Full opinion text
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before COX, Circuit Judge, HAND, Senior District Judge, and ALBRITTON, District Judge. BY THE COURT. INTRODUCTION On September 23, 1991, Plaintiff Paul Charles Wesch brought this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Governor of Alabama, as well as other state officials, contending, inter alia, that the present State law defining congressional districts in the State of Alabama violates Art. I, § 2 of the Constitution. Based on 1990 census data, Wesch specifically alleges that if the 1992 congressional elections were to be held under the present district-ing plan, it would violate his right to the constitutionally mandated “one-person, one-vote” scheme of representation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), this three-judge court was convened. On December 9, 1991, Michael Figures and others, who assert a claim under the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 et seq., were granted leave to intervene. A two day trial was held. Having considered the evidence and the post-trial submissions of the parties, the court enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of law. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Plaintiff Paul Charles Wesch is a citizen of the United States and is a resident and registered voter in the First Congressional District of Alabama as presently configured. 2. The Intervenor-Plaintiffs, Michael Figures and others, are African-American citizens of the United States and the State of Alabama. They have been allowed to intervene in this litigation both on their own behalf and on behalf of all African-American citizens of the State of Alabama. 3. It was agreed by all parties, including the Plaintiff-Intervenors, that the complaint of intervention would proceed on an allegation that § 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been violated, insofar as the class represented by the intervenors had been denied meaningful access to the voting process that would allow them to elect candidates of their choice. 4. The court notes that the original complaint was filed in September, a fact known to the Plaintiff-Intervenors who chose not to intervene until December 4, 1991. Therefore, the Plaintiff-Intervenors were permitted to intervene only after they agreed to comply with all procedures and deadlines in place. 5. The Defendant Guy Hunt is the Governor of Alabama. The Defendant Billy Joe Camp is the Secretary of State of Alabama. The Defendants Lionel W. Noonan, Harry D’Olive, Devon Wiggins, Otha Lee Biggs, Jerry Bogan, Clarence Watters, and Tom W. Turner are the Probate Judges of the seven counties which presently comprise the First Congressional District of Alabama. All Defendants are sued both in their individual and official capacities. All Defendants have significant duties in the administration of congressional elections in Alabama. 6. This court advised the parties of its intent to employ Professor Harold W. Stanley as the court’s expert to assist in considering any and all plans for redistricting that might be submitted, and to advise the court on the statistical issues in regard to any possible redistricting. The court extended to the parties the opportunity to state if there were any objections to the court’s selection of this expert. No objections were filed. After the trial, the parties were also given the opportunity to object to the statistical information relied on by Professor Stanley, the same information underlying this order. No objections were filed. 7. In 1981, the Alabama Legislature enacted the current version of Ala. Code § 17-20-1 (1987), which divided the state into seven congressional districts. During 1990, the Bureau of the Census of the United States Department of Commerce conducted a census of the United States, including the State of Alabama, pursuant to constitutional authority. On January 16, 1991, the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives notified Governor Hunt that Alabama would retain seven seats in the House of Representatives following the 1990 census. (Statement of Agreed Facts and Exhibit A thereto.) 8. According to the 1990 census, Alabama’s total population is 4,040,587 persons. In order to achieve exact population equality among each of Alabama’s seven congressional districts, the ideal population of each district would be 577,227 persons. (Statement of Agreed Facts and Exhibit B thereto.) 9. Alabama’s most populous congressional district is District 5, which has 603,-726 persons. Accordingly, District 5 varies from the “ideal” population by 26,499 persons, or 4.59%. Alabama’s least populous congressional district is District 6, which has 532,748 persons. Accordingly, District 6 varies from the “ideal” population by 44,479 persons, or 7.71%. The difference between the populations of the most populous and least populous districts is 70,978 persons, which constitutes a relative overall variance from the ideal population of 12.3%. (Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit B.) 10. African-Americans do not constitute a majority in any of Alabama’s existing congressional districts. (Statement of Agreed Facts, Exhibit C.) However, according to the 1990 census data, the African-American population in Alabama is sufficiently compact and contiguous to permit the creation of a congressional district in which 65% or more of the residents are African-Americans. The parties agree that such a district should be created. (Supplemental Stipulation filed January 3, 1992.) 11. On February 8, 1991, the Alabama Legislature received the 1990 census data on magnetic tape from the Bureau of Census, and this information was loaded, as received, into the computer system maintained by the Alabama Legislature’s Permanent Joint Legislative Committee on Reapportionment (“Reapportionment Committee”). The population data in the Reapportionment Committee’s computer data base is the official 1990 census data compiled and released by the Bureau of the Census and is accurate and reliable information for redistricting purposes. (Statement of Agreed Facts.) On July 15, 1991, the Secretary of Commerce advised that there would be no adjustment to the 1990 census figures as originally transmitted to the Alabama Legislature. 12. The total population of each existing congressional district is reflected in Appendix A to this opinion. The total population of each existing congressional district by race is reflected in Appendix B; the total population by race of each of Alabama’s 67 counties is reflected in Appendix C; and the voting age population by race of each of the 67 counties is reflected in Appendix D. The names, dates when first elected, and home addresses of Alabama’s incumbent congressmen are reflected in Appendix E. 13. On April 2, 1991, the Reapportionment Committee adopted a set of guidelines for redistricting. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 1; deposition of Marilyn Terry, pp. 24-25.) The Guidelines set forth a fair set of criteria for congressional redistricting. In addition to mandating compliance with population equality or the “one-person, one-vote” rule and the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, these guidelines included the following criteria: 3. All legislative and congressional districts will be composed of contiguous and reasonably compact geography. 4. Where possible, legislative and congressional districts should attempt to preserve communities of interest, including without limitation municipalities and concentrations of blacks and other ethnic minorities, where such efforts do not violate the other stated criteria. 