3-1 Complaint With Color Exhibits

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 43
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
*
*
*
ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK

CAUCUS; BOBBY SINGLETON; ALABAMA
ASSOCIATION OF BLACK COUNTY
OFFICIALS; FRED ARMSTEAD, GEORGE
BOWMAN, RHONDEL RHONE, ALBERT F.
TURNER, JR., and JILES WILLIAMS, JR.,
individually and on behalf of others similarly
situated,
*
*
*
*
*
*
Plaintiffs,
Civil Action No.
* c;2_: \~-cv -l~9\- W\LW

*
v.
*
*
THE STATE OF ALABAMA; BETH

CHAPMAN, in her official capacity as Alabama
Secretary of State,
(3-judge court requested)

(Claim of
Unconstitutionality)
*
*
*
*
Defendants.
COMPLAINT
INTRODUCTION
1. This is an action challenging the lawfulness and constitutionality of Act
No. 2012-602, which redistricts the Alabama House of Representatives, and Act
No. 2012-603, which redistricts the Alabama Senate, alleging they violate Section
2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the First,
Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
---.
-we
2. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 violate the one-person, one-vote standards

set out in controlling Supreme Court case law by arbitrarily and impracticably
restricting population deviations to + 1%, thereby facilitating noncompliance with
the whole-county requirements in the Alabama Constitution.
3. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 are racial gerrymanders that unnecessarily
minimize population deviations and violate the whole-county provisions of the
Alabama Constitution with both the purpose and effect of minimizing black voting
strength and isolating from influence in the Alabama Legislature legislators chosen
by African Americans.
4. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 are partisan gerrymanders that
unnecessarily minimize population deviations and violate the whole-county
provisions of the Alabama Constitution for the purpose and with the effect of
impairing the ability of Alabama citizens, based on the content of their political
speech and political associations, to elect members of the Legislature who share
their political views.
PARTIES
5. Plaintiff Alabama Legislative Black Caucus is an unincorporated political
organization of African Americans elected to the Alabama Legislature. Plaintiff
Senator Bobby Singleton is Chair of the Alabama Legislative Black Caucus.
6. Plaintiff Bobby Singleton is an African-American citizen of the United

States and the State of Alabama who is a registered voter in Hale County and who
represents Senate District 25 in the Alabama Legislature. Acts 2012-602 and
2012-603 intentionally dilute Senator Singletons voting strength as an African
American and as a member of the Democratic Caucus of the Alabama Legislature.
Act 2012-603 splits 5 of the 7 counties in Senate District 24, when it is practicable
to include 7 whole counties within Senate District 24 while maintaining substantial
compliance with the one-person, one-vote standard and the Voting Rights Act.
7. Plaintiff Alabama Association of Black County Officials (AABCO) is an
unincorporated organization of African Americans who have been elected to serve
in county offices in Alabama. Plaintiff Commissioner Albert F. Turner, Jr., is
President of the AABCO, and plaintiff Commissioner George Bowman is Vice
President of the AABCO.
8. Plaintiff Fred Armstead is an African-American citizen of the United
States and the State of Alabama who is a registered voter and member of the
County Commission in Marengo County. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603
intentionally dilute Commissioner Armsteads voting strength as an African
American and as a supporter of the Democratic Party. Acts 2012-602 and 2012603 diminish plaintiff Armsteads ability as a County Commissioner to influence
legislation affecting Marengo County, particularly local legislation, by splitting

Marengo County among 3 House districts and 2 Senate districts, when Marengo
Countys population is small enough to be contained entirely within one House
district and one Senate district.
9. Plaintiff George Bowman is an African-American citizen of the United
County Commission in Jefferson County. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603
intentionally dilute Commissioner Bowmans voting strength as an African
American and as a supporter of the Democratic Party. Acts 2012-602 and 2012603 diminish plaintiff Bowmans ability as a County Commissioner to influence
legislation affecting Jefferson County, particularly local legislation, by splitting
Jefferson County among 18 House districts and 8 Senate districts, when Jefferson
Countys population is small enough to be contained entirely within 14 House
districts and small enough to be represented by 5 Senate districts. Acts 2012-602
and 2012-603 are designed to include 6 more white, Republican members in the
Jefferson County Local Legislative Delegation than are required by the countys
population, thus purposefully diminishing the Jefferson County Commissions
ability to influence local legislation and purposefully diluting black voting strength
in the local legislative delegation.
10. Plaintiff Rhondel Rhone is an African-American citizen of the United

County Commission in Clarke County. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 intentionally
dilute Commissioner Rhones voting strength as an African American and as a
supporter of the Democratic Party. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 diminish plaintiff
Rhones ability as a County Commissioner to influence legislation affecting Clarke
County, particularly local legislation, by splitting Clarke County among 2 House
districts and 3 Senate districts, when Clarke Countys population is small enough
to be contained within one House district and one Senate district.
11. Plaintiff Albert F. Turner, Jr., is an African-American citizen of the
United States and the State of Alabama who is a registered voter and member of
the County Commission in Perry County. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603
intentionally dilute Commissioner Turners voting strength as an African American
and as a supporter of the Democratic Party. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 diminish
plaintiff Turners ability as a County Commissioner to influence legislation
affecting Perry County, particularly local legislation, by splitting Perry County
between 2 House districts, when Perry Countys population is small enough to be
contained within one House district.
12. Plaintiff Jiles Williams, Jr., is an African-American citizen of the United
County Commission in Montgomery County. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603
intentionally dilute Commissioner Williams voting strength as an African
American and as a supporter of the Democratic Party. Acts 2012-602 and 2012603 diminish plaintiff Williams ability as a County Commissioner to influence
legislation affecting Montgomery County, particularly local legislation, by splitting
Montgomery County among 7 House districts, when Montgomery Countys
population is small enough to be contained within 5 House districts. Acts 2012602 and 2012-603 are designed to include 2 more white, Republican members in
the Montgomery County Local Legislative Delegation than are required by the
countys population, thus purposefully diminishing the Montgomery County
Commissions ability to influence local legislation and purposefully diluting black
voting strength in the local legislative delegation.
13. Defendant State of Alabama is sued in its own name with respect to
plaintiffs claims under 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973. Congress
has abrogated the States Eleventh Amendment immunity in civil actions brought
to enforce the rights guaranteed by the Voting Rights Act.
14. Defendant Beth Chapman is sued in her official capacity as the chief
elections official in the state, who must provide uniform guidance for election
activities and certify the election of members of the Alabama Legislature. Ala.
Code 17-1-3 and 17-12-21 (1975) (as amended in 2006).
JURISDICTION
15. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. 1343(c), to redress the deprivation of plaintiffs rights guaranteed by
the Voting Rights Act and the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments.
16. A three-judge District Court must be convened, pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
2284, to decide the challenge in this action of the constitutionality of the
apportionment of a statewide legislative body.
VENUE
17. Venue of this action lies in the Middle District of Alabama pursuant to
U.S.C. 1391(b).
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
18. The named plaintiffs allege that they satisfy the requirements of Rule
23(a) and (b)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P. They ask the Court to certify them as
representatives of the plaintiff classes (1) of residents of Alabama counties whose
boundaries have been unnecessarily split among more House and/or Senate
districts than are necessary to satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment requirement of
substantial population equality, (2) of all African-American voters of Alabama, and
(3) of all Alabama voters who support and wish to elect white and black
Democratic members of the Legislature.
a. The classes are so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable.
b. There are questions of law or fact common to the classes.
c. The claims of the representative parties are typical of the claims of
the classes.
d. The representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the
interests of the classes.
e. The parties opposing the classes have acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to the classes, so that final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the classes as a whole.
ALLEGATIONS OF FACT
19. On May 31, 2012, the Governor signed into law Acts 2012-602 and
2012-603, which redraw the Alabama House and Senate districts with 2010 census
data. See Exhibits A, B, C, and D.
20. In the 2010 statewide elections Republicans won filibuster-proof
majorities in both Houses of the Alabama Legislature. The Republican leadership
of the Legislature controlled the Reapportionment Committee Guidelines adopted
in May 2011, see

