Full opinion text
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW HAND, Chief Judge. This action .was filed on October 19, 1978 by the United States of America acting through the Attorney General. The named defendants are the Dallas County Commission and its members (L. Sea well Jones, W. H. Kendrick succeeding R. F. Ellis, C. Stanley Baldwin and Gene Norris succeeding Andrew Calhoun); Judge of Probate John W. Jones, Jr., who serves as Chairman Ex-Officio of the Dallas County Commission; the Dallas County Board of Education and its members (William R. Martin, as Chairman, John J. Grimes, Sr., Martin Chance, Joe K. Rives and James N. Priestley); the Chairman of the Dallas County Democratic Executive Committee and the Chairman of the Dallas County Republican Executive Committee. The political party committee chairmen were joined as parties for relief purposes only and did not participate in the action. This action was filed at about the same time as the Government’s suit against the Marengo County Commission and Board of Education, see United States of America v. Marengo County Commission, et al., decision reported at 469 F.Supp. 1150. As in Marengo County there was a prior lawsuit filed by private plaintiffs (in the case of Dallas County being Tyus, et al. v. Dallas County, Alabama, et al., Civil Action No. 77-152-H). Unlike the Marengo County cases, the Tyus lawsuit in Dallas County did not proceed and was dismissed with prejudice on motion of counsel for the plaintiff in that action on October 23, 1978. The allegations of the complaint are that the at-large election of County Commission members unconstitutionally dilute or cancel the voting strength of the black population in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1971, 1973. The Government requests that the Court declare the at-large election method employed in the election of both County Commission and School Board members to be violative of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and the Voting Rights Act, to enjoin any future at-large elections, and to require the adoption of an election system employing single-member districts. The county commission and school board defendants each filed answers denying that any aspect of the election method in Dallas County has served to deprive black persons of the right to vote or has diluted or cancelled out their voting strength. The defendants filed various motions to dismiss, all of which were denied by the Court. The defendants’ answers deny jurisdiction. The Court has jurisdiction over the Plaintiff’s claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1971, 42 U.S.C. § 1973j(f), and 28 U.S.C. § 1343. The at-large method of election of the membership of the governing body of Dallas County, Alabama was previously challenged in Court on a one-man, one-vote theory and the method was upheld, see Dallas County, Alabama, et al. v. Reese, 421 U.S. 477, 95 S.Ct. 1706, 44 L.Ed.2d 312 (1975). GENERAL FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Dallas County, Alabama is located in the Blackbelt area of Alabama in the central part of the state. It is bordered by Perry, Wilcox, Lowndes, Autauga and Chilton Counties. The total population of the County, according to the 1970 Census, was as follows: White 26,330 47.6% Black ' 28,892 52.3% Other 74 .1% Total Popula- 55^6 tion (See Paragraph 4(a)22 of Pretrial Order) The census further reflects that there are 17,611 whites of voting age (53%) and 15,-456 blacks of voting age (47%). (See Paragraph 4(a)23 of Pretrial Order). The Dallas County Commission, previously known by the name Dallas County Board of Revenue and Court of County Commissioners, was created by enactment of the Legislature of Alabama in 1901. Act No. 328 of the Legislature of Alabama 1900-1901 (approved February 8, 1901) at 892. The act provided for four commissioners to be elected by the county at-large electorate with a district residency requirement. The Judge of Probate serves as Chairman Ex-Officio, voting only in the case of a tie. Prior to the 1901 statute, from 1876 members of the governing body of Dallas County were appointed by the Governor of Alabama under the provisions of Act No. 265 of the Legislature of Alabama 1875-1876 approved (February 19, 1876) at 385. Prior to the 1876 statute the members of the governing body of Dallas County were elected by the county at-large electorate under the general state codes. The Dallas County Board of Education is elected under the provisions of Chapter 8 of Title 16 of the Code of Alabama of 1975, which statute generally derives from Act No. 220 of the Acts of Alabama of 1915. The Plaintiff and the Defendants entered into a joint Pretrial Order which was approved by the Court and which constitutes a final statement of the issues involved, governed the conduct of the trial and constitutes the basis for any relief afforded by the Court. In that Pretrial Order the parties were unable to agree as to the jurisdiction and the propriety of the parties, and those issues were certified to the Court for resolution. In the Pretrial Order the parties also stipulated to a number of uncontested facts, which stipulations were adopted by the Court and constitute a part of the Findings of Fact hereinafter made. The Plaintiff and the Dallas County Board of Education and its members also stipulated, agreed, and consented in the Pretrial Order that the Court shall and may take judicial notice of the entire record and proceedings in Civil Action No. 5945-70-H pending in this Court and styled: Anthony T. Lee, et al., Plaintiff, United States of America, et al., Plaintiff-Intervenor vs. Dallas County Board of Education, et al., Defendants. Said parties stipulated and agreed that the Court may take judicial notice of all documents, evidence and testimony taken and received into evidence in that action, and that any and all orders and trial exhibits admitted into evidence in that action may be considered as evidence in this action. Pursuant to that stipulation, agreement, and consent of said parties, the Court has considered and taken judicial notice of the entire record and proceedings in said Civil Action No. 5945-70-H, including all documents, evidence and testimony taken and received into evidence therein. In and by the terms of that Pretrial Order, the parties also stipulated, agreed and admitted that the following were and constituted all of the Contested Issues of Fact in this action: a. Whether as a result of the at-large electoral system used to elect the members of the Dallas County Commission and the Dallas County Board of Education, black citizens of the county have less opportunity than do white citizens to participate in the political process and to elect members of their choice to these governing bodies. b. Whether the at-large electoral system unlawfully dilutes the voting strength of black voters, and whether black voters are largely concentrated in certain geographic areas of the County. c. Whether voting for state, district, county and local offices in Dallas County has followed racial lines. d. Whether black candidates have ever been elected to the Dallas County Commission or the Dallas County Board of Education. e. Whether a black person has ever been the nominee of the Democratic party or the Republican party for a position on the Dallas County Commission or the Dallas County Board of Education. f. Whether there has been a lack of responsiveness by the Dallas County Commission and the Dallas County Board of Education to the needs of the black citizens and voters of Dallas County. g. Whether the State of Alabama