":"Election zone","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School board members","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/429"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nFrom the desk of Debbie Crownoverr MR. CECIL BAILEY, PRESIDENT MR. THOMAS BROUGHTON. VICE PRESIDENT (dou nli^ tf^oarcl Education ROOM 300. PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 201 S. BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 372-7800 Ai\" DR. GEORGE A. McCRARY MR. E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Debbie Crownover \u0026gt; MEMO TO: Members, Pulaski County lard of Education RECEIVED FROM: DATE: Ids. Debbie Crovmover,^Secretary December 21, 1992 DEC 2 2 1992 SUBJECT: Minutes of 12/15/92 2nd Quarterly Meeting Office of Desegregation Monitoring Enclosed, please find the following: 1. 2. Minutes from the 12/15/92 regular second quarterly meeting Copy of Order to Pulaski County Treasurer concerning CD investment Please review the minutes and let me know if you feel changes need to be made prior to the next meeting. Special Called Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, December 29, I MMZ- ar I ( Ml p M T-n -Pl ____________________ z\u0026lt;,  1992, at 1:00 P.M. in the 3rd floor conferenc: room, 201 So. Broadway, L.R. ihis meeting was scheduled for the purpose of the Board to choose a proposal from those presented, to formally present to Judge Susan Webber Wright for her consider- atim to set the new boundaries of the Little Rock School District school board member election zones. Please let me know in advance of this meeting if you will be unable MEIRRY CHRISTMAS to you all, and I'll see you on the 29th. to attend. cc: Larry Vaught, P.C. Attorney Chris Heller, Attorney, LRSD John Walker, Attorney Jim McKenzie, Metroplan 7DATE 12/15 2nd Qtr. County Board 09 of Education _________________IP ________________________________ KINO or MIKTIWa ,T.Mr,_Cccil Iki.i.ley, ITe.y. 201 So. Broadway, Ste. 300 Little Rock, AR PAGE_ 1 Mr. Cecil Bailey__ Dr. George.McCrary, Klember -Vice Pxcs.___ MKM ahskn , None Mr. Thnnwff RTOfrp.hton (part) Mr. Grainger Mi 11 jams. Member Dr. Martin Zolde.s.sy, Member__ OTHEnS PRESENT. Mr, T .A i Mr. Chris Heller SD --Cynthia. Howell.,. Ark^Democrat^Gazext. Dehhip \" . others: Crnwnnvpr, RnarH .Spprpt-flry __ See attached sign-in sheet INDEX NOTATIONS MINUTES Board of Education met, for its regular second quarterly meet- ing of the 1992/93 school year, on Tuesday, December 15, 1992, at 1:00 o.m. in the 3rd floor conference room of the Pulaski County Administration Bldg. All members were present to conduct business and Mr. President, called the meeting to order. Cecil Bailey, the Board Minutes of the 9/15 regular first quarterly meeting and of the 10/6 and 11/6 special called meetings were previously mailed to each Board Member for Copies of the minutes from the 11/30 and 12/7 public hearings ers for review. review. . ---------od were in their fold- Mr. Bailey asked for a motion to accept the minutes Mr. Williams so moved to ... - seconded the motion. --------- as approved. approve the minutes of all five meetings. Mr. Broughton It was voted and passed unanimously. Call to Order Minutes approved: 9/15, 10/6 11/6, 11/3 12/7/92 After some discussion Mr. Bailey asked for\n1 as to the current balances in the County Common School Fund, a motion to approve the distribution of the 2nd quarter allotment of State Apportionment money to the school districts. . ,, J --  ....... Ms. Crownover An Board the budgeted $3.00 per ADM had been reduced by the State Dent .s9 Qft Fiflr AHM ____________________T______T __________ . . , _ . - H  no r- pel nyu naa oeen reouced by the State Dept, to $2.98 per ADM for the current school year. She said she would adjust to balance with the actual distribution at the June, 1993 distribution. State App. allocation $41,935.50 distribute the $41,935.50 to the schools as soon as the allotment is received from the state funds.   ... Mr. Broughton seconded the motion. It was voted and approved. Next, feUey asked for a motion to approve the distribution of $2.00 per ADM AT* Sill K / H (Ml T mm ny-,,n__________r'i_____. ... . or $111,828.00 from the County Common School Fund to the school districts, was asked whether or not the funds were available before the end of the Crownover said that a little over $6,000.00 would still be the distribution. It year. Ms. seconded the motion. -----  in the account after Mr. Williams moved to distribute the money now. Mr. Broughton :. It was voted and unanimously approved. The prepared financial statement (as of 11/31/92) showed Cf. ZT ------------------------------- 3 current balance of \u0026lt;17 O9A County Common School Fund (with today's distributions), and _^7_^026.88 in the Special limd County Board of Education. These two accounts will cashed CD's plus interest at the end of December\n$300,000.00 and $200,000.00 respectively. ------------------ These two accounts will Mr. Bailey discussed with the Board the status of the $500,000.00 invested into CD s. The County Treasurer is to cash them in and deposit the funds plus interest into the proper accounts at maturity. After some discussion, Mr. Broughton steo- npH Tn na Proc 4 z-1 f- S v-.  n____ . i . . __ ped in as President in order for Mr. Bailey to make a motion, invest $500,000.00 as follows: He moved to re- $300,000.00 from the County Comnon School Fund $200,000.00 from the Special Fund, County Board of Education invested, by the Pulaski County Treasurer, Pat Tedford for the PiJaski County Board of Education, in 90-day CD's or T-Bills, whichever would yield the highest interest. \u0026gt;-- At maturity, the Treasurer is to deposit the ^oi^ts invested and interest earned back into the respective accounts. Ul'l I I 1 mmi-i X. 1 * Williams seconded the motion. Mr. It was voted and approved and Mr. Bailey resumed his position as President for the duration of the meeting. Cnty. Cmn. School Fnd $111,828.0( Financial statement Reinvest $500,000.0(DATE, 12/15 i_92 PAGE. 2 BIND OP MIKTIND PNiaiDINO OPPICBR OTHERS PRESENTi. INDEX NOTATIONS Second Quarterly Meeting, County Board of Education (Continued) Mr. Bailey then asked Ms. Crownover to report on the GED testing for 1992. With statistics in through 12/9/92, the following figures were noted for this test center (#0601): the GED testing for 1992 Total pre-tested---------------------- (31% of those 284 scheduled) Total taking actual test--------- Total passing actual test------- 87 75 47 or 63% Total falling actual test---------------------------28 or 37% The Board discussed the \"no-shows\" of those scheduled to take the laxoL-Lioocu une nu-snows oi tnose scneOuled pre-test. Ms. Crownover said it is quite a problem in scheduling, because of limited testing days and limited seating space. F''-     - - * day to make up for the no-shows. up on She said she already over-books\" each pre-test She felt one reason some don't bother to show their scheduled day is because Arkansas doesn't charge for any part of the testing, so they don't have anything to lose when they don't show up. All those who are scheduled for the actual test have already taken and passed the 1 fsTw x* 1.1 !_ uAiXV4. die pre test so 1UU% of them show up. No action was required by the Board on this subject. The next item on the agenda was for the Board to discuss the current Little Rock School District election zone lawsuit. Tlie Board had said, in the last public hearing, that they would not be making a decision on which proposal to present IlinOQ ClIC'OT-i LTnkkr, T.7w-4 *- _ _ __1 ~ Judge Susan Webber Wright, at this regular meeting. to Pulaski County Attorney, Mr. Larry Vaught, reminded the Board that all parties involved, including Mr. Walker, had agreed to the 1986 Federal Court order assigned the current LRSD election zone boundaries. The zones, at that time comported with the Voting Rights Act. Mr. Heller informed the Board that, even though the Board discussed allowing Mr. Walker more time to prepare a compromise proposal, the LRSD was not interested in any compromise that would be based on rac Mr. Heller asked the Board to pick one of Metroplan's proposals and present it to Judge Wright as quickly as possible, so the postponed election could be reschedule He said that April and May of 1993 would be a crutial time for LRSD because of budgeting, so they would like to have the election as soon as possible. that GED test update LRSD election zone discussion Vaught/ Heller on rac :. 1. Mr. Vaught warned the Board that if they make race a factor in their choice t\" nmr r.fi 1 1 .J . ii. they will run the risk of Judge Wright telling them they did not do what she askec. Since there has been no prior finding of discrimination with regard to the school] election, race should not be considered, just the one-man/one-vote concept. Mr. Vaught told the Board Judge Wright would probably hold a hearing after the proposal was presented to her, and that, at that time, Mr. Walker could submit hi' proposal to her if he wished to do so. Mr. Heller said he felt Judge Wright woulc expedite her ruling so the election could be underway. After more discussion, the Board President set a Special Called meeting for Tues. December 29, 1992, at 1:00 p.m. for the purpose of the Board to choose a proposal of new election zones to present to Judge Wright. Mr. Bailey will meet with Mr. Nagel prior to that date and get copies of any compromised changes in Mr. Walker's proposal, to the Board members prior to the 12/29 meeting. Special Called meeting 12/29 to choose proposalDATE 12/15 .9^ HINO or UKIYIM4 M PAGE. HRvatoiNO orrictn 3 J OTHER* PRESENTt INDEX NOTATIONS Second Quarterly Meeting, County Board of Education (Continued) Next, Ms. Crownover told the Board she would have 1992 Code of Ethics forms pared for each member to review and sign, at the 12/29 meeting. preparea tor As soon as they sign their forms, Ms. Crownover will notarize their signature and file the forms with the County Clerk after January 1, 1993 and before January 31, 1993. Code of Ethics After the Special Called meeting of 12/29/92, the next regular third quarterly meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, March 16, 1993, at 1:00 p.m. There being no other business to discuss, Mr. Broughton made a motion to adjourn tthhee mmeeeettiinngg.. Dr. McCrary seconded the motion and the meeting stood adjourned. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary December 21, 1992 Date Next reg. meeting 3/16/93 f^ufaiLi Cdoun iSoaJ of ^ducation MR. CECIL BAILEY. PRESIDENT MR. THOMAS BROUGHTON. VICE PRESIDENT ROOM 300. PULASKI COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING  201 S. BROADWAY LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TELEPHONE 372-7800 MEMO DR. GEORGE A. McCRARY MR. E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD Debbie Crownover TO: Members, Pulaski County Board of Education FROM: Ms. Debbie Cro\\mover\u0026lt; Secretary SUBJECT: DATE: Minutes of the 12/29/92 Special Called Meeting/ Code of Ethics/ Metroplan-4 Proposal Submitted to Judge Wright January 6, 1993 Enclosed is your copy of the minutes from the Special Called Meeting of 9Q Tom. Please review them and let me know if you see any changes that need to be made. December 29, 1992. Pulaski County Attorney, Mr. Larry Vaught, has subnitted the proposal to Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright this 6th day of January, 1993. .(See attached) Please let me know if you have any questions concerning this matter, informed as to the Board's next step. I will keep you Also enclosed is your copy of your recorded Code of Ethics form. T copy of this with your records in this office should you ever need another I also have a copy. cc: minutes only Mr. Larry Vaught, Pulaski County Attorney Mr. Chris Heller, Attorney, LRSD Mr. Jolin Walker, Attorney \\/llrs. Ann Brown, ODM Mr. Jim McKenzie, Metroplan RECESVED JAN 8 1993 Office of Desegregation MonitoringDATE. 12/29/ ,a_92 Special Called 201 So. Broadway Suite 300 Meeting, County _________ Bd. of Education L.R., AR 72201 KINO OP HCKTIN4 \"1 MEMBER* rREENTMr. Cecil Bailey^ Prp tfc, Thomas Broughton Vice Pre: Dr. George McCrary, Member __Mr. Grai nger Wi11i aws_________ Dr. Martin Zoldessy--------- .q .q WHCNC HILO MEMBERS ABSENT_______ PAGE___L Mr. Cecil Bailey PNiaiDiNO OPFicin Mr. Tarry Vaught, Attorney,? Mr. John Walker, At-tnmpy ___________ iir. Chris Heller. Attorney, LRSD______ Mrs, Ann Brown, PPM OTHERS PRESENT] Cyiitliia ifowell\nAik. DeiiiucraL-Gazetcs Channel 4-Eyewitness News Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary OTHERS: ~ ' See attached MINUTES pie Pulaski County Board of Education met in a Special Called Meeting. Tuesdav December 29, 1992, at 1:00 P.M. in the office boardroom. The purpose of the mating was for the Board to make their decision on which presented proposal of  uiicj-x UCI.XOXUU uii wiixcn presenceu proposal, new election zones for the Little Rock School District, to present to Federal Judge Susan Webber Wright. All members were present to conduct business, called the meeting to order. Mr. Bailey, the Board President, Mr. Bailey gave the Board some extra time to study a new proposal (Walker-4) that was received earlier that morning. The new Walker-4 proposal had 3 predominantly INDEX NOTATIONS Call to Order black zones, 4 predominently white zones, all incumbents were within the boundarie\nof a separate zone, and the geographically. zones were numbered similarly to the current zones. Mr. Bailey then read the Federal court mandates ordered by Judge Wright rir. Ddrxey Luen leau cne reoerai .Judge Wright. He also _ listed the criteria the Board set for Metroplan when they were requested to studv m irronf' TDCH a1 _________3 ____i_____ t f \\ ' the current LRSD election zones and submit a proposal(s) if the current found to be out of compliance with the one-man/one-vote concept. ones were A discussion followed about the various proposals that were submitted. If Pro- Summary Federal Court Orde \u0026amp; eight proposals posal Walker 4 or any one of the four Metroplan proposals is chosen, the reschedul id l^ction would be for zones 2 \u0026amp; 4 only, as would have been the case had the repula  L992 election for the LRSD not been postponed. Mr. Thomas Broughton made a motion for the Board to submit the Walker-4 proposal to Judge Wright for approval. Mr. Bailey asked for a second to the motion, was made\nthe motion died. Walker-4 motion die None Mr. Grainger Williams made a motion for the Board to submit both Walker-4 and 1 Metroplan-4 proposals to Judge Wright. Dr. McCrary seconded the motion. The Boan asked Mr. Vaught if presenting two proposals to Judge Wright would be acceptable , practice. Mr. Vaught said the order was somewhat unusual because there weren't i many guidelines added. He said there was nothing in the Order that would point to the fact that Judge Wright anticipated more than one proposal would be submitted to her\nhowever, neither was that action prohibited. would be a call for the Board to make. Mr. Broughton said he felt strongly that the Board should make their decision and present only one proposal, even if it was not one he favored, because he felt that was the Board's job and that the Board should not ask Judge Wright to make up their minds for them. Walker-4 \u0026amp; Metro.-4 combomotion fai. Mr. Vaught said it A vote' was called. The motion failed 3 to 2. Williams and Dr. McCrary, voting voted no to break the tie. Voting for the motion was Mr. no was Dr. Zoldessy and Mr. Broughton. Mr. Baileyi DATE. 12/29/ ,9_92 PAGE_ 2 I KIND OF MEETINa MCMDCRS FRE8CNT WHERE HELD MEMSCRS ABSENT _ FRESiOINO OFFICER OTHERS PRESENTi Special Called Ifeeting, Pulaski County Board of Education (continued) Dr. Zoldessy then made a motion to present the Metroplan-4 proposal to Judge Wright. Mr. Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed 3 to 1. Voting were Dr. Zoldessy, Mr. Williams and Dr. McCrary. Mr. Broughton cast the no vote. Mr. Bailey asked Mr. Vaught to prepare the necessary documents to present to Judge Wright. Mr. McKenzie said metroplan would draw up a packet of their proposal-4 to present to Judge Wright. As soon as Mr. Vaught gets the material from Metroplan, he and Mr. Bailey will meet to go over the presentation material. Mr. Bailey reminded the Board to review their Code of Ethics form, which were in their folders, and sign them, if approved, and submit to Ms. Crownover. She will notarize them and file them with the Pulaski County Clerk after January 1, 1993, and before January 31, 1993. The President asked for a motion to adjourn. Dr. Zoldessy so moved, seconded by Mr. Broughton. It was voted and approved and the meeting stood adjourned. PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Ms. Debbie Crownover, Secretary Date January 5, 1993 INDEX NOTATIONS ietroplan-4 notion aasses Code of Ethics. JAN-,7-93 THU 14:35 PUL. CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P.Ol * { IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAliSAS !/ WESTERN DIVISION FILED H. Ow-ur InT\nau I.TTiI.?: ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT : i! O', JAN ! 3 : L H. bUL-N i o, CI. lPi'K PLAINTIFF V NO.\nLR-C-82-866 PUI.ASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1., et al. I S' DEFENDANT,S MI^S. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. INTERVENOl^S KATHERINE W, KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS KJLASKI._CQUNTY board of EDUCATION'S PLAN FOR KL'MCTION.. ZONES__TN THE ijlTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST'RTCT The Pulaski County Board of Education, through the Pulaski County Attorney, submits the following pursuant to the order of the Court dated September 24, 1992, and Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607\n1. The Court's order instructs the Pulaski County Board of Education to \"determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the 'one man - one vote' principle. and if they are [to] I\nrezone the Little Rock School District accordingly.\" 2. The Board has determined that the zones are out of compliance with the one man - one vote principle as set forth in the Analysis of Little Rock School District's School Election Zones, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On December 29, 1992, the Board adopted the proposed Little Rock School District Election District as set forth in Exhibit A in which the zone vary from 0.59' Ct to 3.G4% from the ideal. WHjKREFORE , the Pulaski County Board of Education has compliedJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P. 02 with the order of the Court, the Court\nthe Board further and it prays the plan be approved by prays it be dismissed from this case. Respectfully Submitted,  S-L larry d? I VAUGHU PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR (501) 377-6285 72201 Arkansa\nBar No. 79129 SBRJTFICATE of srrviqe copy of the f^regoi^ng ^d^ocumeirt hT\u0026lt;-^be^^ correct to Mr. Christopher Viler Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol Lit?? 2000 First MMrr.. John Walker, .ioi-m w XrT ^pitol, Little Rock, AR 72201 and AR John walker, oJnO HthHiWa. .W.AAL_K_E_R__ _dpa ya ' 1771 Rock, 72206 on thiis P.A. Larry o. Vauglit Analysis of Little Rock School Board Election Zdhel Pulaski County Board of Education METKOFLAN January 1993METROPLAN. A COUNCIL OF LOCAL GOVERNMENTS January 5, 1993 Mr. Cecil Bailey, President Pulaski County Board of Education Room 300, Pulaski County Administration Bldg. 201 S. Broadway Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Dear Mr. Bailey: At the request of Pulaski County Judge Buddy Villines, Metroplan has assisted the Pulaski County Board of Education in analyzing the election districts of the Little Rock School Board. Enclosed is our final report. The current election districts were analyzed and six of the seven were foimd to be out of compliance with the \"one man, one vote\" standard of plus or minus five percent from the mean. The current districts are mapped over a base of election precincts and a summary table is provided herein. In addition, we have included two maps of the alternative alignment the Board selected, as well as a summary table for that alternative. The first map is over a street base and the second map is over the voting precinct base. Both maps show the proposed zones in color and the existing boundaries with a heavy black line so that it is easy to identify the changes. It has been a pleasure working with the Board and with your very competent staff. If Metroplan may be of further assistance in this matter, pleasure feel free to call on us. Sincerely yours, im Ix^utive Director McKenzie Heritage West Building  201 East Markham  Suite 450  Little Rock, Arkansas 72201  (501) 372-3300 Election District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School District Total Ideal CURRENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONE BOUNDARIES Total Population 20,901 Population Variance -3,910 Percent Variance -15.76% Total White Population 3,194 Total Black Population 17,629 Percent Black Pop. 84.35% Total Other Population 78 Percent Other Pop. 0.37% 20/15 24,989 31,057 30,810 22,382 23,120 173,674 24811 -4,396 -17.72% 4,906 15,306 74.97% 203 0.99% 178 6,246 5,999 -2/29 -1,691 0.72% 22,107 2,529 10.12% 353 1.41% 25.18% 24.18% -9.79% -6.81% 28,967 22,974 15,582 15,159 112,889 Table prepared by Metroplan using 1990 U.S. Census data. November, 1992 1,550 7,346 6,390 7,688 58/38 I -  4.99% 23.84% 28.55% 33.25% 33.65% 540 490 410 273 2,347 1.74% 1.59% 1.83% 1.18% 1.35%Election District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 School District Total Ideal RECOMMENDED SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTION ZONE BOUNDARIES Total Population 25,533 Population Variance 722 Percent Variance 2.91% 25,764 24,578 24,216 24/56 24,663 24/64 173,674 24,811 953 -233 -595 -355 -148 -347 3.84% -0,94% -2.40% -1.43% -0.59% -1.40% Total White Total Black Percent Total Other Percent Population 5,018 Population 20,380 Black Pop. 79.82% Population 135 Other Pop. 0.53% 10,084 15,300 59.39% 380 1.47% 23,161 22,518 19,325 15,550 17,233 112,889 Table prepared by Metroplan using 1990 U.S. Census data. November, 1992 1,112 1,239 4,681 8,767 6,959 58/38 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% 33.65% 305 459 450 346 272 2,347 1.24% 1.90% 1.84% 1.40% 1.11% 1.35%JAN- 7-93 THU 14:35 - PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO, 5013776009 P. 01 U' S' i ^1? I R ' is L IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT i-xyir.-\u0026lt;i?i s\n'.'.: 4!- EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKAliSAS WESTERN DIVISION\nau I ': j I i,.TTrr.,e rock school district CAi-ft n.E\u0026gt;nLi\\ M I 3, Ci..L-F(|( PLAlNTlFF NO.\nLR-C-82-8b6 OCP.Ci\n-: 7K PUJASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT HO. 1., et al. I I DEFENDANT,S MRS. LORENE JOSilL'A, et al. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, et al. INTERVENORS I'-HI^^..CQyiflY . BOARD OF EilUCATION 'S PI,AN FOR I'.MCT.1.ON.. ZONEg_JW THE I,ITTLE_ ROCK SCllOQT. DISl'RTCT The Pulasxi County Board of Education, through the Pulaski County Attorney, submits the following pursuant to the order of the J Court dated September 24, 1992, and Ark. 1. Code Ann. 6-13-607: The Court's order instructs the Pulaski County Board of Education to H determine whether the zones are out of compliance with the ' one man one vote' principle. and if they are [to] rezone che Little Rock School District accordingly. H 2. The Board has determined that the zones are out of compliance with the one man - one vote principle as set forth in the Analysis of Little Rock School District's School Election Zones, attached hereto as Exhibit A. 3. On December 29, 1992, the Board adopted the proposed Little Rock School District Election District as set forth in Exhibit A in which the zones vary from 0.59% to 3.84% from the ideal. WHEREJORE, the Pulaski County Board of Education has complin 1 I IJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 PUL, CO. ASSESSOR FAX NO. 5013776009 P. 02 with the order of the Court, the Court\nthe Board further and it prays the plan be approved by prays it be dismissed from this Case. Respectfully Submitted, ) LAK ay D. VAUGHuT PULASKI COUNTY ATTORNEY 201 So. Broadway, Little Rock, AR (501) 377-6285 Suite 400 72201 Arkansas Bar No. 79129 QERTXFIQATE QF_SERVice I, Larry D, Vaught, dvj iierer copyjjf the foregoing document ha\ntt . Christopher Heller, do hereby certify that to Mr. Commercial Building, 400 West Capitol, Mr. John Walker, JOHN W. WALKER P A AR 72206 on thi.s day of Janua , - a true and correct been served by regular U.S Friday, eldredge \u0026amp; clark, Rock, AR ma i 1 2000 First 72201 and  ^^23 Broadway, Little Rock, day of January, 1993, Larry DD. Valuigghhtt P. 03 AUTOMATIC COVER SHEET DATE\nJAN- 7-93 THU 14:36 TO\nFAX It\n93710100 FROM I I PUL. CO. ASSESSOR FAX #\n5013776009 03 PAGES WERE SENT (INCLUDING THIS COVER PAGE) B* X X )K i * :tt [ * * DATE START SENDER JAN- 1 14:31 5013776009 TRANSACTION REPORT RX TIME PAGES TYPE P.Ol JAN- 7-93 THU 14:33 NOTE 1'36\" 3 RECEIVE OK X X % )K X )K XiSsi J Submitted: January 10, 1995 Before RICHARD S. Filed: June 5, 1995 ARNOLD, Chief Judge, HEANEY, Judge, and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge. Senior Circuit RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chief Judge. Two appeals' involving the Little Rock School District (LRSD) are consolidated for our review. In the first case. African- American voters^ appeal the District Court's^ order dismissing their claim under the Voting Rights Act of 1965,  2, as amended. 42 U.S.C.  1973, against LRSD. In the second case, the Joshua Intervenors appeal the District Court's August 10, granting LRSD's motion to close Ish Incentive School, both cases. 1994 , order We affirm in I. We review first Charles's claim that the LRSD's election-zone plan adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and initially. three appeals were consolidated. In the third case, the Joshua Intervenors appealed the District Court's order of September 27, 1994, rejecting the present site of Stephens School as a possible location of the new Stephens Interdistrict School. That appeal has been dismissed by agreement of the parties. _______ Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. Little 1, No. 93-3592 (Sth Cir. Jan. 19, 1995) (per curiam). Diane Davis, ^Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey Jackson, and Raymond Frazier, are African-American residents of Little Rock who live within the Little Rock School District. ................... We shall refer to these parties as \"Charles.\" The Hon. Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas. -7-IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT o\\^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION By:, i 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 FSLED U.S. DISTRICT COURT _ 1TE?.?J DISTRICT ARKANSAS EB 1 2 1993 .ENTS, CLERK PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS On September 24, 1992, the Court ordered the Pulaski County Board of Education to determine whether the election zones in the Little Rock School District were out of compliance with the principle of II one man one vote\" and to redraw the zones if A 0^ necessary to comply with that principle. On January 6, 1993, the Pulaski County Board of Education, after determining that the zones were out of compliance. filed a plan for election zones in the Little Rock School District. Should any party have objections to the plan. those objections, along with citations of authority, must be filed no later than February 26, 1993. Any responses to objections must be filed no later than March 18, 1993. Should the Court determine that a hearing is necessary in this matter, it will be held Monday, March 29, 1993. SO ORDERED this /day of February, 1993. I I* ti jN r o T SHEET IN HD/OR ^(s) FRCP r.: JUDGE 1 FEB 2 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION McjfiiiOf'fHJ OHtoa of Desegfeeal'O 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 PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTION ZONES The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. The County Board of Education has not prepared a plan which comports with the Voting Rights Act or which meets the prayer made by plaintiffs to the Court to allow citizens of African American descent to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the Little Rock School Board. The Board has simply refused to address the Voting Rights issues. The case is therefore not ripe for consideration and requires a period for discovery and development. The plaintiffs will otherwise delineate their objections. as required by the Court, by February 26, 1993. Respectfully submitted. W. Walker I JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 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 February 19, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; 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' ^^hW^ LG. WalkerJOHN W. WALKER RALPH WASHINGTON MARK BURN EITE WILEY A. BRANTON, JR. AUSTIN PORTER, JR. * Alsu admittol In Practice in (.eorKia \u0026amp; the District of Columbia. John w. walker, p.a. Attorney At Law 1723 Broadway Little Rock. Arkansas 72206 Telephone (501) 374-3758 FAX (501) 374-4187 February 19, 1993 Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Re: LRSD V. PCSSD USDC No. LR-C-82-866 Dear Mr. Vaught: Enclosed please find a received FEB 2 2 1993 Of?ico of Desegregation MonitOiHig copy of Plaintiff's Opposition to Pulaski County Board of Education's Motion for Approval of Election Zones which has been filed in the above matter. Sincerely, John W. Walker JWW:Ip Enclosure cc: All counsel of Record Linda Meiissa Poiiy Margie Return to: 5* FEB 2 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION C!!iC3 Ct CeseG^scar-cn ilV* 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. KlIIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION'S MOTION FOR APPROVAL OF ELECTION ZONES The plaintiffs oppose the Motion. The County Board of Education has not prepared a plan which comports with the Voting Rights Act or which meets the prayer made by plaintiffs to the Court to allow citizens of African American descent to have a fair and reasonable opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to the Little Rock School Board. The Board has simply refused to address the Voting Rights issues. The case is therefore not ripe for consideration and requires a period for discovery and development. The plaintiffs will otherwise delineate their objections. as required by the Court, by February 26, 1993. Respectfully submitted. n W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 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 19, 1993. Larry D. Vaught Pulaski County Attorney 201 So. Broadway, Suite 400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; 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 4 JoS hn W. LO. WalkerIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT cou^^^i?A(d'?s^c^^ EASTER DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT 3y:. h. 6 7953 tJn.JPLAINTIFF ' \u0026lt;j Z I ~ V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. received DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. mar 1 1993 INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. Ottice of Desegregation Monitoring INTERVENORS PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS, RESPONSE AND MEMORANDUM REGARDING THE COURT'S ORDER OF FEBRUARY 16, 1993 (THE ORDER WAS APPARENTLY ENTERED BY THE COURT ON FEBRUARY 12, 1993) The Court has entered an Order which was entered on the docket February 16, 1993, requiring the parties to list any objections which they may have to the submission filed on January 6, 1993 by the defendant Pulaski County Board of Education. The plaintiffs submit the following objections to the plan. 1. The plan does establish seven districts of legally acceptable size. In that respect, plaintiffs have prevailed in causing the defendants to adapt and otherwise redraw the school election zones. 