http://www.legislature.state.al.us/reapportionment/Guidelines.html, and the
redistricting plans set out in Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603.
21. The Reapportionment Committee Guidelines arbitrarily and
impracticably required that in every redistricting plan submitted to the
Reapportionment Committee, individual district populations should not exceed a
2% overall range of population deviation. Guidelines at page 2 of 9.
22. The 2% overall (+ 1%) deviation restriction was one important reason
why Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 arbitrarily and unnecessarily violate the wholecounty requirements in Sections 198-200 of the Alabama Constitution.
23. Taken together, Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 result in 49 of Alabamas
67 counties having one or more members of their local legislative delegations than
is necessary based on their populations. See Exhibit E. The most extreme cases
are:
a. DeKalb County, which has 6 extra legislators, 4 in the House and 2
in the Senate, when its population is small enough for 2 House members and 1
Senator;
b. Jefferson County, which has 6 extra legislators, 3 in the House and
3 in the Senate, when its population is small enough for 14 House members and 5
Senators;
c. Limestone County, which has 5 extra legislators, 3 in the House
and 2 in the Senate, when its population is small enough for 2 House members and
1 Senator;
d. Marengo County, which has 4 extra legislators, 3 in the House and
1 in the Senate, when its population is small enough for 1 House member and 1
Senator; and
e. Talladega County, which has 5 extra legislators, 2 in the House and
3 in the Senate, when its population is small enough for 2 House members and 1
Senator.
24. The House plan, Act 2012-602, splits 44 counties more than are
necessary to satisfy the one-person, one-vote requirement, including 22 counties
that are small enough to be completely contained within one House district and 7
counties (Baldwin, Jefferson, Lauderdale, Lee, Marshall, Mobile, and
Montgomery) which could be divided into two or more complete House districts.
See Exhibit E.
25. The Senate plan, Act 2012-603, splits 31 counties more than are
necessary to satisfy the one-person, one-vote requirement, including 26 counties
that are small enough to be completely contained within one Senate district and
10
one county (Mobile) which could be divided into two or more complete Senate
districts. See Exhibit E.
26. The 2% overall (+ 1%) deviation restriction and disregard of the
whole-county requirements in Sections 198-200 of the Alabama Constitution
facilitated the Republican majoritys efforts to gerrymander the district boundaries
in Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 for the purpose and with the result of diluting
black voting strength, by unnecessarily maximizing or packing the 27 House
districts and 8 Senate districts with majority-black voting-age populations.
27. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 purposefully perpetuate and attempt to
restore Alabamas historical policy of segregating African Americans in party
politics. For over a century, the party of white supremacy was the Democratic
Party. Now it is the Republican Party pursuing a policy of isolating black voters
and their elected representatives.
28. African Americans enfranchised by the federal government during
Reconstruction supported the Republican Party. White leaders of the Democratic
Party regained control of state government in the 1874 Redemption election by
drawing the color line, calling on white voters to abandon the Black Republican
Party.
29. When a coalition of blacks and white populists threatened its rule in the
11
1890s, the Democratic Party invoked the policy of white supremacy in the
elections that convened the 1901 constitutional convention and ratified the 1901
Constitution, although it was necessary for white Democrats in the Black Belt
fraudulently to cast blacks votes in favor of their own disfranchisement in order to
overcome opposition by poor whites, who feared correctly that they too would
be disfranchised.
30. The Democratic Party formally maintained white supremacy with the
all-white Democratic primary until the United States Supreme Court declared it
unconstitutional in 1944. The Democratic Party did not abandon its motto of white
supremacy until after passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act and the gradual reenfranchisement of African Americans.
31. Since the mid-1960s, the Republican Party has pursued a Southern
strategy that has encouraged white voters in Alabama to abandon the Democratic
Party, which now is reliably supported by most African Americans. This strategy
finally paid off in 2010, when white Republicans gained full control of both houses
of the Alabama Legislature and the Governors office for the first time since 1868.
32. The 2% overall (+ 1%) deviation restriction and disregard of the
whole-county requirements in Sections 198-200 of the Alabama Constitution
facilitated the Republican majoritys efforts to gerrymander the district boundaries
12
in Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 for partisan purposes. By packing the majorityblack House and Senate districts, the plans remove reliable Democratic voters from
adjacent majority-white districts. On information and belief, the plans drafters
relied on partisan performance data from prior elections and consulted Republican
incumbents to maximize the number of expected Republican voters in the majoritywhite districts.
33. The Legislature could have reduced substantially the number of county
splits had it employed the 10% overall population deviation (+ 5%) that constitutes
substantial population equality under controlling Supreme Court precedents.
34. HB 16 and SB 5, which were sponsored by members of the Alabama
Legislative Black Caucus, contained House and Senate redistricting plans that
illustrate how the Alabama constitutional whole-county requirement could have
been more nearly complied with while still maintaining 27 majority-black votingage population (VAP) House districts and 8 majority-black VAP Senate districts.
See Exhibits F, G, H, and I.
35. Taken together, HB 16 and SB 5 result in only 27 of Alabamas 67
counties having one or more members of their local legislative delegations than are
necessary based on their populations. See Exhibit J.
36. The House plan, HB 16, splits only 22 counties more than are necessary
13
to satisfy the one-person, one-vote requirement, including only 10 counties that are
small enough to be in one House district. See Exhibit J. Chilton and Dallas
Counties each comprises one whole House district. Baldwin, Jefferson,
Lauderdale, and Mobile Counties each contains multiple House districts without
crossing their county boundaries.
37. The Senate plan, SB 5, splits only 9 counties more than are necessary to
satisfy the one-person, one-vote requirement, including only 7 counties that are
small enough to be in one Senate district. See Exhibit J.
38. The House and Senate plans in HB 16 and SB 5 were drawn by an outof-state cartographer, who attempted to minimize the number of counties split
while preserving 27 House districts and 8 Senate districts with majority-black
voting-age populations. Plaintiffs do not contend that HB 16 and SB 5 are the best
House and Senate plans possible. Only eleven census voter tabulation districts
(which generally correspond with precincts) were split in the HB 16 plan, and
those splits were necessary because parts of the VTDs either were too large or were
noncontiguous. No VTDs were split in the SB 5 plan. If more VTDs were split,
more county boundaries might be preserved, at least one additional majority-black
House district could be drawn in Madison County, and some incumbent conflicts
could be corrected.
14
39. Plaintiffs are not proposing that the HB 16 and SB 5 plans be adopted
by the Legislature or by this Court. Their purpose is only to demonstrate how
Alabamas constitutional whole-county provisos can be respected without violating
federal equal protection and voting rights requirements. The Legislature should be
given the opportunity to tailor whole-county House and Senate plans to legitimate
political, state, and local conditions. Should the Legislature fail to do so, this
Court should request additional proposals from the parties before adopting courtordered House and Senate plans.
ALLEGATIONS OF LAW
Count I: One Person, One Vote
40. In Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 579 (1964), the Supreme Court held
that in drawing district lines for the Alabama House and Senate the overriding
objective must be substantial equality of population among the various districts,
as the Reapportionment Committee Guidelines acknowledge at page 2 of 9.
41. However, citing Larios v. Cox, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1320 (N.D. Ga. 2004),
aff'd sub nom Cox v. Larios, 542 U.S. 947 (2004), the Guidelines specified:
In order to ensure compliance with the most recent case law in this
area and to eliminate the possibility of an invidious discriminatory
effect caused by population deviations in a final legislative or State
Board of Education redistricting plan, in every redistricting plan
submitted to the Reapportionment Committee, individual district
populations should not exceed a 2% overall range of population
15
deviation. The Reapportionment Committee will not approve a