and Dallas County have in the past unlawfully discriminated against black residents of Dallas County by disenfranchising black voters through the use of discriminatory devices such as literacy tests, poll taxes and by applying more stringent registration requirements to black prospective voters. h. Whether black voters of Dallas County have also been the subject of unlawful discrimination in education, employment, housing, public accommodations and public facilities. i. Whether there is a past history of racial discrimination in Dallas County by state, local and party officials, particularly with respect to public education and minority participation in the electoral process, and if so, whether the same adversely affects minority participation in the political process. j. Whether there is a firm, long-standing state policy favoring the at-large election of the Dallas County Commission. k. Whether there is a firm, long-standing state policy favoring the at-large election of the Dallas County Board of Education as stipulated and specified in Chapter 8 of Title 16 of the 1975 Code of Alabama. l. Whether there is a firm, long-standing state policy favoring the at-large election of members of the County Commissioners or other county governing bodies in the State of Alabama. m. Whether there is a firm, long-standing state policy favoring the at-large election of members of county Boards of Education in the State of Alabama. n. Whether the at-large electoral method adversely affects minority participation in the electoral process. o. Whether the majority vote requirement for primary elections, residency districts for members of the Dallas County Commission, and numbered places and staggered terms for the members of the Dallas County Board of Education dilute minority voting strength in the context of the at-large electoral system. p. Whether black citizens of Dallas County have full and complete access to the process of slating and electing candidates for nomination and election to the Dallas County Commission and the Dallas County Board of Education and other elective offices in Dallas County. q. Whether the Dallas County Commission and its defendant members have been responsive to the particularized needs of black students within the school system and black citizens of Dallas County. r. Whether the Dallas County Board of Education and its defendant members have been responsive to the particularized needs of black students within the school system and black citizens of Dallas County. s. Whether the policy and general laws of the State of Alabama favor and prescribe at-large elections for members of the Dallas County Board of Education and other County Boards of Education. t. Whether the policy and general laws of the State of Alabama favor and prescribe at-large elections for members of the county governing bodies. u. Whether there has been any past discrimination against black citizens of Dallas County which now precludes the effective participation of black citizens in the election system. v. Whether there has been racially motivated discrimination or action by any of the Defendants that infringes on the constitutional rights of black citizens of Dallas County. w. Whether there is or has been any invidious racial motivation or at-large scheme to deny black citizens effective participation in the election of members of the Dallas County Commission or the Dallas County Board of Education. x. Whether intentional and invidious racial discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment of the laws and procedures of the State of Alabama prescribing and governing the election of members of the Dallas County Commission. y. Whether intentional and invidious racial discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment of the laws and procedures of the State of Alabama prescribing and governing the election of members of the Dallas County Board of Education. z. Whether intentional and invidious racial discrimination was a motivating factor in the maintenance of the laws and procedures of the State of Alabama prescribing and governing the election of the members of the Dallas County Commission. aa. Whether intentional and invidious racial discrimination was a motivating factor in the maintenance of the laws and procedures of the State of Alabama prescribing and governing the election of members of the Dallas County Board of Education. bb. Whether as a matter of law intentional racial discrimination as a motivating factor in the maintenance of the laws and procedures of the State of Alabama which prescribe and govern the election of members of the Dallas County Board of Education and the Dallas County Commission would afford Plaintiffs any cause of action or right to relief in this action, even should such be found to have existed. On November 26, 1979, this action came on for trial before the Court, without a jury, pursuant to and on the basis of the issues made and stipulated by the Pretrial Order. Trial proceedings were held on November 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30,1979, and were then recessed without date. Thereafter, trial proceedings were resumed on March 10, 1980, and were held on March 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 17, 18 and 19, 1980. On March 12, 1980 the Plaintiff completed the presentation of its evidence, and rested. At that time, the Defendants, Dallas County Board of Education of Dallas County, Alabama and its members, William R. Martin, as Chairman and member, John J. Grimes, Sr., as Vice-Chairman and member, and Martin Chance, Joe K. Rives and James N. Priestley, as members (said School Board and its said members and officers are hereinafter collectively called the School Board) filed their Motion for Involuntary Dismissal under Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, seeking a dismissal of the Complaint and the action on the ground that upon the facts and the law the Plaintiff has shown no right to relief. Similar Motions for Involuntary Dismissal were also filed at that time on behalf of the Probate Judge and the Dallas County Commission and its members. On October 13, 1981 the trial resumed and was heard on that day and October 14, 15, 16, 20, 21, 22, 27 and 28, 1981, completing the defense presentation of the County Commission defendants. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Defendant, Dallas County Commission, is a body established under the laws of the State of Alabama with all powers conferred upon it by the statutes and laws of the State of Alabama. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)l.) 2. John W. Jones is the Probate Judge of Dallas County and serves as Chairman Ex-Officio of the Dallas County Commission and is responsible for exercising certain powers and duties associated with conducting elections in Dallas County, Alabama, for the Dallas County Commission and the Dallas County Board of Education as well as for other public offices. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 9(a)2.) 3. L. Seawell Jones, William H. Kendrick, C. Stanley Baldwin and Gene Norris reside in Dallas County, Alabama and are duly elected members of the Dallas County Commission. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)3.) 4. The Defendant, Dallas County Board of Education, is the body established under the laws of the State of Alabama which is responsible for governing and administering the Dallas County public school system pursuant to the laws of the State of Alabama. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)4.) 