5. Counties should be used as district building blocks where possible, and to the extent consistent with other aspects of these criteria. a. Where county lines cannot be maintained, district boundaries should follow as closely as practicable the local voting precinct boundary lines in order to minimize voter confusion and cost of election administration. b. Where voting precinct boundary lines cannot be followed and also meet the geographic guidelines as stated in this section, district lines must follow census block geography in order to maintain the integrity of the statistical analysis. 6. Efforts will be made to preserve cores of existing districts where such efforts are consistent with and do not violate the other criteria stated herein. 14. The Alabama Legislature adjourned its 1991 regular session on July 29, 1991, without enacting a congressional redistricting plan. (Statement of Agreed Facts, Paragraph 13.) It was argued that the Legislature might delay the primaries for congressional elections, allowing it time to adopt and have precleared a constitutional redistricting plan. If that were done, two primaries would have to be held, entailing added cost to the taxpayers. 15. By statute, Alabama’s congressional primaries will be held June 2, 1992. The qualifying deadline for candidates is sixty days prior to the primary, or April 3,1992. In order for a legislatively-enacted congressional redistricting plan to receive the “pre-clearance” from the Justice Department required by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, in time for the April 3 qualifying deadline, such a plan should have been submitted to the Justice Department no later than February 3, 1992. 16. Under Alabama law, the calling of special sessions of the Legislature is a discretionary call on the part of the Governor. Ala. Const. Art. V, § 122. The Governor’s answer filed on October 29, 1991, indicated that the Governor did not plan to call a special session of the Legislature for the purposes of redistricting. 17. At the time this case was filed, this court considered it highly unlikely that the legislative process could produce a congressional redistricting plan and have it pre-cleared in time for the 1992 congressional primaries to be held as scheduled. Nothing was presented to this court to indicate that the Legislature would convene for the purpose of adopting a plan of redistricting in time to be precleared for these elections. Nothing was presented to indicate that even if a special session was called for the purpose of considering redistricting, that a successful effort would follow, or that even if the Legislature was allowed to consider the matter after the regular term commenced on February 4, 1992, that a plan would be forthcoming, and if forthcoming, there would be time to have such plan precleared. The court considered this case on a fast track in light of the impending primary. All parties participating in this case were put on notice of this fact. 18. Consequently, the court finds that the only means by which Alabama’s 1992 congressional primaries may be held in a timely manner (other than under the current districting scheme which, for reasons enumerated in the Conclusions of Law, the court rejects) is pursuant to an interim redistricting plan ordered by this court. 19. The parties have submitted six proposed redistricting plans to the court for its consideration: (1) the “Reed Plan,” Plaintiff’s Exhibits 3 and 7; (2) the “Sam Pierce Zero Plan,” Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2 and 6 (hereafter the “Pierce Plan”); (3) the “Hilli-ard Plan,” Intervenors’ Exhibits 3 and 3A; (4) the “Unity Plan,” Intervenors’ Exhibits 1 and 1A; (5) the “Modified Unity Plan,” Intervenors’ Exhibits 2 and 2A; and (6) the “CD25 Plan,” Intervenors’ Exhibits 4 and 4A. 20. Of the six plans submitted, only the Reed Plan was considered in its final form by the Reapportionment Committee. The Pierce Plan, however, is a modification of a plan called the “Larry Dixon Plan” which was considered by the Reapportionment Committee. The Pierce Plan modified the Larry Dixon Plan to some extent, but the basic format is similar. The Legislature of the State of Alabama created an Interim Task Force on Reapportionment by Act # 87-356. By Act $ 90-388 that task force became the staff to the Permanent Committee on Reapportionment of the Alabama Legislature. The task force scheduled a series of public hearings in regard to redistricting matters, and under the instructions given to the Reapportionment Committee, as set forth in the Guidelines for Legislative and Congressional Redistricting, the Reapportionment Committee meetings and public hearings were open to the public and all plans presented to the Reapportionment Committee were to be made available to the public for its input. These public meetings were held in accordance with the schedule outlined in the appendix to the motion to dissolve filed by Evans (Tab $ 14). Among those plans considered by the Reapportionment Committee, and one that apparently was to be presented to the Legislature, was the Larry Dixon Plan. The Reapportionment Committee conducting the hearings was made up both African-Americans and Whites. Public input to the Reapportionment Committee in regard to the respective plans was from both African-Americans and Whites. 21. Neither The Pierce Plan nor the Larry Dixon Plan was adopted by the Alabama Legislature. 22. We take judicial notice of the fact that the Legislature has since adopted a plan which substantially differs from any plan that was submitted to this court. We also note the fact that the adopted Plan has neither been precleared by the Justice Department nor approved by the District Court for the District of Columbia. 23. Only two of the plans submitted— the Pierce Plan and the Reed Plan — achieve population equality among the districts. Under the Pierce Plan two districts contain one person less than the ideal district population of 577,227. Under the Reed Plan, one district has two fewer voters than the ideal. The Hilliard Plan has a total deviation of .71% and an average deviation of .63%. The Modified Unity Plan shows a deviation of 1.6% with an average of .52%. The Unity Plan exhibits a total deviation of 1.15% and an average of .27%. Finally, the CD25 Plan has a deviation of .02%. Deviations in all these plans are not justified by any particular goal or interest. 24. Both the Pierce and Reed Plans contain a district with more than 65% African-American population. Under the Pierce Plan, District 7 contains an African-American population comprising 67.69% of the total residents of that District and 63.58% of that District’s voting age residents. These percentages slightly exceed those in the majority African-American district (District 4) created by the Reed Plan: 66.-69% total population and 62.93% voting age population. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2 and 3; TR 15-16.) More significantly, as of December 1990, the African-American percentage of registered voters in the Pierce Plan’s District 7 was 55.55%, which is 3% greater than the African-American percentage of registered voters in the Reed Plan’s District 4. 25. Both the Reed Plan and the Pierce Plan provide African-Americans in Alabama with a substantial majority so as to permit them an opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. The district in the Pierce Plan is slightly more weighted because it includes higher percentages of African-Americans in total population, voting age population and registered voter population. 26. The Hilliard Plan includes two majority African-American districts, with an African-American population of 59.33% and 61.98% respectively. Although this plan was submitted by the intervenors, they took the position that the Hilliard Plan probably provided obstacles of sufficient nature to cast doubt on their opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in these districts. 