redistricting plan that does not comply with this requirement.
Guidelines at page 2 of 9. This was a serious misreading of Larios, establishing an
arbitrary and impracticable + 1% deviation requirement that is itself
unconstitutional.
42. Larios did not hold or suggest that reducing population deviations to +
1% would eliminate the possibility of invidious discrimination. To the contrary,
Larios acknowledged that, under controlling Supreme Court case law, + 5%
deviation is prima facie compliance with the constitutional requirement of
population equality, which need not be justified by a state redrawing its legislative
districts. 300 F. Supp. 2d at 1339-40 (citing Connor v. Finch, 431 U.S. 407, 418
(1977); White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755, 764 (1973); Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S.
835, 842 (1983)).
43. Rather, Larios held that + 5% deviation is not a safe harbor, and that
the prima facie presumption of substantial compliance may be rebutted with
convincing evidence that the deviations are tainted with arbitrariness or
discrimination. 300 F. Supp. 2d at 1340-41 (citations omitted).
44. Larios held that the equal protection violation lay not in the size of the
+ 5% deviation but in evidence that the deviations had been manipulated for the
discriminatory purpose of underpopulating some regions of Georgia while
16
overpopulating other regions, and that this geographic discrimination could not be
justified either by party partisan considerations or by protecting incumbents. 300
F. Supp. 2d at 1322, 1342.
45. The restriction of permissible deviations to + 1% in Acts 2012-602 and
2012-603 also is an arbitrary and discriminatory manipulation of population
deviations that violate[s] the fundamental one person, one vote command of
Reynolds, requiring that states make an honest and good faith effort to construct
districts ... as nearly of equal population as practicable and deviate from this
principle only where divergences ... are based on legitimate considerations
incident to the effectuation of a rational state policy. Larios, 300 F. Supp. 2d at
1341 (quoting 377 U.S. at 577).
46. In this case, the rational state policy violated by the + 1% restriction is
actually a state constitutional policy, namely, the whole-county requirements of
198, 199, and 200 of the Alabama Constitution. Such a small permissible
deviation is not practicable, because it drastically and unnecessarily increases the
number of county boundaries that must be split by House and Senate districts.
47. The Alabama Constitution contains the following whole-county
provisos:
The house of representatives shall consist of not more than one
hundred and five members, unless new counties shall be created, in
17
which event each new county shall be entitled to one representative.

The members of the house of representatives shall be apportioned by
the legislature among the several counties of the state, according to
the number of inhabitants in them, respectively, as ascertained by the
decennial census of the United States, which apportionment, when
made, shall not be subject to alteration until the next session of the
legislature after the next decennial census of the United States shall
have been taken.
Ala. Const. 198.
It shall be the duty of the legislature at its first session after the
taking of the decennial census of the United States in the year
nineteen hundred and ten, and after each subsequent decennial census,
to fix by law the number of representatives and apportion them among
the several counties of the state, according to the number of
inhabitants in them, respectively; provided, that each county shall be
entitled to at least one representative.
Ala. Const. 199.
It shall be the duty of the legislature at its first session after
taking of the decennial census of the United States in the year
nineteen hundred and ten, and after each subsequent decennial census,
to fix by law the number of senators, and to divide the state into as
many senatorial districts as there are senators, which districts shall be
as nearly equal to each other in the number of inhabitants as may be,
and each shall be entitled to one senator, and no more; and such
districts, when formed, shall not be changed until the next
apportioning session of the legislature, after the next decennial census
of the United States shall have been taken; provided, that counties
created after the next preceding apportioning session of the legislature
may be attached to senatorial districts. No county shall be divided
between two districts, and no district shall be made up of two or more
counties not contiguous to each other.
Ala. Const. 200.
18
48. In Sims v. Baggett, 247 F. Supp. 96 (1965) (3-judge court), on remand