5. The Defendants, Martin Chance, James N. Priestley, John J. Grimes, Sr., William R. Martin and Joe K. Rives are residents of Dallas County, Alabama, and are the duly elected members of the Dallas County Board of Education, with the Defendant William R. Martin, serving as Chairman and the Defendant John J. Grimes, Sr., serving as Vice-Chairman. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)5.) 6. The composition, election and qualifications of the Dallas County Board of Education are governed by the provisions of Chapter 8 of Title 16 of the 1975 Code of Alabama, as are the County Boards of Education of the 35 counties of the State of Alabama as enumerated above under 2(b) Propriety of Parties. The parties agree that this paragraph may be amended should subsequent research require amendment. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)6.) 7. The superintendents of schools for Greene County, Lowndes County, Macon County, Perry County, and Bullock County are black, and their names are as follows: SUPERINTENDENT COUNTY OF SCHOOLS Greene County Mr. Robert Brown Lowndes County Mrs. Uralee Haynes Macon County Mr. Alonzo Harvey Perry County Mr. Earnest Palmer Bullock County Mr. Conrad Newman (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)7.) 8.The County Boards of Education for the following counties in Alabama have one or more black members and the composition, election, qualification and terms of office of said County Boards of Education are governed by Chapter 8 of Title 16 of the 1975 Code of Alabama: COUNTY NUMBER OF BLACK BOARD MEMBERS Bullock County 5 Elmore County 1 Greene County 5 Lowndes County 4 Macon County 4 Perry County 4 Sumter County 2 (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)8.) 9.The Defendant, Earl Goodwin, resides in Dallas County, Alabama, and is Chairman of the Dallas County Democratic Executive Committee and as such is responsible to provide to the Probate Judge the names of all Democratic candidates nominated to county office. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)9.) 10. The Defendant, Robert Douglas, resides in Dallas County, Alabama, and is Chairman of the Dallas County Republican Executive Committee and as such is responsible to provide to the Probate Judge the names of all Republican candidates nominated to county office. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)10.) 11. The members of the Dallas County Commission are presently elected pursuant to Act 328, Section 6, Local Acts of Alabama, 1901. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)ll.) 12. Under the terms of Act No. 328, Dallas County is divided into four residency districts for the election of county commissioners: the City of Selma and the Pork (North), South and West districts. Candidates for positions as members on the Commission must reside in a residency district but each member, as well as the Chairman (Probate Judge), is elected by the qualified voters of Dallas County, at-large. The Probate Judge and the four members are elected to concurrent, four-year terms. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)12.) 13. The members of the Dallas County Board of Education are presently elected pursuant to Chapter 8 of Title 16 of the 1975 Code of Alabama and other laws of the State of Alabama generally governing elections. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a) 13.) 14. Under the terms of the Alabama Code Title 16-18-1 et seq., each member of the Dallas County Board of Education is elected by the qualified voters of Dallas County on an at-large basis, by numbered places, to six-year terms which are staggered. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)14.) 15. There are no majority vote requirements in any general elections held in the State of Alabama. The laws governing primary elections require a majority vote for nomination. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)15.) 16. Political parties have the opportunity under the laws of the State of Alabama to nominate candidates by means of caucus and convention. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a) 16.) 17. There are no anti-single shot voting provisions in the general election laws governing the election of members of the Dallas County Commission, the Dallas County Board of Education and other elective offices in Alabama. Candidates for nomination and election to the Dallas County Commission and the Dallas County Board of Education run for a single office or position. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)17.) 18. There are no anti-single shot voting provisions in the primary election for the nomination of candidates for the election of members of the Dallas County Commission, the Dallas County Board of Education, and other elective offices in Alabama. Candidates for nomination and election to the Dallas County Commission and the Dallas County Board of Education run for a single office or position. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)18.) 19. Prior to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, requirements for registering to vote in the State of Alabama included a literacy test, a poll tax, and a voucher of good character from a registered voter. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)19.), 20. Plaintiff’s Exhibit “1” accurately states and reflects the results of all primary and general elections held in Dallas County for the years since 1964. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)20.) 21. Plaintiff’s Exhibit “2” accurately states the number of persons registered to vote, by race, in Dallas County, Alabama for the dates therein specified. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)21.) 22.The total population, the total number and percentage of white persons, and the total number and percentage of black persons in Dallas County, Alabama, according to the 1970 Census, are as follows: White: 26,330 47.6% Black: 28,892 52.3% Other: _74 .1% Total Popula- 55 396 tion: (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)22.) 23.The total voting age population, the total number and percentage of white persons of voting age, and the total number and percentage of black persons of voting age in Dallas County, Alabama, according to the 1970 Census, are as follows: White: 17,611 53% Black: 15,456 47% Total Popula- gg tion: (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)23.) 24.The population for the following counties as of July 1, 1976 is substantially and approximately as shown below and by population estimates prepared by the University of Alabama for each of the aforesaid thirty-five counties whose County Boards of Education are elected and governed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 8 of Title 16 of the 1975 Code of Alabama: COUNTY WHITE POPULATION NON-WHITE POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION Baldwin 58,026 11,474 69,500 Barbour 14,701 11,399 26,100 Bibb 10,450 3,750 14.200 Bullock 4,023 7,577 11,600 Calhoun 94,658 18,942 113,600 Cherokee 16,637 1,563 18.200 Chilton 24,685 3,615 28,300 Coffee 30,128 5,572 36.700 Colbert 41.430 7,970 49,400 Covington 29,733 5,367 35,100 Dale 36.430 5,270 41.700 Dallas 28,448 27,752 56,200 Elmore 29,874 10,026 39,900 COUNTY WHITE POPULATION NON-WHITE POPULATION TOTAL POPULATION Escambia 24,766 11,134 35.900 Fayette 14,395 2,105 16,500 Franklin 25,346 1,254 26,600 Greene 2.892 7,808 10.700 Houston 54,303 15,397 69.700 Lamar 13,521 2,079 15.600 Lee 54,657 15,043 69.700 Lowndes 3,340 10,060 13.400 Macon 5,043 21,557 26.600 Marshall 58,371 1,229 59.600 Monroe 12,289 9,511 21,800 Perry 5.893 7,507 13.400 Pike 15,955 7,345 23.300 Randolph 14,849 4,051 18.900 Russell 26.242 20,358 46.600 Shelby 43,723 7,877 51.600 Saint Clair 29,965 4,335 34.300 Sumter 7,079 10,621 17.700 Talladega 47,161 20,739 67.900 Tallapoosa 97.243 27,857 125,100 Wilcox 5,667 9,333 15,000 (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)24.) 