Opinion
Civil Action No. 2:87cv1179-MHT.
March 23, 2009.
Edward Still, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiffs.
James U. Blacksher, Birmingham, AL, Janai S. Nelson, Norman J. Chachkin, NAACP Legal Defense Educ'l Fund, Inc., New York, NY, for Plaintiffs/Plaintiffs-Intervenors.
Algert Swanson Agricola, Jr., Slaten O'Connor, PC, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs-Intervenors.
David R. Boyd, Dorman Walker, Balch Bingham, John J. Park, Jr., Office of the Attorney General, Montgomery, AL, John Hollis Jackson, Jr., Jackson Jackson, LLP, Clanton, AL, for Defendants.
OPINION
This matter is before the court on defendant Chilton County Commission's motion to dismiss this action. The plaintiffs do not object to dissolution of the 1988 consent decree and dismissal of this action, but only on the condition that the court hold that the seven-member cumulative-voting election system required by the consent decree is now authorized by, and does not violate, Alabama law. The commission's dismissal motion to will be granted.
As this court noted in its opinion approving modification of the 1988 consent decree, Dillard v. Chilton County Com'n, 2008 WL 912753 (M.D. Ala. 2008), this action is the last of the 180 court-ordered election plans still active in the longstanding set of Dillard cases. These cases began with Dillard v. Crenshaw County, 640 F. Supp. 1347 (M.D. Ala. 1986), and eventually involved the governing bodies in 192 local jurisdictions in Alabama. By passing Act No. 2006-252, now codified at 1975 Ala. Code § 11-80-12, the Alabama Legislature adopted under state law all court-ordered election plans to which there is no pending litigation challenging the plan. Act No. 2007-488 incorporated Act No. 2006-252 in an even broader statutory provision, now codified at 1975 Ala. Code § 11-3-1(c). Section 11-3-1(c), as amended by Act No. 2007-488, provides:
"Unless otherwise provided by local law, by court order, or governed by Section 11-80-12, and as otherwise provided in subsection (d), there shall be in every county a county commission, composed of the judge of probate, who shall serve as chairman, and four commissioners, who shall be elected at the time prescribed by law and shall hold office for four years until their successors are elected and qualified."
(Emphasis added.) Section 11-80-12 provides:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, any board of education, county commission, or municipal governing body whose currently serving members have been elected by a method of election and a specific number of seats prescribed by a federal court shall retain that manner of election and composition until such time as the method of election or number of seats is changed in accordance with general or local law. This section shall not apply in any county where a federal court has overturned the previous order concerning the manner of election and the number of members of a county commission and shall not apply in any county where there is currently pending litigation, or appeals relating thereto, challenging previous court orders or consent orders concerning the manner of elections or the number of members or districts of a county commission."
Parts of Act No. 2007-488 were submitted for and have received preclearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. The preclearance letter from the U.S. Attorney General states that § 11-3-1(c) is one of the parts of Act No. 2007-488 to which he does not object. Letter, Acting Chief, Voting Section, U.S. Department of Justice, to Winfred J. Sinclair, Assistant Alabama Attorney General, Apr. 4, 2008. (Doc. No. 235-2). Therefore, § 11-3-1(c) has been precleared under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act.
When Act No. 2006-252 was enacted there was pending in this action a challenge to the 1988 consent decree by intervenors Gilbert Green and Calvin Jones, Jr. This court upheld the Green intervenors' challenge and vacated the consent decree.Dillard v. Chilton County Comm'n, 447 F. Supp.2d 1273, amended, 447 F.Supp.2d 1280 (M.D. Ala. 2006). This court then approved the commission's plan for "restor[ing] Chilton County, Alabama to an election scheme completely free of the 1988 injunction in a way that is feasible, equitable, and constitutional." Dillard v. Chilton County Comm'n, 452 F. Supp.2d 1193, 1194 (M.D. Ala. 2006). The approved remedial plan required "[t]he commission [to] draft a bill and submit it to the legislature for enactment under state law. Once the bill obtains § 5 preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, the new election scheme can be implemented for the 2008 election cycle." Id. at 1197. Pursuant to this plan, the commission procured passage of a local act in May 2007 calling for the commission to be composed of five members elected from single-member districts. Ala. Act No. 2007-292.
However, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the orders of this court upholding the Green interveners' challenge and remanded this case back to this court with instructions to dismiss the Green intervenors' claims, without prejudice, for lack of standing. Dillard v. Chilton County Comm'n, 495 F.3d 1324, 1340 (11th Cir. 2007). This court vacated the orders upholding the Green interveners' challenge and reinstated the 1988 consent decree. Dillard v. Chilton County Comm'n, 525 F. Supp.2d 1315 (M.D. Ala. 2007). Act No. 2007-292 was never submitted for § 5 preclearance and thus has never been in force and effect. The Green intervenors filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the United States Supreme Court seeking review of the Eleventh Circuit's decision, but the petition for writ of certiorari was denied. Green v. Chilton County Comm'n, 128 S.Ct. 2961 (2008).