from Reynolds v. Sims, this Court addressed the impact of the one-person, one-vote
rule on 198 and 199 of the Alabama Constitution and held:
Reynolds v. Sims, supra, does not render that [whole-county] proviso
wholly inoperative. The quoted proviso in section 199 and its
companion section 198 are intended to insure that each of the counties
as a political unit of the State have separate representation in the
House. It is apparent that the framers of the Constitution had at least
two purposes in mind: First, to prevent gerrymandering, and, second,
to insure compact geographic districts with legislators attuned to local
problems. Intelligent and meritorious purposes are not enough to
sustain application of this initially valid constitutional provision to
counties whose population falls below the minimum required for valid
reapportionment, or to counties of larger population whose joinder
into a single district becomes necessary to reapportionment based on
population. In those instances, the proviso as applied contravenes the
Federal Constitution. In instances where the proviso can be
applied without bringing about a conflict with federal
constitutional requirements, the proviso remains operative.
247 F. Supp. at 101 (footnotes omitted) (bold emphasis added).
49. Larios echoed this Courts reasoning that, to limit gerrymandering and
to facilitate responsive local legislation, county boundaries must be respected as
long as the basic standard of equality of population among districts is maintained.
300 F. Supp. 2d at 1346 (quoting Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. at 580-81).
50. Subsequently, in Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. 1231 (2009), the U.S.
Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the North Carolina Supreme Court in
Pender County v. Bartlett, 361 N.C. 491, 649 S.E.2d 364 (2007), which held that
19
the whole-county provision in North Carolinas constitution should be adhered to

by the General Assembly to the maximum extent possible. 361 N.C. at 493, 649
S.E.2d at 366 (quoting Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. 354, 374, 562 S.E.2d 377,
391 (2002)). The maximum extent possible meant that only the smallest number
of counties necessary to comply with the at or within plus or minus five percent
one-person, one-vote standard shall be combined, and communities of interest
should be considered in the formation of compact and contiguous electoral
districts. Stephenson v. Bartlett, 355 N.C. at 384, 562 S.E.2d at 397. The U.S.
Supreme Court affirmed and held that the Voting Rights Act could justify violating
the state constitutional whole-county requirement only where splitting county
boundaries was necessary to draw a reasonably compact black voting-age majority
district, not a black influence district. Bartlett v. Strickland, 129 S.Ct. at 1246-49.
51. Pursuant to the foregoing controlling federal case law, Acts 2012-602
and 2012-603 violate the one-person, one-vote requirement of the Equal Protection
Clause by restricting allowable population deviations more than is practicable to
comply with the whole-county provisions in the Alabama Constitution and by
failing to comply with those whole-county provisions to the extent practicable.
This Fourteenth Amendment claim is enforceable against the defendant Alabama
Secretary of State under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
20
Count II: Dilution and Isolation of Black Voting Strength

52. The packing of black voters in the 27 House districts and 8 Senate
districts with black voting-age majorities has the purpose and the effect of
minimizing the ability of African Americans to form coalitions with white voters to
elect legislators of their choice.
53. The packing of black voters in the 27 House districts and 8 Senate
districts with black voting-age majorities has the purpose and the effect of
politically segregating the elected representatives of African-American voters and
of minimizing their ability to participate in the legislative process and to influence
the outcomes of legislation.
54. The dilution of black voting strength was aided by the arbitrary and
unnecessary restriction of permissible population deviations to + 1% and by
systematic noncompliance with the whole-county provisions of the Alabama
Constitution.
55. For the foregoing reasons, Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 violate the
rights of plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent that are guaranteed by 2 of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973, which are
enforceable against the defendants State of Alabama and Alabama Secretary of
State, and by the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
21
United States, which are enforceable against the defendant Alabama Secretary of
State under 42 U.S.C. 1983.
Count III: Partisan Gerrymandering
56. The Republican drafters of Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 utilized racial
demographics and analyses of past elections to determine which voters were likely
to vote for Democratic candidates, and, based on the content of voters political
speech at the ballot box, drew House and Senate districts that have the purpose and
effect of minimizing the ability of voters who share the political views of and wish
to be represented by Democratic legislators.
57. The partisan gerrymanders were aided by the arbitrary and unnecessary
restriction of permissible population deviations to + 1% and by systematic
noncompliance with the whole-county provisions of the Alabama Constitution.
58. For these reasons, Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 violate the rights of free
speech and political association of plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent
guaranteed by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which
are enforceable against the defendant Alabama Secretary of State under 42 U.S.C.
1983.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully pray that this Court will grant them
22
the following relief:

A. Certify the named plaintiffs as representatives of the plaintiff classes (1)
of residents of Alabama counties whose boundaries have been unnecessarily split
among more House and/or Senate districts than are necessary to satisfy the
Fourteenth Amendment requirement of substantial population equality, (2) of all
African-American voters of Alabama, and (3) of all Alabama voters who support
Democratic members of the Legislature.
B. Enter a declaratory judgment that the redistricting plans set out in Acts
2012-602 and 2012-603 violate the rights of plaintiffs and the classes they seek to
represent guaranteed by Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended,
42 U.S.C. 1973, and the First, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the
Constitution of the United States.
C. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting defendants,
their political subdivisions, departments, officers, agents, attorneys, employees and
those acting in concert with them or at their direction from enforcing Acts 2012602 and 2012-603.
D. Afford the Alabama Legislature a reasonable opportunity to adopt and to
obtain preclearance under 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, of new
redistricting plans for the House and Senate that comply with Section 2 of the
23
Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973, and the First,
Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States.
E. Should the Alabama Legislature fail in timely manner to enact lawful,
constitutional, and enforceable redistricting plans for the Alabama House and
Senate, instruct the parties to submit redistricting proposals that this Court would
adopt in time for the orderly conduct of the primary and general elections for
members of the Alabama House and Senate in 2014.
F. Award plaintiffs their costs incurred in prosecuting this action, including
an award of attorneys' fees and expenses, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1973l and 1988.
G. Grant such other and further equitable relief as the Court may deem just
and equitable.
Respectfully submitted this 10th day of August, 2012,
24
Edward Still
Bar No. ASB-4786-I 47W
130 Wildwood Parkway
STE 108 PMB 304
Birmingham, AL 35209
205-320-2882
fax 205-320-2882
E-mail: still(a)votelaw.com
3iL~
rmes u. Blacksher
BarNo. ASB-2381-S82J
P.O. Box 636
Birmingham AL 35201
205-591-7238
Fax: 866-845-4395
E-mail: jblackshen.q)ns.svmpatico.ca
U.W. Clemon
Bar No. ASB-0095-076U
WHITE ARNOLD & DOWD P.C.
2025 Third Avenue North, Suite 500
Birmingham, AL 35203
Phone: (205)-323-1888
Fax:
(205)-323-8907
E-mail: uwclemonrZii.waadlaw.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
25
'.
#-~---------~---r~--------'~
,
rn
~Y""
,, ..
,,-------I
~ LAUDERDALE
~
,.GQLBERT
'L1!J
,I
,,
,
,
MARION
--_.,.
~---'JTIJ
:
Alabama State House
t[M]
..~.
"f9sl ~
EXHIBIT A
Map Layers
i--:County
DBlack
BeltCounties
20
40
60
Miles
Act 2012 - 602
EXHIBITB
Population Summary Report