27.There are significant differences between the Pierce Plan and the Reed Plan in terms of compactness of their districts. District 1 of the Pierce Plan includes six closely contiguous counties in southwest Alabama, whereas District 1 under the Reed Plan includes Mobile County to the south and Tuscaloosa County to the north. District 2 under the Pierce Plan is largely composed of counties in the southeast corner of the state, while the Reed Plan’s District 2 stretches from Mobile County, in the extreme southwest corner of the State, to Lee County, in east central Alabama. The Pierce Plan is superior to the Reed Plan in terms of compactness. 28. The Pierce Plan maintains the integrity of individual voting precincts to a far greater degree than does the Reed Plan. The Pierce Plan splits only 10 voting precincts statewide, whereas the Reed Plan splits at least 57. (Plaintiff’s Exhibits 2 and 3.) A redistricting plan should minimize precinct splitting when possible because of administrative problems encountered in the conduct of elections when precincts are split. Furthermore, it is possible to construct a majority African-American district in Alabama using precincts as building blocks. 29. The Pierce Plan splits seven counties. The Reed Plan splits eight counties. The Hilliard Plan splits thirty-one counties. 30. The Pierce Plan also maintains the cores of existing districts to a much greater extent than the Reed Plan. Again, the most striking differences between the plans in this regard are apparent in Districts 1 and 2. There are also significant differences in District 3. The following table reflects the percentage of residents of existing Districts 1, 2, and 3 who remain in those districts under the Pierce and Reed Plans: District Pierce Reed 1 97.2 64.3 2 86.7 57.0 3 85.2 75.0 31. As a consequence of its apparent disregard for maintaining the cores of existing Districts 1 and 2, the Reed Plan would also separate the incumbent congressmen in those districts from a large percentage of their current constituents. Under the Reed Plan, Congressman Callahan, the incumbent in the present District 1, would be placed in District 2. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 20.) District 2 under the Reed Plan contains only 25.6% of Congressman Callahan’s existing constituents. Likewise, the Reed Plan would place Congressman Dickinson, the present incumbent in District 2, in District 3 against District 3’s incumbent, Congressman Brow-der. (Plaintiff’s Exhibit 20.) 75.0% of the current residents of District 3 — Congressman Browder’s present constituents — are included in the Reed Plan’s District 3. However, only 19.0% of Congressman Dickinson’s present constituents are included in that District. 32. Another consequence of the Reed Plan’s distortion of Districts 1 and 2 is that the Pierce Plan better preserves the communities of interests in those two districts. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 33. The court has jurisdiction pursuant to the authority contained in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331,1343, 2284 and 42 U.S.C. § 1971 et seq. 34. Congressional redistricting is primarily and foremost a state legislative responsibility. It is therefore with great reluctance that we order an interim plan to become effective for the upcoming 1992 elections. It is out of deference to the Legislature that we have delayed our ruling until this time. In fact, we have afforded it every opportunity to fashion its own plan in order that it could fulfil its responsibility under the Constitution. 35. Unfortunately, the Legislature has not yet precleared its adopted plan so that it can be in place for the impending elections, and we are bound by the Constitution not to permit these elections under the present districts. 36. First and foremost, any court ordered redistricting plan must achieve precise population equality among its districts. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1, 84 S.Ct. 526, 11 L.Ed.2d 481 (1964); Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U.S. 526, 89 S.Ct. 1225, 22 L.Ed.2d 519 (1969). This is to ensure that “as nearly as is practicable one man’s vote in a congressional election will be worth as much as another’s.” Wesberry, 376 U.S. at 7-8, 84 S.Ct. at 530. Put another way, Art. I, § 2 prohibits any population deviations among districts in a congressional redistricting plan without proper justification. Kirkpatrick, 394 U.S. at 531, 89 S.Ct. at 1229. 37. Among the plans submitted, only two meet this rigorous standard—the Pierce Plan and the Reed Plan. All the other plans which were submitted have unacceptable deviations. Further, none of the proponents of these plans provide an adequate justification for the deviation and we have “no authority to depart from the constitutional mandate of perfect equality in order to achieve some non-constitutional policy” that we believe will serve the public good. Connor, 431 U.S. at 417, 97 S.Ct. at 1835. 38. If it is possible under constitutional restrictions, a court should consider expressed state policies and preferences. The Reapportionment Committee established guidelines by which to measure a proposed apportionment plan. These guidelines reflect constitutional considerations established by case and statutory law. Any redistricting plan should take into consideration: compactness/contiguity; preservation of political subdivisions; maintenance of communities of interest; and preservation of the core areas of existing districts. 39. Compactness addresses the geographic shape of districts. The most compact district is the district that is configured in the smallest possible area. See Karcher, 462 U.S. at 756-57, 103 S.Ct. at 2673-74. Preservation of political subdivisions promotes efficient representation, empowers a constituency’s ability to organize productively, and serves as a deterrent to partisan gerrymandering. Burton v. Hobbie, 561 F.Supp. 1029, 1035 (M.D.Ala.1983); Ely v. Klahr, 403 U.S. 108, 91 S.Ct. 1803, 29 L.Ed.2d 352 (1971). Protecting communities of interest is meant to keep intact “distinctive units which share common concerns with respect to one or more identifiable features such as geography, demography, ethnicity, culture, socio-eco-nomic status or trade.” Carstens v. Lamm, 543 F.Supp. 68 (D.C.Colo.1982). Preserving cores of existing congressional districts prevents needless modifications and avoids pitting two incumbent congressmen against one another. Karcher, 462 U.S. at 740, 103 S.Ct. at 2663. Based on the findings made above, we conclude that the Pierce Plan better satisfies the above criteria than does the Reed Plan, or any of the other plans. 