2. The January 6, 1993 submission does not address the voting rights issues raised by the lawsuit. 3. On information and belief, the County Board of Education acknowledged that it would redraw a different plan had it not felt limited by the Court's Order simply to redraw the lines in accordance with the \"one man-one vote\" principle. The County Board has failed to provide the Court with sufficient basis for a determining the voting rights issues.4 . The County Board of Education was divided along racial lines on the propriety of submitting an alternative which addressed the voting rights issues. 5. The only plan which addressed the voting rights issues and the \"one man-one vote\" issue was those developed by the plaintiffs. It is submitted herewith as Exhibit \"A. II 6. The plan submitted by the County Board of Education does not take into account the concept of \"packing, II nor demographic changes which have reduced the percentage of white population in the school' district in the last decade, nor the fact that African American citizens do not have in this racially polarized community an opportunity to elect sufficient number of representives of a their choice. 7. The Pulaski County School District, which has a much lower African-American population ratio than the Little Rock School District, has a plan which provides for two majority-minority districts each approximately 57% minority. North Little Rock is likewise situated and as a result of a voting rights action before this Court, three of the seven board members'therein are of the minority race. Little Rock, as plaintiff in the case against the County, et al., (and is still a plaintiff in part of this action) can surely provide and seek no less minority representation than the Pulaski County Board of Education, which was the defendant that Little Rock sued for, among other things, the right of broader minority representation on the school board. The authority of the voting rights relief is the Voting Rights Act itself, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (j) as amended, Thornburgh v. 8.Jingles, 478 US 30 (1986)\nHarvell v. Ladd, 958 F2d 226\nWilliains V, City of Texarkana, FSupp , USDC, W.D. of Ark, decided February 19, 1993\nSmith v. Clinton, 687 FSupp 1310 (ED Ark 1988), Aff'd 488 US 988 (1988) . These cases are but few in a litany which require full relief for minority citizens in voting rights cases. The Court has not ruled upon the Motions to Dismiss herein. WHEREFORE, objections considered, the plaintiffs respectfully request that: 1. The Court overrule the Motions to Dismiss\nThe Court require the defendants to answer the Complaint herein\nThe Court require the defendants to develop appropriate plans which address the voting rights issues raised by plaintiffs or. in the alternative, show cause v/hy the plans submitted by the plaintiffs are inapposite to relieve the voting rights issues and the \"one man-one vote\" issue raised by the plaintiffs\nRespectfully submitted, JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway LittJe Rock, AR 72206 By: (50, ^4-3758 y ihn^W. Walker, Bar No. 64046 9. 2. 3. fCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been mailed, postage prepaid to all counsel. ,ay of February, 1993.-2 6 n ) 7 3 4 1 VV poa .'S_7LlO I ?3CZO ^133 G 'l^07(7 I 3 L(2 3 O i^3^o I 8o~J /29 2 I27\u0026lt;^ z. B 7, ^4, 7 6 I -.1 2 0 So 'S-~! iSZ^l Z(,.O 3s43S 33,6 P' Z V ! 313 788 3 4 \"? 4\u0026lt; 4^3 3S\u0026amp; 23 47 z4'Z'5g\u0026gt; i-7 ,-3. -0.^. -'?.3 Z. X Z .^C' * '^. - 3 Z3e3^ - 3.? Z\u0026amp;Z^zr +3'.? I -7 34 7.4- sREU 1 W95 OUtoe oi DesegfeS^**'^'^  filed IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR^STErnSCT^^^^^ EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS \u0026gt;'hkansas mar 2 9 1993 WESTERN DIVISION CARLh. twitwrb, CLERK By:------------------------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT DEP. CLERK 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 motions to dismiss filed by the Little Rock School District and the Pulaski County Board of Education in the matter of the election zones for the Little Rock School District Board of Directors are denied. The Court hereby orders the defendants to respond to plaintiffs' amended complaint by Friday, April 2, 1993. DATED this 29th day of March, 1993. united states district jui JUDGEFILED US. 0131- i\u0026gt;'. iiiuar EASTERN OTSt,-CT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT APR 1 2 1993 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION CARL a. CLERK By: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. CE?. CLERK 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 PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. This voting rights case also involves three questions, (i) whether the present plan by which school directors are elected in the Little Rock School District are significantly imbalanced to such an extent as to require creation of new zone lines to bring them into compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" requirements of law, (ii) whether the 1986 zones currently result in a dilution of minority voting strength, and (iii) whether the remedial plan presented by the Pulaski County Board of Education will result in a violation of the Voting Rights Act,  1973, as amended. 2. The parties to this action are the class of school children represented by the Joshua Intervenors and Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hervey, Diane Davis and Raymond Frazier. These adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who claim that their rights under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1973, as amended, are adversely affected by the present and proposed plan for electing school board members. The adult plaintiffs raise basic voting rights issues which aresufficiently similar to or related to the remedial needs of the class to cause the Court to consolidate the cases. See Order of Consolidation [date], 3. The defendants are the members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, individually and in their official capacities\nCloyd \"Mac\" Bernd, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District\nand the members of the County Board of Education of Pulaski County, in their offficial capacities as members of the County Board of Education. 4 . The Pulaski County Board of Education (hereafter \"the County Board\") is an agent, generally, for the three Pulaski County School Districts including the Little Rock School District with respect to certain functions that it provides or performs. It is specifically delegated by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607, the function of drawing or redrawing school district school election zones for the Little Rock School District. Although it has had this responsibility by statute since 1986, it has never performed this function. The Little Rock School District performed the function in 1986 and the District Court approved the District's plan. 5. In 1986, pursuant to the annexation of certain areas of the Pulaski County School District to the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District proposed and the Court accepted a redistricting plan by which school zone lines were drawn. It was a single-member election zone plan by which seven zones, of approximate equal populations were created. Two of the PAGE 2zones created were majority African American. 6. The complaint herein was filed by Dale Charles and the other plaintiffs on July 23, 1992. The complaint was amended on August 18, 1992. 7. The Little Rock School District, on or about July 31, 1992, moved to postpone the school district election and to reform the Little Rock School District election zones. In that motion. Little Rock also urged that the zone lines be reformed in a way that does not \"abridge or deny the rights of minorities to vote.\" 8. On or about July 31, 1992, the school district also moved to dismiss, stating, in effect. \"that relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs because it would upset relief provided by Court Order herein on December 18, 1986 and that relief would punish the school district for implementing a plan which was approved by the Court. It The school district further argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 9. On August 18, 1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order postponing the school elections until further Orders of the Court. On August 18, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the school district's Motion to Dismiss arguing that Little Rock created the zones presently in use and that the zones had in effect become significantly imbalanced both from a race and \"one-man one-vote\" perspective. 10. On or about September 1, 1992, the County Defendants moved to dismiss because they did not wish to be forced to \"violate PAGE 3the Order of December 18, 1986, in a separate suit. 11. On September 24, 1992, the Court Ordered the County Board to determine whether the election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" principle and to redraw the lines if necessary. 12. The County Board proceeded to address that issue. It determined that the lines were out of compliance after directing or commissioning the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (Metroplan), a public planning agency for the various governmental units within Pulaski County to investigate that allegation. The County Board also directed or commissioned Metroplan to devise a remedial plan pursuant to the Court Order of September 24, 1992. 13. The County Board was directed by the September 24, 1993 Order to \"be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones\" should the County Board \"find it necessary to redraw the zones.\" The County Board never agreed upon what was meant by this language of the Court and, also, never sought clarification. 14. The County Board developed criteria to guide Metroplan in its redistricting work. Those criteria included\n(a) minimum change of existing zone lines\nand (b) keeping voting precincts together. 15. The County Board did not direct Metroplan to consider the voting rights questions raised by the lawsuit. 16. On November 30, 1992, December 7, 1992, and December 29, 1992, the County Board held public meetings regarding the plan revisions. The plaintiffs' representatives were present at each PAGE 4meeting. Little Rock School Board members were also present although none were present for all of the meetings. 17. The plaintiffs presented plans to the County Board at each meeting which purported to address both the \"one-man one-vote\" and voting rights concerns of the plaintiffs. School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Bill Hamilton were perhaps the most vocal Little Rock School Directors to address the issue. Jackson took the view, as he has taken in Court, that the plaintiffs and the African American community already have nearly proportional representation in that 28.3% of the Board is of their race while their population is 33% His argument is that with time and demographic change, a third majority African American zone could evolve. Hamilton's view was directly opposite, i.e., the numbers favor a third majority African American district now and that, due to the concerns and needs of that population segment, equality and equity concerns would fare better with a third minority district. He also pointed out that a creation of an African American district does not necessarily mean that that community will elect a member from that racial group to the board. A major difference between the two perspectives focused upon the concept of \"stability,\" with Jackson arguing, in effect. for a plan which did not result in changing the present board membership. His argument is essentially an argument which provides some degree of protected status to incumbents. 18. On December 29, 1992, the County Board voted to present one plan for bringing the present zone lines into balance. The PAGE 5vote was along racial lines in that the four white County Board members voted for it while the one African American Board member voted against it. 19. On February 16, 1993, the County Board submitted its proposed new election zone plan to this Court. On or about February 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the County Board of Education's approval of these election zones. 20. The plaintiffs contend that the remedial plans devised at the request of the County Board do not address the voting rights issue\nthe defendants agree. In fact the County Board has never addressed the voting rights question other than to say that to do so would violate the 1986 Court Order herein. 21. The Little Rock School Defendants urge that they have no role in this matter other than as an observer and that they have no duty under the statute or otherwise to address the voting rights issues. Therefore, although they deny the voting rights allegations, if their position is accepted they have no standing to assert a defense of the voting rights issue. If that is the case, the defense of the voting rights issues must be made, if at all, by the County Board and that board does not address the issue as it has been presented by the present complaints except to plead res judicata, i.e., the 1986 Court Decision. 22. Both the County Board and the Little Rock School Board and their members have failed to respond to the voting rights issues raised herein on the basis of the evidence and allegations raised by plaintiffs. PAGE 623. The plaintiffs sought to establish the \"one-man one-vote\" violation by showing significant imbalance in the population of the 1986 zones. The II ideal II zone would be approximately 24,800. The 1986 zones range from approximately 8,600 below the norm to approximately 7,500 above the norm of 24,800. Defendants admit these population disparities. 24. The plaintiffs have assumed the burden of bringing these violations to light and remedy. They are the prevailing party. therefore, with respect to their allegations regarding \"one-man one-vote. It They are also the prevailing parties with respect to the voting rights violations because of both the proof which they presented to the Court and the legal position or lack of legal position which has been taken by the defendants. The Court will proceed to address the proof of the violations. 25. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that the present zones lines are significantly racially imbalanced. Zone One (1) is 85% African American and Zone Two (2) is 77.5% African American. This significant imbalance demonstrates that African Americans are \"packed\" into Zones One (1) and Two (2). Of approximately 58,000 African American citizens, approximately 31,000 of them are concentrated in the two zones where they have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The other 27,000, about an equal number, are all dispersed so that they have no effective opportunity to significantly influence director election in any of the remaining five zones. It is clear that were the five majority white zones standing alone in an at-large system, African American PAGE 7voters could not elect a single director of their choice provided, of course, they could not show the other requirements of law. Onefourth (^) of the population ought reasonably be able to elect at least one of five directors in these zones. Thus, African American voters are submerged within these zones just as surely as they would be in a purely at-large system. 26. The plaintiffs contend that Zones 3 through 7 of the present system are analogous to an at-large election system because those zones, as they are constituted, effectively dilutes their vote. They further contend that the State cannot dilute African American voting strength by either concentrating it in the form of \"packing\" or by having it dispersed so as to be ineffective within the context of a polarized voting system. 27. The plaintiffs further sought to establish liability by addressing the other \"senate factors\" relevant to a vote dilution claim. See Thornburg v. Ginqles. 478 U.s. 30, ___ 106 S.Ct. 2752 (1986). The District, itself, has been continuously under Court Orders to desegregate since 1957. Most recently in 1984, this Court entered an Order, partially on the motion of the school district, finding that the District had not extricated itself from its segregated history and that many of its continuing practices violate the law. Pursuant to the liability findings of the Court, the Little Rock School District entered into a settlement with African American plaintiffs and the two other school districts whereby it committed by a specific plan to cease practices of discrimination and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination. This PAGE 8Court has repeatedly, and recently, expressed its concern that the district was not implementing its desegregation plan in good faith. Indeed, several of the board members have shown disregard for the plan and lack of commitment to it. Those findings are incorporated into this record by reference. 28. The plaintiffs have also shown that the school board has not had a public discussion of the voting rights case to this date. This is an indication that the school board does not view the concerns of the plaintiffs seriously. This is consistent with this Court's earlier findings of bad faith on the part of the Little Rock School District. Good faith requires that the school board take seriously the issues which are raised by the minority community and reply to them even though the reply may not be in the form, content or result which the minority prefers. These are facts showing a lack of responsiveness to the particular concerns of the minority voters. 29. School board members have also acknowledged this lack of responsiveness to minority concerns. See the testimony of Dorsey a Jackson and Willie Hamilton. There is no contrary evidence. 30. The school district's plan of desegregation recognizes the existence of significant educational achievement disparities between students of African American descent and others. This is an area of inquiry on the subject of responsiveness. The district has not effectively addressed the issue of remediation of achievement disparities. That failure indicates that the board either does not wish to do so or has not implemented the plan as PAGE 9expected and promised. 31. Moreover, the Board of Education was the initial moving party and plaintiff in the desegregation case. It sought to promote a plan which involved the other two school districts in the county which maximized student exchange, interdistrict assignments, and other desegregation programs. It was held to be the prevailing party by this Court. As a moving party in this case, insofar as the students are concerned, the Little Rock School District has been derelict. The Court has spent far more time addressing the concerns which it has regarding plan implementation with the Little Rock School District than it has with either of the two other school districts. The Court here notes that the other two school districts have also abandoned or changed their method of either school directors from at-large to single districts. North Little Rock has seven single-member districts, of which Zones 1 and 2 are 58.8% and 59.9%, respectively. The North Little Rock district is between 45-50% African American while the Pulaski County African American population is between 30-35%. African American students, it has been contended by both plaintiffs and the Little Rock School District, stand in greater need of more and more effective advocates on their behalf. Therefore, it follows not only that should Little Rock be held to no lower standard in determining the number of African American election districts, but there is a compelling reason for having more, i.e.. the very need urged by the school district to the Court. Board representation of those interests by persons of their choice is the PAGE 10most effective form of advocacy. 32. The plaintiffs have presented further evidence of the circumstances that underlie the basis for a different kind of a plan. The City of Little Rock has a population of approximately 175,795, of which as of 1990, 59,742 were African American. This is closely analogous to the school district population which is 173,674, of which 58,438 are African American. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits and The school age population, however, in the City of Little Rock, is roughly 30,500, of which roughly 52% are African Americans. Virtually all of the African American children attend the public school system while approximately 60% of the \"other\" population does so. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The per capita income of African Americans within the City of Little Rock is $7,559 while it is $19,395 for others. In other words, the African American per capita income is approximately 40% of the average income for other persons who are primarily white. The poverty status is determined by that number of persons who have an income below or above a certain figure. Of the white population, of approximately 111,600, only 7.1% were below that figure in 1990. Of the 58,553 persons of African American descent, 28.9% were below poverty. The conclusion to be drawn from these statistics is that the African American poverty rate is at least 4 times that of the white poverty rate. Moreover, when poverty is assessed more carefully by family type and the presence of children, one of the principle concerns of the class represented PAGE 11by Joshua, the poverty rate of African American female heads of households is nearly 50%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33 . The statistics show that African Americans are more likely to be unemployed or not in the labor force. African Americans are less likely to have vehicles available, a factor which relates to their employability now that Little Rock has expanded and taken jobs far westward and away from areas of African American concentration. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 34 . There is little likelihood that these disparities will be alleviated or relieved under present circumstances. Moreover, it reasonable to infer that official racial discrimination is a major contributing factor in causing these disparities. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196, 204, Eastern District of Arkansas 1989. Furthermore, the African American population is increasing by one- third percent ('M) each year while the white population is decreasing by that same figure. The likely consequence is that the African American population by the year 2000 will be at least 36%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit Under the circumstances, it is evident that the social and economic factors indicate that African American persons are in serious disadvantage insofar as the relevant indices set forth above are concerned. 35. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that statistically significant racially polarized voting exists in this community. They did this by showing that in recent elections which pitted candidates of African American ancestry versus white candidates. PAGE 12white voters usually voted for the white candidate, and African American voters voted for the African American candidate. The correlation coefficients showing racially polarized voting in the relevant Little Rock elections range from .7 See to . 9 Plaintiffs' Exhibit There were no exceptions. Moreover, it is evident that African Americans do not seek to compete in those races for which they have only a miniscule chance of success. Thus, they have not sought election in any of the majority white zones in Little Rock nor have they sought election in any of the majority white zones. 36. There is no contrary evidence regarding the plaintiffs' proof on polarized voting. 37. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that it is possible to create at least three districts each of which has a substantial majority of African American citizens without \"packing\" any particular district. Dilution of African American voting interests is thus averted. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The total percentages of the three districts (Nos. 1, 2, and 6) are 64.7%, 64.0%, and 61.7%, respectively. The voting age population within these three districts would be approximately 57 to 60% and would in each instance be slightly greater than the voting age populations of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. 38. The plan submitted by plaintiffs represents compact and continuous districts which have been characterized by Jim McKinzie of Metroplan as the plan that he would accept as addressing the voting rights issue. Metroplan is the agency which devised the PAGE 13County Board's plan to alleviate and remediate the \"one-man one- vote\" deficiencies. When Mr. Cecil Bailey, Chairman of the County Board was asked, Q. \"I understand. were you aware that Metroplan - - of the position that Metroplan took with respect to the plans which were developed by Mr. Nagel as plans which could be implemented in compliance with the voting rights act. He answered as follows: A. \"I remember one time a discussion with Mr. McKenzie subsequent to the second forum, (sic), the second public forum that we had. that if we consideration were per going to take that into se. that Mr. Nagel's proposal would probably be the best one to use. \" (Bailey Deposition, pp. 34-35.) The County Board vote was along racial lines to reject all plans other than one which strictly numerically equalized each voting district. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit ___ (Board Minutes of December 29, 1992 wherein Thomas Broughton, an African American citizen. cast the only negative vote. The other members of the board are white). 39. For the record, Little Rock has a long history of electing two African American persons to the Board of Directors out of a total of seven. 40. Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Pat Gee, publicly opposed changing the zone lines to increase the opportunities for selection of African American board members. Jackson did so, however, on the basis that percentage-wise, African Americans were 28 of the population and they had about their fair share of representation. This was satisfactory for him. See PAGE 14Jackson Deposition, pp. 16-17. However, for purposes of this hearing, Mr. Jackson has stated that he is not opposed to the creation of three majority African American zones. See Jackson Deposition, pp. 32-33. 41. For purposes of this case. no school board member of either board has stated opposition to the creation of three majority African American zones in the Little Rock School District. 42. The approach taken by the Little Rock School Board has been to do nothing and take no vote with respect to the voting rights issues but, by the Court's talley, the majority of the school board is unopposed to the changes requested by the plaintiffs' in this action. Moreover, the County Board members have construed the Court's Order narrowly and have not addressed the voting rights issue. There appears. however. to be no opposition by the County Board to the creation of three minority zones. 43. The defendants have offered no defense and introduced no evidence by which to controvert the plaintiffs' prima facie case. Indeed, the County Board, has never considered the voting rights issue. The County Board has offered no evidence in opposition to the voting rights proof proffered by plaintiffs. Since the County Board is the responsible party and if the County Board is the agent of the Little Rock School District for this purpose by statute. (drawing election zones) , then there must be a finding by the Court of liability against the County Board of Education, and it is so found. PAGE 1544. The LRSD Board, like the County Board, has not addressed the issue in a public forum or by public vote. No school board member has appeared to oppose the relief prayed for by plaintiffs. Based upon the Answer of the defendants. the issue has been controverted so that the Court has to accept the position that the defendants oppose the relief sought. But they have presented no proof in support of their position other than, like the County Board, their reliance upon the Order of this Court which created zones on the motion of the school district at the time of the Court Ordered annexation of certain parts of the Pulaski County Special School District. 45. I examine that position. First, the school district was the moving party in the case at the time. However, it had no standing to raise voting rights issues as such. Second, the Joshua Intervenors were not the moving parties in that they did not petition the Court at that time for voting rights relief and when the issue was presented to the Court in 1984, they were not parties with full status. See Docket, 5-2-84. Therefore on the basis of the Voting Rights Act, the res judicata argument is unavailable. While the Court made mention of the Voting Rights Act in its 1986 Order, the Court views those comments as dicta. They were not pertinent otherwise for the following additional reasons. Although that Order was entered in 1986, the population of the district had already materially shifted and had become more polarized. Finally, there was no hearing on the issue and there was no formal stipulation that froze the lines ad infinitum. PAGE 16address. The present circumstances are what the Court must It is highly unlikely that more than a third of District One would have moved from that district between 1986 and 1990. Thus the district was never equal in size. Moreover, its racial percentage was far greater in 1986 than in 1980 by simple demographic logic. Whites were moving out of the district at a high rate and were not being replaced by whites. It is thus likely that the district was more than 85% in 1986. It is now clearly possible to create three districts, each of approximately the same approximate proportion which are of African American majority. At the time of the 1986 Order, the population figures were less reliable than they are one year after the census report was issued for the 1990 census. That census shows that the African American population has increased substantially although its voice by way of representation has remained constant in the form of two majority election districts. 46. The school district which urges a greater voice in governance for its minority population cannot oppose it when it counts - now - and simply because it counts. If the district takes the position of increasing that voice and representation in governance, then it is evident bad faith to oppose it in this Court without substantial legal proof in support of its position. 47. The Voting Rights Act represents Congress' intention that citizens votes not be diluted or adversely affected due to their race or color, through any practice, procedure or electoral scheme. This includes the \"packing\" votes of one race in unreasonably high PAGE 17proportions into one or more zones. \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% 70% necessary to (the percentage opportunity to ensure elect blacks candidates choice) may evidence \"packing.\" considered reasonable of their Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984 and Elections see of Rybicki v. State Board the State of Illinois, of 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). a Moreover, \"packing\" has a tendency to promote and reinforce the idea that there is an official intent to limit access to the political process of African American citizens. On the other hand. the creation of majority African American districts of the proportions presented by plaintiffs. does not guarantee that persons of African American descent will in fact win those positions. These alternative districts merely eliminate the dilution of the votes in the current plan. 48. In that plaintiffs have made a prima facie case and that the defendants have not rebutted that case, the Court must find in favor of the plaintiffs and order relief. 