AIoIbema State House - Act 2012-602
OJetnet
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
PopulOlIon
45968
45486
45972
45083
45403
45796
45089
45083
45083
45110
45282
45070
45070
45073
45893
45080
45082
45585
45081
45808
45614
45872
45972
45972
45709
45721
45827
45887
45910
45216
45842
45504
45905
45386
45957
45957
45966
45968
45968
45932
45092
45966
Deviation
447
-35
451
-438
-118
275
432
438
438
411
-239
451
451
448
372
441
439
64
440
287
93
351
451
451
188
200
306
366
389
-305
321
-17
384
-135
436
436
445
447
447
411
429
445
% Devl ion
llk_Pop
18+NHDOJ
BIIICiI
35951
35725
35849
34151
34435
35268
34547
34257
34332
34878
34144
34821
34775
35083
34321
35211
35160
34775
34453
35371
35623
34826
35625
34430
32435
33195
35226
35588
34708
34651
35385
34792
35367
34231
34996
35714
35437
34619
35635
35632
33802
34185
5056
1400
8215
4178
4259
5985
1372
6366
643
5324
159
526
2072
861
4242
3855
1458
1944
20725
1292
2876
1958
1333
504
5156
488
542
9983
1081
1411
5388
20069
7026
555
5314
4028
9947
5930
1811
4699
3931
3558
0.98%
-0.08%
0.99%
-0.96%
-0.26%
0.600/.
-0.95%
-0.96%
-0.96%
-0.900/.
-0.53%
-0.99%
-0.99%
-0.98%
0.82%
-0.97%
-0.96%
0.14%
-0.97%
0.63%
0.20%
0.77%
0.99%
O.99"k
0.41%
0.44%
0.67%
0.800/.
0.85%
-0.67%
0.71%
-0.04%
0.84%
-0.30%
0.96%
0.96%
0.98%
0.98%
0.98%
0.90%
-0.94%
0.98%
-,
AIlyP"
"'18+NH
DOJBIIICiI BlllCilllk
14.06%
3.92%
22.92%
12.23%
12.37%
16.97%
3.97%
18.58%
1.87%
15.26%
0.47%
1.51%
5.96%
2.45%
12.36%
10.95%
4.15%
5.59%
60.15%
3.65%
8.07%
5.62%
3.74%
1.46%
15.900/.
1.47%
1.54%
28.05%
3.11%
4.07%
15.23%
57.68%
19.87%
1.62%
15.18%
11.28%
28.07%
17.13%
5.08%
13.19%
11.63%
10.41%
5132
1436
8304
4252
4323
6107
1423
6471
664
5516
178
561
2114
871
4308
3892
1480
1983
21123
1353
2954
1991
1360
528
5272
584
550
10075
1097
1428
5465
20289
7089
602
5383
4102
10016
5992
1836
4802
3985
3626
AnyP .
BlllCilllk
14.27%
4.02%
23.16%
12.45%
12.55%
17.32%
4.12%
18.89%
1.93%
15.82%
0.52%
1.61%
6.08%
2.48%
12.55%
11.05%
4.21%
5.70%
61.31%
3.83%
8.29"/.
5.72%
3.82%
1.53%
16.25%
1.76%
1.56%
28.31%
3.16%
4.12%
15.44%
58.32%
20.04%
1.76%
15.38%
11.49%
28.26%
17.31%
5.150/.
13.48%
11.79%
10.61%
Hi.penlc
%Htapanlc
llk
18+
658
539
630
1867
2055
1065
855
3325
814
1743
1575
1344
755
236
529
276
582
2654
1077
775
661
560
751
2653
1080
5981
647
1319
1540
649
703
955
535
2442
878
735
721
511
622
1030
1141
1488
1.83%
1.51%
1.76%
5.47%
5.97%
3.02%
2.47%
9.71%
2.37%
5.00%
4.61%
3.86%
2.17%
0.67%
1.54%
0.78%
1.66%
7.63%
3.13%
2.19"k
1.86%
1.61%
2.11%
7.71%
3.33%
18.02%
2.40%
3.71%
4.44%
1.87%
1.99%
2.74%
1.51%
7.13%
2.51%
2.06%
2.03%
1.48%
1.75%
2.89%
3.38%
4.35%
EXlllBIT B