40. With regard to the majority African-American district, the parties entered into the following stipulation: According to 1990 data compiled and released by the United States Bureau of the Census, the African American population in the State of Alabama is sufficiently compact and contiguous to comprise a single member significant majority (65% or more) African American Congressional district. Consequently, all parties agree that a significant majority African American Congressional district should be created. (Supplemental Stipulation dated January 3, 1992.) This stipulation avoided the necessity of the court considering prolonged testimony regarding whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires the creation of such a district under the circumstances present in this case. This court will honor the stipulation, and accordingly, will not make an independent determination of whether § 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires the creation of a majority African-American congressional district in Alabama at this time. The court has found that the Pierce Plan creates a majority African-American district that provides African-Americans a reasonable opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice, and does so without the need for extensive gerrymandering. The court deems it inappropriate to make a judicial determination relative to what § 2 requires under the circumstances present in this case in light of the stipulation; the parties do not contest the matter and therefore it would be imprudent for the court to address it. This case does not require this court to decide whether the creation of a majority African-American district is mandated by either § 2 or the Constitution and as a matter of judicial restraint we do not undertake to do so. 41. Therefore, having followed the mandate in Karcher, while keeping in mind the desirability of preserving compactness, cores of all districts, communities of interest, and political subdivisions, we adopt the Pierce Plan except to the extent mentioned below. First, we have discovered no justifiable basis for the fact that the Pierce Plan places Congressman Erdreich and Congressman Harris in the same district. The Supreme Court has recognized the policy of “avoiding contests between incumbent representatives” as a legitimate objective. Karcher, 462 U.S. at 740, 103 S.Ct. at 2663. See also Burton v. Hobbie, 561 F.Supp. at 1035. Accordingly, we have modified the Pierce Plan so that the two congressmen will not be in the same district. Second, in working to achieve zero population deviation and redesign Districts 6 and 7, the affected districts were made marginally more compact in Jefferson and Tuscaloosa counties. 42. The court adopts a redistricting plan to be used in the conduct of congressional elections for the State of Alabama (to be called “The 1992 Alabama Redistricting Plan”) in the event the Alabama Legislature fails to have precleared a redistricting plan in time for the conduct of those elections without delay under applicable state and federal laws. The plan is verbally described in Appendix A to Professor Stanley’s report dated January 22, 1992. (See Order, Doc. #97). Appendix B to that report is a map depicting the plan. The map is appended simply to illustrate the plan, and Appendix A shall control in the event of any conflict between it and Appendix B. Appendix C to that report includes certain statistical data which the court finds to be accurate, none of the parties having posed objections to that data in response to this court’s order. 43. A motion pending seeks a stay of any order by this court adopting a plan pending preclearance. We have reserved ruling on the motion until now. We conclude that there is no requirement that the plan which we now adopt be precleared before it becomes operative. 44. First, the plan that we now adopt is a “court decreed” plan. Connor v. Johnson, 402 U.S. 690, 91 S.Ct. 1760, 29 L.Ed.2d 268 (1971). It is clear that a plan must be precleared only if it is a “legislative plan.” McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 137, 101 S.Ct. 2224, 2229-30, 68 L.Ed.2d 724 (1981). “[T]he essential characteristic of a legislative plan is the exercise of legislative judgment ... [that is], a proposal reflecting the policy choices of the elected representatives of the people_” Id. at 152-53, 101 S.Ct. at 2238. See also 28 C.F.R. § 51.18 (1991) (stating that, in general, “changes affecting voting that are ordered by a federal court are subject to the pre-clearance requirements of section 5 to the extent that they reflect the policy choices of the submitting authority.”). The plan which this court adopts today is substantially the same as the plan offered by Plaintiff Wesch. Neither he, nor the party he is affiliated with, can claim to be exercising legislative judgment. We are certain that the Pierce Plan does not reflect the policy choices of the elected representative of the people. Cf. McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 101 S.Ct. 2224, 68 L.Ed.2d 724 (1981) (holding that a reapportionment plan submitted to a court by the legislative body of a covered jurisdiction was a legislative plan); Campos v. City of Baytown, Texas, 840 F.2d 1240 (5th Cir.1988) (holding that plan proposed by the city was a legislative plan), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 905, 109 S.Ct. 3213, 106 L.Ed.2d 564 (1989); Farnum v. Burns, 561 F.Supp. 83, 92 (D.R.I.1983) (holding that plan drafted by a legislative consultant under the direction of the legislative body reflected the policy choices of the elected representative and was therefore a legislative plan). 45. Alternatively, it appears that the Legislature will not have a plan precleared in time to be in place for the April 3, 1992 qualifying deadline. For that reason, the situation calls for emergency action by this court. The Supreme Court acknowledged this exception to preclearance in Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37, 44, 102 S.Ct. 1518, 1522-23, 71 L.Ed.2d 725 (1982): It is true that we have authorized District Courts to order or to permit elections to be held pursuant to apportionment plans that do not in all respects measure up to the legal requirements, even constitutional requirements. Necessity has been the motivating factor in these situations, (citations omitted). The Court later reaffirmed this exception in McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130, 153 n. 35, 101 S.Ct. 2224, 2238 n. 35, 68 L.Ed.2d 724 (1981), noting the ample power of the district courts to fashion interim plans. See also Burton v. Hobbie, 561 F.Supp. at 1036 (recognizing the authority of a court to implement an interim plan so that an election can be held); 28 C.F.R. § 51.18(c) (1991) (acknowledging a federal court’s authority to approve a plan without preclearance: “A federal court’s authorization of the emergency interim use without pre-clearance of a voting change does not exempt from section 5 review any use of the practice not explicitly authorized by the court.”). For the foregoing reasons, the Motion is Denied. 46. We find that, at a minimum, district lines should become fixed one week prior to the April 3, 1992 qualifying date for candidates to allow both candidates and election officials the necessary time to evaluate them and choose their future conduct accordingly. CONCLUSION Congressional redistricting is a state legislature’s fundamental task, but it becomes a judicial duty when a legislature fails to adopt and preclear a plan after having adequate opportunity to do so. At the time this opinion is released, it is reported, although evidence of such is not before the court, that the Alabama legislature has passed a redistricting plan. It is also reported that the plan has not received preclearance by the Attorney General of the United States under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since this court recognizes that congressional redistricting is properly a matter to be determined by the legislature and that the federal courts should intervene only if the legislature fails to act in a constitutional manner, the question arises: Why should the court not consider the legislature’s belatedly adopted plan and, if it is found by the court to comply with constitutional and legal requirements, adopt this expression of the legislative will as the court’s plan and order it into effect immediately? The answer is that this court has no legal authority to do so. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires a legislative plan to be submitted to the Attorney General for approval before it can be put into effect. The Attorney General has a period of 60 days to study the plan and express any objections he might have to it or to any of its provisions. The Supreme Court has made clear that this requirement of the Voting Rights Act cannot be put aside by having a legislative plan approved by a federal district court (other than the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia). McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. at 130, 101 S.Ct. at 2224; United States v. Board of Supervisors, 429 U.S. 642, 97 S.Ct. 833, 51 L.Ed.2d 106 (1977). Thus, if we adopted the reported legislative plan, it would still be subject to the preclearance requirement, which might well require postponement of the primaries. This we are unwilling to do. It should be clearly understood that this court does not wish to compete with the state legislature as to where congressional district lines should be drawn. It is, however, our responsibility to ensure that the voters of this state have the opportunity to choose their members of Congress from constitutionally drawn districts when elections are held at the time set by state law. If the plan reportedly adopted by the legislature should be precleared by some expedited method no later than 12:00 noon, Central Time, March 27, 1992, one week before the statutory deadline for candidates to qualify to run, as set out herein, then that plan will take effect and those will be the congressional districts for the 1992 election. Otherwise, the legislature will have defaulted in its obligation to the people of the state and the plan described herein will take effect. The plan adopted by this court shall become operative and controlling for the 1992 congressional elections. Additionally, it shall govern the conduct of congressional elections after 1992 unless and until the Legislature for the State of Alabama adopts a plan and has it precleared in time for such elections to proceed without delay under applicable law. The court will by separate document enter judgment consistent with this opinion. FINAL JUDGMENT It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed as follows: 1. It is declared that Ala.Code § 17-20-1 (1987), as it read prior to its amendment in 1992, if applied to congressional elections in 1992, violates Art. I, § 2 of the United States Constitution. 2. The defendants, individually, and their successors, agents, employees, attorneys, and those persons otherwise acting in concert or in participation with them who receive actual notice of this order, are ENJOINED from: (a) conducting congressional elections in the State of Alabama under the districting plan heretofore established by Ala.Code § 17-20-1 (1987) as that section read prior to its 1992 amendment; (b) failing to conduct congressional elections in 1992 in accordance with a redistricting plan adopted by this court and called “The 1992 Alabama Redistricting Plan,” which is verbally described in Appendix A to this order. [Page 1512.] Appendix B to this order is a map depicting the plan. [Page 1582.] (The map. is appended simply to illustrate the plan, and Appendix A shall control in the event of any conflict between it and Appendix B). Provided, however, that the injunction contained in this paragraph (b) shall not be effective if the Alabama Legislature duly enacts a redistricting plan for the conduct of congressional elections in 1992 and has the same precleared no later than 12:00 noon, Central Time, March 27, 1992; and (c) failing to conduct congressional elections in calendar years after 1992 in accordance with the 1992 Alabama Redistricting Plan described in paragraph (b) above. Provided, however, that the injunction contained in this paragraph (c) shall not be effective in the event the Alabama Legislature duly enacts a redistricting plan and has the same precleared in accordance with federal law in time for congressional elections to proceed without delay under then applicable state and federal law. All the Judges concur. APPENDIX A DB: ALABAMA District Statistics Total Populations. All Ages Plan: Cong. Districts Gumby Date: 11/21/91 Time: 12:11 p.m. Page: 1 Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS District Number Total Ideal District % District Name Members Population Population Variance Variance District 1 593,911 577,227 16,684 2.89% District 2 560.423 577,227 -7,804 -1.35% District3 ' 565,135 District 4 573,868 577.227 District S 603.726 377.227 26.499 4.59% District6 532.748 577.227 -14,479 -7.71% District 7 601,776 577.227 24,549 425% Total 4,040.587 4,040.589 -2 0.00% PLANWIDE STATISTICS: Range of populations: 532,748 to 603.726 Ratio tange: 1.1332 Absolute range: -44,479 to 26,499 Absolute overall range: 70,978 Relative range: -7.71t©4.59% Relative overall range: 1230% Absolute mean deviation: 193S229 Relative mean deviation: 335% Standard deviation: 23237.8677 APPENDIX B DB: ALABAMA District Summary Total Populations. All Ages Plan: Cong. Districts Gumby Date: 11/21/91 Time: 12:12 p.m. 1 Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS District Name Total Total Total Pod. White Black Total Total Total Am.Ind. Asian/PI Other District 1 593,911 408,778 175,531 100.00% 68.83% 29.56% 4,951 3,786 865 0.83% 0.64% 0.15%' i District 2 569,423 381,279 182,021 100.00% 66.96% 31.97% 1,593 3,285 1,245 028% 0.58% 022% District 3 565.135 403.218 156.724 100.00% 71.35% 27.73% 1,133 3.132 928 020% 0.55% 0.16% District 4 573.868 530,503 40,004 100.00% 92.44% 6.97% 1,647 1.063 651 029% 0.19% 0.11% District 5 603,726 503,616 88,353 100.00% 83.42% 14.63% 5,505 5,158 1,094 0.91% 0.85% 0.18% District 6 532.748 331.711 196,872 100.00% 62.26% 36.95% 730 2,936 499 0.14% 0.55% 0.09% District 7 601,776 416,692 181,200 100.00% 69.24% 30.11% 947 2,437 500 0.16% 0.40% 0.08% Total 4,040,587 2,975.797 1,020,705 100.00% 73.65% 25.26% 16,506 21,797 5,782 041% 0.54% 0.14% District Summary DB: ALABAMA Total Populations, All Ages Plan: Cong. Districts Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS District Name Total Pop. Total White Total Total Black Am. Inti. Total Asian/PI Total Other District 1 593,911 408,778 175,531 4,951 3,786 865 District 2 569,423 381,279 182,021 1,593 3,285 1,245 District 3 565,135 403,218 156,724 1,133 3,132 928 District 4 573,868 530,503 40,004 1,647 1,063 651 District 5 603,726 503,616 88,353 5,505 5,158 1,094 District 6 532,748 331,711 196,872 730 2,936 499 District 7 601,776 416,692 181,200 947 2,437 500 APPENDIX C RE/*""lONMENT OFFICE i! .-JÍK UNION, ROOM 811 MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36130 (205) 242-7941 DB: AlABAHA Attributes of Census Units Date: 6/11/91 Uithin Alabama lime: 9:53 a.ffi. Total Populations, All Ages Page: 1 Census Unit Total Pop. Total ghite Total Black Total Asian/PI Total Other Autauga County 34,222 100.002 27,144 7.9.32Z 6,845 20.00Z 120 0.35Z 42 0.12Z Baldwin County 98,280 100.00Z 84,565 86.04Z 12,640 12.86Z 221 0.22Z 224 0.23Z Barbour County 25,417 100.OOZ 14,118 55.55Z 11,194 44.04Z 44 0.17Z 15 0.06Z Bibb County 16,576 100.00Z 13,052 78.74Z 3,478 20.98Z 11 0.07Z 10 0.06Z Blount County 39,248 100.OOZ 38,397 97.83Z 521 1.33Z 33 0.08Z 164 0.42Z Bullock County 11,042 100.00Z 3,036 27.50Z 7,986 72.32Z 10 0.09Z 2 0.02Z Butler County 21,892 100.00Z 13,049 59.61Z 8,798 40.19Z 19 0.09Z 2 0.01Z Calhoun County 116,034 100.00Z 92,873 80.04Z 21,578 18.60Z 869 0.75Z 418 0.36Z Chambers County 36,876 100.00Z 23,575 63.93Z 13,221 35.85Z 13 0.04Z 26 0.07Z Cherokee County 19,543 100.00Z 18,154 92.89Z 1,291 6.61Z 24 0.12Z 23 0.12Z Chilton County 32,458 100.OOZ 28,647 88.26Z 3,674 11.32Z 38 0.12Z 36 0.11Z Choctav County 16,018 100.00Z 8,913 SS.64Z 7,077 44.18Z 12 0.07Z 6 0.04Z Clarke County 27.240 100.OOZ 15,527 57.00Z 11,625 42.68Z 35 0.13Z 8 0.03Z Clay County 13,252 100.OOZ 11,044 83.34Z 2,166 16.34Z 13 0.10Z 6 0.05Z Cleburne County 12,730 100.00Z 12,084 94.93Z 587 4.61Z 13 0.10Z 26 0.20Z Coffee County 40.240 100.00Z 