49. The plaintiffs are the only party to present a remedy to the Court. The County Board of Education just simply failed to address this issue because it misperceived the Court's Order. The school district. on the other hand. has not even submitted the issue in a public forum for consideration, and therefore, ignored the complaint of plaintiffs herein. It's proof herein is absent\non the other hand, the school board majority does not oppose the relief sought. Indeed, three members strongly favor it. 50. The plaintiffs' plan is the only plan before the Court PAGE 18which will not result in constitutional or Voting Rights Act violations. There are no substantial objections to that plan raised by the defendants. The objections raised by the defendants relate to compactness and contiguity but they are insubstantial. First, the same objections could be raised to the plan proposed by the County Board in purported remediation of the \"one-man one-vote\" deficiencies. Second, the lines are the lines and there is no requirement that they be rectangular. triangular. oval, or otherwise. The only requirement is contiguity. That means continuous in geography or geography which abuts continuously. The plaintiffs' plan meets that requirement. The compactness requirement has to be viewed in the context of the \"one-man one- vote\" consideration where the first mandate is to combine geographic population areas in such a way as to be of equal size for each district. That is done here. The plaintiffs' plan meets the \"one-man one-vote\" requirement and it does not substantially vary from the 5 o figure which is the usual range of variance in these cases. 51. The plan developed by Metroplan does not meet or otherwise satisfy the Voting Rights Act requirements. Nor does it pretend to. Its author candidly admits that that was not its purpose. Under the circumstances, therefore, there is no legitimate objection to the plan presented by the plaintiffs'. 52. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would defer to defendants who are public representatives, at least to the extent of affording them an opportunity to present a remedial plan to PAGE 19address the liability found by the Court. In this case, that is unnecessary because both defendants had the opportunity to do so and the County Board was directed to do so by specific Order of the Court and did not do so. Moreover, Jim McKenzie of Metroplan testified that he would have addressed the issue in the same manner as Jack Nagel of the plaintiffs' law firm, who worked with the County Board on these matters. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and money to the parties and to the Court and an exercise in futility because any plan which creates three majority African American districts would be substantially similar to the one presented by the plaintiffs. 53 . It is therefore the finding of this Court that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof in the case as a whole and that they are entitled to the relief prayed. It is, therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs and that the Defendant County Board of Education be, and it is hereby instructed. to implement the plan proposed by plaintiffs for the election of school directors to the Little Rock School Board of Directors at an election to be held within forty- five (45) days from this date. The election is to, as far as possible, comply with the requirements of Arkansas law and is to be conducted for all seven positions at the same time. After the election and at the first meeting of the newly constituted school board, the members shall draw by lot to determine the length of terms of members. There will be no other election for school directors PAGE 20until the regular school elections in 1994 for the election of school board members. This will mean that the first directors will serve at least one year in addition to the time between the date of the election and the September, 1994 regular school election date. 54. It is the further Order and Judgment of the Court that plaintiffs are the prevailing party herein and that they are entitled to their costs and reasonable counsel fees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PAGE 21RECEIVED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION APR 1 3 1993 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 CTU^NON, 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\nCECIL BAILEY, THOMAS BROUGHTON, DR. GEORGE McCRARY, DR. MARTIN ZOLDESSY, and E. GRAINGER WILLIAMS, Individually and In Their Official Capacities as members of the Pulaski County Board of Education\nand THE PULASKI COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, A Public Corporate DEFENDANTS I. TRIAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs have challenged the redistricting plan for the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") Board of Directors adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), claiming it violates  2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.  1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution. This Court ordered the Pulaski County Board ofEducation to develop a plan in light of the 1990 census to bring the LRSD districting plan in compliance with the one man, one vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. All of the parties agreed that the old plan, which had been in effect by order of Judge Henry Woods since December of 1986, was not in compliance with the one man, one vote requirement when judged by 1990 census information. Now that the PCBE has adopted a new districting scheme. Plaintiff's allegations that the old plan violated the Voting Rights Act have become moot. Growe V, Emison. 61 U.S.L.W. 4163, 4167 (February 23, 1993). In order to prevail on their claim that the new districting scheme violates  2 of the Voting Rights Act, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that they will have less opportunity under the plan just adopted by the PCBE to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the plan approved by Judge Woods in December of 1986. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. ___, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991)\nTurner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp. 553, 573 (E.D.Ark. 1991), aff'd 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992). In order to prevail on their constitutional claims, the Plaintiffs must show that there existed a purposeful intent to discriminate on the part of the PCBE. City of Mobile v. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Plaintiffs will be unable to meet their burden with regard to both their  2 and constitutional claims. The relief sought must be denied. 2II, DUTY OF COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION Before discussing whether the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE violates the Voting Rights Act, it should be noted that the PCBE was not required by the Act to create the maximum number of majority-minority districts. The Voting Rights Act is not an affirmative action statute, and it \"is not violated by a state legislature simply because that legislature does not enact a districting plan that maximizes black political power and influence.\" Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 573. The court in Turner explained\nCongress did not intend to provide minority voters with 'maximum feasible minority voting strength.' Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 94, 106 S.Ct. at 2789 (O'Conner, J., concurring). The maximum minority voting strength would be tantamount to proportional representation, which is expressly prohibited by the language of the statute. Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577. The mandate of the Voting Rights Act is fl you shall not harm\" rather than II you shall help.\" Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 241 (E.D.Ark. 1989)(Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). Consequently, the contention in Plaintiffs' complaint that the Voting Rights Act required the County Board to create another majority-minority district should be rejected. This Court may not substitute its judgement for that of the County Board. The Supreme Court has held it is error for a federal district court not to defer to state efforts to redraw legislative districts. Growe. 61 U.S.L.W. at 4167-68\nsee also 3Voinovich v. Quilter. 61 U.S.L.W. 4199, 4202 (March 2, 1993). Likewise, the Fifth Circuit has noted that, \"the federal district court is precluded from substituting even what it considers to be an objectively superior plan for an otherwise constitutionally and legally valid plan that has been proposed and enacted by the appropriate state governmental unit.\" Seastrunk v. Burns. 772 F.2d 143, 151 (5th Cir. 1985). See also Turner v. State of Arkansas. 784 F.Supp. 585, 589 (E.D.Ark. 1991). Therefore, this Court may not alter or amend the districting scheme adopted by the PCBE absent finding a violation of federal law. Finally, this Court should recognize as a legitimate consideration the County Board's attempt to maintain to the extent possible the prior boundary lines of the districts. See. 6^3,., Wyche v. Madison Parish Police Jury. 635 F.2d 1151, 1162 (5th Cir. 1981). A new districting plan which tracks as closely as possible the prior plan decreases voter confusion and apathy. Seastrunk v. Burns. 772 F.2d 143, 146 n.6 (5th Cir. 1985). Preservation of existing boundary lines is a legitimate goal of the County Board. The plan approved in Turner was based upon an express preference for II a plan which departs as little as possible\" from the previous court-approved plan. Turner. 784 F. Supp. at 556. III. VOTING RIGHTS ACT The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was originally passed to enfranchise blacks in the south by tearing down obstacles to 4registration and voting. Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 227 (E.D.Ark. 1989). The Act provides that no state may impose a standard, practice or procedure \"which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color . . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(a) (Supp. 1992). Subsection (b) of the Act describes how a violation of the proscription contained in subsection (a) is established: A violation of subsection (a) of this section is established if, based on the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members have less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of the protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992) (emphasis in original). In interpreting the language of  2 of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court has made it clear that in order to prevail on a  2 claim a plaintiff bears the burden of proving both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In Chisom. supra, the Supreme Court stated: [T]he inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a a 5violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word \"or\" for the word \"and.\" Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect. Chisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. See Turner. 784 F.Supp at 574 n. 20. The Turner court provided guidance for determining whether plaintiff will \"less opportunity\" to participate: \"Less opportunity\" by any fair interpretation means \"less opportunity\" than such black voters had immedicately before the impostion or application of the challenged standard practice or procedure\nnot \"less opportunity\" than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence. Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 573. The Senate has identified a number of factors which II may\" * * * be relevant to a  2 claim: 1. 4. The history of voting related discrimination in the State or political subdivision\n2 . The extent to which voting in the elections in the State or political subdivision is racially polarized\n3 . The extent to which the State or political subdivision has used voting practices or procedures that tend to enhance to opportunity for discrimination against the minority group, such as unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, and prohibitions against bullet voting\nThe exclusion of members of the minority group from the candidate slating process\n65. The extent to which minority group members bear the effects of past discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process\n6. The use of overt or subtle racial appeals in political campaigns\nand. 7. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 30, 44-45 (1986). In addition, the Senate Report notes that evidence demonstrating that elected officials are unresponsive to the particularized needs of the members of the minority group and that the policy underlying the State's or political subdivision's use of the contested practice is tenuous may have probative value. Ginqles. 478 U.S. at 45. The Senate, in enumerating these factors, recognized that they may not be relevant in all  2 cases. Id. 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 (8th 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 run-off provision makes the political processes not \"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.\" It should be apparent by now that most of the positive findings with the respect to the 7Senate Report factors have no tendency to prove, or disprove, that proposition. ' truth is that focusing on some of those The factors serves more as a distraction than a useful tool for evaluating the cause and effect operation of the challenged runoff laws. 686 F.Supp. at 1387. See also, Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 232. Likewise, in the case at hand, an evaluation of the Senate Report factors adds little to the inquiry of whether, under the new districting scheme adopted by the County Board for the LRSD Board of Directors, Plaintiff's have \"less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and elect representatives of their choice.\" 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992). Consequently, an extensive discussion of each factor is not justified. Factors will be discussed where relevant to the issue being analyzed. A. Less Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process. The first question in analyzing a  2 claim is whether the challenged standard, practice or procedure results in the plaintiff having \"less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process . . II 42 U.S.C.  1973(b) (Supp. 1992)\nChisom. 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. In the case at hand. Plaintiffs must prove that the districting scheme adopted by the County Board results in their having less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the prior districting plan. See Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1375. In this regard. Plaintiffs may look to Senate Report factor 8number five concerning the residual effects of past discrimination. As the court stated in Whitfield. \"Because there are no legal barriers remaining to the opportunity for blacks to participate in the political process, plaintiffs have naturally emphasized the 'socioeconomic' factors.\" Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1384. See al^, Turner. 784 F.Supp. at 577, quoting Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 204 (\"There are no presently existing legal barriers to voting by black citizens in Arkansas, and therefore they have just as much opportunity to participate in the political process as anyone else.\")\nLeadership Roundtable v. City of Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579, 584 (E.D.Ark. 1980) (\"Since 1965, there has been no legal impediment in Arkansas to voting by Blacks.\"). This argument is based on the assumption that the young, poor and uneducated do not participate in the political process in the same proportions as the old, rich and educated. Plaintiffs may argue that the minority group has the former characteristics in greater proportion than the majority group. See Whitfield. 686 F.Supp. at 1385. Even so, consideration of the residual effects of past discrimination provides no insight into the issue of whether the districting scheme adopted by the County Board provides the Plaintiffs less opportunity to participate in the political process than under the previous plan. Regardless of where the district lines are drawn, the Plaintiffs will have the same socioeconomic status. If the lines were drawn as the Plaintiffs request, would their opportunity \"to participate\" be any 9different? Clearly not. It is not the line drawing by the County Board which \"results\" in Plaintiffs having less opportunity\nrather, it is the diminished socioeconomic status. Section 2 does not purport to provide a remedy on the latter basis. See Jeffers. 730 F.Supp. at 237, 238. Therefore, because Plaintiffs will be unable to prove that have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the districting plan adopted by the County Board, the Plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claim must fail. B. Less Opportunity to Elect Representatives of Their Choice. The second element of a Voting Rights Act claim which 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 County Board than under the former districting plan. The Supreme Court has identified three 11 necessary preconditions\" for a districting scheme to impair minority voters ability to elect representatives of their choice: First, that it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district, is not, as would be the case in a If it substantially integrated district, the multimember form of the district cannot be responsible for minority voters' inability to elect its candidates. [citations omitted]. Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. If the minority group is not politically cohesive, it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. [citations omitted]. Third, the minority 10must 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. [citations omitted]. In establishing this last circumstance, the minority group demonstrates the submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect representatives of its chosen representation. Ginqles, 478 U.S. at 50-51. These \"necessary preconditions\" will be discussed in turn. 1. Geographically Compact. More than mere numerical superiority needs to be considered in determining whether Plaintiffs constitute a sufficient majority in a single-member district to elect representatives of their choice. Plaintiffs must be 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 (E.D.Ark. 1988): A guideline of 65% of total population is frequently used, and is derived by supplementing a simple majority with additional 5% to offset the fact that an minority population tends to be younger than that of whites, 5% for the well-documented pattern of low voter registration, and 5% for low voter turnout among minorities. Smith. 687 F.Supp at 1363. See also Fletcher v. Golder. 959 F.2d 106, 110 (8th Cir. 1992). Therefore, in order to create a \"safe\" minority district, the district must have at least 65% minority population. In the case at hand. Plaintiffs are arguing that three majority black districts should be created. However, as the 11Plaintiffs own proposal reveals, three \"safe\" majority black districts cannot be created. Plaintiffs may argue that black voters will be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of less than 65% because of white \"crossover\" votes, but this argument by Plaintiffs only goes to show that Little Rock does not suffer racially polarized voting, another \"necessary precondition\". Hence, either way, the Plaintiffs' Voting Rights Act claim must fail. 2 . Politically Cohesive. To establish political cohesiveness. Plaintiffs must come forward with proof with regard to the voting patterns in each individual district. The Supreme Court warned in Ginqles that \"courts must not rely on data aggregated from all the challenged districts in concluding that racially polarized voting exists in each district.\" Ginales, 478 U.S. at 59. Even the Senate factor on racially polarized voting directs the inquiry to voting behavior of the particular \"State or political subdivision\" at issue. See Senate Report Factor No. 2, supra. In addition, Plaintiffs should be reguired to show that districting plan adopted by the County Board is drawn in such a way that it has resulted in the packing or fragmenting of prior existing cohesive black groups. Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 196. If the plan adopted by the PCBE in no way decreases or curtails the effectiveness of black participation by packing or fragmenting prior existing cohesive black groups, the PCBE's plan does not \"result\" in Plaintiffs having less opportunity to elect 12representatives of their choice. Consequently, Plaintiffs have not proved a violation of the Voting Rights Act. 3. White Bloc Voting. 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 contemplation of a voluminous amount of data, concluded that Little Rock does not have racially polarized voting. Leadership Roundtable v. Little Rock. 499 F.Supp. 579 (E.D.Ark 1980). This Court should take judicial notice of the findings of fact in Leadership Roundtable. In the Court's consideration of Plaintiff's evidence of white bloc voting, the Court should consider evidence that 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 (0,Conner, 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. Therefore, Plaintiff should be required to set forth proof that other factors usually determinative of political success (i.e., the candidates' platforms and policies. their ability as speakers, their \"track records\" in the community, their name recognition, and their financial support. 13etc.) were not the factors which attracted white voters. See Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 246 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). 4. Vote Dilution. If the Court should find that Plaintiffs have satisfied the \"necessary preconditions\" discussed above, the Plaintiffs still have the burden of proving that under the districting plan adopted by the County Board they have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the prior districting scheme. Plaintiffs argue that three majority black districts could have, and therefore should have, been created by the County Board. In the terminology of  2, Plaintiffs claim vote dilution due to \"packing\", i.e. blacks were packed into two districts with overwhelming black majorities preventing a third majority black district. However, a comparison of the districting plan adopted by the County Board with the prior plan reveals that more \"packing\" existed under the prior plan.' Moreover, the prior plan, when adopted by Judge Woods and held to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act, had greater \"packing\" than the plan adopted by the County Board. In fact, if Plaintiffs' concern is \"packing\". 'Under the prior districting scheme, the two majority black districts had 84.35% and 74.97% black population according to the 1990 census. Under the plan adopted by the County Board, the two majority black districts have 79.82\" ' ----------* * '   Q, and 59.39% black population. ^The plan adopted by Judge Woods in December of 1986 had two majority black zones with 81.50% and 68.90% black population, compared with 79.82% and 59.39% in the PCBE plan. Judge Woods' finding that his plan was in compliance with the Voting Rights 141 they are better off under the plan adopted by the County Board than they have ever been since the LRSD Board of Directors have been elected by single-member districts. Therefore, Plaintiffs will be unable to prove any vote dilution resulting from the districting scheme adopted by the County Board, and consequently. they will be unable to show they have less opportunity under the County Board districting plan to elect representatives of their choice than under the prior districting plan. C. Conclusion. Plaintiffs will be unable to prove either element of a Voting Rights Act claim. The PCBE plan does not result in less opportunity to participate in the political process based on the socioeconomic effects of past discrimination because these socioeconomic factors are present regardless of where the district lines are drawn. Plaintiffs cannot establish the \"necessary preconditions\" in order to show less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. Moreover, even if they could make such a showing, the Plaintiffs claim fails because the districting scheme adopted by the County Board has less \"packing\" than the prior plan currently has and than the prior plan had when it was adopted by Judge Woods in 1986 and held to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. For all the above reasons, the relief sought by Plaintiffs under the Voting Rights Act should be denied. Act was not appealed, and remains the law of the case. 15IV. CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS In order to establish that the districting scheme adopted by the County Board is unconstitutional, Plaintiff must prove that the plan was adopted with the purposeful intent by the members of the County Board to discriminate against Plaintiffs. City of Mobile V. Bolden. 446 U.S. 55 (1980). It is impossible to speculate what evidence of discriminatory intent Plaintiffs will bring forward because none exists. It will suffice to say that Plaintiffs will be unable to prove any constitutional violations. Respectfully submitted, Christopher Heller John C. Pendley FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 By: Christopher Heller Bar No. 81083 16 4 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Trial Brief has been served on the following counsel by depositing copy of same on this 12th day of April, 1993. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 (HAND DELIVERED) Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell and Streett First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) Mr. Larry Vaught County Attorney Pulaski County Board of Education 201 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 (HAND DELIVERED) Ms. Ann Brown Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (MAILED) 17 u. jLED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JUN 2 J 1993 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. MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER In this action. which is part of the a. SRENTS, CLERK ---- OHP. Cli PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS continuing case concerning the desegregation of the school districts of Pulaski County, Arkansas, plaintiffs challenge the existing zones used to elect members of the Little Rock School District Board of Directors as well as the new zones adopted by the Pulaski County Board of Education. Plaintiffs allege violations of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (Supp. 1992), and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They argue that the present plan violates the one-man one-vote principle and dilutes minority voting strength, and that the new plan packs the black voting age population into two zones even though blacks are numerically large and geographically compact to constitute a third majority black zone. This case was tried to the Court on April 13 and 14, 1993. The Court makes the following findings of fact and conclusions of law required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 52. Any other statement in this opinion which may be deemed a finding of fact is also adopted as such. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The named plaintiffs, Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr., Gwen Hevey Jackson, Diane Davis, and Raymond Frazier (\"Charles plaintiffs\"), are black adult residents of the Little Rock School District. The Charles plaintiffs' amended complaint has been consolidated with Case No. LR-C-82-866, Little Rock School District V. Pulaski County Special School District. The Charles plaintiffs bring this action 2. to reform the single member district school zone lines which are utilized by the defendants in school elections for the purpose of electing school directors. also an action to ensure that This is such reformation is pursuant to and consistent with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended. Plaintiffs seek to have the district refomned into single member districts of approximately equal population pursuant to a plan that allows of African American descent the seven (7) citizens opportunity to maximize their opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representation of their choice. Defendants are the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\"), the members of the Board of Directors of the LRSD, the Pulaski County Board of Education (\"PCBE\"), and the members of the PCBE. 3. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607 (Michie 1991), the PCBE has the responsibility to divide school districts which have an average daily attendance in excess of 24,000 students into zones for the purpose of electing members to that school district's board of directors. 4. The present LRSD election zones were established by order of the court on December 18, 1986, after certain areas of the Pulaski County Special School District were annexed to the LRSD. Followingthe annexation, the LRSD presented a proposal for zone elections to Judge Henry Woods. That proposal was the subject of a December 9, 1986 pretrial conference. LRSD Exhibit 1. On December 10, 1986, the LRSD Board of Directors voted unanimously to approve the zone proposal. Charles Exhibit 36. The zones adopted in 1986 had the following populations and racial compositions according to the 1980 Census data: Zone 1 - 25,399 total population\n81.50% black\nZone 2 - 25,295 total population\n68.90% black\nZone 3 - 25,210 total population\n7.83% black\nZone 4 - 24,844 total population\n2.96% black\nZone 5 - 25,016 total population\n18.30% black\nZone 6 - 25,107 total population\n17.30% black\nZone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10 black. In adopting the above zones in 1986, the court found that the \"seven (7) contiguous zones with comparable populations comports with the one-man one-vote principle required by the constitution\" and that \"the Little Rock School District's redistricting plans are in compliance with the mandate of 2 of the Voting Rights Act (codified as 42 U.S.C. 1973) and does not abridge or deny the right of minorities to vote.\" See document 719\nCharles Exhibit 13. 5. After the filing of this complaint, all the parties agreed that the 1986 plan was not in compliance with the one-man one-vote principle when judged by the 1990 census figures. The Court postponed the September 1992 school board elections and directed the PCBE to determine whether the zones were out of compliance with -3-the one-man one-vote principle and to redraw the lines if necessary.' 6. The PCBE, through the Pulaski County judge, commissioned the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (\"Metroplan\") , a governmental planning and research organization composed of local government entities in the Central Arkansas area, to address the issue and to devise a remedial plan if necessary. The PCBE instructed Metroplan to examine the one-man one-vote issue and draw three or four alternate plans, keeping the zones compact and contiguous and as close to the present zones as possible in order to support stability in the LRSD. 7. The PCBE determined that the 1986 plan should be used as the starting point for any new plan. It did not instruct Metroplan on the voting rights issue because it understood that the 1986 plan was in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. 