Thus, there is no longer currently pending any litigation, including appeals, challenging the 1988 consent decree or any other orders concerning the manner of elections or the number of members of the Chilton County Commission. The question, therefore, is whether § 11-3-1(c) and § 11-80-12 now apply to this litigation such that they now provide state-law authority for the election system prescribed by the 1988 consent decree.
The court concludes there are alternative reasons for construing § 11-3-1(c) and § 11-80-12 to provide statelaw authority for the election system prescribed by the 1988 consent decree. First, § 11-80-12, enacted in 2006, excludes the Chilton County Commission from its operation only so long as "there iscurrently pending litigation, or appeals relating thereto, challenging previous court orders or consent orders concerning the manner of elections or the number of members or districts of a county commission." (Emphasis added.) The term "currently," as the dictionary says, means "at the present time" or "now." And, because § 11-80-12 is a general law enacted for a remedial purpose, the "current" time it refers to should be the point in time when the law is being applied, not the time the law was enacted. See Alabama State Docks Terminal Ry. v. Lyles, 797 So.2d 432 (Ala. 2001) ("courts are required to apply in a particular case the law as it exists at the time it enters its final judgment"); accord, e.g., Dennis v. Pendley, 518 So.2d 688 (Ala. 1987) (holding that § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, and 1975 Ala. Code § 28-2A-1 should be applied to circumstances existing at the time the City of Clanton implemented an annexation election and should not be applied to circumstances existing when the annexation resolution and § 28-2A-1 were enacted).
If the Alabama Legislature had intended forever to exclude Chilton County from the operation of § 11-80-12, it could have employed one of the phrases clearly to that effect often appearing in Alabama statute law, such as "shall not apply to . . . litigation pending as of the effective date of this Act." Ala. Act No. 90-384 § 4 (quoted in Johnson v. Alabama Power Co., 664 So.2d 877, 879 (Ala. 1995)). Alabama cases include numerous other examples where the legislature's reference to the "effective date" of an act as indicative that the statute's provisions are not, in some instances, to be applied prospectively. E.g., Ex parte Zimmerman, 838 So.2d 408, 409 (Ala. 2002); Stephenson v. Lawrence County Bd. of Education, 782 So.2d 192, 199 (Ala. 2000); Ex parte Southern Ry., 556 So.2d 1082, 1085 (Ala. 1989); Ex parte Progressive Casualty Ins. Co., 533 So.2d 230, 231 (Ala. 1988). Thus, because there is no "currently pending" litigation challenging the 1988 consent decree, this court construes § 11-80-12 as incorporating the consent decree's election system into state law.
Second, the phrase "by court order" in § 11-3-1(c), as amended by Act 2007-488, arguably provides general law authority for the consent decree's election scheme in Chilton County notwithstanding the Green intervenors' challenge. This more recent amendment to the general law governing the composition of county commissions in Alabama uses broader language than does § 11-80-12 and does not exclude court orders that are subject to pending litigation. At the very least, read in pari materia with § 11-80-12, § 11-3-1(c) reinforces a prospective construction of § 11-80-12, according to which the phrase "currently pending litigation" must be read as referring to the time the statute is applied, rather than to the time it was enacted.
Interpreting the word "currently" to mean 'at the time the act is applied,' rather than 'at the time the act becomes law' is the only reading of the act that implements the intent of the Alabama Legislature. That intent was to provide a basis in state law for changes in the manner of election, or changes in the composition, of certain governmental bodies that initially occurred because of a court order. If "currently" is understood to mean 'at the time the act becomes law,' then changes made in the Chilton County Commission's manner of election and composition would be without a clear basis in state law, a result plainly at odds with the purpose of the statute. On the other hand, if the word "currently" is read to mean 'at the time the act is applied,' the statute is seen as deferring to ongoing litigation and taking effect only if the litigation itself does not otherwise resolve the issue by, for example, striking down the court-ordered changes. Only this second reading of the act is consistent with the apparent purpose of the legislature.
***
An appropriate judgment will be entered granting the commission's dismissal motion and holding that § 11-3-1(c) and § 11-80-12 of the 1975 Ala. Code now provide state-law authority, enforceable under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, for the number of seats and method of electing Chilton County Commissioners required by the 1988 consent decree.