Alabama
District
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Popul8tlon
45209
45088
45087
45316
45578
45592
45877
45961
45073
45083
45106
45070
45071
45071
45071
45088
45218
45084
45078
45840
45251
45972
45073
45971
45078
45069
45477
45970
45348
45346
45936
45646
45946
45972
45954
45957
45972
45964
45932
45858
45973
45969
Dovlotlon
-312
-433
-434
-205
57
71
356
440
-448
-438
-415
-451
-450
-450
-450
-433
-303
-437
-443
319
-270
451
-448
450
-443
-452
-44
449
-173
-175
415
125
425
451
433
436
451
443
411
337
452
448
DevI.kH1
-0.69%
-0.95%
-0.95%
-0.45%
0.13"10
0.16%
0.78%
0.97%
-0.98%
-0.96%
-0.91%
-0.99%
-0.99%
-0.99%
-0.99%
-0.95%
-0.67%
-0.96%
-0.97%
0.70%
-0.59%
0.99"10
-0.98%
0.99%
-0.97%
-0.99%
-0.10%
0.99%
-0.38%
-0.38%
0.91%
0.27%
0.93'Yo
0.99"10
0.95%
0.96"'.
0.99%
0.97%
0.90%
0.74%
0.99%
0.98%
18+_Pop
34247
34015
34685
34210
34968
34828
34295
34949
34717
36173
35041
35355
35503
33823
34418
32590
33003
35339
34340
34421
39190
34565
34411
35447
33251
33584
34141
35473
34639
34681
33217
36119
34596
33757
35117
33683
38300
34202
35891
36115
33538
35583
House - Ad: 2012-602
18+NHOOJ
BI_
2220
3357
4867
2453
6215
2036
4322
3006
1849
20694
18564
18563
25064
20195
22702
22157
24516
23209
6001
4957
4896
4650
7941
8699
21856
20762
21111
20265
22314
21460
3245
8028
9382
24048
22545
22714
4247
5366
6574
21841
18625
18142
'% 18+ NH
OOJBI_
6.48%
9.87%
14.03%
7.17%
17.77%
5.85%
12.60%
8.600/0
5.33"10
57.21%
52.98%
52.50%
70.600/0
59.71%
65.96%
67.99%
74.28%
65.68%
17.48%
14.40%
12.49"10
13.45%
23.08%
24.54%
65.73%
61.82%
61.83%
57.13%
64.42%
61.88'Y.
9.77%
22.23%
27.12%
71.24%
64.20%
67.43%
11.09%
15.69%
18.32"10
60.48%
55.53%
50.99%
AnyPtIrt
BI_18+
2270
3395
4945
2508
6338
2084
4402
3058
1889
20919
19063
18737
25234
20327
22822
22284
24695
23359
6072
4991
4966
4720
8017
8804
22022
20916
21270
20441
22463
21587
3309
8168
9475
24295
22747
22929
4371
5472
6645
22102
18826
18335
%AnyPtIrt
BIKk18+
6.63%
9.98%
14.26%
7.33%
18.13%
5.98%
12.84%
8.75%
5.44%
57.83%
54.40%
53.00%
71.08%
60.10%
66.31%
68.38%
74.83%
66.10%
17.68%
14.50%
12.67%
13.66%
23.30%
24.84%
66.23%
62.28%
62.30%
57.62%
64.85%
62.24%
9.96%
22.61%
27.39"10
71.97%
64.77%
68.07%
11.41%
16.00%
18.51%
61.20%
56.13%
51.53%
Hispanic:
18+
1896
560
935
962
3002
1121
1991
543
989
2196
3587
1232
1333
1219
583
851
1559
851
883
737
1061
754
266
681
214
356
727
1269
547
405
2326
874
624
1433
761
1539
1007
941
912
747
1286
1632
""Hlspenlc
18+
5.54%
1.65%
2.70%
2.81%
8.58%
3.22%
5.81%
1.55%
2.85%
6.07%
10.24%
3.480/0
3.75%
3.60%
1.69"10
2.61%
4.72%
2.41%
2.57%
2.14%
2.71"'.
2.18%
0.77%
1.92%
0.64%
1.06%
2.13'Yo
3.58%
1.58%
1.17%
7.00%
2.42%
1.80%
4.25%
2.17%
4.57"'.
2.63%
2.75%
2.54%
2.07'Y.
3.83%
4.59"10
EXHIBITB

Alabama
State
House - Act 2012-602
18+ NH DOJ
otltrk:t
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
Total
Median
MlNln
Population
45229
45965
45961
45966
45678
45812
45070
45101
45956
45965
45971
45970
45071
45069
45069
45069
45089
45071
45075
45072
45072
4779736
DlYlatlon
-292
444
440
445
157
291
-451
-420
435
444
450
449
-450
-452
-452
-452
-432
-450
-446
-449
-449
'" Deviation
-0.64%
0.98%
0.97%
0.98%
0.34%
0.64%
-0.99%
-0.92%
0.96%
0.980/0
0.99%
0.99%
-0.99%
-0.99%
-0.99%
-0.99%
-0.95%
-0.99%
-0.980/0
-0.99%
-0.99%
1.98%
0.96%
0.81%
18+_Pop
Block
"'8+
NH
DOJ Block
AnyP.-t
Block 18+
33779
35326
35155
33534
35283
35334
34066
34899
35252
35076
37023
34861
33768
33630
33652
33250
35758
33171
32479
34437
33515
15949
4362
3007
5678
10800
11629
5120
4065
5521
2636
1570
3507
19157
19493
20888
4534
5635
2499
19545
4814
2887
47.22%
12.35%
8.55%
16.930/.
30.61%
32.91%
15.03%
11.65%
15.66%
7.52%
4.24%
10.06%
56.730/.
57.96%
62.07%
13.64%
15.76%
13.98%
8.61%
16106
4443
3092
5756
10983
11726
5269
4108
5688
2676
1615
3561
19362
19678
21105
4630
5757
2573
19767
4870
2946
3647277
906474
24.85%
917500
7.53%
so. 18%
%AnyP'"
Block
18+
47.68%
12.58%
8.800/0
17.16%
31.130/0
33.19%
15.47%
11.77%
16.14%
7.630/.
4.36%
10.21%
57.34%
58.51%
62.720/.
13.920/.
16.10%
7.76%
SO.86%
14.14%
8.79%
HilP8r'llc
18+
769
836
942
986
1015
321
1976
397
1378
1414
2193
762
503
427
582
1067
987
710
855
895
773
25.16% 118336
""Hispanic
18+
2.28%
2.37%
2.68-%2.94%
2.88%
0.91%
5.80%
1.14%
3.91%
4.030/.
5.92%
2.19%
1.49%
1.27%
1.7:l'l'.
3.21%
2.76%
2.14%
2.63%
2.60%
2.31%
3.24%
HENRY
DALE
Io------.!..---._r
I
I
COVINGTON
__ ....
I
I
I
I
-------
..,~.
- ,'"
GENEVA:
,~,
_..-.. .".,.".
~
~~
...
I HOUSTON
~,
-'\
Map Layers
~t
1------/,
Alabama State Senate
EXHIBITC
I
I
I
I
I
:
-.L
i--:county
DBlack
BeltCounties
20
40
60
Miles
Act 2012- 603
EXHIBITD