8. Mr. Jim McKenzie, executive director of Metroplan, contacted Mr. James R. Lynch, a senior research specialist at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock's Arkansas Institute of Government, and requested additional criteria that should be considered in rezoning cases. Mr. Lynch provided him with a two-page summary which Mr. McKenzie used in developing the alternative plans presented to the PCBE. The factors listed by Mr. Lynch were: adherence to the one- man onevote doctrine\navoidance of diluting minority political expression\ncompact and contiguous districts\nrecognizable district 'The Court also postponed the PCBE Zone 5 election. -4-boundaries\nand use of existing political boundaries. Charles Exhibit 24. 9. The Metroplan staff drafted four proposed zoning plans and Mr. McKenzie reviewed the plans to see if they met Mr. Lynch's criteria. Mr. McKenzie presented the proposals to the PCBE at a public meeting on November 6, 1992. The PCBE then held two public hearings on November 30, 1992 and December 7, 1992 to answer questions about the plan revisions. Charles Exhibits 9 and 10. 10. During the public hearings, the issue of a third majority black district was raised. Mr. John W. Nagel, Jr. presented a plan he had drawn up for the Charles plaintiffs which included three majority black districts. Mr. McKenzie testified that Metroplan could have drawn a plan with three majority black zones but the criteria of compactness and minimum change in present zones would have been sacrificed. 11. On December 29, 1992, at a specially called meeting, the PCBE selected Metroplan's Proposal No. 4 as its plan for bringing the present zones into compliance. The vote was three to one, with the three white members voting for Proposal No. 4 and the one black member voting against it. Charles Exhibit 12. 12. Mr. McKenzie testified that Proposal No. 4 looks more to the future in terms of growth and shifts in population than the other proposals. In Proposal No. 4, the areas of the City of Little Rock ^The Charles plaintiffs argue that the PCBE did not legally adopt Metroplans Proposal No. 4 but merely voted to submit it to the Court, thereby abandoning its duty to adopt a plan. The Court Ends that the PCBE adopted Proposal No. 4 pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-607. -5-that are projected for growth have a negative variance from the mean while the areas that are projected to lose population have positive variance. a 13. On February 16, 1993, the PCBE submitted its approved plan to the Court, and the Charles plaintiffs filed objections to the plan. 14. There was no racially discriminatory motive. intent. or purpose involved in the adoption by the PCBE of the districting plan at issue in this case. The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence from which this Court can conclude that the plan adopted by the PCBE was the result of purposeful racial discrimination. The PCBE adopted its plan after two public hearings at which the merits of the various plans before the PCBE were discussed. The plan eventually adopted by the PCBE was drawn according to generally accepted criteria provided by the Charles plaintiffs' expert in this case, Mr, Lynch. 15. The City of Little Rock is approximately 65% white and 34% black. Charles Exhibit 25. The voting age population of the City of Little Rock is approximately 70% white and 29% black. Charles Exhibit 26. coterminous. The City of Little Rock and the LRSD are nearly The significant exceptions are the Granite Mountain area, which is a predominantly black area within the City of Little Rock but not within the LRSD, and Cammack Village, a predominantly white area which is within the LRSD but not within the City of Little Rock. 16. The plan adopted by the PCBE has the following characteristics: -6-Zone 1 - 25,533 total population\n79.82% black\nZone 2 - 25,764 total population\n59.39% black\nZone 3 - 24,578 total population\n4.52% black\nZone 4 - 24,216 total population\n5.12% black\nZone 5 - 24,456 total population\n19.14% black\nZone 6 - 24,663 total population\n35.55% black\nZone 7 - 24,464 total population\n28.45% black. See Attachment A. 17. The plan presented by the Charles plaintiffs has the following characteristics: Zone 1 - 23,704 total population\n64.7% black\nZone 2 - 24,870 total population\n64.0% black\nZone 3 - 24,230 total population\n5.3% black\nZone 4 - 25,380 total population\n5.1% black\nZone 5 - 23,839 total population\n8.7% black\nZone 6 - 25,635 total population\n61.7% black\nZone 7 - 26,016 total population\n25.8% black. See Attachment B. 18. The plan proposed by the Charles plaintiffs does not conform to the standard proposed by their expert, Mr. Lynch, that the zones be compact and contiguous. 19. There are no significant barriers to participation in the political process in the LRSD. In order to run for the LRSD Board The Court notes that the plan filed as Plaintiffs Exhibit A with the Charles plaintiffs \"Objections, Response and Memorandum Regarding the Court s Order of February 16, 1993,\" (doc. #1762) has the same boundary lines as Attachment B but some of the zones are numbered differently. (See Attachment C.) -7-of Directors, a candidate is required to gather twenty signatures on a petition. Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-111 (Michie 1991) . There is no filing fee. There was no testimony that there exist any legal barriers to participation in the political process by black candidates. 20. No evidence was presented to show that black citizens have less opportunity to participate in the political process under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they do under the present plan. Mr. Lynch, expert witness for the Charles plaintiffs, testified that the opportunity for black citizens to participate in the political process is the same under the present plan and the plan adopted by the PCBE. 21. Black citizens do not have less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice under the plan adopted by the PCBE than they do under the present plan. Mr. Lynch testified that the opportunity for black citizens to elect representatives of their choice is the same under the plan adopted by the PCBE and the present plan. 22. In Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), the Supreme Court referred to factors listed in the Senate Judiciary Committee report accompanying the 1982 amendments to 2 of the Voting Rights Act as being relevant to a 2 claim. The Court makes the following findings in accordance with those factors: A. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process. -8-While the Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence of a history of official discrimination, the Court will take judicial notice that there has been a history of official discrimination in voting. Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F. Supp. 196, 210 (E.D.Ark. 1989). The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence, other than demographic information which shows socio-economic differences between blacks and whites, that the history of official discrimination in Arkansas has resulted in black citizens having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice under the plan proposed by the PCBE. This demographic evidence does not prove or disprove that the district lines drawn in 1986 or 1992 resulted in blacks having less opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The history of official discrimination is remote in time to the preparation of the PCBE plan and will therefore be given little weight. B. The extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized. The evidence presented by the Charles plaintiffs tends to indicate that black voters constitute a politically cohesive unit. Mr. Lynch showed that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidates. He presented evidence of a correlation between black voting age population and the percentage of votes received by black candidates. The Charles plaintiffs failed to prove that white bloc voting normally will defeat the combined strength of minority support plus -9-any white cross-over vote for black candidates. The evidence was insufficient to show that white voters tend to group together to defeat black candidates. The evidence indicates that black candidates have achieved considerable success against white candidates. Charles Exhibits 32 and 33 show ten elections (nine at large\none zone) since 1986 in which black candidates opposed white candidates. In six of those elections, the black candidate was successful. Only two of the elections involved the LRSD. In both the at-large 1986 LRSD race and the LRSD Zone 2 1989 race, the black candidate defeated the white candidate. In the 1988 race for municipal judgeship in the City of Little Rock, the black candidate was successful. The black candidates were also a successful in three of the seven at-large elections for a position on the Little Rock City Board of Directors. Charles Exhibit 35 shows the results of twenty-five elections between 1962 and 1992 in which black candidates sought positions on the Little Rock City Board of Directors. The black candidates were successful in ten of those elections. The Court finds that there does not exist in Little Rock a sufficient white bloc vote to usually defeat the candidate preferred by minority voters. Although there was some evidence that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidate, the Court finds that legally significant racially polarized voting does not exist in the City of Little Rock or the LRSD. -10-C. The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group. There is no evidence that the LRSD has adopted any practice or procedure that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group. The State of Arkansas has adopted a majority vote requirement which applies to school district elections. Ark. Code Ann. 6-14-121 (Michie 1991). There is no evidence that the majority vote requirement has had any impact on the success or failure of any black candidate in a school district election. D. If there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of the minority group have been denied access to that process. The process of slating plays no part in races for the LRSD Board of Directors. Nominations are not made by committee or convention. Anyone who wants to run simply files as an individual in the election. There is no filing fee. A petition signed by twenty qualified registered voters is sufficient to get a candidate on the ballot. Mr. Bill Hamilton and Mr. Thomas Broughton, both of whom are black and have been elected to the LRSD Board of Directors, testified that there are no impediments to ballot access. Mr. Lynch testified that the \"white power structure\" throws its support to certain candidates. This does not constitute slating as that term has been used by the courts in considering the Senate factors. See, e.g. Jeffers, 730 F.Supp. at 212. -11-E. The extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment, and health, which hinder their ability to participate effectively in the political process. Census data, which indicates that in the City of Little Rock blacks are poorer, less educated, have fewer vehicles, and have a higher percentage of households headed by single females than the general population, convinces the Court that minorities in the Little Rock area have suffered the disadvantages of past discrimination. Charles Exhibits 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. These socio-economic factors have an impact upon the ability of blacks to participate effectively in the political process. For example, while blacks comprise 34% of the population of Little Rock, they comprise only 29% of the voting age population. Mr. Lynch testified that blacks also suffer lower voter registration and lower voter turnout among registered voters than whites. F. Whether political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals. The Charles plaintiffs presented no evidence of overt or subtle racial appeals in LRSD election campaigns. Mr. Bill Hamilton testified that in 1973 he actively supported a white school board candidate, Lucy Abraham, and that in 1983 he received wide support from the white community. G. The extent to which members of the minority group have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. The Charles plaintiffs presented evidence of only two LRSD elections. Black candidates won them both. They presented evidence on one election for the position of municipal judge, and -12-that race was won by a black. As noted above under subparagraph B, the plaintiffs presented evidence of twenty-five elections for the position of Little Rock City Board of Directors from 1962 to 1992 in which black candidates participated. Black candidates won ten of the twenty-five races in which one or more blacks participated. Charles Exhibit 35. LRSD Exhibit 2 shows that in 1983 two black candidates ran at-large races for positions on the LRSD Board of Directors, each opposing a white candidate. Black candidates Bill Hamilton and Katherine Mitchell received 70% and 34% of the vote, respectively. According to LRSD Exhibit 5, Mr. Hamilton received 82% of the vote against white candidate Frederick Lee in the 1989 LRSD Zone 2 election. LRSD Exhibit 4 shows that white candidate Charles Young defeated black candidate Lawrence Hampton in the 1987 Zone 6 race by a slim margin, 250 to 218 votes. Zone 6 was then a 72% white zone. The percentage of black representation for at least the last ten years on both the LRSD Board of Directors and the City of Little Rock Board of Directors has been 28.5% compared with a citywide black population of 34% and a black voting age population of 28%. Mr. Hamilton testified that it only takes about 300 votes to win an election within the present LRSD election zones. His testimony is borne out by LRSD Exhibits 4 and 5. The minimum black population in an election zone in the plan adopted by the PCBE is 1,112. PCBE Exhibit 1, p. 2. The five most heavily black zones range from 4,681 to 20,380 black population. There exists in at -13-least five of the zones adopted by the PCBE, if not all of them, sufficient black population from which to draw the number of votes usually necessary to elect a black candidate to the LRSD Board of Directors. H. Whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the minority group. Mr. Dale Charles, president of the Little Rock Chapter of the NAACP, testified that he had raised several issues at LRSD board meetings and had received no written response from the Board. However, there was no testimony that the Board usually provides a written response or that whites who presented issues to the Board received written responses. Mr. Charles admitted that he had never sought to discuss any LRSD issue with his zone representative, who is white. because he assumed his representative would be a antagonistic to him. Mr. Charles further testified that he had made presentations to the Board on several occasions. Dr. Mitchell and Mr. Hamilton testified generally that the Board was not as responsive as it could be to some issues of concern to the black community, but that any two members of the Board could call a public meeting to discuss any issue of concern to those two members. Board member Patricia Gee testified that she lives in a racially mixed neighborhood (her zone is presently 28.55% black) and that she works as hard to resolve issues brought to her by black constituents as she does to resolve issues brought to her by white constituents. -14-I. Whether the policy underlying the state or political subdivision's use of prerequisite to voting, procedure is tenuous. such or voting standard. qualification, practice or The Court finds that the adoption by the PCBE of the election zones prepared by Metroplan is not a practice that can be described as \"tenuous.\" The starting point for the development of the plan adopted by the PCBE was a plan adopted by the court in 1986 which the court found to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The Charles plaintiffs claim the 1986 redistricting plan violates the one-man one-vote principle and the Voting Rights Act. They also challenge the redistricting plan for the LRSD Board of Directors adopted by the PCBE, claiming it violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution. This Court ordered the PCBE to develop a plan in light of the 1990 census to bring the LRSD districting plan into compliance with the one-man one-vote requirement of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. All of the parties agreed that the old plan, which had been in effect by order of Judge Henry Woods since December of 1986, was not in compliance with the one-man one-vote requirement when judged by the 1990 census information. Now that the PCBE has adopted a new districting scheme, the plaintiffs' allegations that -15-the 1986 plan violated the Voting Rights Act have become moot/ See Grove v. Emison, 507 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 1075, 122 L.Ed.2d 388 (1993). 2. This Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the PCBE. The Supreme Court has held it is error for a federal district court not to defer to state efforts to redraw legislative districts. Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U.S. 113 S.Ct. 1149, 1157, 122 L.Ed.2d 500, 513, 61 U.S.L.W. 4199, 4202 (1993). See also Turner v. State of Arkansas, 784 F. Supp. 553, 573 (E.D.Ark. 1991), aff'd 119 L.Ed.2d 220 (1992). Therefore, this Court may not alter or amend the districting plan adopted by the PCBE absent finding a violation of federal law. 3 . In order to prevail on their claim that the new districting plan violates 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the plaintiffs must prove that they will have less opportunity under the plan adopted by the PCBE to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice than under the plan approved by Judge Woods in December of 1986. Chisom V. Roemer, 501 U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 2354, 2365, 115 L.Ed.2d 348, 364 (1991)\nTurner, 784 F. Supp. at 589. In order to prevail on their constitutional claim, the plaintiffs must show that there existed a purposeful intent to discriminate on the part of the PCBE. City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). Plaintiffs ^The issue of whether the doctrine of res judicata or collateral estoppel preclude the Charles plaintiffs from challenging the 1986 plan was raised during these proceedings. The Court finds it unnecessary to address the issue because it determines that challenges to the 1986 plan are arguably moot but, as noted below, the Court will give effect to the 1986 plan as the law of the case. -16- have not met their burden as to either their 2 claim or their constitutional claim. 4. The PCBE is not required by the Voting Rights Act to create the maximum number of majority black districts. The Act is not an affirmative action statute, and it \"is not violated by a state legislature simply because that legislature does not enact a districting plan that maximizes black political power and influence.\" Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 573. The Turner court explained: Congress did not intend to provide minority voters with the \"maximum feasible minority voting strength.\" Singles, 478 U.S. at 94, 106 S. Ct. at 2789 (O'Connor, J., concurring). The maximum minority voting strength would be tantamount to proportional representation, which is expressly prohibited by the language of the statute. Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 577. The mandate of the Voting Rights Act is II you shall not harm\" rather than \"you shall help.\" Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 241 (Eisele, J., concurring and dissenting). Thus, the Voting Rights Act does not require the PCBE to create another majority black district. 5. In Jeffers, 730 F. Supp. at 2 05, the court discussed vote dilution claims in the single-member district context. It stated: If lines are drawn that limit the number of majorityblack single-member districts, and reasonably compact and contiguous majority-black districts could have been drawn, and if racial cohesiveness in voting is so great that, as a practical matter, black voters' preferences for black candidates are frustrated by this system of apportionment, the outlines of a Section 2 theory are made out. Whether such a claim will succeed depends on the particular factual context. including all of the factors that Thornburg^ Smith, and the legislative history of Section 2 say are relevant. -17-6. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973, as amended in 1982, provides: (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color. or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f)(2) [of this title], as provided in subsection (b) [of this section]. 7. A violation of subsection (a) of this section is if, based upon the totality of the circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) of this section in that its members (b) established if. have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is circumstance which may be considered: Provided, one That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population. It is clear that in order to prevail on their 2 claim. plaintiffs must prove both less opportunity to participate in the political process and less opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. In Chisom, the Supreme Court stated: [T]he inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. * * * It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word \"or II for the word \"and. II Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect. -18-Chisom, 501 U.S. at 111 S.Ct. at 2365, 115 L.Ed.2d at 364. See Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 574 n.2O. The Turner court provided guidance for determining whether a plaintiff will have \"less opportunity\" to participate: (I Less opportunity\" by any fair interpretation means \"less opportunity\" than such black voters had immediately before the imposition or application of the challenged procedure\nnot \"less opportunity\" than they would have, had the legislature seized the opportunity to help them by maximizing their political influence. Turner, 784 F. Supp. at 573. 8. As previously noted, the Senate has identified a number of factors which may be relevant to a 2 claim: 1. the extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise to participate in the democratic process\n2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the state or political subdivisions is racially polarized\n3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large electi\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_449","title":"Election zone","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School boards","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/449"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n1 1 e F P 0 M J 0 H H W . tU W L K E P P . TO 6 214 7 P . 0 2 received SEP 1 5 LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR THE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS SEVEN ZONE PLAN Oiiice oi Desegregation Monitoring ZONE 1 367 intersects Interstate Begin at the point where Hwy. 3Q, Follow the Little Rock School District's southern boundary east to the Arkansas River then follow the river northwest to the drainage ditch under Cantrell Road at Gill Street thence west along straight l_..c Street a line intersecting the northern boundary of the Arkansas School for the Deaf then west to the end of Lee Avenue then follow a straight imaginary line due north to Fairfax At Fairfax Terrace go west to Martin Street Terrace. thence north on Martin to I, west on I to Midland, south on Midland to H, west on H to Oak, Kavanaugh, west on Kavanaugh to Walnut, south on Oak to south on Walnut to west Markham, east on West Markham to Elm, south on Elm to Interstate 630, east on 630 to Brown Street, south on Brown to 14th, east on 14th to Cross, south on Cross to Wright Avenue, east on Wright Avenue to Ringo, south on Ringo to Swagerty Creek, Swagerty creek south to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek southwest to Interstate 30. ZONE 2 Begin at the intersection of Fouche Creek and Interstate 30 follow Fouche northwest to Swagerty Creek, Swagerty Creek north to Ringo, Ringo north to Wright Avenue, Wright Avenue west to Cross, Cross north to 14th, 14th west to Brown, Brown south to 22nd, 22nd west to Pine, Pine south to Asher, Asher southwest to 29th, 29th west to Washington, Washington north to 28th, 28th west to Adams, Adams north to 24th, 24th west to Filmore, Filraore north to 19th, 19th west to University Avenue, University south to 53rd Street, 53rd east to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs north to Maureen Drive, Maureen Drive east to 50th, 50th east to Meyers, Meyers north to 49th, 49th east to Pike, Pike north to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek east to the western boundary of Benny Craig Park, said boundary south to Rosemore, Rossmore southeast to Union Pacific Railroad Tracks, Tracks southeast to Koerner, Koerner east to Scott Hamilton, Scott Hamilton south to Interstate 30, 30 west to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs south to Baseline, Baseline west to Verbena Drive, from there follow an imaginary line due south intersecting Warren Drive, Warren Drive south to Mabelvale Cutoff, Mabelvale Cutoff west to Chicot, Chicot south to the school district and also city limits boudary line, follow this boundary line northeast around a private airfield to the point of origin.0 1 1 F. 2 4 F R 0 M I 0 H n W . 1.1 P L K E P P . A . TO 2 14 7 P . 0 3 ZONE 3 Begin at the intersection Follow Brown street north of Brown and 22nd Street. to 1-630, 630 west to West Jonesboro, west Jonesboro south to I2t\nn, 12th west to University, University north to 630 west to Mississippi, Mississippi south to Rodney Parham, Rodney Parham southeast to Kanis, Kanis west to Shackleford, West 12th, 630, Shackleford south to Panther Branch Creek, then follow an imaginary line due south to the northern end of Talley Road, then follow an imaginary line due west to west 44th street, 44th street east to Weldon, Weldon south to 46th, at 46th follow an imaginary line due south to Colonel Glenn, follow Colonel Glenn east to Barrow, follow Barrow north to 28th, 28th east to Boyle Park Road, Boyle Park southeast to Rock Creek, Rock Creek south then east to Colonel Glenn, Colonel Glenn east to University, University north to 19th, 19th east to Filmore, Filmore south to 24th, 24th east to Adams, Adams south to 28th, 28th east to Washington, Washington south to 29th, 29th east to Asher, Asher east to Pine, Pine north to 22nd, 22nd east to the point of origin. ZONE 4 Begin at the Intersection of Scott Hamilton and 1-30. Follow 1-30 west to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs south to Baseline, Baseline west to Verbena then follow on imaginary line south intersecting Warren Drive, Warren Drive south to Mabelvale, Mabelvale west to Chicot, Chicot south to school district boundary, school district boundary southwest, then west, then around the Alexartder City limits. then north. east. then north southeast to 1-430, to McHenry then east. Creek, then north, then 430 south to Fouche Creek, McHenry Creek Fouche Creek northeast to University, University south to 53rd, 53rd east to Geyer Springs, Geyer Springs north to Maureen Drive, Maureen east to 50th, 50th east to Meyers, Meyers north to 49th, 49th east to Pike, Pike north to Fouche Creek, Fouche Creek east to the western boundary of Benny Craig Park, Benny Craig Park boundary south to Rosemore, Rosemore south to U.P. Railroad, Railroad south to Hoener, Hoener east to Scott Hamilton, Scott Hamilton south to the point of origin. ZONE 5 Begin at a point where McHenry Creek inters^ts the western most boundary of the school district. this boundary north to west Marldiam. Follow At this point follow an imaginary line north to Loyola Drive. At this point turn east on imaginary line to Napa Valley Drive, Napa Valley north to Hinson Road, Hinson east to an Green Mountain, Green Mountain south to Rainwood,I I f f I C? Cl ?  I 1 i t F P 0 M J 0 H N 1.4 . W H L IC E P P . H . TO Rainwood east to Grassy Flat Creek, 2 14? P . 0 -I Grassy Flat Creek east to 1-430, 430 north to Rodney Parham, Rodney Parham southeast to Grassy Flat Creek, Grassy Flat Creek generally east to Reservoir Road, Reservoir north to the southern boundary of Reservoir Park, go east along the southern boundary of Reservoir Park to Windy Drive. Follow an imaginary line south at the intersection of Windy Drive and the southern boundary of Reservoir Park Follow Grassy Flat Creek south to to Grassy Flat creek. an imaginary point due east of Arrow Ridge Court. Go east along this imaginary line to Gillett Drive, north on Gillett to Leewood, east on Leewood to Mississippi, south on to Mississippi to Rodney Parham, south on Rodney Parkham Kanis, west on Kanis to Shackleford, south on Shackleford to at Panther Branch creek. Panther Branch Creek follow an imaginary line due south to the northern tip of Talley Road, at this point turn east, follow an imaginary line to the interesection of west Romine Road and 44th. Follow 44th east to Weldon and go south on Weldon to 46th, at this point. follow an imaginary line south to Colonel Glenn Road, go east on Colonel Glenn Road to Barrow Road, turn north on Barrow Road to 28th street, follow 28th east to Boyle Park Road, go south on Boyle Park Road to Rock Creek, follow Rock Creek south and then east to Colonel Glenn Road, go east on Colonel Glenn to University, then south on University to Fouche Creek, follow Fouche Creek generally southwest to Interstate 430, go north on 430 to McHenry Creek, then follow McHenry Creek west to the point of origin. ZONE 6 Begin at the intersection of the western school district boundary line and west Markham. Follow the boudary line generally northwest turning to the east along the Little Maumelle River, follow the Little Maumelle River to the Arkansas River, follow J imerson the Arkansas River to Jimerson Creek, Creek south to Keightley, follow Keightley south to Hwy. 10, follow Hwy. 10 west to the eastern boundary of Reservoir Park, follow this boundary south then east then south then west to Reservoir Road, follow Reservoir Road to stoney Flat Creek, follow Stoney Flat Creek southwest to Rodney Parham Road, follow Rodney Parham northwest to 1-430, 430 south to Stoney Flat Creek, Stoney Flat northwest to Rainwood Drive, follow Rainwood west to Green Mountain, Green Mountain north to Hinson Road, Hinson Road west to Nappa Valley, Nappa Valley south to Mara Lynn Road. At this point follow an imaginary line west to Loyola Drive, at this point follow an imaginary line south to the point of origin.1 1 F P 0 N J 0 H H 14 . M H L K E P P . w . TO 2 14 7 P . y 5 I ZONE 7 Begin at the intersection of Jimerson Creek and the Arkansas River, follow Jimerson Creek south to Keightley, 10, go west on Hwy, part south to the southetn^bo^^^^^^^^^^^ EeBe--t PatK^, 2 imaginary line south east along the an Windy Drive, at this point follow +-O fitonev Flat Creek, follow Stoney to Stoney Flat Creek Flat Creek south to imaginary point follow an due west of Lyric Lane, : Lane and Gillett an pon\"-  imaqinary line from this point to Lyric follow Leewood Drive, follow Gillett north to Leewood, to Mississippi, follow Mississippi south to ' ?S!oi%?0 eaVt i?Sni\nKy\nfollow university south to 12th street, follow 12th street east to West Jonesboro West Jonesboro north to 1-630, follow I 630 e^st follow Elm Street north to Markham, follow to Elm Street, follow L-...