25. The election of members of the County Board of Education of the following counties are governed by local acts and are not governed by the provisions of Chapter 8, Title 16, of the 1975 Code of Alabama: Autauga, Blount, Butler, Chambers, Choctaw, Clarke, Clay, Cleburne, Conecuh, Coosa, Crenshaw, Cullman, Dekalb, Etowah, Geneva, Hale, Henry, Jackson, Jefferson, Lauderdale, Lawrence, Limestone, Madison, Marengo, Marion, Mobile, Montgomery, Morgan, Pickens, Walker, Washington, and Winston. The parties agree that this provision may be amended should subsequent research require. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)25.) 26. Plaintiff’s Exhibit “3” constitutes true and correct census maps showing enumeration districts for the City of Selma and Dallas County based on the 1970 census figures with data showing the breakdown by race for each enumeration district, and the same are stipdlated to be correct and may be used in evidence. (Pretrial Order Paragraph 4(a)26.) 27. Regarding the State policy concerning the election of members of the governing body of Dallas County, Alabama, there is a long-standing policy of election of such members by at-large election.. From 1819 through 1875, and from 1901 to the present the selection has been by at-large election, with only the period of appointment by the Governor from 1876-1900 otherwise. This Court has previously addressed the State policy covering at-large election of County Commission members as respects all of Alabama’s counties (there are presently 67). In the opinion of this Court in the Marengo County referenced hereinabove this Court stated: 34. It cannot be said that the at-large scheme is unusual in the context of election procedures in other Alabama counties, since previous cases have recognized that half of the Alabama counties have at large elections, see Hendrix v. Joseph, 559 F.2d at 1269 (5th Cir. 1977); Reese v. Dallas County, 505 F.2d 879, 882 N.2 (5th Cir. 1974), and it appears that presently 50 of the 67 counties have at-large procedures. Defendants’ post-trial brief at 44, 60-79. Indeed, the defendants’ calculations indicate that 47 Alabama counties (70.1%) have had at-large procedures for a majority of the time since 1850. Such at-large procedures are specifically permitted by statute. Ala.Code 11-3-1. So it is quite clear that Marengo County election procedures are in no way rare or unique in comparison to other Alabama counties, but rather are exemplary of the typical policy followed in most counties. The Court, however, is not convinced that such evidence indicates a state policy in favor of the Marengo County procedure, the Court rather being of the opinion that, as in Bolden, [v. City of Mobile, 423 F.Supp. 384] supra, the state policy is neutral. See, e.g. Kirksey v. City of Jackson, 461 F.Supp. 1282, 1291 (S.D.Miss. 1978) (There is lacking herein sufficient interest in at-large districting to allow a finding that there is an extant state policy in favor of at-large districting of city government). 469 F.Supp. 1150 at 1172. It is to be noted that the general state statute which applies to counties, for which no local act is in force, does provide for at-large election. Section 1 of Chapter 3 of Title 11 of the Code of Alabama of 1975. 28. The Complaint was filed in this Action On October 19, 1978; the School Board’s Motions to Dismiss were denied on March 9, 1979; the Pretrial Order was submitted on November 16, 1979; the trial was commenced on November 26, 1979; and the Plaintiff completed the presentation of its evidence on March 12, 1980, at which time the School Board Defendants filed their Motions for Involuntary Dismissal. Although this action was litigated before the decisions of the United States Supreme Court in City of Mobile, Ala. v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980), Rogers v. Lodge, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 3272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1982), it was filed and tried after the decisions in Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976), Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed.2d 450 (1977), and Nevett v. Sides, 571 F.2d 209 (5th C.C.A., 1978). At all stages of this litigation, as well as in the Pretrial Order, all parties (including Plaintiff) recognized that proof of intentional discrimination was an essential element of the Plaintiff’s claims. (See Paragraphs 4(b)23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, Pretrial Order; Answer of School Board Defendants, Paragraph 10 of Seventh Defense; Second Response of Plaintiffs’ to Motions to Dismiss served January 17, 1979, pp. 3-6 (discussing 42 U.S.C. 1971(a)(1)), pp. 7-9 (discussing 42 U.S.C. 1973), and pp. 10-12 (discussing the intent requirement as established in Nevett v. Sides, 571 F.2d 209 (5th C.C.A.) (1978)). It is apparent that the parties, as well as the Court, correctly anticipated how the intent requirement established in Washington v. Davis and Arlington Heights would be applied to this voting dilution case without the necessity for the Supreme Court’s later opinions in Bolden and Rogers. (See Lodge v. Buxton, 639 F.2d 1358 (5th C.C.A., 1981), aff’d. Rogers v. Lodge, supra.). Thus counsel for Plaintiff’s, in oral argument before the Court at the hearing held January 3, 1979, (This hearing has not been transcribed. See Second Response of Plaintiff’s to Motions to Dismiss served January 17, 1979, pp. 10, 13-14.) and in written Brief served January 17, 1979 (See Second Response of Plaintiffs’ Motions to Dismiss served January 17, 1979, pp. 10-12, wherein counsel for Plaintiff argue the intent requirement established by the Court of Appeals in Nevett v. Sides, supra.) acknowledged that a showing of intentional discrimination is required in voting dilution suits based on the 14th Amendment, but argued that the required intent could be established either by proof that the voting plan was enacted with a discriminatory motive, or by proof supporting an inference from circumstantial evidence under the Zimmer v. McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973), Nevett, and Kirksey, criteria that such plan was maintained for a discriminatory purpose in Dallas County. In the Pretrial Order, the parties recognized as a contested issue of fact whether intentional and invidious racial discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment and maintenance of the laws and procedures of the State of Alabama prescribing and governing the election of members of the Dallas County Commission and the Dallas County Board of Education. (Paragraphs 4(b)22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28 of Pretrial Order). In the presentation of its case at trial, the Plaintiff attempted to prove those criteria set forth in Zimmer, Nevett and Kirksey, offering such evidence against all Defendants. The Plaintiff also attempted to prove that intentional and invidious racial discrimination was a motivating factor in the enactment and maintenance of the laws and procedures of the State of Alabama prescribing and governing the election of members of the Dallas County Commission. However, the Plaintiff — having admitted the constitutionality of Section 16-8-1 of the 1975 Code of Alabama and the at-large electoral system thereby prescribed — made a deliberate