32,702 81.27Z 6,917 17.19Z 317 0.79Z 141 0.3SZ Colbert County 51,666 100.OOZ 42,820 82.88Z 8,568 16.58Z 93 0.18Z 48 0.09Z Conecuh County 14,054 100.00Z 8,063 57.37Z 5,925 42.16Z 13 0.09Z 10 0.07Z Coosa County 11,063 100.00Z 7,242 65.46Z 3,782 34.19Z 4 0.04Z 1 0.01Z Covington County 36,478 100.OOZ 31,551 86.49Z 4,777-13.10Z 48 0.13X 30 0.08Z Crenshaw County 13,635 100.00Z 10,048 73.69Z 3,544 25.99Z 11 0.08Z 5 0.04Z Cullman County 67,613 100.00Z 66,744 98.71Z 560 0.83Z 117 0.17Z 58 0.09Z Dale County 49,633 100.00Z 39,365 79.31Z 8,847 17.82Z • 731 1.47Z 451 0.91Z Dallas County 48,130 100.00Z 20,121 41.81Z 27,825 S7.81Z 129 0.27Z 14 0.03Z REAPPORTIONMENT CfFJGE ¡1 SOUTH UNION, ROOM 81! f "MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA #6» (205)242-794) DB: ALABAMA Attributes of Census Units Date: 6/11/91 Bithin Alabama Time: 9:53 a.o. Total Populations, All Ages Page: 2 Census Unit Total Pon. Total Bhlte Total Black Total Am. Ind. Total Asian/PI Total Other Detalb County 100.OOZ 52,980 96.94Z 1.88Z 0.88Z 0.14Z 0.16Z Elmore County 49,210 100.00Z 37,850 76.92Z 11,039 22.43Z 137 0.28Z 129 0.26Z 55 0.11Z Escambia County 35,518 100.00Z 24,326 68.49Z 10,046 28.28Z 1,047 2.95Z 58 0.16Z 41 0.12Z Etovah County 99,840 100.00Z 85,274 85.41Z 13,799 13.82Z 250 0.25Z 419 0.42Z 98 0.10Z Fayette County 17,962 100.00Z 15,717 87.50Z 2,190 12.19Z 9 0.05Z 19 0.11Z 27 0.15Z Franklin County 27,814 100.00Z 26,463 95.14Z 1,249 4.49Z 57 0.20Z 35 0.13Z 10 0.04Z Geneva County 23,647 100.00Z 20,682 87.46Z 2,824 11.94Z 93 0.39Z 15 0.06Z 33 0.14Z Greene County 10;153 100.OOZ 1,966 19.36Z 8,181 80.58Z 3 0.03Z 0 0.00Z 3 0.03Z Hale County 15,498 100.00Z 6,255 40.36Z 9,214 59.4SZ 20 0.13Z 9 0.06Z 0 0.00Z Henry County 15,374 100.00Z 9,918 64.51Z 5,395 35.09Z 31 0.20Z 6 0.04Z 24 . 0.16Z Houston County 81,331 100.00Z 61,513 75.63Z 18,954 23.30Z 287 0.35Z 470 0.58Z 107 0.13Z Jackson County 47,796 100.OOZ 44,696 93.51Z 1,968 4.12Z 1,020 2.13Z 90 0.19Z 22 O.OSZ Jefferson County 651,525 100.00Z 418,317 64.21Z 228,521 35.07Z 889 0.14Z 3,222 0.49Z 576 0.09Z Lamar County 15,715 100.00Z 13,805 87.85Z 1,862 11.8SZ 24 0.'15Z 10 0.06Z 14 0.09Z Lauderdale County 79,661 100.00Z 71,560 89.83Z 7,695 9.66Z 165 0.21Z 196 0.25Z 45 0.06Z Laurence County 31,513 100.00Z 24,563 77.9SZ 4,798 15.23Z 2,124 6.74Z 19 0.06Z 9 0.03Z Lee County 87,146 100.00Z 64,889 74.46Z 20,407 23.42Z 132 0.15Z 1,584 1.82Z 134 0.15Z Limestone County 54,135 100.OOZ 46,658 86.19Z 7,127 13.17Z 148 0.27Z 158 0.29Z 44 0.08Z Lovndes County 12,658 100.OOZ 3,185 25.16Z 9,456 74.70Z 10 0.08Z 4 0.03Z 3 0.02Z Hacon County 24,928 100.00Z 3,443 13.81Z 21,340 85.61Z 24 0.10Z 99 0.40Z 22 0.09Z Hadison County 238,912 100.00Z 184,197 77.10Z 48,116 20.14Z 1,601 0.67Z 4,232 1.77Z 766 0.32Z Marengo County 23,084 100.00Z 11,314 49.01Z 11,745 50.88Z 11 O.OSZ 11 O.OSZ 3 0.01Z Marion County 29,830 100.OOZ 28,759 96.41Z 967 3.24Z 57 0.19Z 35 0.12Z 12 0.04Z Marshall County 70,832 100.OOZ 69,361 97.92Z 1,087 1.53Z 231 0.33Z 111 0.16Z 42 0.06Z REAPPORTIONMENT OFFICE 11 SOUTH UNION, ROOM 811 MSNTOOMSnVALMAAM 861» (206)242^941 DB: A1ABAHA Attributes of Census Units Date: 6/11/91 Within Alabama Time: 9:53 a.m. Total Populations, All Ages Page: 3 Census Unit Total Pop. Total White Total Black Total Am. Ind. Total Asian/PI Total Other Mobile County 378,643 100.002 254,853 67.312 117,872 31.132 1,940 0.512 3,398 0.902 580 0.152 Monroe County 23,968 100.002 14,320 59.752 9,372 39.102 215 0.902 54 0.232 7 0.032 Montgomery County 209,085 100.002 119,420 57.122 87,312 41.762 414 0.202 1,533 0.732 406 0.192 Morgan County 100,043 100.002 89.122 89.082 10,081 10.082 310 0.312 370 0.372 160 0.162 Perry County 12,759 100.002 4,503 35.292 8,219 64.422 16 0.132 14 0.112 7 0.0S2 Pickens County 20,699 100.002 12,002 57.982 8,645 41.772 24 0.122 27 0.132 1 0.002 Pike County 27.59S 100.002 17,814 64.562 9,548 34.602 146 0.532 68 0.252 19 0.072 Randolph County 19,881 100.002 15.138 76.142 4,686 23.572 29 0.152 21 0.112 7 0.042 Russell County 46,860 100.002 28,473 60.762 18,088 38.602 90 0.192 117 0.252 92 0.202 St. Clair County 50,009 100.002 45.138 90.262 4,561 9.122 136 0.272 77 0.152 97 0.192 Shelby County 99,358 100.002 90,715 91.302 7,718 7.772 264 0.272 575 0.582 86 0.092 County 16,174 100.002 4,759 29.422 11,369 70.292 6 0.042 30-0.192 10 0.062 Talladega County 74,107 100.002 50,970 68.782 22.773 30.732 174 0.232 113 0.152 77 0.102 Tallapoosa County 38,826 100.002 28,493 73.392 10,212 26.302 62 0.162 37 0.102 22 . 0.062 150,522 100.002 109,398 72.682 39,377 26.162 253 0.172 1,264 0.842 230 0.152 County 67,670 100.002 63,042 93-162 4,405 6.512 84 0.122 107 0.162 32 0.052 Washington County 16,694 100.002 10,984 65.802 4,623 27.692 1,068 6.402 14 0.082 5 0.032 Wilcox County 13,568 100.002 4,203 30.982 9,353 68.932 6 0.042 6 0.042 0 0.002 Vinston County 22,053 100.002 21,925 99.422 57 0.262 42 0.192 26 0.122 3 0.012 4,040,587 100.002 2,975,797 73.652 1,020,705 25.262 16,506 0.412 21,797 0.542 5,782 0.142 APPENDIX D REAPPORTIONMENT OFFICE i ~ 11 SOUTH UNION, ROOM 8)1 "“■', MONTGOMERY, AIMMA MIX) ” (209)24»MI DB: ALABAMA Attributes of Census Units Date: 7/31 Vithin Alabama Time: 2:41p.m. Etlmic Breakdown of Voting Age Populations Page: 1 Census Unit Total Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. .Age Vot. Age Black Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other Vhlte Vot. Age Autauga County 19,593 57.251 4,366 48 12.76Z 0.14Z 90 2 0.26Z 0.08 24,124 70.49Z Baldwin County 64,059 65.18Z 7,938 459 8.08Z 0.47Z 159 13 0.16Z 0.13 72,747 74.02Z Barbour County 10,744 42.27Z 7.130 36 28.05Z 0.14Z 30 1 0.12Z 0.05 17,953 70.63Z Bibb County 9,617 58.02Z 2,138 16 12.90Z 0.10Z 8 0.05Z 0.02 11,783 71.08Z Blount County 28,615 72.91Z 366 94 0.93Z 0.24Z 24 11 0.06Z 0.29 29,212 74.43Z Bullock County 2,513 22.76Z 5.131 7 46.47Z 0.06Z 8 0.07Z 0.02 7,661 69.38Z Butler County 9,919 45.31Z 5,357 IS 24.47Z 0.07Z 9 0.04Z 0.00 15,301 69.89Z Calhoun County 71,217 61.38Z 14,702 241 12.67Z 0.21Z 603 29 0.52Z 0.25 87,056 75.03Z Chambers County 18,499 50.17Z 8,685 30 23.55Z 0.08Z 10 2 0.03Z 0.05 27,244 73.88Z Cherokee County 13.881 71.03Z 898 39 4.59Z . 0.20Z 18 1 0.09Z 0.08 14,851 75.99Z Chilton County 21,320 65.68Z 2,361 47 7.27Z 0.14Z 24 1 O.07Z 0.06 23,771 73.24Z Choctaw County 6,700 41.83Z 4,592 7 28.67Z 0.04Z 8 0.05Z 0.02 11,310 70.61Z Clarke County 11,684 42.89Z 7,346 29 26.97Z Q.11Z 22 0.08Z 0.01 19,085 70.06Z Clay County 8,497 64.12Z 1,407 16 10.62Z 0.12Z 10 0.08Z 0.03 9,934 74.96Z Cleburne County 8,983 70.57Z 388 IS 3.05Z 0.12Z 11 2 0.09Z 0.16 9,418 73.98Z Coffee County 24.882 61.83Z 4,577 118 11.37Z 0.29Z 234 10 0.58Z 0.25 29,913 74.34Z Colbert County ■33,112 64.09Z 5,825 96 11.27Z 0.19Z 54 3 0.10Z. 0.06 39,118 75.71Z Conecuh County 6,278 44.67Z 3,815 27 27.15Z • 0.19Z 11 0.08Z 0.04 10,136 72.12Z Coosa County 5,579 50.43Z 2,576 21 23.28Z 0.19Z 4 0.04Z 0.01 8,181 73.95Z Covington County 24,039 65.90Z 3,086 56 8.46Z 0.15Z 32 2 0.09Z ' 0.08 27,241 74.68Z Crenshaw County 7,613 5S.83Z 2,345. 