AJab;oma _
Senate
18+NHDOJ
0;""'",
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Total
Median
Mean
Popu'''lon
Oevl.tlon
136648
137922
137642
135214
135415
136009
137911
137920
137921
137323
136114
135258
137883
136210
136868
137160
135227
135258
135218
135211
135621
137108
135338
137724
135492
136451
137918
137909
137921
135374
137917
137918
136214
135267
135232
84
1358
1078
-1350
-1149
-555
1347
1356
1357
759
-450
-1306
1319
-354
304
596
-1337
-1306
-1346
-1353
-943
544
-1226
1180
-1072
-113
1354
1345
1357
-1190
1353
1354
-350
-1297
-1332
4779736
'" Deviation
0.06%
0.9S0;'
0.79%
-0.99%
-0.84%
-0.41%
0.9S0/.
0.9S0/.
0.99%
0.56%
-0.330/.
-0.96%
0.97%
-0.26%
0.22%
0.44%
-0.98%
-0.96%
-0.99%
-0.99%
-0.69%
0.40%
-0.900/0
0.85%
-0.78%
-0.08%
0.99%
0.98%
0.99%
-0.87%
0.99%
0.9S0/.
-0.26%
-0.95%
-0.98%
1.98%
0.95%
0.75%
,a._Pop
BIIId<
104900
103950
104802
103955
104906
105659
106163
105471
103650
105593
104053
104034
104115
100331
101523
106423
103333
107866
102515
100569
107852
104153
101041
105597
104941
100770
109536
104667
105348
101741
106126
106974
100562
102116
102042
11243
25313
13603
1822
6689
15501
27732
3401
1488
12348
14981
19796
20701
13801
14598
11557
5094
80870
64252
59362
15462
21559
62312
63084
22815
73255
21364
60734
14548
21704
19585
7865
68483
11930
17622
3647277
906474
-Act
2012603
%18+NH
AnyP.-t
DOJBIIId<
BI-*18+
10.72%
24.35%
12.98%
1.75%
6.38%
14.67%
26.12%
3.22%
1.44%
11.69%
14.40%
19.03%
19.88%
13.76%
14.38%
10.86%
4.93%
56.430/0
62.68%
59.03%
14.34%
20.70%
61.670/0
59.74%
21.74%
72.70%
19.50%
58.030/0
13.81%
21.33%
18.45%
7.35%
68.10%
11.68%
17.27%
24.85%
11456
25993
13855
1903
6772
15704
28349
3495
1631
12477
15154
20103
20914
14014
14813
11805
5206
61439
64619
59794
15636
21837
62787
63529
23138
73912
21706
61408
14907
21944
19951
7997
69177
12183
17892
917500
%AnyP.-t
BIIId<'a.
10.92%
25.01%
13.22%
1.830/.
6.46%
14.86%
26.70%
3.31%
1.57%
11.82%
14.56%
19.32%
20.09%
13.97%
14.59%
11.09%
5.04%
56.96%
63.03%
59.46%
14.50%
20.97%
62.14%
60.16%
22.05%
73.35%
19.82%
58.67%
14.15%
21.57%
18.80%
7.48%
68.79%
11.93%
17.53%
Hltpenlc
,a.
2827
4285
6317
2809
1355
4262
4832
4405
8374
3681
2126
2657
2037
4999
3827
5290
3528
4970
2306
3498
2631
1568
835
2114
2003
4068
3119
3231
3272
2477
3310
4480
1525
2525
2793
25.16% 118336
""Hispanic
,8+
2.690;'
4.12%
6.03%
2.70%
1.290/.
4.030/0
4.55%
4.18%
8.08%
3.49%
2.04%
2.55%
1.96%
4.98%
3.77%
4.97%
3.41%
4.61%
2.25%
3.48%
2.44%
1.51%
0.83%
2.00%
1.91%
4.04%
2.85%
3.09%
3.11%
2.43%
3.12%
4.19%
1.52%
2.47%
2.74%
3.24%
EXHIBITE
District Assignments by County with Extra Legislator Tally -- Act 2012-603 Senate and Act 2012-602 House
(Blue Counties have one or more extra legislator -- assuming + or - 5% deviation)
49 of the 67 Counties Have One or More Extra Legislator
Extra
Act 2012-603
County
Population
AP Black
% AP Black
Senate
Ideal
Extra
Act 2012-602
Senators
House
Ideal
House
Total
Extra
Members
Legislators
Legislators
AUTAUGA
54571
9976
18.3%
0.4
1.2
BALDWIN
182265
17996
9.9%
1.3
4.0
BARBOUR
27457
13021
47.4%
0.2
0.6
BIBB
22915
5136
22.4%
0.2
0.5
BLOUNT
57322
909
1.6%
0.4
1.3
BULLOCK
10914
7706
70.6%
0.1
0.2
20947
9179
43.8%
0.2
0.5
o
o
BUTLER
o
o
2.6
0.8
118572
25322
21.4%
0.9
CHAMBERS
34215
13473
39.4%
0.3
o
o
o
o
CHEROKEE
25989
1319
5.1%
0.2
0.6
CHILTON
43643
4431
10.2%
0.3
1.0
3
2
CALHOUN
CHOCTAW
13859
6052
43.7%
0.1
0.3
CLARKE
25833
11442
44.3%
0.2
0.6
CLAY
13932
2174
15.6%
0.1
0.3
2
1
CLEBURNE
14972
560
3.7%
0.1
0.3
COFFEE
49948
8800
17.6%
0.4
1.1
COLBERT
54428
9155
16.8%
0.4
o
o
1.2
CONECUH
13228
6220
47.0%
0.1
0.3
COOSA
11539
3622
31.4%
0.1
0.3
COVINGTON
37765
4948
13.1%
0.3
0.8
CRENSHAW
13906
3356
24.1%
0.1
0.3
CULLMAN
80406
1032
1.3%
0.6
o
o
o
o
1.8
DALE
50251
10353
20.6%
0.4
1.1
DALLAS
43820
30666
70.0%
0.3
1.0
o
o
DEKALB
71109
1309
1.8%
0.5
1.6
ELMORE
79303
16375
20.6%
0.6
1.7
ESCAMBIA
38319
12454
32.5%
0.3
0.8
EXHIBITE
Dlstrl,:t Assignments by County with Extra Legislator Tally -- Act 2012-603 Senate and Act 2012-602 House
Extra
Extra
Act 2012-602
Ideal
Senators
House
Act 2012-603
County
Population
AP Black
% AP Black
Senate
House
Total
Extra
Ideal
Members
legislators
legislators
o
o
ETOWAH
104430
16468
15.8%
0.8
2.3
17241
2055
11.9%
0.1
o
o
FAYETTE
0.4
FRANKLIN
31704
1382
4.4%
0.2
0.7
GENEVA
26790
2708
10.1%
0.2
0.6
o
2
9045
7402
81.8%
0.1
o
o
0.2
HALE
15760
9333
59.2%
0.1
0.3
HENRY
17302
5038
29.1%
0.1
0.4
HOUSTON
101547
27058
26.6%
0.7
2.2
JACKSON
53227
2054
3.9%
0.4
1.2
o
6
GREENE
658466
280083
42.5%
4.8
18
14.5
26
LAMAR
14564
1731
11.9%
0.1
0.3
LAUDERDALE
92709
9879
10.7%
0.7
2.0
JEFFERSON
34339
4123
12.0%
0.3
0.8
140247
32884
23.4%
1.0
3.1
LIMESTONE
82782
10995
13.3%
0.6
1.8
LOWNDES
11299
8351
73.9%
0.1
0.2
o
o
LAWRENCE
lEE
21452
17920
83.5%
0.2
0.5
334811
83918
25.1%
2.5
7.4
14
MARENGO
21027
10970
52.2%
0.2
0.5
MARION
30776
1293
4.2%
0.2
0.7
MARSHALL
93019
1951
2.1%
0.7
2.0
412992
145793
35.3%
3.0
10
9.1
14
MACON
MADISON
23068
9771
42.4%
0.2
0.5
2
2
MONTGOMEF
229363
127181
55.4%
1.7
5.0
MORGAN
119490
15012
12.6%
0.9
2.6
PERRY
10591
7312
69.0%
0.1
0.2
PICKENS
19746
8327
42.2%
0.1
0.4
MOBilE
MONROE
EXIDBITE
District Assignments by County with Extra Legislator Tally - Act 2012-603 Senate and Act 2012-602 House
Extra
Act 2012-603
County
Population
AP Black
%APBlack
Senate
Ideal
Extra
Act 2012-602
Senators
House
Ideal
House
Total
Extra
Members
Legislators
Legislators
PIKE
32899
12288
37.4%
0.2
0.7
RANDOLPH
22913
4729
20.6%
0.2
0.5
RUSSELL
52947
22686
42.8%
0.4
1.2
ST. CLAIR
83593
7548
9.0%
0.6
1.8
195085
21688
11.1%
1.4
4.3
11
SHELBY
SUMTER
13763
10352
75.2%
0.1
0.3
TALLADEGA
82291
26618
32.3%
0.6
1.8
TALLAPOOSA
41616
11295
27.1%
0.3
0.9
TUSCALOOSA
194656
58564
30.1%
1.4
4.3
WALKER
67023
4260
6.4%
0.5
1.5
WASHINGTO~
17581
4446
25.3%
0.1
0.4
WILCOX
11670
8496
72.8%
0.1
0.3
WINSTON
24484
170
0.7%
0.2
0.5
4779736
1281118
26.8%
122
35.0
43
207
105.0
70
329
113
Total
FRANKLIN
_
;
MARION
r---,
...-.--..
ITfJ
, LAMAR
,
,
HENRY !
10
mID
EXHIBITF
Alabama State House