decision and offered no evidence to establish that intentional and invidious racial discrimination was a motivating factor in either the enactment or the maintenance of that state-wide Alabama law. (See Transcript, pp. 22-24). Thus Plaintiff attempted to prove its claims against the School Board Defendants merely by arguing and attempting to show that this state-wide law had been unconstitutionally applied in Dallas County in a manner different from that by which it has been applied in other counties. (See Transcript, pp. 22-24. The Plaintiffs Response to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss served December 4, 1978, pp. 1-3; Plaintiff’s Second Response to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss served January 17, 1979, pp. 13-14). Plaintiff also attempted to prove a discriminatory purpose by inference from evidence offered under the Zimmer criteria to show that the impact or effect of this State law in Dallas County produced an unconstitutional result. (See Second Response of Plaintiff to Motions to Dismiss served January 17, 1979, pp. 10-12, wherein counsel for Plaintiff acknowledged in Brief: “The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has recently held that a showing of intentional discrimination is required in voting dilution suits based on the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Nevett v. Sides, 571 F.2d 209 (5th C.C.A., 1978). The Court recognized that intent could be established in two ways. The first approach proves that the voting plan was enacted with a discriminatory motive while the second approach infers intent from circumstantial evidence. . .”.) 29. The Plaintiff, at trial, offered evidence against all of the Defendants, including the Probate Judge and other members of the Dallas County Commission (hereinafter County) as well as the School Board Defendants. A large part of the testimony was offered against all of the Defendants— especially evidence relating to Plaintiff’s claims of past discrimination in Dallas County and the alleged denial to blacks of equal access to the political process in Dallas County. However, a substantial amount of the evidence (especially that relating to the issue of responsiveness) related only to either the County or the School Board, but not both. 30. As required by the Order and local Rules of this Court, the parties conferred prior to trial and marked and identified in the Pretrial Order all exhibits which they proposed to offer at trial (except exhibits to be used solely for the purpose of impeachment). There were substantial problems with this procedure, resulting primarily from the failure of Plaintiff’s counsel to follow the Pretrial procedures imposed by this Court. (See Transcript, pp. 6-22, 24-26, 151-160, 163-167, 1265-1309, 1497-1509, and 1536-1556) Nevertheless, during the course of the trial proceedings (and with substantial involvement by the Court) the parties were finally able to reach agreement as to most of the exhibits. Exhibits marked for identification as Government Exhibits 15, 17, 18-A, 18-B, 18-C, 19, 21, 22, 30, 39, 40, 41, 48, and 51 were withdrawn by Plaintiff, and were neither received nor considered by the Court. Government Exhibits No. 5, 5-A, 6-B-l, 6-B-2, 6-B-3, 13 — A, 13-B, 14, 16, 20, and 49 were offered and received only against the County, but not the School Board. Exhibits 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 — A—1, 6-A-2, 6-A-3, 8-A, 8-B, 9, 11, 47, 52 — A, 140,141, and 53-139 related primarily to census, highways, demographic, and election information, and these exhibits were received and considered against the School Board as well as the County. Exhibits No. 10, 23, 27, 28 and 50 consisted of cases, statutes, or other laws of which this Court may take judicial notice, but which were nonetheless marked and received in evidence. Exhibits. 10, 11, 12, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 50 consisted of a mass of historical documents, official reports, cases, laws, and constitutional proceedings (including those of which this Court may take judicial notice), all of which were offered by Plaintiff in an effort to prove past discrimination or its effect, or an alleged denial to blacks of equal access to the political process, or an alleged lack of responsiveness on the part of the School Board. Exhibits 7 and 32 were marked for identification, but were not received in evidence by the Court. The Court has carefully weighed, considered, and evaluated each and all of those exhibits which have been admitted in evidence against the Defendants, and has considered their probative value, weight, and significance in making and rendering these Findings of Fact. 31.The Plaintiff called a number of witnesses in the presentation of its case against the Defendants. The testimony of a number of these witnesses related primarily to the Zimmer issues (as more fully set forth in the Pretrial Order) of whether blacks have equal access to the political process in Dallas County, and whether past discrimination has any present effect in discouraging participation by blacks in the political process in Dallas County. Such testimony was, of course, directed against all Defendants. On those issues the Court considered the testimony of Mr. Harold J. Avinger, Rev. F. D. Reese, Mrs. Marie Foster, Rev. Fairro Brown, Mr. Samson Crum, Mr. Edwin L. Moss, Mr. Gerald 0. Harvin, Mr. J. C. Davis, Sr., Mr. Cleophus Hobbs, Mrs. Ethel Lena Dixon, Mrs. Esther Snyder, Rev. Seaborn Powell, Mr. J. L. Chestnut, Jr., Mr. Percy Harrell, Mr. Joseph Pettway, Mr. Joseph Sappey, Mrs. Joyce McBride, Dr. Charles Cottrell (including his deposition admitted in evidence). Many of the foregoing witnesses also testified at considerable length with respect to Plaintiff’s claims that the Court was unresponsive to the needs of blacks. Much of this testimony related to the location and condition of county roads within the Dallas County road system, and none of this testimony was directed against the School Board defendants. 32.At the conclusion of Plaintiff’s case, the Court took under advisement the Motions for Involuntary Judgment filed by the defendants and directed the County to proceed with the presentation of its testimony. (See Transcript, p. 1715) The County then called as an expert witness Dr. James E. Voyles, who testified at length with respect to those issues which had been covered by Dr. Cottrell. (Transcript, pp. 1716-1911) The County also called as witnesses Mr. B. A. Riddle, Mr. Ray Bass, Mr. Terry Benton, Mrs. Pauline Bryant, Mrs. Catherine Revel, Dr. Clyde R. Walker, Mr. Richard Ray, Mr. Cassidy Bender, Dr. Sam Waldrop, Mr. Julian Lilienthal, Mr. Larry Lewis, Mr. Andrew Calhoun, Mr. Ralph Harris, Mr. John Cecil Campbell, Mr. W. H. Kendrick, Mr. Gene Norris, Mr. Malloy Chandler, Mr. C. Stanley Baldwin, Mr. Bernard A. Reynolds, Judge John W. Jones, Jr., Mr. L. Seawell Jones, Mr. Warren A. Rhoades and Mrs. Ruth Horne. The Plaintiff then called as expert witnesses Dr. Peyton McCrary, Dr. J. Morgan Kousser, and the County called as expert witnesses Dr. Allen W. Jones and Dr. William H. Stewart, Jr. None of the testimony offered by the County related to the issue of whether the School Board was responsive to the needs of blacks (as those issues were framed in the Pretrial Order), except for testimony by Mr. Andrew Calhoun (a former County Commissioner) that he had done work on schools and school facilities in Dallas County (See Transcript, pp. 2276-2281) and the testimony of Mr. B. A. Riddle concerning qualifications of black applicants for secretarial jobs. 33.Dallas