22 17.20Z 0.16Z 7 0.05Z 0.03 9,991 73.27Z Cullman County 49,994 74.84Z 73.94Z 386 98 0.57Z 0.14Z 80 4 0.12Z 0.06 50.601 Dale County 35,757 29,228 72.04Z 58.89Z 5,529 184 11.14Z 0.37Z 518 29 1.04Z 0.60 Dallas County 33,025 15,449 68.62Z 32.10Z 17,445 32 36.25Z 0.07Z 91 0.19Z 0.02 DB: ALABAHA Attributes of Census Units Date: 7/31 Within Alabama Time: 2:41 p.m. Ethnic Breakdown of Voting Age Populations Page: 2 .Census Unit Total Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age Vot. Age White Black Am. Ind. Vot. Age Vot. Age Asian/PI Other DeKalb County 40,744 39,666 74.552 72.58% 694 283 1.27Z 0.52Z 43 ■ 5 0.08% 0.11 Elmore County 36,418 28,496 74.01% 57.91Z 7,696 105 15.64Z 0.21Z 87 3 0.18% 0.07 26,051 18,450 73.35Z 51.95Z 6,840 703 19.26Z 1.98Z 32 2 0.09% 0.07 75,251 65,349 75.37Z 65.45Z 9,299 182 9.31Z 0.18Z 353 6 0.35% 0.07 Fayette County 13,360 11,801 74.38Z 65.70% 1,523 6 8.48% 0.03Z 11 1 0.06% 0.11 Franklin County 20,910 19,978 75.18Z 71.83Z 867 39 3.12Z 0.14Z 19 0.07% 0.03 17,757 15,821 75.09Z 66.90Z 1,837 71 7.77Z 0.30Z 12 1 0.05% 0.07 6,811 1,641 67.08Z 16.16Z 5,165 3 50.87Z 0.03Z • 0 0.00% 0.02 County 10,616 4,772 68.50Z 30.79Z 5,829 11 37.61Z 0.07Z 4 Henry County 11,273 7,667 73.33Z 49.87% 3,561 24 23.16Z • 0.16Z 6 1 0.04% Houston County 58,858 46,249 72.37Z 56.87Z 12,041 214 14.80Z 0.26Z 288 6 0.35% 0.08 35,482 33,503 74.24Z 70.10Z 1,342 563 2.81Z 1.18% 57 1 0.12% 0.04 488,937 328,268 75.05Z 50.38Z 157,208 697 24.13% 0.11% 2,359 40 0.36% 0.06 Lamar County 11,725 10,434 74.61Z 66.40Z 1,253 17 7.97% 0.11% 10 1 0.06% County 60,580 55,008 76.05Z ■ 69.05Z 5,275 128 6.62% 0.16% 137 3 22,874 18,702 72.59Z 59-.35Z 3,095 1,061 9.82% 3.37% 12 0.04% 0.01 68,058 52,769 78.10Z 60.55Z 13,846 108 15.89% 0.12% 1,226 10 1.41% ■ 40,529 35,087 74.87Z 64.81Z 5,197 113 9.60% 0.21% 101 3 0.19% 0.06 8,263 2,513 65.28Z 19.S5Z 5,742 4 45.36% 0.03%' 3 0.02% 0.01 County Hadison 18,286 2,780 73.36Z 11.15Z 15,397 18 61.77% 0.07% 74 1 0.30% 0.07 • 75.41Z 59.51Z 945 14.04% 0.40% • 2,999 49 1-26% 0.21 16,091 8,524 69.71Z 36.93Z 7,550 10 32.71% 0.04% 7 0.03% 0.00 Marion County 22,508 21,733 75.45Z 72.86Z 712 33 2.39% 0.11% 23 0.08% 53,366 52,343 75.34Z 73.90Z 766 •• 161 1.08% 0.23% 76 2 0.11% 0.03 DB: ALABAHA Attributes of Census Units Date: 7/31 Within Alabama Time: 2:41p.m. Ethnic Breakdown of Voting Age Populations Page: 3 Census Unit . Total Vot. Age Vot. Age White Vot. Age Black Vot. Age Am. Ind. Vot. Age Asian/Pl Vot. Age Other Hobile County 270,610 71.472 190,842 50.402 75,791 20.022 1,286 0.342 2,279 0.602 41 0.11 Honroe County 16,590 69.222 10,597 44.212 5,806 24.222 152 0.632 31 0.132 0.02 Montgomery County 151,701 72.552 92,603 44.292 57,450 27.482 303 0.142 1,072 0.512 27 0.13 Horgan County 74,027 74.002 66,930 66.902 6,538 6.542 208 0.212 244 0.242 10 0.11 Perry County 8,757 68.632 3,719 29.152 5,009 39.262 9 0.072 14 0.112 0.05 Pickens County 14,805 71.532 9,369 45.262 5,401 26.092 17 0.082 17 0.082 0.00 Pike County 20,729 75.122 14,208 51.492 6,348 23.002 92 0.332 63 0.232 1 0.07 Randolph County 14,696 73.922 11,650 58.602 3,012 15.152 19 0.102 12 0.062 0.02 Russell County 34,380 73.372 21,762 46.442 12,396 26.452 67 0.142 95 0.202 6 0.13 St. Clair County 36,699 73.382 33,259 66.512 3,230 6.462 106 0.212 51 0.102 5 0.11 Shelby County 72,167 72.632 66,406 66.842 5,147 5.182 179 0.18% 379 0.382 5 0.06 Sumter County 11,202 69.262 3,869 23.922 7,291 45.082 5 0.032 28 0.172 0.06 Talladega County 53,614 72.352 38,551 52.022 14,805 19.982 129 0.172 79 0.112 5 0.07 Tallapoosa County 28,899 74.432 22,100 56.922 6,718 17.302 41 0.112 25 0.062 1 0.04 Tuscaloosa County 114,857 76.312 86,831 57.692 26,623 17.691 195 0.132 1,022 0.682 18 0.12 Walker County 50,560 74.722 47,546 70-.262 2,847 4.212 67 0.102 79 0.122 2 0.03 Washington County 11,611 69.552 8,033 48.122 2,916 17.472 645 3.862 12 0.072 0.03 Wilcox County 8,956 66.012 3,' 297 24.302 5,649 41.632 6 0.042 4 0.032 0.00 Winston Comity 16,621 75.372 16,530 74.962 38 0.17% 31 0.142 19 0.092 0.01 Total Alabama 2,981,799 73.802 2,273,845 56.282 677,681 16.772 10,809 0.272 15,529 0.382 3,93 0.10 APPENDIX E District Name/Address Census Residence 1 Sonny Callahan (R) Mobile County 3251 Riviere Du Chien Drive Tract 20 Mobile, AL Block 231 Voting District #0360 FIRST ELECTED: NOVEMBER, 1984 2 Bill Dickinson (R) 2350 Woodley Road Montgomery, AL Montgomery County Tract 20 Block 311 Voting District #0180 FIRST ELECTED: NOVEMBER, 1964 3 Glen Browder (D) 517 Pelham Street, North Jacksonville, AL Calhoun County Tract 21 Block 510 Voting District #0010 FIRST ELECTED: APRIL, 1989 4 Tom Bevill (D) 1600 Alabama Avenue Jasper, AL Walker County Tract 203 Block 173 Voting District #0010 FIRST ELECTED: NOVEMBER, 1989 5 Bud Cramer (D) 417 Eustis Street Huntsville, AL Madison County Tract 1 Block 234 Voting District #0060 FIRST ELECTED: NOVEMBER, 1982 6 Ben Erdreich (D) >. Jefferson County 2625 Highland Avenue, South Tract 47.01 Birmingham, AL Block 723 Voting District #5408 FIRST ELECTED: NOVEMBER, 1982 7 Clause Harris (D) 3121 Azalea Lane East (41st Avenue) Tuscaloosa, AL Tuscaloosa County Tract 123.01 Block 143 Voting District #0160 FIRST ELECTED: NOVEMBER 1986 APPENDIX A TO FINAL JUDGMENT “Units Assigned to a District” The following description lists the census geographical units (as contained within the State computer’s reapportiomnent data base) composing each congressional district. When a county is entirely within a congressional district the county and its population are listed as a single line. For the seven counties split by congressional district lines, the county name is listed without population figures and subsequent lines give voting precincts and population figures for each precinct in that county. For the ten voting precincts split by congressional district lines, the name of the precinct is listed without population figures, followed by lines listing the census tract, the census block group number, and then the census block within each tract and block group, with population figures. Lines at the end of each block group, tract, precinct, or county listing give summary population totals for that unit in the particular congressional district. DB: ALABAMA Plan: REDISTRICT Units Assigned to a District District 1 Total Populations, All Ages Date: 1/21/92 Time: 3:16 p.m. Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS Census Unit Total Pop. Total White Total Black Total Total Total Baldwin County 98,280 100.00% 84,565 86.04% 12,640 12.86% 630 0.64% 221 0.22% 224 0.23% Clarke County CARLTON/GAINESTOWN/CHOCTAW 2,018 100.00% 319 15.81% 1,694 83.94% 1 0.05% 3 0.15% 1 0.05% 3,606 100.00% 1,567 43.46% 2,025 56.16% 13 0.36% 0 0.00% 1 0.03% WALKER SPRINGS 586 100.00% 263 44.88% • 319 54.44% 4 0.68% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% ALLEN 391 100.00% 22 5.63% 369 94.37% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% MCVAY/PARKERTOWN/IACKSON 4,405 100.00% 3,580 81.27% 807 18.32% 6 0.14% 9 0.20% 3 0.07% SALITPA Tract 9579 Block Group 1 Block 109 0 0 ■ O' 0 0 Block 110 0 0 0 0 0 Block Ill 0 0 0 0 0 Block 112 0 0 0 •0 0 * Block 113 0 0 0 0 0 0 Block 114 21 100.00% 0 0.00% 21 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 115 103 100.00% 63 61.17% 40 38.83% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 116 23 100.00% 7 30.43% 16 69.57% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 117 52 100.00% 0 0.00% 52 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 118 0 0 0 0 0 0 Block 119 95 100.00% 95 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 Block 144 0 0 0 0 0 Block 145 0 0 0 0 0 DB: ALABAMA Plan: REDISTRICT Units Assigned to a District District 1 Total Populations, All Ages Date: 1/21/92 Time: 3:16 p.m. Page: 2 Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS Census Unit Total Total Total Pop. White Black Total Total Total Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other Water block I99B 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water block 199C 0 0 0 0 .0 0 Water block 199D 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water block 199E 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water block 199F 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water block 199G 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Block Group 1 294 165 129 100.00% 56.12% 43.88% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Block Group 8 Block 801 25 100.00% 88.00% 12.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Block 802 0 0 0 0 0 0 Block 803 27 0 ‘ 27 100.00% 0.00% 100.