A copy of this checklist is available at the website for the USCA, 11th Circuit at www.ca11.uscourts.gov Effective on April 9, 2006, the new fee to file an appeal will increase from $255.00 to $455.00. CIVIL APPEALS JURISDICTION CHECKLIST1. Appealable Orders : Appeals from final orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291: 28 U.S.C. § 158Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre 701 F.2d 1365 1368 28 U.S.C. § 636 In cases involving multiple parties or multiple claims, 54Williams v. Bishop 732 F.2d 885 885-86 Budinich v. Becton Dickinson Co. 486 U.S. 196 201 108 S.Ct. 1717 1721-22 100 L.Ed.2d 178LaChance v. Duffy's Draft House, Inc. 146 F.3d 832 837 Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a): Appeals pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) and Fed.R.App.P. 5: 28 U.S.C. § 1292 Appeals pursuant to judicially created exceptions to the finality rule: Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. 337 U.S. 541 546 93 L.Ed. 1528Atlantic Fed. Sav. Loan Ass'n v. Blythe Eastman Paine Webber, Inc. 890 F.2d 371 376 Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp. 379 U.S. 148 157 85 S.Ct. 308 312 13 L.Ed.2d 199 2. Time for Filing Rinaldo v. Corbett 256 F.3d 1276 1278 4 Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(1): 3 THE NOTICE MUST BE RECEIVED AND FILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT NO LATER THAN THE LAST DAY OF THE APPEAL PERIOD — no additional days are provided for mailing. Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(3): Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(4): Fed.R.App.P. 4(a)(5) and 4(a)(6): Fed.R.App.P. 4(c): 28 U.S.C. § 1746 3. Format of the notice of appeal : See also 3pro se 4. Effect of a notice of appeal : 4
Courts of Appeals have jurisdiction conferred and strictly limited by statute: (a) Only final orders and judgments of district courts, or final orders of bankruptcy courts which have been appealed to and fully resolved by a district court under , generally are appealable. A final decision is one that "ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment." , , (11th Cir. 1983). A magistrate judge's report and recommendation is not final and appealable until judgment thereon is entered by a district court judge. (c). (b) a judgment as to fewer than all parties or all claims is not a final, appealable decision unless the district court has certified the judgment for immediate review under Fed.R.Civ.P. (b). , , (11th Cir. 1984). A judg ment which resolves all issues except matters, such as attorneys' fees and costs, that are collateral to the merits, is immediately appealable. , , , , , (1988); , , (11th Cir. 1998). (c) Appeals are permitted from orders "granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions . . ." and from "[i]nterlocutory decrees . . . determining the rights and liabilities of parties to admiralty cases in which appeals from final decrees are allowed." Interlocutory appeals from orders denying temporary restraining orders are not permitted. (d) The certification specified in (b) must be obtained before a petition for permission to appeal is filed in the Court of Appeals. The district court's denial of a motion for certification is not itself appealable. (e) Limited exceptions are discussed in cases including, but not limited to: , , , 69S.Ct. 1221, 1225-26, (1949); , , (11th Cir. 1989); , , , , , (1964). Rev.: 4/04 : The timely filing of a notice of appeal is mandatory and jurisdictional. , , (11th Cir. 2001). In civil cases, Fed.R.App.P. (a) and (c) set the following time limits: (a) A notice of appeal in compliance with the requirements set forth in Fed.R.App.P. must be filed in the district court within 30 days after the entry of the order or judgment appealed from. However, if the United States or an officer or agency thereof is a party, the notice of appeal must be filed in the district court within 60 days after such entry. Special filing provisions for inmates are discussed below. (b) "If one party timely files a notice of appeal, any other party may file a notice of appeal within 14 days after the date when the first notice was filed, or within the time otherwise prescribed by this Rule 4(a), whichever period ends later." (c) If any party makes a timely motion in the district court under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of a type specified in this rule, the time for appeal for all parties runs from the date of entry of the order disposing of the last such timely filed motion. (d) Under certain limited circumstances, the district court may extend the time to file a notice of appeal. Under Rule 4(a)(5), the time may be extended if a motion for an extension is filed within 30 days after expiration of the time otherwise provided to file a notice of appeal, upon a showing of excusable neglect or good cause. Under Rule 4(a)(6), the time may be extended if the district court finds upon motion that a party did not timely receive notice of the entry of the judgment or order, and that no party would be prejudiced by an extension. (e) If an inmate confined to an institution files a notice of appeal in either a civil case or a criminal case, the notice of appeal is timely if it is deposited in the institution's internal mail system on or before the last day for filing. Timely filing may be shown by a declaration in compliance with or a notarized statement, either of which must set forth the date of deposit and state that first-class postage has been prepaid. Form 1, Appendix of Forms to the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, is a suitable format. Fed.R.App.P. (c). A notice of appeal must be signed by the appellant. A district court loses jurisdiction (authority) to act after the filing of a timely notice of appeal, except for actions in aid of appellate jurisdiction or to rule on a timely motion of the type specified in Fed.R.App.P. (a)(4).