------ Markham west to Walnut, follow Walnut north to Kavanaugh, follow Oak north to H, follow Kavanaugh east to Oak, follow H east to Midland, follow Midland north to I Street, follow I east to Martin Street, follow Fairfax Terrace east to follow Martin south to Fairfax Terrace, Luxxv^ --- -- line perpendicular to the east end of Lee an imaginary line perpendicular to tne ease enu Street, follow this imaginary line south to the northern boundary of the Arkansas School for the Blind, follow the northern boundary of the School for the Blind to the eastern boundary of the School for the Blind, at this point follow an imaginary line east to Cantrell Road and follow Cantrell Road to the Gill Street at this at this point, bUi btreei Bridge, follow the drainage ditch under the Gill Street Bridge to the Arkansas River, northwest to the point of origin. follow the Arkansas River I 7 0 T w L P . ? 5 1a PT c?  Pl p 1 /r63i 62,6 8 \" (S, 4 Z IS71 8 ^L3 3 ) :r (9 7^ -z4/^7 ' 3, 7 4- :8 8'=^o 'Z I, 8 2 00 I o 2 -S(^ o\u0026lt;? ^Z.o 373 2 4-39d - 6 2 4^-r4 i- o, 7 Io 3 S 4.0 2, 47o f 2 r \"^46 S'Siiz 3X I 11-74^T' I S'a IIReport to the Pulaski County Board of Education on Little Rock School Board Election Zones Metroplan November 4, 1992SUMMARY TABLES  Existing Boundaries  Proposals 1 through 4 ' yMl ^4Va^(^2. \" H (uu) 1 w - c r% |W O/ik \"Iv, i(^ y-OJlCURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES CEIectdIst 1 2 j4 5 1 TotSD Totpop 20901 20415 24989 31057' 30810 22382 23120 173674 PopVor -3910 -4396 178 6246 5999 -2429 -1691 0 7oVar -15.76% -17.72% 0.72% 25.18% 24.18% -9.79% -6.81% 0.00% White 3194 4906 22107 28967 22974 15582 15159 112889 Ideal 24811 LRSD.XLS Block 17629 15306 2529 1550 7346 6390 7688 58438 %BP 84.35% 74.97% 10.12% 4.997o 23.84% 28.55% 33.25% 33.657o Other 78 203 353 540 490 410 273 2347 7.OP 0.37% 0.99% 1.41% 1.74% 1.59% 1.83% 1.18% 1.35% PROPOSAL#! Electdlstl 1 2 4 5 _6 7 TotSD Totpop 23710 24509 25229 25380 25319 24705 24822 173674 PopVor -1101 -302 418 569 508 -106 11 0 %Var -4.44% -1.22% 1.69%' 2.30% 2.05% -0.43% 0.05% 0.00% White 5201 7163 23772 23620 18978 16674 17481 112889 Block 18408 17097 1092 1296 5891 7585 7069 58438 %BP 77.64% 69.76% 4.33% 5.11% 23.27% 30.70% 28.48% 33.65% Other 101 249 365 464 450 446 272 2347 7oOP 0.43% 1.02% 1.45% 1.83% 1.78% 1.81% 1.10% 1.35% Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #2 Electdlstl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Tot pop 25431 24479 25229 25380 25319 23714 24122 173674 PopVor 620 -332 418 569 508 -1097 -689 0 %Var 2.50% -1.34% 1.69% 2.30% 2.05%' -4.42% -2.78% 0.00% White 5321 7837 23772 23620 18978 14757 18604 112889 Block 20007 16320 1092 1296 5891 8592 5240 58438 /oBP 66.67% 4.33% 5.11% 23.27% 36.23% 21.72% 33.65% Other 103 322 365 464 450 365 278 2347 %OP 0.41% 1.32% 1.45% 1.837o 1.7Q% 1.54% 1.15% 1.35% Page 1LRSD.XLS Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #3 Electdistl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Totpop 25533 24397 25091 23691 25339 25501 24122 173674 PopVar 722 -414 280 -1120 528 690 -689 0 %Var 2.917o -1.67% 1.13% -4.51% 2.13% 2.78% -2.78% 0.00% White 5018 9083 23646 22201 18908 15429 18604 112889 Black 20380 14973 1116 1064 5979 9686 5240 58438 %BP 79.82% 61.37% 4.45% 4.49% 23.60% 37.98% 21.72% 33.65% Other 135 341 329 426 452 386 278 2347 %OP 0.53% 1.40% 1.31% 1.80% 1.78% 1.51% 1.15% 1.35% Ideal 24811 PROPOSAL #4 Electdistl 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 TotSD Totpop 25533 25764 24578 24216 24456 24663 24464 173674 PopVar 722 953 -233 -595 -355 -148 -347 0 7oVar 2.91% 3.84% -0.94% -2.40% -1.43% -0.59% -1.40% 0.00% White 5018 10084 23161 22518 19325 15550 17233 112889 Black 20380 15300 1112 1239 4681 8767 6959 58438 7oBP 79.82% 59.39% 4.52% 5.12% 19.14% 35.55% 28.45% 33.65% Other 135 380 305 459 450 346 272 2347 %OP 0.53% 1.47% 1.24% 1.90% 1.84% 1.40% 1.11% 1.35% Ideal 24811 Page 2n 725B-O CURRENT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Record _______ _______72 ______ 53 ______ ______ _______W _______ _______55 _______7_^ 79 7^ _______ 58 _______7^ 46 ______ ______ ______64 102 ______ ______ 54 49 ______50 44 57 _____13 _____12 _____15 _____12 34 24 33 40 vpdlst 557K 567J 657H 6671 687D-O 687J-a 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 997A 4751 476J-a 486K-a 5661-0 567J-a 587L 686A 687B 687C 687D 687J 2461 246J-a 246K 246L 3751 3751-0 475B 475H 475H-b 4751-0 total jx\u0026gt;p _______277 2406 609 3724 _______ 357 2579 _______112 2786 1546 _________0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 276 522 321 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1721 609 1400 __ 3274 1426 _______252 261 1058 1686 736 680 white pop ___1^ 22 52 1065 ___0 ___5 81 34 193 13 0 12 1071 584 25 36 998 260 487 90 320 75 1486 494 296 280 120 606 1390 3136 1352 243 261 982 1635 677 649 blackjsop ________276 2377 ________556 2637 ________ ________ 2489 77 2583 _______1532 __________0 489 458 _______1855 ________ 1087 ________ 11 _________28 ________ ________ _______1^ 1922 4060 2770 1943 1599 __________0 __________3 111 _________ __________4 __________0 _________ 15 48 13 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 100.00% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 3.99% 5.36% 66.98% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 92.91% 0.00% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 0.89% 6.52% 1.91% VP.XLS other_pop 0 7 1 22 ________0 0 9 1 10 1 ________0 0 7 ________16 1 3 57 ________5 _________7 16 35 ________2 _______ 5 15 13 2 ________3 1 _______ _________1_ ________5 ________0 ________9 36 11 18 %OP 0.00% 0.29% 0.16% 0.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.81% 1.34% 4.98% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 0.12% 0.49% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 1.98% 0.00%' 0.85% 2.14% 1.49% 2.65% celdist 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 ? 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 _3 3 20901 -3910 -15.76% 20415 -4396 -17.72% 3194 4906 17629 15306 84.35% 78 0.37% 74.97% 203 0.99% Page 1VP.XLS 30 35 27 103 41 29 105 42 100 43 1 2 3 28 4 10 5 12 9 14 18 \u0026amp; 19 6 32 7 16 23 31 86 36 39 48 20 22 25 26 38 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476F 476G 476G-a 676E 687D-b 687F 135E 135J 245A 245G 246B 246C 246D 246E 246H 2461-a 246J 246L-a 275F 355A 355H-a 356B 475A 475B-a 475H-a 1251 135G 245G-a 335E '335J 355C 355D 355F |355G 355H 1974 1565 1747 866 2628 1004 1880 329 100 1514 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 1757 4222 828 182 1323 7 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 1267 313 2365 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 2801 1669 1914 1506 1625 623 1675 749 1700 174 57' 1153 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 1717 3837 825 182 1218 7 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 1085 313 2232 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 2565 1489 23 40 107 240 912 216 124 149 41 349 0 460 138 232 24 28 14 282 0 0 89 0 1 22 57 43 9 151 0 119 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 198 144 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 34.70% 21.51% 6.60% 45.29% 41.00% 23.05% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 0.80% 6.68% 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.00% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 11.92% 0.00% 5.03%' 4.67% 4.53% 4.26%| 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 7.07% 8.63% 37 19 15 3 41 39 6 12 0 139 41 38 26 18 26 103 3 0 16 0 0 33 5 42 19 31 0 14 11 7 34 39 37 72 84 38 36 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 1.56% 3.88% 2.98% 1.82% 2.00% 0.79% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 1.48% 2.44% 0.36% 0.00% 1.21% 0.00% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.45% 0.00% 0.59% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63%, 2.41% 2.50%' 2.23% 2.63% 1.36% 2.16% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 24989 178 0.72% 22107 2529 10.12% 353 1.41% Page 2 31057 6246 25.18% 28967 1550 4.99% 540 1.74%VP.XLS 21 71 52 59 65 59 93 101 101 94 70 68 11 81 92 69 88 84 91 82 87 99 85 ' 80 90 100 95 18 91 83 98 96 356B-a 535D 555A 565B 565C 725A 725B 726E-a 726K-a 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 5661 7171 726F 756G 757H _ 956F 957G 725B-O 726D 726E 726J 726K 166C 816B 817C 817D 826A I 784 313 3533 1787 3435 785 550 _____0 4 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1370 1103 3143 3852 1837' 1402 573\n___24 926 3227 4007 2073 ____24 4011 3999 1846 2983 173674 704 266 1391 672 868 543 545 0 4 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 704 959 2773 2723 1130 619 369 ____23 530 2361 3465 1536 _____8 2611 1749 903 1973 112889 ___ 44 2092 1094 2543 239 ____3 0 ___g ___g 127 410 1422 242 446 607 128 321 1084 670 737 196 ___g 385 842 492 507 ___16 1342 2205 925 974 58438 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 61.22% 74.03% 30.45% 0.55% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 44.31% 11.60% 10.21% 28.14% 36.47% 52.57% 34.21% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% 12.28% 24.46% 66.67% 33.46% 55.14% 50.11% 32.65% 33.65% 15 3 50 21 24 3 2 0 ___0 ___0 9 46 56 18 21 59 16 49 45 37 46 ___8 ___1_ 11 24 50 30 ___0 58 45 __18 36 2347 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 1.18% 0.70% 0.38% 0.36% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 4.31% 1.45% 1.56% 1.17% 2.01% 3.28% 1.407o 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 1.45% 1.13% 0.98% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 _5 6 6 6 6 _6 _6 6 _6 _6 6 7 J_ 1 1_ 1 7 J_ 1 1 1 30810 5999 24.18% 22974 7346 23.84% 490 1.59% 24811 Page 3 22382 -2429 -9.79% 15582 6390 28.55% 410 1.83% 23120 -1691 -6.81% 173674 15159 112889 76881 33.25% 58438 273 2347 1.18%VP.XLS Proposal #1 Record ______103 75 ______ ______ ______ 53 ______ 42 51 100 ______ ______ ____ ______ _______ _______ _______ 7^ _______ _______ _______73 46 ____ 41 ______ M ______ ______ ______ M ______ ______ M ______ 57 _______ 5 _______ 9 ______ 13 14 vpdist 476E-a 557K 567J 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J-a 687K 691Q 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 4751 476F 476J-a 486K-a 565B 567J-a 587L 686A 687B' 687C 687D 687J 246D 246H '2461 '2461-a' total_pop I 1 866 277 2406 609 3724 329 287 100 1514 357 2579 112 2786 1546 ___ 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 2628 276 522 1787 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1721 1757 828 609 182 white_pop ________ 1 _________22 52 1065 174 0 _________ 1153 5 ______ 81 34 193 _________ 13 0 _________ 12 _______1071 ________584 ________ 25 ________ 36 _______ 998 1675 _______ 487 672 ________320 75 1486 494 ________296 280 120 1717 825 606 182 black_pop ________ 276 2377 ________ 2637 149 287 _________ 41_ ________ ________ 352 2489 77 2583 1532 0 ________ ________ _______ 1855 ________ 1087 ________ 912 ______ n 28 1094 ________ 613 1462 _ 1922 4060 2770 1943 1599 _________ 14 __________ 0 0 0 %BP 27.71% 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 34.70% 3.99% 5.36% 61.22% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 92.91% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% other_pop 3 07 1 22 6 ________ 0 ________ 2 _____ 12 ________ 0 ________ 91 10 _________1_ 0 ________ 0 ________ 7_ 16 ______ 1 ________ 3 _______ 41 ________ 5 7 _______ 35 2 _______ 5 _____ 15 13 2 _______ ________ 3 ________ 3 0 %OP 0.35% 0.00% 0.29% 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0,00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #Dh//0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.56% 1.81% 1.34% 1.18% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58%' 0.12% 1.48% 0.36% 0.49% 0.00% eldistl 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 11 2 1 111 1 1 1 2 2 222 2 22 2 22 2 23 23 23710 -1101 -4.44% 5201 18408 77.64% 101 0.43% Page 4 24509 -302 -1.22% 7163 17097 69.76% 249 1.02% i B  B  VP.XLS 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 40 30 35 27 29 105 12 3 28 4 10 12 19 6 32 7 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 26 38 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-a 475B__ 475B-O 475H 475H-a 475H-b 4751-a 476C 476D 476E 476G 476G-O 135E 135J 245A 245G 246B 246C 246E 275F 355A ~ 355H-a 356B 475A 135G ' 245G-a '335E 335J 355C '355D 355F '355G '355H 1323 1400 3274 1426 ___ 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 1004 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 2801 1669 1218 1390 3136 1352 ___ 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 313 677 649 1914 1506 1625 749 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 2565 1489 \u0026amp;9 3 111 61 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 23 40 107 216 124 0 460 138 232 24 28 2821 22 57 43 __ 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 198 144 0.21%' 3.39%' 4.70%' 0.00% 1.59%' 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 21.51% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 7.07% 8.63% 16 7 27' 7 __o' 5 09 31 36 0 11 18 37 19 15 39 56 0 139 41 38 26 18 103 0 33 5 42 19 11 1 34 39 72 84 38 36 1.21% 0.50% 0.82%' 0.49% 0.00%' 1.98%' 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 3.88% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 1.36% 2.16% 1 3 3' 3' 2 2 3' 3 33 3 _3 2 2 2 2 24 4 4444 4444 4 4 55 55 5 5 5 5 5 25229 418 1.69%' 23772 1092 4.33% 365 1.45% Page 5 25380 569 2.30% 23620 1296 5.11% 464 1.83% VP.XLS 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 77 81 92 69 102 88 84 91 82 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90 101 100 95 101 78 97 83 96 356B-O 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 5661 5661-a  7171 726F 726F-a 156G 156G-Q 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726J 726K 726K-a 766C 816B 817C 826A 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1370 321 1103 1778 1365 3581 271 1837 2002 1402 573 2365 785 550 24 926 3227 0 4007 2073 4 24 4011 3843 2983 173674' 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 704 90 959 1637 1136 2527 196 1130 1002 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1650 1973 112889 65 44 2092 2543 ____ 0 127 410 1422 242 446 607 215 128 113 208 1010 74 670 980 737 196 119 239 3 0 385 842 0 492 507 0 16 1342 2150 974' 58438' 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 44.31% 66.98% 11.60% 6.36% 15.24% 28.20% 27.31% 36.47% 48.95% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 55.95% 32.65% 33.65% 15 3 50 24 09 46 56 18 21 59 16 16 28 21 44 1 37 20 46 8 14 321 11 24 0 50 30 0 0 58 43 36 2347 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00%, 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 4.31% 4.98% 1.45% 1.57% 1.54% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.00% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.12% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 6 6 66 6 6 6 666 66 66 6677777 77 777 17 1 1 25319 508 2.05% 18978 5891 23.27% 450 1.78% 24811 I Page 6 24705 -106 -0.43% 16674 7585 30.70% 446 1.81% 24822 11 0.05% 17481 7069 28.48% 272 1.10% 173674 112889 58438 2347 3 S S VP.XLS I Proposal #2 Record 103 ______ ______ 72^ ______ 56 ______ 53 42 51 100 ______ ______ ______ ______ W 45 55 _______7_^ 7^ 76 ______ ______ M 7^ ______ ______ 47 ______ !_ 62 ______ M ______ ______ 69 102 ______ ______ ______ 54 ______ 49 ______ M 44 _______ 5 9 vpdlst 476E-a 557K 567J 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-Q 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 961C 967D A15\\ A,76? A76^-a 486K-a 565B 5661 5661-0 567J-a 587L 686A 687B 6Q7C 687D 246D 246H total_pop 866 277 2406 609 3724 329 287 _______ 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1738 2628 276 _______ 522 1787 1370 321 _______ 968 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1757 828 .. white_pop ________ 1 22 ________ 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 ________120 _________ 5 ________ 8i 34 193 _________13 0 12 _______1071 _______ ________ 25 ________ 998 _______1^ 260 _______ 487 672 704 _________90 320 75 1486 _______ _______ 296 280 _______1717 825 black_pop ________ 276 _______ 2377 ________ 556 2637 149 ________ 287 _________ 41_ ________W 1599 ________ 352 2489 77 2583 _______ 1532 o' 489 ________ 1855 ________ 574 1087 ________ 912 11 _________ 28 _______ 1094 607 215 ________ _______ 1462 _______ 1922 4060 2770 1943 _________ 14 0 %BP 27.71% 99.64% 98.79% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 39.30% 34.70% 3.99% 5.36% 61.22% 44.31% 66.98% 63.33% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% olher_pop ________ 3 07 1 22 6 0 ________ 2 _______ 12 2 ________ 0 ________ 9 1 10 1 ________ 0 0 ________ 7 16 ________ 1_ ________ 3 67 41 5 7 21 59 16 35 2 46 ________ 5 _______ 15 13 _______ 26 3 7oOP 0.35% 0.00% 0.29% 0.167o 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 3.28% 1.56% 1.81% 1.34% 1.18% 4.31% 4.98% 3.62% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% eldist2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 111 1 1 11 1222 22 22 2 2 22 22 3 3 25431 620 2.50% 24479 -332 -1.34% 5321 7837 20007 16320 78.67% 103 0.41% 66.67% 322 1.32% Page 7 VP.XLS 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 40 30 35 27 29 1051 2 3 28 4 10 12 19 6 32 7 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 2461 2461-0 246J ,246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-0 475B 4758-0 475H 475H-O 475H-b 4751-0 476C 476D 476E 476G 476G-a 135E 135J 245A 245G 2468  246C 246E 275F 355A 355H-a 3568 475A 135G 245G-O 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 609 182 1323 1400 3274 1426 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 1004 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 313 677 649 1914 1506 1625 749 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148' 1102 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 00 89 3 111 67 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 23 40 107 216 124 0 460 138 232 24 28 282 __ 1_ 22 67 43 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 21.51% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4,90% 1.94% 0.55%' 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 3 0 16 7 27 7 0 5 0 9 31 36 0 11 18 19 15 39 56 0 139 41 38 26 18 1030 33 5 42 19 11 7 34 39 37 77 84 0.49% 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 3.88% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2,50% 2.23% 2.63% 3 3 3 33 33 3 33 333 3 3 3 33 3 3 44444 444 4444 55 5 55 5 5 25229 418 1.69% 23772 1092 4.33% 365 1.45% Page 8 25380 569 2.30% 23620 1296 5.11% 464 1.83% VP.XLS 26 38 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 77 81 92 88 91 82 83 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90| 101 84 100 95 101 78 97 96 355G 355H 356B-a 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565E 566G 566H 7171 756G 756G-a 757H 817C 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726F 726F-a 726J 726K 726K-a 166\u0026lt;Z 816B 826A 2801 1669 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 3045 1964 2125 1103 3581 271 1837 3999 1846 1402 573 2365 785 550 ____ 926 3227 0 1778 1365 4007 2073 4 24 4011 2983 173674 2565 1489 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 1567 1704 1658 959 2527 196 1130 1749 903' 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 1637 1136 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1973 112889 198 144 65 44 2092 2543 0 127 410 1422 242 446 128 1010 74 670 2205 925 737 196 119 239' ____ 3 0 385 0 113 208 492 507 0 16 1342 974 58438 7.07% 8.63% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00%, 22.52% 30.17% 46.70% 12.32%! 20.99% 11.60%' 28.20% 27.31% 36.47% 55.14% 50.11% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 6.36% 15.24% 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 32.65% 33.65% 38 36 15 3 50 24 0 9 46 56 18 21 16 44 1 37 45 18 __ 8 14 32 1 11 24 0 28 21 50 30 00 58 36 2347 1.36% 2.16% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 1.45% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.13% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DV/0! 1.57% 1.54% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.21% 1.35% 5 55 5 5 5 6 66 66 6 6 6 6 66 66 67 77 77 7 Tj 7| 7 7 7 1 1 J 1 25319 508 2.05% 18978 5891 23.27% 450 1.78% 24811 Page 9 23714 -1097 -4.42% 14757 8592 36.23% 365 1.54% 24122 -689 -2.78% 173674 18604 5240 21.72% 278 1.15% 112889 58438 2347  n 725B-fl I VP.XLS Proposal #3 Record 75 72 67 56 53 42 ____ 51 100 43 57 ______ 63 45 55 74 79 ______ 76 66 ______ 58 ______ 73 46 38 ______ 41 29 ______ 64 69 102 ______ 54 49 50 44 _______ 59 vpdist 557K 567J 567J-a 657 H 6671 676E 687D-O 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-a 687K 697G, 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 961C. 967D  355H 4751 476F 476G 476J-a 486K-a 5661 5661-a 5871 686A 687 B 687C 687D 246D 246H total pop -+ - 277 2406 968 609 3724 329 287 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 1669 1738 2628 1004 276 522 1370 321 1539 3454 4559 3081 2236 1757 828 white pop 1 22 320 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 120 5 81 34 193 __ 13 0 __ 12^ 1071 584 25 36 1489 998 1675 749 260 487 704 90 75 1486 494 296 280 1717 825 black_pop 276 2377 613 556 2637 149 287 41 349 1599 352 2489 77 2583 1532 0 489 ________ 458 1855, 574' 1087 144 683 912 216 11 28 607 215 _______ 1^ 1922 4060 2770 1943 14 0 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 63.33% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29% 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 8.63% 39.30% 34.70% 21.51% 3.99% 5.36% 44.31% 66.98% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% otherjaop 0 7 35 1 22 6 0 2 12 2 0 91 10 1 0 07 16 1 3 _______ _______ 57 41 39 5 7 59 16 2 46 5 15 13 26 3 7oOP 0.00% 0.29% 3.62%, 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00%i 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 2.16% 3.28% 1.56% 3.88% 1.81% 1.34% 4.31% 4.98% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% eldist3 11 1 1 111 11 1 1 11 1111111 12 22 222 2222 22 2 3 25533 722 2.91% 5018 20380 79.82% 135 0.53% Page 10 24397 -414 -1.67% 9083 14973 61.37% 341 1.40% VP.XLS 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 34 24 23 33 31 2461 2461-0 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 3751 3751-0 475B 475B-a .7,  ' 40 30 35 27 103 10512 34 10 12 19 6 32 1 16 37 28 36 59 48 20 22 25 475H 475H-a 475H-b 4751-0 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476G-a 735E 135J 245A 246B 246C 246E 275F 355A 355H-a 356B 475A 135G 245G 245G-a 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 609 182 1323 1400 3274 1426 ___ 7 252 261 1058 1267 1686 313 736 680 1974 1565 1747 866 1880 50 5709 2415 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 1164 2211 1624 535 1689 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 ___ 7 243 261 982 1085 1635 ~ 313 611 649 1914 1506 1625 623 1700 50 5110 2236 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 1102 2126 1596 499 1419 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 00 89 3 111 67 04 0 67 151 15 0 48 13 40 107 240 124 0 460 138 24 28 282 1 22 57 43 9 25 232 29 89 80 52 201 329 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4.70% 0.00% 1.59% 0.00% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 6.52% 1.91% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 4.90% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 13.74% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 3 0 16 7 21 1 0 5 09 31 36 0 11 18 ?,1 19 15 3 56 0 139 41 26 18 103 0 33 5 42 19 11 38 7 34 39 37 12 84 0.49% 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00% 1.98% 0.00% 0.85% 2.45% 2.14% 0.00% 1.49% 2.65% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 0.43% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 2.25% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 J 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Page 11 25091 280 1.13% 23646 1116 4.45% 329 1.31% 23691 -1120 -4.51% 22201 1064 4.49% 426 1.80% VP.XLS 26 21 71 52 65 94 70 68 59 77 81 92 88 91 82 83 98 87 99 86 89 93 85 80 90 101 84 100 95 101 78 97 96 355G 356B-a 535D 555A 565C 526 476J 486K 565B 565E 566G 5661-1 7171 756G 756G-a 757H 817C 817D 956F 957G 1251 725A 725B 725B-a 726D 726E 726E-a 726F 726F-a 1255 726K 726K-a 155C 816B 826A 2801 784 313 3533 3435 45 564 1359 1787 3045 1964 2125 1103 3581 271 1837 3999 1846 1402 573 2365 785 550 24 926 3227 0 1778' 1365 40071 2073 4 24 4011 2983 173674 2565 704 266 1391 868 45 428 903 672 1567 1704 1658 959 2527 196 1130 1749 903 619 369 2232 543 545 23 530 2361 0 1637 1136 3465 1536 4 8 2611 1973 112889 198 65 44 2092 2543 0 127 410 1094 1422 242 446 128 1010 74 670 2205 925 737 196 119 239 3 0 385 842 0 113 208 492 507 0 16 1342 974 58438 7.07% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 74.03% 0.00% 22.52% 30.17% 61.22% 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 11.60% 28.20% 27.31% 36.47%' 55.14% 50.11% 52.57%, 34.21%| 5.03% 30.45% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 6.36% 15.24% 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 66.67% 33.46% 32.65% 33.65% 38 15 3 50 24 0 9 46 21 56 18 21 16 44 1 37 45 18 46 8 14 3 2 1 11 24 0 28 21 50, 30 0 0 58 36 2347 1.36% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 0.70% 0.00% 1.60% 3.38% 1.18% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99% 1.45% 1.23% 0.37% 2.01% 1.13% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.38% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.57% 1.54% 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.00% 1.45% 1.21% 1.35% 55 5 55 6 6 66 66 66 666 666 6 77 7 77 77 7 77 1 1 17 1 25339 528 2.13% 18908 5979 23.60% 452 1.78% 24811 Page 12 25501 690 2.78% 15429 9686 37.98% 386 1.51% 24122 -689 -2.78% 173674 18604 5240 21.72% 278 1.15% 112889 58438 2347 71 72SB-O VP.XLS Proposal #4 Record _______75 72 ______ 56 M ______ ______ 51 100 43 57 ______ ______ ______ 55 W _______ _______7 ______ ______ 58 _______7^ ______ 46 106 103 ______ 47 107 ______ 1_ 29 ______ ______ ______ M ______ 69 102 ______ 54 ______ 49 50 vpdist 557K 567J 567J-a 657H 6671 676E 687D-a 687D-b 687F 687J 687J-a 687K 697G 957B 957E 957H 9571 957K 967C 967D 997/\\ 3751-0 475H-b 4751 4751-0 476E 476G 476J-O 486K 486K-O 5661 5661-0 587L 686A 687B 687C tOtQljX?P 277 2406 968 609 3724 329 287 _______ 100 1514 1721 357 2579 112 2786 1546 _________ 0 501 1536 2455 600 1126 261 _______ 736 1738 680 2628 1004 276 1359 522 1370 321 1539 3454 4559 3081 whife pop 1 22 320 52 1065 174 0 57 1153 120 ___5 81 34 193 13 ___0 12 1071 584 25 36 261 677 998 649 1675 749 260 903 487 704 90 75 1486 494 296 blackjx\u0026gt;p 276 2377 ________ 556 2637 149 287 41 349 1599 ________ 2489 77 2583 1532 0 ________ ________ _______ 574 _______ 1087 __________ 0 48 6\u0026amp;3 13 912 ________ 226 __________2i 410 _________ ________ ________ 215 1462 iW 4060 2770 %BP 99.64% 98.79% 63.33% 91.30% 70.81% 45.29%' 100.00% 41.00% 23.05% 92.91% 98.60% 96.51% 68.75% 92.71% 99.09% #DIV/0! 97.60% 29.82% 75.56% 95.67% 96.54% 0.00% 6.52% 39.30% 1.91% 34.70% 21.51% 3.99% 30.17% 5.36% 44.31% 66.98% 95.00% 55.65% 89.05% 89.91% otherjaop 07 35 1 22 6 02 12 2 091 10 10 07 16 1 ________ 3 0 11 57 18 41 39 ________ 5 46 7 59 16 2 46 5 15 %OP 0.00% 0.29% 3.62% 0.16% 0.59% 1.82% 0.00% 2.00% 0.79% 0.12% 0.00% 0.35% 0.89% 0.36% 0.06% #DIV/0! 0.00% 0.46% 0.65% 0.17% 0.27% 0.00% 1.49%' 3.28% 2.65% 1.56%' 3.88%' 1.81%' 3.38% 1.34% 4.31% 4.98% 0.13% 1.33% 0.11% 0.49% eldist4 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 111 11 1 11 11 12 2 2 22 2 2 2 22 2 2 2 2 2 25533 722 2.91% 5018 20380 79.82% 135 0.53% Page 13 . Q Q   = VP.XLS KL i. L' r. J\nI I Si K r. 'p, b it k* I 5 \u0026amp;IK4UllbK\u0026gt;UiS 44 59 13 14 18 17 15 11 8 32 34 24 23 33 31 30 35 27 68 10512 3 4 10 12 19 67 16 37 36 39 48 20 22 25 687D 246D 246H 2461 2461-0 246J 246J-a 246K 246L 246L-a 355H-a 3751 4758 4758-0 475H 475H-a 476C 476D 476E 476E-a 476G-a 135E 135J 245A 245G 2468 246C 246E 275F 355A 3568 475A 135G 245G-a 335E 335J 355C 355D 355F 2236 1757 828 609 182 1323 1400 3274 14267 1164 252 1058 1267 1686 313 1974 1565 1747 866 1880 50 5709 2415 1689 2103 1850 4222 140 2203 2211 1624 535 640 2088 1615 1480 3230 3196 280 1717 825 606 182 1218 1390 3136 1352 7 1102 243 982 1085 1635 313 1914 1506 1625 623 1700 50 5110 2236 1419 2053 1804 3837 139 2148 2126 1596 499 604 1965 1496 1391 2957 2783 1943 14 0 0 0 89 3 111 67 0 57 4 67 151 15 0 23 40 107 240 124 ___0 460 138 232 24 28 282 1 22 43 9 25 29 89 80 52 201 329 86.90% 0.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 6.73% 0.21% 3.39% 4,70% 0.00% 4.90% 1.59% 6.33% 11.92% 0.89% 0.00% 1.17% 2.56% 6.12% 27.71% 6.60% 0.00% 8.06% 5.71% 13.74% 1.14% 1.51% 6.68% 0.71% 1.00% 1.94% 0.55% 4.67% 4.53% 4.26% 4.95% 3.51% 6.22% 10.29% 13 26 3 3 0 16 7 7.1 1 05 59 31 36 0 37 19 15 3 56 0 139 41 38 18 103 0 33 42 19 11 7 34 39 37 72 84 0.58% 1.48% 0.36% 0.49%' 0.00% 1.21% 0.50% 0.82% 0.49% 0.00%' 0.43% 1.98%, 0.85%' 2.45%, 2.14% 0.00% 1.87% 1.21% 0.86% 0.35% 2.98% 0.00% 2.43% 1.70% 2.25% 1.24% 0.97% 2.44% 0.00% 1.50% 1.90% 1.17% 2.06% 1.09% 1.63% 2.41% 2.50% 2.23% 2.63% 2 3 3 33 3 3 33 33 33 333 3 333 34 44 4 44 444 44 55 55 5. 5 5 7^1(:A 3.84% 10084 15300 59.39% 380 1.47% nm Page 14 24578 -233 -0.94% 23161 1112 4.52% 305 1,24% 24216 -595 -2.40% 22518 1239 5.12% 459 1.90% VP.XLS 26 ^38 21 71 52 59 89 94 70 65 77 81 92 88 84 108 91 82 98 Q7 99 86 93 85 80 90 101 100 95 101 109 78 97 83 96 355G 355H 356B-O 535D 555A 565B 725A 526 476J 565C 565E 566G 566H 7171 726F 726 F-g 756G 757 H 817D 956F 957G 1251 725B 725B-O 726D 726E 726E-a 726J 72(:,y. 726K-a 756G-O 766C 816B 817C 826A 2801 1669 784 313 3533' 1787 785 45 564 3435 3045 1964 2125 1103 1778 1365 3581 1837 1846 1402 573 2365 550 24 926 3227 ___0 4007 2073 ____4 271 ___24' 4011 ~3999 2983 173674 2565 1489 704 266 1391 672 543 ____ 428 868 1567 1704 1658 959 1637 1136 2527 1130 903 619 369 2232 545 ____ 530 2361 _____0 3465 1536 4 196 _____8 2611 1749 1973 112889 198 144 ___ 44 2092 1094 239 ____0 127 2543 1422 242 446 128 113 208 1010 670 925 737 196 119 ____3 0 385 842 ____0 492 507 ____0 74 ___16 1342 2205 974 58438 7.07% 8.63% 8.29% 14.06% 59.21% 61.22% 30.45% 0.00% 22.52%' 74.03%, 46.70% 12.32% 20.99% 11.60% 6.36% 15.24% 28.20% 36.47% 50.11% 52.57% 34.21% 5.03% 0.55% 0.00% 41.58% 26.09% #DIV/0! 12.28% 24.46% 0.00% 27.31% 66.67% 33.46% 55.14% 32.65% 33.65% 38 36 15 3 50 21 3 0 9 24 56 18 21 16 28 21 44 37 18 46 8 14 2 1 11 24 0 50 30 0 1 0 58 45 36 2347 1.36% 2.16% 1.91% 0.96% 1.42% 1.18% 0.38% 0.00% 1.60% 0.70% 1.84% 0.92% 0.99%' 1.45%' 1.57% 1.54% 1.23% 2.01% 0.98% 3.28% 1.40% 0.59% 0.36% 4.17% 1.19% 0.74% #DIV/0! 1.25% 1.45% 0.00% 0.37% 0.00% 1.45% 1.13% 1.21% 1.35% 5 5 5 5 5 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 1 J 1 24456 -355 -1.43% 19325 4681 19.14% 450 1.84% 24811 Page 15 24663 -148 -0.59% 15550 8767 35.55% 346 1.40% 24464 -347 -1.40% 173674 17233 6959 28.45% 272 1.11% 112889 58438 23474^ RECBVi^O APR 2 9 1994 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Office Of Desegrecafon Moniiomig NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. 