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Block 804 0 0 0 0 0 0 Water block 899D 0.0 0 0 0 0 Water block 899E 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Block Group 8 52 22 30 100.00% 42.31% 57.69% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total Tract 9579 346 187 159 100.00% 54.05% 45.95% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Total SALITPA 346 187 159 100.00% 54.05% 45.95% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% WINN/ZIMCO Tract 9577 Block Group 2 Block 230 0 0 0 0 0 0 Block 231 58 13 45 0 0 0 100.00% 22.41% 77.59% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% DB: ALABAMA Plan: REDISTRICT Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS Units Assigned to a District District 1 Total Populations. All Age? Date: 1/21/92 Time: 3:16 p.m. Page: 3 Census Unit Total Pop. Total White Total Black Total Am. Ind. Total Asian/PI Total Other Block 232 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Water block 299A 0 0 0 Total Block Group 2 59 100.00% 13 22.03% 46 77.97% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Tract 9577 59 13 100.00% 22.03% 46 77.97% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block Group 6 Block 612 5 100.00% 5 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Block Group 6 5 100.00% 5 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block Group 7 Block 707 16 100.00% 6 10 37.50% 62.50% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 708 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Block Group 7 16 100.00% • 6 37.50% 10 62.50% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Tract 9578 21 11 100.00% 52.38% 10 47.62% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Tract 9579 Block Group 1 Block 101 0 0 0 0 Block 102 15 10 5 0 0 Block 103 100.00% 66.67% 0 0 33.33% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 Block 107 2 100.00% 2 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 123 59 100.00% 20 33.90% 38 64.41% 1 1.69% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 124 167 100.00% 45 26.95% 122 73.05% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% DB: ALABAMA Plan: REDISTRICT Units Assigned to a District District 1 Total Populations, All Ages Date: 1/21/92 Time: 3:16 p.m. Plan type; CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS Census Unit Total Total Pop. White Total Black Total Total Am. Ind. Astan/PI Total Other Block 125 0 0 0 0 0 0 Block 126 • 156 100.00% 11 7.05% 145 92.95% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 127 0 0 0 0 0 0 Block 128 0 0 0 Block 130 1 100.00% 0 0.00% 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 131 7 100.00% 3 42.86% 4 57.14% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 132 0 0 0 0 0 0 Block 133 5 100.00% 5 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 134 4 100.00% 4 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 135 59 100.00% 26 44.07% 33 55.93% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Block 136 25 100.00% 18 72.00% 7 28.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Water block 199H 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Block Group 1 500 100.00% 144 28.80% 355 71.00% 1 0.20% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% Total Tract 9579 500 100.00% 144 28.80% 355 71.00% 1 0.20% 0 0.00% . o 11 0.00% Total WINN/ZIMCO 580 100.00% 168 28.97% 411 70.86% 1 0.17% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% GROVE HILL/WHATLEY/GREENWOOD/HELLW 3,835 100.00% 2,408 62.79% 1,421 37.05% 0 0.00% GROVE HILL CITY HALL 1,551 100.00% 976 62.93% 560 36.11% 7 0.45% 0.52% 0 0.00% NEW PROSPECT/CHILTON 274 100.00% 274 100.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% LIBERTY 269 100.00% 256 95.17% 13 4.83% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% 0 0.00% BASNI 403 100.00% 338 83.87% 61 15.14% 0 0.00% 1 0.25% 3 0.74% THOMASVELLE 5,859 ' 100.00% 3,787 64.64% 2,056 35.09% 9 0.15% 7 0.12% 0 0.00% Total Clarke County 24,123 100.00% 14,145 58.64% 9,895 41.02% 44 0.18% 31 0.13% 8 0.03% DB: ALABAMA Plan: REDISTRICT Units Assigned to a District District 1 Total Populations, All Ages Date: 1/21/92 Time: 3:16 p.m. Page: 5 Census Unit Total Total Total Pop. White Black Total Total Total Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other Escambia County 35,518 24,326 10,046 100.00% 68.49% 28.28% 1,047 58 41 2.95% 0.16% 0.12% Mobile County 378,643 254,853 117,872 100.00% 67.31% 31.13% 1,940 3.398 580 0.51% 0.90*% 0.15% Monroe County 23,968 14,320 9,372 100.00% 59.75% 39.10% 215 54 7 0.90% 0.23% 0.03% Washington County 16,694 10,984 4,623 100.00% 65.80% 27.69% 1,068 14 5 6.40% 0.08% 0.03% Total District 1 577,226 403,193- 164,448 100.00% 69.85% • 28.49% 4,944 3,776 865 0.86% 0.65% 0.15% DB: ALABAMA Plan: REDISTRJCT Units Assigned to a District Date: 1/21/92 District 2 Time: 3:16 p.m. Total Populations, All Ages Page: 6 Plan tvne: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS Census Unit Total Total Pop. White Total Total Black Am. Ind. Total Total Asian/PI Other Autauga County 34,222 27,144 100.00% 79.32% 6,845 71 20.00% 0.21% 120 42 0.35% 0.12% Barbour County 25,417 14,118 100.00% 55.55% 11,194 46 44.04% 0.18% 44 15 0.17% 0.06% Bullock County 11,042 3,036 100.00% 27.50% 7,986 8 72.32% 0.07% 10 2 0.09% 0.02% Butler County 21,892 13,049 100.00% 59.61% 8,798 24 40.19% 0.11% 19 2 0.09% 0.01% Coffee County 40,240 32,702 100.00% 81.27% 6,917 163 17.19% 0.41% 317 141 0.79% 0.35% Conecuh County 14,054 8,063 100.00% 57.37% 5,925 43 42.16% 0.31% 13 10 0.09% 0.07% Covington County 36,478 31.551 100.00% 86.49% 4,777 72 13.10% 0.20% 48 30 0.13% 0.08% Crenshaw County 13,635 10,048 100.00% 73.69% 3,544 27 25.99% 0.20% 11 5 0.08% 0.04% Dale County 49,633 39,365 100.00% 79.31% 8,847 239 17.82% 0.48% 731 451 1.47% '0.91% Elmore County 49,210 37,850 100.00% 76.92% 11,039 137 22.43% 0.28% 129 55 0.26% 0.11% Geneva County 23,647 20,682 100.00% 87.46% 2,824 93 11.94% 0.39% 15 33 0.06% 0.14% Henry County 15,374 9,918 100.00% 64.51% 5,395 31 35.09% 0.20% 6 24 0.04% 0.16% Houston County 81,331 61,513 100.00% 75.63% 18,954 287 23.30% 0.35% 470 107 0.58% 0.13% Montgomery County CLOVERDALE COMMUNITY CENTER 7,177 6,644 100.00% 92.57% 489 13 6.81% 0.18% 25 6 0.35% 0.08% NORMANDALE LIBRARY Tract 0020 Block Group 3 Block 301 30 30 100.00% 100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0.00% Block 302 48 42 100.00% 87.50% 6 0 12.50% 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0.00% Block 303 103 103 100.00% 100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0.00% Block 304 47 47 100.00% 100.00% 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0.00% Block 305 56 48 100.00% 85.71% 8 0 14.29% 0.00% 0 0 0.00% 0.00% DB: ALABAMA Plan: RED1STRJCT Units Assigned to a District District 2 Total Populations, All Ages • Date: 1/21/92 Time: 3:16 p.m. Page: 7 Plan type: CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS Census Unit Total Total Total Pop. White Black Total Total Total Am. Ind. Asian/PI Other Block 306 89 88 0 100.00% 98.88% 0.00% 0 0 1 0.00% 0.00% 1.12% Block 307 40 40 0 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Block 308 96 81 13 100.00% 8438% 1334% 0 2 0 0.00% 2.08% 0.00% Block 309 33 32 0 100.00% 96.97% 0.00% 0 1 0 0.00% 3.03% 0.00% Block 310 46 43 3 100.00% 93.48% 6.52% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Block 311 281 269 3 100.00% 95.73% 1.07% 0 9 0 0.00% 330% 0.00% Block 313 46 46 0 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Block 314 44 44 0 100.00% 100.00% 0.00% 0 0 0 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% Block 315 266 153 107 100.00% 57.52% 4033% 0 6 0 0.00% 2.26% 0.00% Total Block Group 3 1325 1,066 140 100.00% 87.02% 11.43% 0 18 1 0.00% 1.47% 0.08% Total Tract 0020 1,225 1,066 140 100.00% 87.02%- 11.43% 0 18 1 0.00% 1.47% 0.08% Tract 0021 Block Group 1 Block 101 60 60 0 10