County, Alabama, is located in central Alabama. It is bordered by Wilcox County to the south, Marengo County to the west, Perry and Chilton Counties to the north and west, Autauga County to the north and east, and Lowndes County to the east. Much of its population has remained fairly stable. For example, in 1970 there were 55,296 residents, of whom 26,330 (47.6%) were white and 28,892 (52.3%) were black. (See Paragraph 4(a)22, Pretrial Order) On July 1, 1976, there were 56,200 residents, of whom 28,488 (50.62%) were white and 27,752 (49.38%) were black. (See Paragraph 4(a)24, Pretrial Order) Although the population remains substantially the same, there was a proportional increase in the white population by approximately 3%, with a corresponding proportionate decline in the black population. (See Paragraph 4(a)22 and 24, Pretrial Order) Furthermore, the white voting age population is proportionately higher than the total white population. (See Paragraph 4(a)23, Pretrial Order) For example, in 1970 whites comprised 53% of the voting age population and only 47.6% of the total population, while black comprised 47% of the voting age population and 52.3% of the total age population in 1976, the 1970 census figures (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 3 and Paragraphs 4(a)22 and 23, Pretrial Order) and other evidence all indicate that in July, 1976 whites comprised approximately 56% of the voting age population and 50.6% of the total population, while blacks comprised approximately 44% of the voting age population and approximately 49.4% of the total population. These figures are significant, when considered along with the figures showing voter registration by races. The following is a summary, by years, of the number and percentages of black and white registered voters in Dallas County: (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2) SUMMARY OF REGISTERED VOTERS YEAR WHITE VOTERS NO. % BLACK VOTERS TOTALS NO. % 1961 9,195 98.3 153 1.7 9,351 1962 8,597 97.3 242 2.7 8,839 1963 9,162 96.8 298 3.2 9,460 1964 9,542 96.6 335 3.4 9,877 1966 12,319 53.9 10,557 46.1 22,876 1968 13,301 55.4 10,717 44.6 24,018 1969 13,582 56.2 10,576 43.8 24,158 1970 15,071 56.7 11,480 43.3 25,497 1972 16,134 57.3 12,020 42.7 28,154 1974 16,158 55.9 12,761 44.1 28,919 1976 16,683 56.2 13,009 43.8 29,692 1977 16,774 56.2 13,059 43.8 29,833 1978 17,525 55.7 13,937 44.3 31,462 As can be seen from the above figures, both in 1970 and in 1976 the percentages of white and black registered voters were substantially the same as the percentages of white and black citizens of voting age. Thus in 1976 whites comprised approximately 56% of persons of voting age and 56.2% of registered voters, while blacks comprised approximately 44% of persons of voting age and 43.8% of registered voters. In 1970 whites comprised approximately 53% of the voting age population and 56.7% of the registered voters, while blacks comprised 47% of the voting age population and 43.3% of the registered voters. These figures are significant in determining whether there is now any lingering effect of past discrimination against blacks. Certainly, at least with respect to voter registration, there is no such present effect. The Court finds that the percentages of blacks and whites of voting agé who have registered to vote is now substantially equal, and that past discrimination has no effect on black voter registration. 34. The early history of Alabama, and Dallas County in particular, has demonstrated discrimination against blacks in all fields. This discrimination has been intentional, subtle, and pervasive, and has been achieved through legal means resulting from economic considerations. (See Plaintiff’s Exhibits 11, 12, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 33, 44, 45 and 50. Also see this Court’s opinion in Clark v. Marengo County, 469 F.Supp. 1150, at 1172-1173, D.C.S.D.Ala. 1979) The practical effect of the 1901 Constitution was to put a legal gloss on the disenfranchisement of black voters. Indeed, the 1901 Constitutional Convention was called for that purpose, among others. Having been effectively disenfranchised before 1901, blacks were generally unable to participate meaningfully in political affairs in Alabama until passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Before then, many legal devices were employed to prevent or hinder blacks from voting, including such requirements for registration as a literacy test, a poll tax, and a voucher of good character from a registered voter. (See Paragraph 4(a)19, Pretrial Order) At least until 1954, there was what has grown to be known as de jure segregation in Alabama. Before 1965 there were few gains made by blacks — and those few were achieved primarily through litigation in the Federal courts. Literacy tests, which had served as a tool to discriminate against black voting applicants, were invalidated in 1949. Davis v. Schnell, 81 F.Supp. 872 (S.D.Ala.1949). Racial gerrymandering of districts for elections was outlawed on two separate occasions. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 81 S.Ct. 125, 5 L.Ed.2d 110 (1960); Sims v. Baggett, 247 F.Supp. 96 (M.D.Ala.1965). There have been many other cases, unrelated to voting rights, in which Alabama blacks have sought recourse in the Federal courts to protect their constitutional rights in areas such as employment, housing discrimination and criminal proceedings. See Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649, 64 S.Ct. 757, 88 L.Ed. 987 (1944); Wilkins v. United States, 376 F.2d 552 (5th C.C.A., 1967); Thomas v. United States, 376 F.2d 564 (5th C.C.A., 1967); Sims v. Amos, 336 F.Supp. 924 (M.D.Ala., 1972); Harper v. Vance, 342 F.Supp. 136 (N.D.Ala., 1972); Strain v. Philpott, 331 F.Supp. 836 (M.D.Ala., 1971); United States v. Alabama, 252 F.Supp. 95 (M.D.Ala., 1966); Williams v. Wallace, 240 F.Supp. 100 (M.D.Ala., 1965); and United States v. Alabama, 192 F.Supp. 677 (M.D.Ala., 1961). There were also a number of cases involving Dallas County, in which blacks were required to seek recourse in federal courts to protect their voting rights and other constitutional rights. See U. S. v. Atkins, 323 F.2d 733 (5th C.C.A., 1963); U. S. v. Clark, 249 F.Supp. 720 (S.D.Ala., 1965); Clark v. Boynton, 362 F.2d 992 (5th C.C.A., 1966); U. S. v. Executive Comm. of Dem. Party of Dallas County, Ala., 254 F.Supp. 537 (S.D.Ala., 1966); U. S. v. McLeod, 385 F.2d 734 (5th C.C.A., 1967). The impact of these state laws is best evidenced by the above voter registration statistics, which reflect that in 1964 there were only 335 black registered voters in Dallas County, representing only 3.4% of the total registered voters at that time. (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2) 35. Since 1965, there have been substantial changes in Dallas County as well as throughout the State of Alabama. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 brought sweeping changes to Alabama and Dallas County, and removed many of the legal impediments which had previously prevented or hindered blacks from exercising their voting rights. (See, e.g. Plaintiff’s Exhibits 12 and 45) In 1966 the prior state requirements of a literacy test, a poll tax and a voucher of good character from a registered voter were all eliminated as a condition to registration. Federal voting registrars were appointed and used in many Alabama counties, including Dallas County, and these federal registrars registered substantial numbers of black voters. (See Plaintiff’s Exhibits 11, 12, and 45) For example, a 1969 report by the Justice Department reflected that in Alabama federal registrars had registered a total of 66,539 voters, of whom 61,239 (92%) were black and 5,300 (8%) were white. In Dallas County most of these newly enfranchised black citizens were registered before 1966, with the result that by 1966 the number of registered black voters in Dallas County had increased to 10,557 (from only 335 in 1964), comprising at that time approximately 46.1% of the total number of registered voters in Dallas County. (See Plaintiff’s Exhibit 2) 36. Plaintiff offered a substantial amount of evidence relating to the activities of the Dallas County Board of Registrars. The thrust of Plaintiff’s evidence was that the Board of Registrars meets only at times inconvenient to black and white citizens who wish to register, and that some blacks have been discouraged from registration because the board meets at the Dallas County Court House. (See, e.g., testimony of Rev. F. D. Reese, Transcript, pp. 119-290; testimony of Edwin L. Moss, Transcript, pp. 681-758 at 739; testimony of J. L. Chestnut, Jr., Transcript, pp. 1046-1181; Mrs. Marie Foster, Transcript, pp. 290-430; Mrs. Ethelena Dixon, Transcript, pp. 911 — 930; and Mr. Samson Crum, Transcript, pp. 468-680). Plaintiff also challenged the recent decision of the Board of Registrars not to appoint deputy registrars to assist in registering voters. Since 1978 the Board of Registrars has been empowered to appoint deputy registrars, but has not done so. See Section 17-4-158, 1975 Code of Alabama. This evidence was offered by Plaintiff in support of its contention that blacks lack equal access to the election system in Dallas County. Plaintiff’s evidence relating to the Board of Registrars clearly fails to establish any lack of access by blacks to the registration and election process, and the evidence preponderates against Plaintiff on that issue. The courthouse is the seat of county government, and is therefore a proper and appropriate place for the Board of Registrars to conduct its activities. The evidence clearly shows that the Board has met frequently, and has been accessible to all citizens (both black and white) who desire to register. (See, e.g., testimony of Mrs. Marie Poster, Transcript, pp. 290-430; Edwin L. Moss, Transcript, pp. 681-758; and Rev. P. D. Reese, Transcript, pp. 119-20 at 217) On the basis of the evidence offered, this Court is unable to find any fault with the Board’s decision as to appropriate office hours. The Board will never be able to please all citizens with its office hours, but the Court finds that there has been no evidence of discrimination or discriminatory purpose in setting office hours. The office hours certainly have not been unreasonable, and any resulting inconvenience has affected black and white citizens in equal measure. Furthermore, prior to April 27, 1978, the Board was required by state law to visit each precinct at least once (and more often if necessary) between October 1, and December 31 every other year; to remain in each such precinct at least a half day; and to give at least twenty days notice of the time and place, in each precinct, where voter registration could be accomplished. Section 17-4-1, 1975 Code of Alabama. That law was repealed effective April 27, 1978, and was superseded by another law permitting the Board to meet a maximum of 120 session days each year, with the actual number to be determined by a quorum of the Board according to the needs of the County. Section 17-4-156, 1975 Code of Alabama. (Transcript, p. 3198) That 1978 law specifically required at least one member of the Board to be in attendance at the Dallas County Courthouse on any day on which the full Board does not meet and the Court House is open for business, excepting Saturday, to receive applications, administer oaths, and perform clerical duties of the Board. Section 17 — 4—156(a). The Board was further authorized to use as many as 25 session days for special registration sessions away from the Courthouse and out in the several precincts of the County, with provision for proper notice. Section 17 — 4-156(f). There has been no evidence that the Board has failed to follow any of these statutory requirements and procedures, either before or after 1978. (See, testimony of Rev. P. D. Reese, Transcript, pp. 119-290; testimony of Edwin L. Moss, Transcript, pp. 681-758; testimony of J. L. Chestnut, Jr., Transcript, pp. 1046-1181; Mrs. Marie Poster, Transcript, pp. 290 — 430; Mrs. Ethelena Dixon, Transcript, pp. 911-930; and Mr. Samson Crum, Transcript, pp. 468-680; Transcript, pp. 3201-3204, 3208-3209, 3210-3212) Instead, Plaintiff’s evidence showed only that the Board has been authorized since April 27, 1978, to appoint deputy registrars (Section 17-4-158), and that it has not done so despite the requests and wishes of a number of black leaders. The appointment of deputy registrars is clearly discretionary with the Board of Registrars, and Plaintiff offered no evidence as to the Board’s reasons for declining to do so. Neither was there any evidence showing an actual need for deputy registrars, although certainly there is a perceived need for such appointments by leaders of the black community. Notwithstanding such perceived need, the Court finds that the Board of Registrars has provided all black citizens with equal access to voter registration procedures; (Transcript, pp. 119-290, 681-758, 1046-1181, 290-430, 911-930, 468-680, 3201-3203, 3208-3219) that there is no disparity between whites and blacks with respect to access to the registration process (Id., 3241-3242) that the percentage of black voters is substantially the same as the percentage of black citizens of voting age (See Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2 and 3, and Paragraphs 4(a)22, 23 and 24 of Pretrial Order); and that registration procedures have been applied by the Board fairly, equally and without discrimination or discriminatory purpose against blacks (Transcript, pp. 3190-3219, 217). Indeed the record reflects that the Dallas County Commission granted all requests by the Board of Registrars for additional days (Transcript, pp. 2860, 3198-3199). The Court therefore finds and concludes that the voter registration procedures followed in Dallas County do not discriminate against blacks nor constitute a denial to blacks of equal access to the voting rolls or the election system in Dallas County. 37. RESPONSIVENESS 37a. ROADS A major responsibility of the governing body of Dallas County relates to roads and highways. This fact is recognized by some of the Plaintiff’s witnesses (Transcript, pp. 703, 765, 1323, 474 and 476). Former County Engineer B. A. Riddle testified that about half of the County budget went to the Roads Department (Transcript, p. 1917), and that in later years the County Commission made substantial appropriations out of general revenue sharing funds (Transcript, p. 1918); that the County Commission appropriated adequate funds to the Road Department to maintain safe roads and enable construction programs (Transcript, pp. 1948, 2089 and 2091); that the Dallas County Commission was active in seeking federal and state highway funding (Transcript, pp. 1919-1925, 1958, 1963 and 1970-1971), this latter was confirmed by the testimony of his successor, (Transcript, p. 2084). From his testimony and that of his successor’s, it is obvious that Dallas County maintained an extensive Road Engineering Department (Transcript, pp. 1925-1926, 1929-1930, 2081). Dallas County has about 1000 miles of roads it maintains, with about 285 of same being paved and about 715 being unpaved (Transcript, p. 2104). The total