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 JOSHUA'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO LRSD'S MOTION TO REOPEN AND TO SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD Appellants, Lorene Joshua, et al., for their response in opposition to LRSD's motion to reopen and supplement the record state: 1. LRSD has submitted documents to this panel which are potentially prejudicial to the Joshua intervenor's appeal which is based upon the facts as they existed before the trial court. If the documents they submitted were an accurate portrayal of the facts which occurred after the trial of this matter, it would not be so offensive to the procedures of this court and fairness to the appellants. Such is not the case. 2. The alleged election results fail to inform the court of salient facts\nfacts which could not be developed at trialbecause they had not occurred, and facts which the district court was never informed of or ruled on. For instance, the alleged white candidate \"Gonzales \" was a write in candidate, not a registered candidate. His or her alleged defeat by the black candidate, the only candidate to file for the position. is neither surprising or inconsistent with racially polarized voting. In fact, if a white write in candidate can garner nearly 50% of the vote once the majority white voters discover that the only candidate to file is black, then Joshua would submit that that is evidence of a highly motivated racially polarized voting block. As to the other race in which the black candidate was allegedly defeated by a white candidate in a majority black district, Joshua would point out that the vote count in that race was surrounded by a great deal of controversy. One of the black candidates was initially declared the winner. It was later alleged that the vote counts were reversed and that the white candidate garnered the votes initially attributed to the black candidate. The reason that the challenge came so quickly was that most of the original vote attributed to the black candidate came from known white precincts. The white candidate could not believe he lost in the white areas. So he asked for a recount. LRSD has provided nothing but total vote counts. Where is the precinct analysis to show the actual correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate? If the LRSD wants this Court to consider these subsequent races. it should ask for a fair presentation of additional factsand let each side present its witnesses. But that, as LRSD knows, is not the function of an appellate court. Rather, LRSD deliberately sought to prejudice this panel with these allegations of race neutral elections knowing that supplementation of the record at this stage was inappropriate. Judge Wright did not consider either of these elections and neither should this court. Unfortunately, the damage is done. 2. The record on appeal is limited by the Rule 10(a), Fed.R.App.P. , to \"the original papers and exhibits filed in the district court, the transcript of proceedings, if any, and a certified copy of the docket entries prepared by the clerk of the district court.\" Rule 10(e) allows modification and supplementation of the record under very limited circumstances: If anything material to either party is omitted from the record by error or accident or is misstated therein, the parties by stipulation, or the district court, either before or after the record is transmitted to the court of appeals, or the court of appeals, on proper suggestion or of its own initiative, may direct that the omission or misstatement be corrected, and if necessary that a supplemental record be certified and transmitted. 3. There are no provisions under the rules for submitting evidence which a party discovers after trial, or which occurs after trial as LRSD proposes to the court. WHEREFORE, Joshua Intervenors, respectfully prays the Court will deny LRSD's motion to reopen and supplement the record. Respectfully submitted. J'\u0026amp;hn W. Walker Mark Burnette Bar No. 64046 Bar No. 88078UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT RECEh^ MAY 9 1994 ci Dssegregaiion Sontori.f\ng NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. 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 FOR EXTENSION OF TIME The Joshua Intervenors, for their Motion for an Extension of Time to File Their Reply Brief, states that: 1. The Appellants' Reply Brief in the above referenced consolidated appeals are due on May 10, 1994. 2. Due to the fact that the parties have been trying to reach a settlement on one of the appeals, an additional extension of time of twenty (20) days is necessary in which to file their reply brief. WHEREFORE, the Joshua Intervenors request an extension of time to and through May 30, 1994. Respectfully submitted,Jo! Ma: W. Walker ____________ Bar No. 64046 Burnette'- Bar No, 88078 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 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 5 day of May, 1994 . Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esg. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esg. ROCHELL \u0026amp; STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 John Walker ( U). i'UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. 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 REPLY BRIEF OP APPELLANTS Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 Bar No. 64046 72206 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702pprc 8 y MAY 2 4 1994 REPLY INTRODUCTION Office of Desegregation Monitoring LRSD errs when it claims, \"In this appeal, the Charles Plaintiffs raise for the first time an argument based on the dispersion of black voters.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 13, n. 7. The Charles Plaintiffs raised the \"packing\" and \"dispersion\" arguments in both Plaintiffs' Trial Brief, p. 1-2, and Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law p. 7-8, 15 25-2 6, presented to the Court below at trial. These documents are submitted to this Court in the Addendum to this Reply Brief to clarify that the record below was made on these arguments. LRSD cites Shaw v. Reno 509 U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. ___, 125 L.Ed.2d 511, 535 (1993) as though only the Charles Plaintiffs' proposed plan \"demands close judicial scrutiny,\" because \"[t]he Charles Plaintiffs advocate racial gerrymandering of the LRSD elections zones to create a third majority black zone.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 13-4. Close judicial scrutiny is required, but it is because the Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) and LRSD have II given the racial make-up of the LRSD election zones paramount consideration since at least 1986 when LRSD proposed racially gerrymandered districts approved by Judge Woods. Race has been considered by all the parties in devising their respective alternative election zones. If race had not already been a factor in the PCBE plan - as LRSD might like for this Court to assume in light of its reference to \"the goal of a political system in which race no long matters,\" then close judicial I scrutiny would not be required. But here, race was foremost on the SSRSSBSminds of LRSD in 1986 when it proposed the single member zones approved by Judge Woods. It is precisely that race conscious plan that plaintiffs challenged in this case. Race was foremost on the minds of the \"Metroplan\" staff hired by the PCBE to devise new election zones - the only variable that is reported in the four plans submitted by Metroplan to PCBE was the racial characteristics of the zones. It is precisely because race was such major consideration in PCBE and LRSD's a deliberations and planning that makes close scrutiny of their plans necessary. That is especially true now that the district court has condoned a plan that is retrogressive on minority voting strength relative even to the 1986 plan that plaintiffs originally challenged in this case. I. WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE STANDARD FOR A \"SUFFICIENTLY LARGE\" MINORITY DISTRICT? The LRSD and the district court ascribe to a \"Catch 22\" standard for what constitutes \"sufficiently large and a geographically compact [minority] to constitute a majority in three LRSD elections zones.\" When it is the Charles Plaintiffs' burden, the district court and LRSD apply a standard of a minimum of 65% minority majority, \"otherwise, the PCBE plan for LRSD election zones cannot be responsible for minority voters inability to elect its candidates.\" Brief for Appellee, p. 16-7. As both amended  2 and its legislative history make clear, in evaluating a statutory claim of vote dilution through districting, the trial court is to consider the \"totality of circumstances\" and to determine, based \"upon a searching practical evaluation of the 'past and present reality' [] whether the political process is equally open to minority voters. This deteraination is peculiarly dependent upon thefacts of each case.\" Thornbugh v. Ginqles. 478 U.S. 79, 106 S.Ct. 2781, 92 L.Ed2 64 (1986). The district Court did not make a searching practical evaluation when it held plaintiffs to a 65% minimum minority population standard. It noted, in fact, that \"one of the zones in the plan adopted by the PCBE has a black population under 65%\" and. \"It is possible that black voters will be able to elect representatives of their choice with a black majority of less than 65% because of white 'crossover' votes, but this argument only goes to show that Little Rock does not suffer from racially polarized voting, another necessary precondition for a successful voting rights claim.\" Memorandum Opinion and Order. P. 25 (emphasis added). The Court's analysis ignores the reality and importance of white cross-over voting even in situations where legally significant racially polarized voting exists because legally significant racially polarized voting is a matter of degree not absolutes: \"[I]n 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.\" Thornburgh v. Gingles. 478 U.S. 56, 106 S.Ct. at 2770 (emphasis added). To say that white crossover votes \"only goes to show\" that plaintiffs cannot prove legally significant racially polarized voting is erroneous in light of the Supreme Court's recognition of its presence among otherwise disenfranchised minority voters. The Court cannot hold the existing alliances with the few white voters who do not vote with the white bloc vote inthe LRSD against the Plaintiffs without recognizing that their presence also lowers the threshold for establishing a viable minority district. Hence, the existence and reliance on some white crossover voting also \"goes to show\" that a less than 65% minority population in a district may still be a viable minority majority district in the face of otherwise racially polarized voting. No testimony or evidence was presented at trial to dispute Charles Plaintiffs' proof that racially polarized white bloc voting is the norm among LRSD voters. The statistical evidence of the correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate was overwhelming despite the district court's unsubstantiated belief to the contrary. Mr. Lynch's use of correlation coefficients and r- sguare are regression analyses. They are accepted statistical methods without further analysis, see Solomon v. Liberty County Florida. 899 F.2d 1012, 1020, although here, many of the precincts Mr. Lynch relied upon were homogeneous precincts with sufficiently high correlation coefficients to provide the confirmation that the correlation between the race of the voter and the race of the candidate did constitute racial voting in numerous elections over time. His uncontroverted testimony was that there was political cohesion among minority voters and that there was white bloc voting. Mr. Lynch's expertise and opinion was not based solely on statistics however. He is a recognized expert on local government and local elections due to his academic and professional backgroundand his constant participation in local electoral politics. He, more than anyone in this community, knows the voting blocs, patterns and practices in Little Rock. His experience can indeed form the basis for many of the elements of Plaintiff's voting rights claims. Sierra v. El Paso Independent School District. 591 F.Supp. 802 (W.D.Tex. 1983)(Even more persuasive to the court than the testimony of the expert witness, however, was the testimony of the practical politicians who are thoroughly familiar with voting behavior in El Paso County.\") In addition. numerous other politician witnesses testified to the racially polarized voting patterns in Little Rock elections in this case. No one testified to the contrary. Clearly, central Arkansas minority voters have been successful in single member district with less than a 65% majority and the district court should not hold them to a higher standard while giving the PCBE and LRSD the benefit of a lesser standard. However, if a 65% standard is adopted for plaintiffs, defendants should be held to the same standard or the Court will be condoning retrogression of minority voting rights. The 1986 Court Order establishing racially specified election zones is an admission that prior to the adoption of single member districts, the LRSD minority voters had suffered voting rights violations. If not, there would have been no justification for LRSD's use of a race conscious remedy at that point. If a 65% standard is applied, then PCBE's 59% district, which the Court adopted, falls short of the standard and results in retrogression relative to the 1986 plan which was adopted to remedy prior votingrights inequities. The Charles Plaintiffs' alternative plan, with three minority majority districts ranging from 61.7 to 64.7% black population, would provide over 81% of the minority voters a voice on the LRSD board of directors. Far less opportunity to participate in the electoral process and elect representatives of their choice results from the adoption of only two minority districts as approved by the court because less of the minority population is contained in them\nmoreover, in two other zones which the Court adopted, substantial numbers of minority voters will continue to be submerged in 65 and 72% white zones. II. THE CHARLES PLAINTIFFS WERE NOT PARTIES TO THE 1986 ORDER, AND THEREFORE, THE LAW OF THE CASE DOCTRINE DOES NOT APPLY OT THEIR CHALLENGE TO THE ELECTION DISTRICTS By Order of April 17, 1989, Joshua Intervenors represent the class of \"all past, present and future African-American or black public school age children of Pulaski County, Arkansas, and their parents or guardians.\" That Order was entered for the express purpose of approving the settlement then submitted to the court. LRSD Appendix, p. 1. Nothing in the settlement dealt with voting districts. That order, and the Stipulation adding Dale Charles in a representative capacity on March 1, 1889, obviously occurred after the 1986 Order adopting the election zones anyway. At no stage in the LRSD v. PCSSD litigation did Joshua Intervenors purport to represent the class of minority voters in the LRSD. The focus of the Joshua Intervenors has always been the rights of the minorityschool children, not their parents or guardian voting rights. Any representation that Joshua had in the case in 1986 would have been limited to protecting school age children and their parents and that representation does not cover all minority voters because it does not include minority voters who do not have school age children, \"past present or future. I in Pulaski County. What of the voting rights of minority voters with no children? Even if Joshua represented some voters' voting rights. which Joshua have never purported to do, they could never be held to have represented the class of minority voters explicitly excluded by the April 1989 Order. Only the Charles Plaintiffs, by a separate complaint filed on August 12, 1992, have purported to represent the class of minority voters in LRSD. It is absurd to hold all minority voters to an Order entered while they were not parties nor were they represented, and which was drafted and approved by the defendants named in their complaint. The law of the case doctrine simply does not apply to non-parties. It is not meant to restrain non-parties from asserting their rights as the district court has imposed it. The law of the case doctrine is intended to apply \"at subsequent stages of the same case.\" Memorandum and Opinion p. 27. The district court should not be allowed to hold non-parties to a standard set by these defendants simply by consolidating their 1992 action with a pending 1982 case. That, however. is what the district court has done. The whole purpose of the doctrine is to avoid \"re-litigation\" of issues\nbut here, no voting rights issues were ever litigated because no one had asserted a voting rightsclaim in 1986. As stated previously, the very need for the 1986 Order confirms that a voting rights violation existed prior to 1986. If one assumes that the 1986 Order was a necessary remedy to some violation, then it follows that elections prior to 1986 would have constituted voting rights violations. The fact of pre-1986 voting rights violations would be the case notwithstanding the district court's contrary findings in 1993 that there was no racially polarized voting or political cohesiveness among minorities, etc. Needless to say, at least in 1986, LRSD believed that a voting rights violation must have existed prior to 1986, or it would not have made race conscious decisions about the lines it was proposing to Judge Woods. If it did make race conscious decisions absent a voting rights violation, then the lines proposed at that time should be suspect on that basis. Re\ni^e^t JO^N 4? 3/23 - Litt\nectfull submitted WALKER, 1/Broadway bmrtted,\n\u0026gt; \u0026gt; i, P.A. I little Rock, Ar 72206 (501) 374-3758CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that two copies of the foregoing Brief has been hand delivered to the counsel of record listed below on this day of May, 1994. Steve Jones, Esq. Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Elizabeth Boyter, Esq. Arkansas Dept..of Education Little Rock, AR 72201 #4 Capitol Mall Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Jerry Malone, Esq. Little Rock School District Little Rock, AR 72201 810 West Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. Roachell \u0026amp; Streett 401 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 504 Little Rock, AR Ann Brown, Monitor Office of Desegregation Monitoring 210 East Markham Little Rock, AR 72201 Tim Humphries, Esq. Attorney General's Office 200 Tower Building 323 Center Street Little Rock, Ar 72201 ---------------7^^' John X. Walker f:\\W\\LRSD\\ARGUE.8THC:\\U\\LRSD\\ARGUE.8TH ADDENDUMIN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82866 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. PLAINTIFFS* TRIAL BRIEF INTRODUCTION Defendants and the Court have recognized and conceded that the 1986 LRSD single member districts are out of compliance with the one-person one-vote requirement. A corrective plan must be adopted for that purpose in any event. Plaintiffs' will therefore focus on their allegation that the plan in current use, as well as the plan submitted to the court by the Pulaski County Board of Education, result in a violation of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973. Courts have recognized two general methods by which minority group voting strength may be diluted: \"Dilution of racial minority voting strength may be caused by the dispersal of blacks into districts in which they constitute an ineffective minorityof voters or from the concentration of blacks into districts where they constitute an excessive majority, [citations omitted].\" Thornburgh v. Singles. 478 U.S. 30, ___, n.ll, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 2764, n. 11, 92 L.Ed.2d. 25 (1986)(The latter version of dilution is commonly called \"packing.\") \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% - 70% (the percentage considered necessary to ensure blacks a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice) may evidence \"packing.\" Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984)\nand see. Rybicki v. State Board of Elections of the State of Illinois. 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). Plaintiffs claim that both forms of dilution are at work under the current system, and alternatively, will continue under the plan submitted by the PCBE\ni.e., black voters are split up in several majority white zones to the extent that their votes are an ineffective minority in those zoned elections 33%, 28.5%, and 23.8% black population in zones 5, 6, and 7, respectively\nand they are overly concentrated in the two minority wards - 84.35% in the current zone 1, and 74.97% in zone 2. In the PCBE's recent submission to the court, zone 1 still retains a packed 79.82% majority black district in zone 1, and minority voters still dispersed in large pockets in zones 5, 6, and 7. I. LEGAL STANDARDS A. Proof Required to Demonstrate a Section 2 Violation: The seminal case for analysis of vote dilution claims under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is Thornburgh v. Gingles. 478U.S. 30, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986). In Ginqles. the Court set out a three part test, and its rationale, which plaintiffs must meet to prove their case: First the demonstrate minority that group must be able to it is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member district. 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 voter's inability to elect its candidates. [footnote omitted] [citations omitted].. . Second, the minority group must be able to show that it is politically cohesive. minority group is not politically cohesive. If the it cannot be said that the selection of a multimember electoral structure thwarts distinctive minority group interests. [citation omitted] 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, the minority candidate running unopposed. such as see. infra, at 57, and n. 26  usually to defeat the minority's omitted] preferred candidate. [citations In establishing this last circumstance. the minority group demonstrates that submergence in a white multimember district impedes its ability to elect its chosen representatives. 478 U.S. 50-1, 106 S.Ct. 2767, 92 L.Ed.2d 46-7. Besides \"running unopposed,\" the Supreme Court referred to other \"special circumstances\" affecting the third precondition. such as, \"incumbency, or the utilization of bullet voting [to] explain minority electoral success in a polarized context.\" Id. at 57, 106 S.Ct. 2770. It cautioned that \"[t]his list of special circumstances is illustrative, not exclusive.\" Id. at 57, n.26. 106 S.Ct. 2770. The Senate Report expressly states that election of a few minority candidates does not necessarily foreclose the possibility of vote dilution. noting that if it did. the possibility exists that the majority citizens might evade [ 2] by manipulating the election of a safe minority candidate.\" Id., 106s.ct. at 2779. And in a footnote, the Court quoted Zimmer v. McKeithen. 485 F.2d. 1297, 1307 (CA5 1973) with approval\n\"...Such success might. on occasion. be attributable to the work of politicians. who. apprehending that the support of black a candidate would be politically expedient, campaign to insure his election.\" Id., 106 S.ct. at 2780. The appointment of a black board member is comparable to campaigning for that person because in subsequent elections, he gains the benefit of incumbency. a special circumstance which can explain his success. In Gingles, the Court went on to assess the sustained electoral successes in North Carolina House District 23 under the standards it had announced: 1 In some situations, it may be possible for  2 plaintiffs to demonstrate that such sustained electoral success does not accurately reflect the minority group's ability to elect its preferred representative, but appellees have not done so here. Appellees presented evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections\nthey failed utterly, though, to offer any explanation for the success of black candidates in the previous three elections. Consecfuentlv, we believe that the District Court erred as a matter of law, in ignoring the sustained success black voters have enioved in House District 23, and would reverse with respect to that District. Id. at ___, 106 S.ct. 2780 (emphasis added). The \"evidence relating to black electoral success in the last three elections,\" which the court refers to, was the fact that each black candidate ran essentially unopposed. See. Gingles V. 1 House District 23 was a three member district in which a black person had been elected in 1972, 1974, 1976, 1978, 1980, and 1982. Holding one seat was essentially proportional representation for black voters in the district.Edmiston. 590 F. Supp. 345, 370 (E.D.N.C. 1984)(\"Black candidate Spaulding ran uncontested in the general election in 1978 and in the primary and general election in 1980. In the 1982 election there was no Republican opposition and the general election was, for all practical purposes, unopposed.\" Id.) However, there was no evidence in the record to explain the success of black candidates in 1972, 1974, and 1976. Had all of the elections been uncontested, the Court presumably would have affirmed the lower court on House District No. 23 as well. It is clear that the Court identified at least three \"special circumstances\" that may satisfactorily demonstrate that sustained success does not accurately reflect the minority's ability to elect its preferred representatives: incumbency, uncontested elections and the utilization of bullet voting. Clearly there are more though. In addition to the three Gingles factors discussed above, the legislative history of  2 enumerated several other objective factors to guide courts in analyzing whether there is a violation of minority voting rights under  2: (1) The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touched the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote. or democratic process\notherwise to participate in the voting in the (2) the extent to which elections of the state or political subdivision is racially polarized\n(3) the extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti- single shot practices provisions. or other voting or procedures that may enhance opportunity for discrimination against the minority group\n(4) if there is a candidate slating process, whether the members of theminority group have been denied access to that process\n(5) the extent to which members of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment and health, which hinders their participate effectively in ability to the political process\n(6) whether the political campaigns have been characterized by overt or subtle racial appeals\nmembers of (7) the extent the minority group to have which been elected to public office in the jurisdiction (8) whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized needs of the minority group and (9) whether the policy underlying the sate or political subdivisions' use of such voting qualifications, prerequisite to voting, standard, practice or procedure is tenuous. S.Rep. No. 417, at 28-9, H.R.Rep.No. 227, at 30, 1982 U.S. Code Cong. \u0026amp; Ad. News at 206-7. In light of these extensive factual underpinnings in vote dilution claims, this Circuit has adopted a stringent requirement for factual and legal reasoning from the lower courts to make its appellate review possible: Because the resolution of a voting dilution claim requires close analysis of unusually complex factual patterns, and because the decision in such a case has the potential for serious interference with state functions, we have strictly adhered to the Rule 52 (a) requirements in voting dilution cases and have required district courts to explain with particularity the reasoning and the subsidiary factual reasoning. conclusions underlying their Buckanaqa v. Sisseton Ind. School District. No. 54-5, South Dakota. 804 F.2d 469, 472 (Sth Cir. 1986) (quoting Velasquez v. Citv of Abilene. 725 F.2d 1017, 1020 (5th Cir. 1984). B. Where the Parties Stand on Remedial Plans\nIf the court finds either a violation of the constitutionalEfl one-person one-vote requirement or section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, then the court ordinarily must give the responsible legislative body an opportunity to adopt a remedial plan for future elections. Reynolds v. Sims. 377 U.S. 533, 586, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 541, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). The desire to give \"the appropriate legislative body the first opportunity to devise an acceptable remedial plan\" is traceable to Supreme Court precedent in state legislative reapportionment cases but that deference may be lost or ignored by the \"appropriate governmental agency\": \"reapportionment is primarily a matter for legislative consideration and determination, and [] judicial relief becomes appropriate only when a legislature fails to reapportion according to federal constitutional requisites in a timely fashion after having had an adequate opportunity to do so.\" Id. at 586, 12 L.Ed.2d 506, 541, 84 S.Ct. 1362 (1964)). A court owes no deference, however, if the responsible legislative body fails to act according to its legal authority, or acts without legal authority. East Carroll Parish School Bd. v. Marshall, 424 U.S. 636, 47 L.Ed.2d 296, 96 S.Ct. 1083 (1976). In Wise V. Lipscomb. 437 U.S. 535, 545, 57 L.Ed.2d 411, 420-1, 98 S.Ct. 2493 (1978), Justice White explained summarized the distinction in two cases\n\"In [East Carroll Parish! the District Court instructed the East Carroll police reapportionment plans. jury and school boards to file arrangements which the court adopted. They both submitted multi-member We held that the District Court erred in approving a multi-member plan because \"when United States district courts are put to the task of fashioning reapportionment plans to supplant concededly invalid state legislation, single member districts are to be preferred absent unusual circumstances, [citation omitted]. In reaching this conclusion, however, we emphasized that the bodies which submitted the plans did not reapportion themselves and. furthermore. could purport to not evenlegally do so under federal law because state legislation providing them with such powers had been disapproved by the Attorney General of the United States under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Under these circtimstances, it was concluded that the mere act of submitting a plan was not the eguivalent of a legislative act of reapportionment performed in accordance with the political process of the community in guestion. 437 U.S. at 545, 57 L.Ed.2d 420 (White, J.). The situation facing this Court is most like that in East Carroll Parish School Board v. Marshall and can be thoroughly distinguished from Wise v. Lipscomb. The Pulaski County Board of Education (PCBE) has the authority to adopt a plan, but has explicitly refused to do so. It has passed a motion merely to \"submit\" one possible plan to this Court for this Court to approve for implementation and order its adoption. (See \"Minutes of the December 29, 1992 PCSB Meeting Plaintiff's Exhibit And see Pulaski County Board of Education's Motion For Approval of Election Zones. and Pulaski County Board of Education's Response to Plaintiffs' Objections, Response and Memorandum Regarding the Court's Order of February 16, 1993 at 2, paragraph 8\n\"The Board of Education is not an adversary in this proceeding. It is a party only because Ark. Code Ann.  6- 13-607 gives it responsibility to create election zones. That authority was overridden by this Court in 1986, and this Court has the final authority at this time.\") Consequently, PCBE has abandoned its duty and authority to this Court. Plaintiffs do not agree with the PCBE's interpretation that this Court has \"overridden\" its authority, but can only accept its current position as stated in these pleadings that it is not asserting any authority to adopt any plan. The PCSB does notpurport to have reapportioned the LRSD through any legislative authorization. In keeping with this position, PCBE defendants passed no resolutions to indicate that the PCBE adopted this proposed plan. They claim to act merely as agents of the Court, not within their statutory capacities in submitting this proposal. Nevertheless, there are clear statutory methods by which the PCBE, or the LRSD for that matter, could have adopted a legitimate \"legislative\" proposal. Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607 and -630,2 respectively. But neither has chosen to do adopt a plan even after this Court's September Order directing the PCBE to do so. These are the only ways by which the defendants may legislate an alternative to the current electoral mechanism which plaintiffs allege violates the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Having failed to produce a validly approved legislative plan. the PCBE's plan can only be viewed as a recommendation of the individual members of the board. See Garza v. County of Los Angeles. 918 F.2d 763, 776 (9th Cir.) cert, denied. Ill S.Ct. 681 (1990)(\"[T]he plan that the Board submitted to the district court could not, under the County's charter, have been considered a Board Redistricting plan, because only three members voted in favor of 2 Ark. Code Ann. 6-13-630 states: \"The board of directors of any school district [] authority to provide by resolution adopted by a majority of the vote Fof the board] that a portion of the board shall be elected by zone, at-large, or a combination thereof... Every such resolution adopted by the board of directors of such district shall adopt a plan of election for members of the board of directors which will cause the selection procedure to be in compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965.\"it, not the four required for such matters.\" Id.) Here, the board refused to even adopt the plan according to the statutory authority which this Court cited to indicate that it \"is appropriate for the County Board to address the issue of LRSD zones.\" Thus it does not claim to have adopted a plan at all, but as submits one for the court to adopt. Consequently, PCSB's December 29, 1992, proposal gains legal effect only if this Court orders the implementation of that particular plan through its equitable authority. East Carroll Parish, supra. The Court should evaluate the 1986 zones under the totality of the circumstances because that is only plan currently in effect in LRSD. If it finds a voting rights violation under that plan, then the question is whether the court will have fully remedied the violation if it adopts the PCBE's plan. Plaintiffs submit that that plan will not remedy the current voting rights violations. See Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F.Supp. 196, 217 (E.D.Ark. 1989): We know, and have found in this opinion, how many [single member districts with a majority black voting age population] can be created, and we also know that their lines can be drawn so as to make them compact and conti' therefore, a sort of presumption that an OUS. There is, Id. II. contain that number of majority black districts. Ian adopted should The law as Applied to the Facts A. The Minority Population is Geographically Concentrated Such That Drawn that Out of Seven Single Member Districts Can be e Majority Black. The plaintiffs will established that black minority voters are sufficiently numerous and geographically compact to constitute amajority in three out of seven single member districts in LRSD. Plaintiffs' demographer, will testify that an alternative districting plan which he drafted based upon 1990 census data creates three districts in which the minority population makes up 64.7%, 64.0 Q, s and 61.7 majorities, respectively. The 1990 census shows that the black voting age population (BVAP) in these districts would be only about 4% lower than the black percentage of the total population. This alternative plan clearly establishes that the Plaintiffs met the first of the three factors the Supreme Court identified in Thornburgh v. Ginqles. Plaintiffs point out that this plan is merely meant to persuade the Court that such districts are feasible. The PCBE would have to draft the actual boundaries of the wards if the court finds a violation of the Voting Rights Act. Of course. the PCBE could agree to accept the plaintiffs construction or a variation thereof. B. Minority Political Cohesiveness and the Usual Defeat of the Minority Preferred Candidates The other two Gingles factors are subsumed in Senate Factors 2 and 7, and will be discussed together. Evidence of racially polarized voting is the linchpin of a section 2 vote dilution claim and is relevant to establish two of the three elements set forth in the Gingles decision - political cohesiveness, and ability of white majority to usually defeat the black preferred candidate. See, Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2769. The second condition required under Gingles. proof that the minority group is politically cohesive, will be amply demonstrated by Mr. Lynch's analysis of voting results in local elections overa period of the last eight years. \"A showing that a significant number of minority group members usually vote for the same candidate is one way of proving political cohesiveness necessary to a vote dilution claim [citation omitted] and consequently establishes minority bloc voting within the context of  2.\" Gingles. 106 S.Ct. at 2769-70. Plaintiffs will present statistical analysis of election results for Little Rock City Board elections and LRSD elections in which a black candidate ran against a white candidate.^ Numerous courts have recognized the importance and relevance of \"exogenous\" elections when polarized voting cannot sufficiently be shown with the elections in the particular forum being challenged. See, Westwego Citizens for Better Government v. Westwego. 872 F.2d 1201, 1207-10 (5th Cir. 1989)\nand see. Citizens for a Better Gretna v. City of Gretna. 834 F.2d 496 (5th Cir 1987). The Little Rock City Board of Directors elections are particularly relevant elections in this case because these elections are local in nature, they encompass nearly the identical voters who make up the school district electorate, and they confirm the racially polarized voting data obtained in the two school board elections that were appropriate to analyze. Without exception, elections in Little Rock, Arkansas, are characterized by racially polarized voting. Voting in the City of 3 Although it is the minority's preferred candidate that is at issue, none of the courts, including the Supreme Court in Gingles. considered \"whites only\" elections. Therefore, white versus white elections were not analyzed by the plaintiffs in this case, nor should they have been. East Jefferson Coalition v. Jefferson Parish. 691 F.Supp. 991, 1000 (E.D.La. 1988) citing. Smith V. Clinton. 687 F.Supp. 1310, (E.D. Ark 1988).Little Rock Board of Directors races, as well as relevant LRSD races, is extremely racially polarized. In all but one election for which precinct data was available (1986 to present), a statistically significant correlation exists between the support for the black candidate in a precinct group and the percentage of the voting age population in the precinct that is black. The higher the percentage of black voting age population. the higher the vote percent for the black candidate. The analogous correlation exists in the white precincts, indicating white block voting. The higher the white percentage of the voting age population, the higher the vote for the white candidate. Lynch's analysis, a bivariate regression analysis, provides the same detailed statistical basis for a finding of political cohesion that the Supreme Court and other courts have relied upon. Gingles. 106 S.Ct. at 2768 and 2771\nSee also, Campos v. Citv of Baytown, Texas. 840 F.2d 1240, 1245-6, \u0026amp; n.9, aff en banc, 849 F.2d (5th Cir. 1988)(\"r\" values for black voting data ranged from .52 to .90, with a mean of .76, and \"r-squared\" ranged from .27 to 81, with a mean of .61.)\nand see. Citizens for a Better Gretna. 834 F.2d at 499-500, n.7 and 8. The degree of polarization as measured by the \"r\" and \"r-square\" presented for the City of Little Rock and LRSD board of directors elections (\"r\" values for black voting data ranged from ___ to , and \"r-squared\" values range from to ) is comparable to that shown in Gingles and Campos. Because of the high degree of bloc voting by black voters in city and school board elections over an extended period of time.the plaintiffs will have established that the black minority is politically cohesive. This evidence will successfully establish the second of the three Gingles preconditions. The plaintiffs will also meet their burden of proof in establishing the third Gingles condition: \"that the white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it - in the absence of soecial circumstances. such as the minority candidate running unopposed, see, infra, at 57, 92 L.Ed.2d, 51, and n. 26  usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate.\" Proof of white bloc voting was equally as strong as black bloc voting. The correlation coefficients and precinct data are overwhelming. Absent special circumstances. only the black candidates that have run in majority black wards have been successful. For instance, Lottie Shackelford, a black city board member. was able to win in city board races, but she was first appointed by an all white board. In elections since then, she has also had the benefit of being an incumbent or running unopposed. The election of black candidates from majority black school district wards are also \"special circumstances\" which explain why these elections are not accurate reflections of the minority voters ability to elect representatives of their choice in LRSD elections. C. Other Relevant Senate Factors 1. The extent of any history of official discrimination in the state or political subdivision that touches the right of the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or otherwise participate in the democratic process\nSince reconstruction, official discrimination has ranged from total disenfranchisement of black voters - to whites only primaries- to poll taxes\nall were designed to severely limit black voting rights. Perkins v. City of West Helena. 675 F.2d. 201, 211 (Sth Cir) aff'd mem.. 459 U.S., 801, 103 S.Ct. 33, 74 L.Ed.2d 47 (1982). As the courts have held, these facts need not be proven anew in each case under the Voting Rights Act. Jeffers v. Clinton. 730 F. Supp. 196, 204 (E.D.Ark.) aff'd mem.. ___U.S. ____, 109 S.Ct. 548 L.Ed.2d 576 (1988) (\"We do not believe that this history of discrimination, which affects the exercise of the right to vote in all elections under state law, must be proved anew in each case under the Voting Rights Act.\" Id. quoting. Smith v. Clinton. 687 F. Supp. 1310, 1317-8 (E.D. Ark. 1988). Therefore, this court should take judicial notice that there is history of racial discrimination in the electoral process in Arkansas which a necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process even today. Id.\nsee also. Smith v. Clinton. 687 F. Supp. 1310, 1317-8 (E.D. Ark. 1988). 11. The extent to which the state or political subdivision has used unusually large election districts, majority vote requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the minority group\n\" Legislation from the 1987 Arkansas General Assembly established a majority vote requirement for all school board elections thereafter. Acts 1987, No 845,  1,2, Ark. Code Ann.  6-14-121 (1991 Cum. Supp.) See generally. Jeffers v. Clinton. 740 F.Supp. 585, 594 (E.D.Ark. 1990)(Three Judge panel opinion finding that \"inference of racial motivation is inescapable,\" in that Arkansas municipal run-off statutes from 1975, 1983, and 1989 were directly responsive to black successes in plurality elections andthat \"this series of laws represents a systematic and deliberate attempt to reduce black political opportunity.\" Id. at 595 (Arnold, Richard, J. writing for the majority)). Although a majority vote requirement is not a per se violation of section 2, the potential for dilutive effects is increased when the three Gingles factors exist, as they do here. See, Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2767. 111. The extent to which the membership of the minority group in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of discrimination in such areas as education, employment, and health, which hinders their ability to participate effectively in the political process\n\" The history of discrimination in education and employment is well known to anyone with a cursory knowledge of the history of the South, and Arkansas in particular. As a hangover of this history. black per capita income in Pulaski County in 1990 was roughly 50% of the per capita income for whites. Disparities in educational achievements are well known to this Couirt, and are traceable to historic discrimination in the public education provided by the LRSD. Poverty rates and income levels in every category also show the present day effects of the history of discrimination on these socio-economic indicia. (See Plaintiffs' Exhibits - ___.) \"Courts have recognized that political participation by minorities tends to be depressed where the minority group members suffer effects of prior discrimination such as inferior education, poor employment opportunities, and low incomes.\" Thornburgh v. Gingles. 106 S.Ct. 2776 (citations omitted). The \"hangover from this history necessarily inhibits full participation in the political process.\" 687 F.Supp. at 1317.CONCLUSION Analyzing the totality of circumstances in LRSD reveals that the political realities do not afford minority voters an equal opportunity to participate and elect representatives of their choice as are afforded white voters. Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker, 64046 Mark Burnette, Bar# 88078 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 S. Broadway Little Rock, Ar. 72205 (501) 374-3758IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. INTERVENORS PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF L^ 1. This voting rights case also involves three questions, (i) whether the present plan by which school directors are elected in the Little Rock School District are significantly imbalanced to such an extent as to require creation of new zone lines to bring them into compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" requirements of law, (ii) whether the 1986 zones currently result in a dilution of minority voting strength. and (iii) whether the remedial plan presented by the Pulaski County Board of Education will result in a violation of the Voting Rights Act,  1973, as amended. The parties to this action are the class of school children represented by the Joshua Intervenors and Plaintiffs Dale Charles, Robert L. Brown, Sr. , Gwen Hervey, Diane Davis and Raymond Frazier. These adult plaintiffs are citizens of the United States who claim that their rights under the 14th Amendment and the Voting Rights Act of 1973, as amended. are adversely affected by the 2 . present and proposed plan for electing school board members, adult plaintiffs raise basic voting rights issues which are The4 sufficiently similar to or related to the remedial needs of the class to cause the Court to consolidate the cases. See Order of Consolidation [date]. 3 . The defendants are the members of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District, individually and in their official capacities\nCloyd \"Mac\" Bernd, in his capacity as Superintendent of Schools of the Little Rock School District\nand the members of the County Board of Education of Pulaski County, in their offficial capacities as members of the County Board of Education. 4. The Pulaski County Board of Education (hereafter \"the County Board\") is an agent, generally, for the three Pulaski County School Districts including the Little Rock School District with respect to certain functions that it provides or performs. It is specifically delegated by Ark. Code Ann.  6-13-607, the function of drawing or redrawing school district school election zones for I the Little Rock School District. Although it has had this responsibility by statute since 1986, it has never performed this function. The Little Rock School District performed the function in 1986 and the District Court approved the District's plan. 5. In 1986, pursuant to the annexation of certain areas of the Pulaski County , School District to the Little Rock School District, the Little Rock School District proposed and the Court accepted a redistricting plan by which school zone lines were drawn. It was a single-member election zone plan by which seven zones, of approximate equal populations were created. Two of the PAGE 2zones created were majority African American. 6. The complaint herein was filed by Dale Charles and the other plaintiffs on July 23, 1992. The complaint was amended on August 18, 1992. 7. The Little Rock School District, on or about July 31, 1992, moved to postpone the school district election and to reform the Little Rock School District election zones. In that motion. Little Rock also urged that the zone lines be reformed in a way that does not \"abridge or deny the rights of minorities to vote. 11 8. On or about July 31, 1992, the school district also moved to dismiss, stating, in effect. II that relief should not be granted to the plaintiffs because it would upset relief provided by Court Order herein on December 18, 1986 and that relief would punish the school district for implementing a plan which was approved by the Court.\" The school district further argued that the complaint should be dismissed because it failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. 9. On August 18, 1992, this Court entered a Stipulated Order postponing the school elections until further Orders of the Court. On August 18, 1992, the Joshua Intervenors and plaintiffs filed an opposition to the school district's Motion to Dismiss arguing that Little Rock created the zones presently in use and that the zones had in effect become significantly imbalanced both from a race and \"one-man one-vote\" perspective. 10. On or about September 1, 1992, the County Defendants moved to dismiss because they did not wish to be forced to \"violate PAGE 3the Order of December 18, 1986, in a separate suit.\" 11. On September 24, 1992, the Court Ordered the County Board to determine whether the election zones were out of compliance with the \"one-man one-vote\" principle and to redraw the lines if necessary. 12. The County Board proceeded to address that issue. It determined that the lines were out of compliance after directing or commissioning the Metropolitan Area Planning Commission (Metroplan), a public planning agency for the various governmental units within Pulaski County to investigate that allegation. The County Board also directed or commissioned Metroplan to devise a remedial plan pursuant to the Court Order of September 24, 1992. 13. The County Board was directed by the September 24, 1993 Order to \"be mindful of LRSD school attendance zones\" should the County Board \"find it necessary to redraw the zones.\" The County Board never agreed upon what was meant by this language of the Court and, also, never sought clarification. 14. The County Board developed criteria to guide Metroplan in its redistricting work. Those criteria included\n(a) minimum change of existing zone lines\nand (b) keeping voting precincts together. 15. The County Board did not direct Metroplan to consider the voting rights questions raised by the lawsuit. 16. On November 30, 1992, December 7,^1992, and December 29, 1992, the County Board held public meetings regarding the plan revisions. The plaintiffs' representatives were present at each PAGE 4meeting. Little Rock School Board members were also present although none were present for all of the meetings. 17. The plaintiffs presented plans to the County Board at each meeting which purported to address both the \"one-man one-vote\" and voting rights concerns of the plaintiffs. School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Bill Hamilton were perhaps the most vocal Little Rock School Directors to address the issue. Jackson took the view, as he has taken in Court, that the plaintiffs and the African American community already have nearly proportional representation in that 28.3% of the Board is of their race while their population is 33 g, *0  His argument is that with time and demographic change, a third majority African American zone could evolve. Hamilton's view was directly opposite, i.e., the numbers favor a third majority African American district now and that, due to the concerns and needs of that population segment, equality and equity concerns would fare better with a third minority district. He also pointed out that a creation of an African American district does not necessarily mean that that community will elect a member from that racial group to the board. A major difference between the two perspectives focused upon the concept of \"stability,\" with Jackson arguing, in effect, for a plan which did not result in changing the present board membership. His argument is essentially an argument which provides some degree of protected status to incumbents. 18. On December 29, 1992, the County Board voted to present one plan for bringing the present zone lines into balance. The PAGE 5vote was along racial lines in that the four white County Board members voted for it while the one African American Board member voted against it. On February 16, 1993, the County Board submitted its proposed new election zone plan to this Court. On or about February 19, 1993, the plaintiffs filed their opposition to the County Board of Education's approval of these election zones. 20. The plaintiffs contend that the remedial plans devised at the request of the County Board do not address the voting rights issue\nthe defendants agree. In fact the County Board has never addressed the voting rights question other than to say that to do so would violate the 1986 Court Order herein. 21. The Little Rock School Defendants urge that they have no role in this matter other than as an observer and that they have no duty under the statute or otherwise to address the voting rights issues. Therefore, although they deny the voting rights 19. allegations, if their position is accepted they have no standing to assert a defense of the voting rights issue. If that is the case, the defense of the voting rights issues must be made, if at all, by the County Board and that board does not address the issue as it has been presented by the present complaints except to plead res judicata, i.e., the 1986 Court Decision. 22. Both the County Board and the Little Rock School Board and their members have failed to respond to the voting rights issues raised herein on the basis of the evidence and allegations raised by plaintiffs. PAGE 623. The plaintiffs sought to establish the \"one-man one-vote\" violation by showing significant imbalance in the population of the 1986 zones. The \"ideal\" zone would be approximately 24,800. The 1986 zones range from approximately 8,600 below the norm to approximately 7,500 above the norm of 24,800. Defendants admit these population disparities. 24. The plaintiffs have assumed the burden of bringing these violations to light and remedy. They are the prevailing party. therefore, with respect to their allegations regarding \"one-man one-vote.\" They are also the prevailing parties with respect to the voting rights violations because of both the proof which they presented to the Court and the legal position or lack of legal position which has been taken by the defendants. The Court will proceed to address the proof of the violations. 25. The plaintiffs have also demonstrated that the present zones lines are significantly racially imbalanced. Zone One (1) is 85% African American and Zone Two (2) is 77.5% African American. This significant imbalance demonstrates that African Americans are \"packed\" into Zones One (1) and Two (2) . Of approximately 58,000 African American citizens. approximately 31,000 of them are concentrated in the two zones where they have an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. The other 27,000, about an equal number, are all dispersed so that they have no effective opportunity to significantly influence director election in any of the remaining five zones. It is clear that were the five majority white zones standing alone in an at-large system, African American PAGE 7voters could not elect a single director of their choice provided, of course, they could not show the other requirements of law. Onefourth (^) of the population ought reasonably be able to elect at least one of five directors in these zones. Thus, African American voters are submerged within these zones just as surely as they would be in a purely at-large system. 26. The plaintiffs contend that Zones 3 through 7 of the present system are analogous to an at-large election system because those zones, as they are constituted, effectively dilutes their vote. They further contend that the State cannot dilute African American voting strength by either concentrating it in the form of \"packing\" or by having it dispersed so as to be ineffective within the context of a polarized voting system. 27. The plaintiffs further sought to establish liability by addressing the other \"senate factors\" relevant to a vote dilution claim. See Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, ___ 106 S.Ct. 2752 (1986). The District, itself, has been continuously under Court Orders to desegregate since 1957. Most recently in 1984, this Court entered an Order, partially on the motion of the school district, finding that the District had not extricated itself from its segregated history and that many of its continuing practices violate the law. Pursuant to the liability findings of the Court, the Little Rock School District entered into a settlement with African American plaintiffs and the two other school districts whereby it committed by a specific plan to cease practices of discrimination and to eliminate vestiges of discrimination. This PAGE 8Court has repeatedly, and recently, expressed its concern that the district was not implementing its desegregation plan in good faith. Indeed, several of the board members have shown disregard for the plan and lack of commitment to it. Those findings are a incorporated into this record by reference. 28. The plaintiffs have also shown that the school board has not had a public discussion of the voting rights case to this date. This is an indication that the school board does not view the concerns of the plaintiffs seriously. This is consistent with this Court's earlier findings of bad faith on the part of the Little Rock School District. Good faith requires that the school board take seriously the issues which are raised by the minority community and reply to them even though the reply may not be in the form. content or result which the minority prefers. These are facts showing a lack of responsiveness to the particular concerns of the minority voters. 29. School board members have also acknowledged this lack of responsiveness to minority concerns. See the testimony of Dorsey Jackson and Willie Hamilton. There is no contrary evidence. 30. The school district's plan of desegregation recognizes the existence of significant educational achievement disparities between students of African American descent and others. This is an area of inquiry on the subject of responsiveness. The district has not effectively addressed the issue of remediation of achievement disparities. That failure indicates that the board either does not wish to do so or has not implemented the plan as PAGE 9expected and promised. 31. Moreover, the Board of Education was the initial moving party and plaintiff in the desegregation case. It sought to promote a plan which involved the other two school districts in the county which maximized student exchange, interdistrict assignments. and other desegregation programs. It was held to be the prevailing party by this Court. As a moving party in this case, insofar as the students are concerned, the Little Rock School District has been derelict. The Court has spent far more time addressing the concerns which it has regarding plan implementation with the Little Rock School District than it has with either of the two other school districts. The Court here notes that the other two school districts have also abandoned or changed their method of either school directors from at-large to single districts. North Little Rock has seven single-member districts, of which Zones 1 and 2 are 58.8% and 59.9%, respectively. The North Little Rock district is between 45-50% African American while the Pulaski County African American population is between 30-35%. African American students, it has been contended by both plaintiffs and the Little Rock School District, stand in greater need of more and more effective advocates on their behalf. Therefore, it follows not only that should Little Rock be held to no lower standard in determining the number of African American election districts, but there is a compelling reason for having more, i.e.. the very need urged by the school district to the Court. Board representation of those interests by persons of their choice is the PAGE 10most effective form of advocacy. 32. The plaintiffs have presented further evidence of the circumstances that underlie the basis for a different kind of a plan. The City of Little Rock has a population of approximately 175,795, of which as of 1990, 59,742 were African American. This is closely analogous to the school district population which is 173,674, of which 58,438 are African American. See Plaintiffs' Exhibits and The school age population, however, in the City of Little Rock, is roughly 30,500, of which roughly 52% are African Americans. Virtually all of the African American children attend the public school system while approximately 60% of the \"other\" population does so. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The per capita income of African Americans within the City of Little Rock is $7,559 while it is $19,395 for others. In other words. the African American per capita income is approximately 40% of the average income for other persons who are primarily white. The poverty status is determined by that number of persons who have an income below or above a certain figure. Of the white population, of approximately 111,600, only 7.1% were below that figure in 1990. Of the 58,553 persons of African American descent, 28.9 were below poverty. The conclusion to be drawn from % these statistics is that the African American poverty rate is at least 4 times that of the white poverty rate. Moreover, when poverty is assessed more carefully by family type and the presence of children, one of the principle concerns of the class represented PAGE 11by Joshua, the poverty rate of African American female heads of households is nearly 50%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 33. The statistics show that African Americans are more likely to be unemployed or not in the labor force. African Americans are less likely to have vehicles available, a factor which relates to their employability now that Little Rock has expanded and taken jobs far westward and away from areas of African American concentration. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit 34. There is little likelihood that these disparities will be alleviated or relieved under present circumstances. Moreover, it reasonable to infer that official racial discrimination is a major contributing factor in causing these disparities. See Jeffers v. Clinton, 730 F.Supp. 196, 204, Eastern District of Arkansas 1989. Furthermore, the African American population is increasing by one- third percent (73%) each year while the white population is decreasing by that same figure. The likely consequence is that the African American population by the year 2000 will be at least 36%. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit Under the circumstances, it is evident that the social and economic factors indicate that African American persons are in serious disadvantage insofar as the relevant indices set forth above are concerned. 35. The plaintiffs also demonstrated that statistically significant racially polarized voting exists in this community. They did this by showing that in recent elections which pitted candidates of African American ancestry versus white candidates, PAGE 12white voters usually voted for the white candidate, and African American voters voted for the African American candidate. The correlation coefficients showing racially polarized voting in the relevant Little Rock elections range from .7 to . 9 See Plaintiffs' Exhibit There were no exceptions. Moreover, it is evident that African Americans do not seek to compete in those races for which they have only a miniscule chance of success. Thus, they have not sought election in any of the majority white zones in Little Rock nor have they sought election in any of the majority white zones. 36. There is no contrary evidence regarding the plaintiffs' proof on polarized voting. 37. Plaintiffs have also demonstrated that it is possible to create at least three districts each of which has a substantial majority of African American citizens without \"packing\" any particular district. Dilution of African American voting interests is thus averted. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit The total percentages of the three districts (Nos. 1, 2, and 6) are 64.7%, 64.0%, and 61.7%, respectively. The voting age population within these three districts would be approximately 57 to 60% and would in each instance be slightly greater than the voting age populations of North Little Rock and Pulaski County. 38. The plan submitted by plaintiffs represents compact and continuous districts which have been characterized by Jim McKinzie of Metroplan as the plan that he would accept as addressing the voting rights issue. Metroplan is the agency which devised the PAGE 13County Board's plan to alleviate and remediate the \"one-man one- vote\" deficiencies. When Mr. Cecil Bailey, Chairman of the County Board was asked, Q. \"I understand. were you aware that Metroplan - - of the position that Metroplan took with respect to the plans which were developed by Mr. Nagel as plans which could be implemented in compliance with the voting rights act. He answered as follows: A. \"I remember one time a discussion with Mr. McKenzie subsequent to the second forum, (sic) , the second public forum that we had. that if we consideration were per going to take that into se. that Mr. Nagel's proposal would probably be the best one to use. \" (Bailey Deposition, pp. 34-35.) The County Board vote was along racial lines to reject all plans other than one which strictly numerically equalized each voting district. See Plaintiffs' Exhibit ___ (Board Minutes of December 29, 1992 wherein Thomas Broughton, an African American citizen. cast the only negative vote. The other members of the board are white). 39. For the record. Little Rock has a long history of electing two African Tkmerican persons to the Board of Directors out of a total of seven. 40. Little Rock School Board members Dorsey Jackson and Pat Gee, publicly opposed changing the zone lines to increase the opportunities for selection of African American board members. Jackson did so, however, on the basis that percentage-wise, African Americans were 28% of the population and they had about their fair share of representation. This was satisfactory for him. See PAGE 14Jackson Deposition, pp. 16-17. However, for purposes of this hearing, Mr. Jackson has stated that he is not opposed to the creation of three majority African American zones. See Jackson Deposition, pp. 32-33. 41. For purposes of this case, no school board member of either board has stated opposition to the creation of three majority African American zones in the Little Rock School District. The approach taken by the Little Rock School Board has been to do nothing and take no vote with respect to the voting rights issues but. by the Court's talley, the majority of the school board is unopposed to the changes requested by the plaintiffs' in this action. Moreover, the County Board members 42. have construed the Court's Order narrowly and have not addressed the voting rights issue. There appears, however, to be no opposition by the County Board to the creation of three minority zones. 43. The defendants have offered no defense and introduced no evidence by which to controvert the plaintiffs' prima facie case. Indeed, the County Board, has never considered the voting rights issue. The County Board has offered no evidence in opposition to the voting rights proof proffered by plaintiffs. Since the County Board is the responsible party and if the County Board is the agent of the Little Rock School District for this puirpose by statute, (drawing election zones) , then there must be a finding by the Court of liability against the County Board of Education, and it is so found. PAGE 15The LRSD Board, like the County Board, has not addressed the issue in a public forum or by public vote. No school board member has appeared to oppose the relief prayed for by plaintiffs. Based upon the Answer of the defendants, the issue has been controverted so that the Court has to accept the position that the defendants oppose the relief sought. But they have presented no proof in support of their position other than, like the County Board, their reliance upon the Order of this Court which created zones on the motion of the school district at the time of the Court Ordered annexation of certain parts of the Pulaski County Special School District. 45. I examine that position. First, the school district was the moving party in the case at the time. However, it had no 44 . standing to raise voting rights issues as such. Second, the Joshua Intervenors were not the moving parties in that they did not petition the Court at that time for voting rights relief and when the issue was presented to the Court in 1984, they were not parties with full status. See Docket, 5-2-84. Therefore^ on the basis of the Voting Rights Act, the res judicata argument is unavailable. While the Court made mention of the Voting Rights Act in its 1986 Order, the Court views those comments as dicta. They were not pertinent otherwise for the following additional reasons. Although that Order was entered in 1986, the population of the district had already materially shifted and had become more polarized. Finally, there was no hearing on the issue and there was no formal stipulation that froze the lines ad infinitum. PAGE 16address. The present circumstances are what the Court must It is highly unlikely that more than a third of District One would have moved from that district between 1986 and 1990. Thus the district was never equal in size. Moreover, its racial percentage was far greater in 1986 than in 1980 by simple demographic logic. Whites were moving out of the district at a high rate and were not being replaced by whites. It is thus likely that the district was more than 85% in 1986. It is now clearly possible to create three districts, each of approximately the same approximate proportion which are of African American majority. At the time of the 1986 Order, the population figures were less reliable than they are one year after the census report was issued for the 1990 census. That census shows that the African American population has increased substantially although its voice by way of representation has remained constant in the form of two majority election districts. 46. The school district which urges greater voice in a governance for its minority population cannot oppose it when it counts now - and simply because it counts. If the district takes the position of increasing that voice and representation in governance, then it is evident bad faith to oppose it in this Court without substantial legal proof in support of its position. 47. The Voting Rights Act represents Congress' intention that citizens votes not be diluted or adversely affected due to their race or color, through any practice, procedure or electoral scheme. This includes the II packing\" votes of one race in unreasonably high PAGE 17proportions into one or more zones. \"Districts with a black majority greater than 65% 70% necessary to opportunity to (the ensure elect percentage blacks candidates choice) may evidence \"packing.\" considered reasonable of their Ketchum v. Byrne, 740 F.2d 1398, 1407-8, n. 7 (7th Cir. 1984 and Elections see of Rvbicki v. State Board the State of Illinois, of 574 F.Supp. 1082, 1120-21 (N.D. Ill. 1982) (three judge panel) (Rybicki I). a Moreover, \"packing\" has a tendency to promote and reinforce the idea that there is an official intent to limit access to the political process of African American citizens. On the other hand. the creation of majority African American districts of the proportions presented by plaintiffs, does not guarantee that persons of African American descent will in fact win those positions. These alternative districts merely eliminate the dilution of the votes in the current plan. 48. In that plaintiffs have made a prima facie case and that the defendants have not rebutted that case, the Court must find in favor of the plaintiffs and order relief. 49. The plaintiffs are the only party to present a remedy to the Court. The County Board of Education just simply failed to address this issue because it misperceived the Court's Order. The school district. on the other hand, has not even submitted the issue in a public forum for consideration, and therefore, ignored the complaint of plaintiffs herein. It's proof herein is absent\non the other hand, the school board majority does not oppose the relief sought. Indeed, three members strongly favor it. 50. The plaintiffs' plan is the only plan before the Court PAGE 18which will not result in constitutional or Voting Rights Act violations. There are no substantial objections to that plan raised by the defendants. The objections raised by the defendants relate to compactness and contiguity but they are insubstantial. First, the same objections could be raised to the plan proposed by the County Board in purported remediation of the \"one-man one-vote\" deficiencies. Second, the lines are the lines and there is no requirement that they be rectangular. triangular. oval. or otheiswise. The only requirement is contiguity. That means continuous in geography or geography which abuts continuously. The plaintiffs' plan meets that requirement. The compactness requirement has to be viewed in the context of the \"one-man one- vote\" consideration where the first mandate is to combine geographic population areas in such a way as to be of equal size for each district. That is done here. The plaintiffs plan meets the \"one-man one-vote\" requirement and it does not substantially vary from the 5% figure which is the usual range of variance in these cases. 51. The plan developed by Metroplan does not meet or otherwise satisfy the Voting Rights Act requirements. Nor does it pretend to. Its author candidly admits that that was not its purpose. Under the circumstances, therefore, there is no legitimate objection to the plan presented by the plaintiffs. 52. Under ordinary circumstances, the Court would defer to defendants who are public representatives, at least to the extent of affording them an opportunity to present a remedial plan to PAGE 19address the liability found by the Court. In this case, that is unnecessary because both defendants had the opportunity to do so and the County Board was directed to do so by specific Order of the Court and did not do so. Moreover, Jim McKenzie of Metroplan testified that he would have addressed the issue in the same manner as Jack Nagel of the plaintiffs' law firm, who worked with the County Board on these matters. Therefore, it would be a waste of time and money to the parties and to the Court and an exercise in futility because any plan which creates three majority African American districts would be substantially similar to the one presented by the plaintiffs. 53. It is therefore the finding of this Court that the plaintiffs have met their burden of proof in the case as a whole and that they are entitled to the relief prayed. It is, therefore. ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that judgment be rendered for plaintiffs and that the Defendant County Board of Education be, and it is hereby instructed. to implement the plan proposed by plaintiffs for the election of school directors to the Little Rock School Board of Directors at an election to be held within fortyfive (45) days from this date. The election is to, as far as possible, comply with the requirements of Arkansas law and is to be conducted for all seven positions at the same time. After the election and at the first meeting of the newly constituted school board, the members shall draw by lot to determine the length of terms of members. There will be no other election for school directors PAGE 20until the regular school elections in 1994 for the election of school board members. This will mean that the first directors will seirve at least one year in addition to the time between the date of the election and the September, 1994 regular school election date. 54. It is the further Order and Judgment of the Court that plaintiffs are the prevailing party herein and that they are entitled to their costs and reasonable counsel fees. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PAGE 21fl W8M K'* \u0026lt;M  e ft , * c. 1994 ii--5ijA: c,  4. {994  Ottfce of Desagfegatiof MonilorU^ Office Of Desegresaiicn Moniitjjiiig UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT fl NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. 11 NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. w ^aiia ra W 41IM 1994 NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA Office of Desegregation Moniloriag a APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE II APPELLANTS' REPLY BRIEF Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Bar No, 64046 II JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 0 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 444-6200 flUNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT *r\" NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. RECBIVPD NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. Jlih! 2 I99X NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA Office (rf Desegregation Monitoring 41 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE H REPLY BRIEF OP APPELLANTS Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker - Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 n DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR (501) 444-6200 72702 ] Il RECEIVED JUN 2 1994 ngiat C^sagrfi^jation Moniioiing 4 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEAL FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT NO. 93-3592 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKI CTY. SPECIAL SCH. DIST. 4 NO. 93-3469 LORENE JOSHUA V. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. NO. 93-3594 LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DIST. V. LORENE JOSHUA 4 APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION THE HON. SUSAN WEBBER WRIGHT, DISTRICT JUDGE 4 APPELLANTS' SUPPLEMENTAL APPENDIX 4 4 Respectfully submitted, John W. Walker Bar No. 64046 JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR (501) 374-3758 72206 4 DAVID SCHOEN, ESQ. P.O. Box 3483 120 West Spring Fayetteville, AR 72702 (501) 444-6200 4 4 ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE  SUNDAY, AUGUST 23,1992 1 Around Arkansas U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SU- san Webber Wright on Monday Sept\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_431","title":"Election zone","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992/1994"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","School boards","Educational law and legislation","Elections"],"dcterms_title":["Election zone"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/431"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n   \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\nRECEIVED 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 \u0026amp; 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\nV 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\u0026gt;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,\n! 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 \u0026gt; 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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 zJ. Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; 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\u0026gt;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\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\n81.50 % black zone 2 Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 Zone 6 - 25,295 total population\n- 25,210 total population\n- 24,844 total population\n- 25,016 total population\n- 25,107 total population\n68.90 % black 7.83 % black 2.96 % black 18.30 % black 17.30 % black Zone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10  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\u0026gt; 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\nonly 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\u0026gt; JEN 501z 376-9442 NO, 4S5 P002  FILED _ (i\u0026gt;a\u0026gt;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\nbe 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\"\nan 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\ni 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\n81.50 % black zone 2 - 25,295 total population\n68.90 t black Zone 3 Zone 4 Zone 5 zone 6 - 25,210 total population\n- 24,844 total population\n- 25,016 total population\n- 25,107 total population\n7.83 % black 2.96 % black 18.30  black 17.30 % black Zone 7 - 25,043 total population\n14.10 % 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\nonly 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 (' \u0026lt;__________/ 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)\nands^, 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\nand 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\nspecifically: 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\n\" 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\n'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!-\n\"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\nX V. NO. LR\u0026lt;-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\nJOHN 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\u0026gt;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/\u0026lt;------ 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 \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 ka(l]y\\P-Elect\u0026gt;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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026gt;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\n^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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; 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)\nFed.R.App.P. Rule 4(a)(4) (1993)\nSpinar 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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; 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)\nFed.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\n\"'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  \u0026lt;  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)\nA 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 \u0026amp; 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\nr?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\nMr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; 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 \u0026gt; Christopher Heller 3 F\u0026gt; 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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Steve Jones, Esq. JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; 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 \u0026gt; 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 \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; 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\nSARA MATTHEWS\nAs Next Friend of KHAYYAM DAVIS\nALEXA ARMSTRONG\ntARLOS ARMSTRONG\nALVIN HUDSON\nTATIA HUDSON\nMRS. HILTON TAYLOR, As Next Friend of HILTON TAYLOR, JR., PARSHA TAYLOR and BRIAN TAYLOR\nREV. JOHN M. MILES, As Next Friend of JANICE MILES and DERRICK MILES\nNAACP\nand 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\nTHE LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, A Public Body Corporate\nCECIL 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\nand 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 \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; 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\u0026lt;^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 \u0026amp; Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; Jones, 3400 Capitol Towers P.A. Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; Jones, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. Friday, Eldredge \u0026amp; Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. Wright, Lindsey \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201(501) 376-2011 Attorneys for Appellants Little Roc: School District B \u0026gt;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 \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; 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\nC.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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; 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\n1. 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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026lt;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 \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; 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 \u0026lt;/)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 .\nVOTES 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\n, 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 .\nVOTES 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 \u0026amp; 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 \u0026lt; 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 \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; 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/\u0026gt;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\nH 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 \u0026gt; \u0026gt; 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 .\nVOTES 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\niXI^IRES 3 /''A Co/Y Jack, Lyon \u0026amp; 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 \u0026amp; CUSTOM HOUSE 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63101 APR 2 8 tW OfJics of Desegregatioi! Moiiiiuiuig\nRE: 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 \u0026amp; JONES, P.A. 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; Broadway Streets Little Rock, AR 72201 Christopher Heller, Esq. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026amp; CLARK 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Sam Jones, Esq. WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026amp; JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Richard Roachell, Esq. ROCHELL \u0026amp; STREETT 3400 Capitol Towers Capitol \u0026amp; 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\u0026gt; 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.\nZone 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 \u0026lt;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 \u0026gt; a \" *9 -n 5 -2 -5 S \u0026lt;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 \u0026gt;,00 S gy 'aoSG'-\nxs-fi o UnagSea OGyu^ C .2g^x3 -Hy.Otz3s onO.gP coiSyooiao wSSisy 430 \u0026gt;\u0026gt;-.4) 'O --.g' 2 2 w S yni bc Sep Q gyj eg \u0026lt;U t- s .2 -\" e ri 9 if\nS \u0026lt;u a\u0026gt;  2 vi ^5 . o U3 5-. o G g U2 cn c fl \u0026lt;u C \"3 rH O  2 - .99 o OJ CO iX33 Xy5 oO. \u0026lt;O.- QOO .S Si 'o,2i Sis y aj5 S u U O-C gro 6^0 2\n2yfMyOyoo5i ri .G-O S - 2 SS-'s y g g.2 jfl\u0026gt;- G rti a o j3 ts .-^95 S  3 Jh U ^=2 S S \u0026lt;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\nThis 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.\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n \n\n  \n\n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n \n\n\n   \n\n  \n\n \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n   \n\n \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n   \n\n\n\n  \n\n\n\n "},{"id":"bcas_p15728coll3_33276","title":"Elizabeth Huckaby correspondence","collection_id":"bcas_p15728coll3","collection_title":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies Documents Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, Central High School, 34.73683, -92.29895"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1992-01/1993-08"],"dcterms_description":["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 Resources."],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : University of Arkansas at Little Rock Center for Arkansas History and Culture"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Elizabeth Huckaby papers, 1936-1998 (UALR.MS.0118)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Education--Arkansas--Little Rock--History--20th century","School integration--Arkansas--Little Rock","Segregation in education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Central High School (Little Rock, Ark.)--History","Education--Arkansas--Little Rock","Public schools--Arkansas--Little Rock"],"dcterms_title":["Elizabeth Huckaby correspondence"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15728coll3/id/33276"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["documents (object genre)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":["Huckaby, Elizabeth"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null}],"pages":{"current_page":681,"next_page":682,"prev_page":680,"total_pages":6766,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":8160,"total_count":81191,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40200},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35114},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4552},{"value":"Sound","hits":3248},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9441},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8347},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5895},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5607},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4436},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3530}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1809},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1282},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1909},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":431}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1763},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":965},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":704},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17820},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5428},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4862},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4610},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4177},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3943},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2579},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2430},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2387}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12843},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11307},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10219},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8503},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4583},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3770},{"value":"Florida","hits":2601},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2391},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1893},{"value":"New York","hits":1667}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10514},{"value":"1963","hits":10193},{"value":"1965","hits":10119},{"value":"1956","hits":9832},{"value":"1955","hits":9611},{"value":"1964","hits":9268},{"value":"1968","hits":9243},{"value":"1962","hits":9152},{"value":"1967","hits":8771},{"value":"1957","hits":8460},{"value":"1958","hits":8242},{"value":"1961","hits":8241},{"value":"1959","hits":8046},{"value":"1960","hits":7940},{"value":"1954","hits":7239},{"value":"1969","hits":7235},{"value":"1950","hits":7117},{"value":"1953","hits":6968},{"value":"1970","hits":6743},{"value":"1971","hits":6337},{"value":"1977","hits":6280},{"value":"1952","hits":6161},{"value":"1972","hits":6144},{"value":"1951","hits":6045},{"value":"1975","hits":5806},{"value":"1976","hits":5771},{"value":"1974","hits":5729},{"value":"1973","hits":5591},{"value":"1979","hits":5329},{"value":"1978","hits":5318},{"value":"1980","hits":5279},{"value":"1995","hits":4829},{"value":"1981","hits":4724},{"value":"1994","hits":4654},{"value":"1948","hits":4596},{"value":"1949","hits":4571},{"value":"1996","hits":4486},{"value":"1982","hits":4330},{"value":"1947","hits":4316},{"value":"1985","hits":4226},{"value":"1998","hits":4225},{"value":"1997","hits":4202},{"value":"1983","hits":4174},{"value":"1984","hits":4065},{"value":"1946","hits":4046},{"value":"1999","hits":4018},{"value":"1945","hits":4017},{"value":"1990","hits":3937},{"value":"1986","hits":3919},{"value":"1943","hits":3899},{"value":"1944","hits":3895},{"value":"1942","hits":3867},{"value":"2000","hits":3808},{"value":"2001","hits":3790},{"value":"1940","hits":3764},{"value":"1941","hits":3757},{"value":"1987","hits":3657},{"value":"2002","hits":3538},{"value":"1991","hits":3507},{"value":"1936","hits":3506},{"value":"1939","hits":3500},{"value":"1938","hits":3465},{"value":"1937","hits":3449},{"value":"1992","hits":3444},{"value":"1993","hits":3422},{"value":"2003","hits":3403},{"value":"1930","hits":3377},{"value":"1989","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3306},{"value":"1933","hits":3270},{"value":"1934","hits":3270},{"value":"1988","hits":3269},{"value":"1932","hits":3254},{"value":"1931","hits":3239},{"value":"2005","hits":3057},{"value":"2004","hits":2909},{"value":"1929","hits":2789},{"value":"2006","hits":2774},{"value":"1928","hits":2271},{"value":"1921","hits":2123},{"value":"1925","hits":2039},{"value":"1927","hits":2025},{"value":"1924","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2009},{"value":"1920","hits":1975},{"value":"1923","hits":1954},{"value":"1922","hits":1928},{"value":"2016","hits":1925},{"value":"2007","hits":1629},{"value":"2008","hits":1578},{"value":"2011","hits":1575},{"value":"2019","hits":1537},{"value":"1919","hits":1532},{"value":"2009","hits":1532},{"value":"1918","hits":1530},{"value":"2015","hits":1527},{"value":"2013","hits":1518},{"value":"2010","hits":1515},{"value":"2014","hits":1481},{"value":"2012","hits":1467}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":500952,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10708},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9437},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2740},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41178},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17554},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8828},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":6864},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":197},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8146},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4024},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3212},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2633},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":80736},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":80994},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}