road mileage is higher than that of more populated Montgomery County (Transcript, p. 1113). Witness Riddle testified that, with extensive knowledge of the road systems in Alabama (Transcript, p. 1916) the Dallas County road system would rank in the top six of the sixty-seven counties in Alabama (Transcript, pp. 1925, 1933 and 1940); that when he took over as County Engineer in 1972 the county had a good overall network of roads with a policy of expanding the overall number of paved roads each year (Transcript, pp. 1934, 1953-1954); with a very adequate system of paved roads (Transcript, pp. 1936-1939) designed to compliment the state paved road system in the County (Transcript, p. 1937). He further testified that the County maintained its paved roads to State Highway specification (Transcript, p. 1939); that the gravel connecting roads (non-one-way) were in very good condition (Transcript, pp. 1940-1941, and 2048-2049). His testimony reveals that roads in the Dallas County system face the typical problems of use (Transcript, pp. 1941-1942, see also 2096-2097 and 2406-2407), flooding and high water (Transcript, pp. 1942-1944 and 2097-2098), freezing and thawing (Transcript, p. 1944), and rain (Transcript, p. 1945). Testimony of some of the Plaintiff’s witnesses reveals an awareness of the problems of weather and the elements on gravel roads (Transcript, pp. 1032-1033 and 509). Mr. Riddle’s successor as County Engineer, Mr. Ray D. Bass, was a former Director of the Alabama State Highway Department, which is a cabinet level position in Alabama (Transcript, pp. 2079-2080), who had also served as a County Engineer for a total of ten years in Lowndes and Montgomery counties in Alabama from 1960-1970 (Transcript, p. 2079). Mr. Bass testified that he had extensive knowledge as to the conditions of county road systems across the State of Alabama (Transcript, pp. 2082, 2084, see 2103 re: Dallas County). His testimony confirms that of B. A. Riddle as to the condition of the Dallas County road system, and he testified that the Dallas County roads are above-average as compared to other counties, with the unpaved roads being in much better shape than other counties (Transcript, p. 2083). He cited lack of funding regarding what resurfacing need there exists regarding the paved roads (Transcript, p. 2082). Mr. Riddle’s testimony further reveals that annual inspections by the Alabama State Highway Department gave Dallas County roads better than average grades (Transcript, pp. 1948, see also 2084 — 2085 and 2919-2920); that presently road fund revenues are declining in Alabama (Transcript, p. 1949) and the cost of road construction is substantially increasing (Transcript, pp. 1949-1951). While much testimony relating to roads is perhaps necessarily related to the more recent past because of the fading human memories and the availability of witnesses, the County Commission has presented testimony of a long-time county road department employee that back in the 1930s the County was conducting general road work in areas where both black and white people lived (Transcript, pp. 2399-2403). His testimony reveals that the County has not been discriminatory against black residents concerning road maintenance work (Transcript, pp. 2417-2471). Another major road-related factor in Dallas County is bridges. County Engineer Ray Bass testified that Dallas County had around 180 bridges with about 60% being in some respect deficient (Transcript, pp. 2094-2095), with availability of funds hampering implementation (Transcript, p. 2095). His testimony reveals that the criteria for bridge work is based on engineering and structural sufficiency (Transcript, p. 2095). The testimony reflects some effort on the County’s part to work on the bridge problem (Transcript, pp. 2093-2094, 3021-3023). From the testimony the Court does not find any discrimination against black residents and citizens regarding the county’s bridge policies and work. The testimony of County Engineer Ray Bass also dealt with the recent county construction projects (Transcript, pp. 2092-2094). From various witnesses’ testimony about these projects the Court finds that these recent projects have not been lacking in effect on black residents and road users nor have they exhibited any discrimination toward black residents or citizens in provisions of road services. Some of the testimony concerning roads dealt with subdivision situations. Dallas County has a subdivision policy, under which a developer is supposed to bear the expense and work of basing and constructing the roads in the subdivision up to county standards (Transcript, pp. 1982-1987 and 1999-2001). The county has on a number of occasions gone in and done road maintenance work on subdivision roads when the developer did not comply with the county’s subdivision policy (Transcript, pp. 1985-1986). From the examples of these digressions from policy in the record, it appears that black residential areas have not been discriminated against (Transcript, pp. 2010-2012, 2056-2059, 1999, 2602, 2610-2612). The Plaintiff introduced testimony concerning the streets in several black residential areas in the unincorporated community of Selmont just south of the Alabama River from the City of Selma. In the case of Selmont Improvement Association v. Dallas County Commission, reported at 339 F.Supp. 477 (S.D.Ala.1972) the court has reviewed the court file in that case and finds no action indicating any failure on the part of the defendants county commission to follow the orders of the Court (Transcript, pp. 2245, 519-522); in fact, the Court finds that under stipulation of counsel in that case the same is due to be dismissed. The residential areas involved in the Selmont street suit were another example of subdivision problems, i.e. development without proper road construction and in this case right-of-way (Transcript, pp. 1972-1976, at 1975). The thrust of the Plaintiff’s testimony was that the county had not lived up to its obligations under the decree (Transcript, pp. 519-523); yet the government’s witnesses testimony and the County Engineer’s testimony (Transcript, pp. 1972-1976) refute the Plaintiff’s allegation and the same is not supported in the Court file in that case. The testimony reveals that the County Commission has done roadwork for the predominantly black public school system of the County (Transcript, pp. 2460-2461, 2465-2466, 2249, 2276-2281); further that the County Commission made large appropriations to the City of Selma to enable paving of gravel streets in predominantly black neighborhoods in the eastern part of the City (Transcript, pp. 2903-2913) and maintains several farm to market roads which are paved streets in Selma (Transcript, pp. 2908-2912). The present members of the County Commission all testified for the Defense. Three of the four Commission members have charge of a road maintenance crew. From the testimony of each of these commissioners it is clear that these maintenance crews do perform routine work on the county gravel roads (Transcript, pp. 2512-2513, 2549, 2590-2591, 2639-2940 and 2944-2945), and this testimony is supported by that of the two road crew foremen who testified (Transcript, pp. 2346-2347, 2404-2406). Their testimony reveals that, generally, the minor requests for roadwork are filled (Transcript, pp. 2638-2639, 2589, 2512). While the Plaintiff attempted to show that black citizens tend to live on unpaved and fringe roads and tend to live in predominantly black areas, the Court finds that while there are black neighborhoods, generally blacks live scattered across most of the Count