Map Layers
i--:County
OSlack
BeltCounties
20
40
Miles
HB16
60
EXillBITG
Population Sununary Report

Alabama
DloIric:l
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
PopulMlon
46019
46690
46494
44813
44253
43509
-2012
1.09%
2.57%
-2.79%
-4.42%
3.42%
-3.13%
33395
33738
38271
33446
33082
35078
34807
502
-568
704
-419
1.55%
-0.92%
838
-1434
-181
-187
-1807
-2281
-3.15%
-0.40%
-0.41%
-3.97%
-5.01%
45102
46359
44087
45340
45334
43714
43240
44954
44571
43380
43310
47710
29
45801
30
31
43354
43436
47689
35
43402
44188
45073
36
37
38
43690
43924
43323
39
40
41
44208
46436
44925
43643
-567
-950
-1876
-1442
2031
-2141
-2211
2189
280
-2167
-2085
2168
-2119
-1333
36802
35925
36163
34216
46023
44953
46225
-955
-2252
18+_Pop
2.14%
-1.56%
-2.10%
-4.95%
1.10%
-1.25%
26
27
28
42
973
-708
-1268
Oevl.,on
1558
-1423
43645
44079
47552
33
34
498
1169
47079
44098
44566
43269
24
25
32
OWletlon
33703
1B+NHOOJ
B~
6042
895
8268
5137
3365
9188
883
7825
1889
1746
%18+NH
Any Port
DOJ Block
Block 18+
16.42%
2.49%
22.86%
15.01%
10.08%
27.23%
2.43%
23.40%
5.60%
6144
909
8354
%AstyP"
Block 18+
16.69%
2.53%
23.10%
15.25%
922
7955
1927
565
4166
1000
1.56%
12.46%
2.97%
802
839
1344
2.42%
2.39%
3.86%
5.33%
11.39%
1945
3912
5.42"/.
11.52"10
3628
2489
2172
1529
10.04%
34327
35448
34493
3666
2516
10.15%
7.33%
6.22"/.
33535
33351
32707
35178
24453
3463
6454
5591
4.53%
74.40%
6586
5808
20.14%
16.51%
1175
3.520/.
318
7879
449
0.96%
22.26%
1.420/.
1195
344
8077
-4.70%
33928
33261
35389
31539
10.38%
19.73%
15.89%
3.46%
2206
1561
24949
3540
-4.86%
4.81%
0.62%
33310
36635
33745
300
10162
0.90%
27.74%
2.06%
-4.76%
-4.58%
33583
32640
695
1246
2707
548
317
10253
722
3.71%
8.29%
1260
2755
4.76%
36652
33952
33150
34898
7958
5991
221
12282
21.71%
17.65%
0.67%
8064
6063
248
3525
6221
5009
35.19%
10.37%
18.47%
15.67%
11.770/.
12412
3582
-1.25%
-2.09%
-4.12%
-3.17%
4.46%
-448
-1831
-1597
-2198
-1313
-2.88%
33976
33678
31961
33574
915
-596
2.01%
-1.31%
-4.13%
36675
34213
32683
3952
13335
3167
2968
36.36%
9.26%
9.08%
1.66%
746
1910
3868
7.25%
6.13%
4.43%
72.92%
2.56%
0.89%
1500
5.44%
0.67%
1.80%
1.84%
941
321
602
2044
""Hispanic
18+
10.25%
1801
234
628
33963
36132
18+
28.02"10
2.54%
23.78%
5.72%
5.28%
0.63%
1.70%
35857
HIipIf1lc
5.97%
2.23%
4.45%
5218
3422
9453
221
592
-4.65%
-2.93%
-0.98%
-4.02%
-3.51%
-4.83%
-1878
Sbte House - HB 16
10.61%
1.03%
22.820/.
1.74%
0.95%
27.99%
611
862
374
430
476
2920
1117
657
810
3675
696
1580
1296
5505
665
1409
1.70%
2.54%
1.04%
1.25%
1.34%
8.47%
3.33%
1.97%
2.48%
10.45%
2.05%
4.75%
3.66%
17.45%
2.00%
3.85%
11.38%
1.29%
2.14%
3.75%
8.44%
22.00%
3639
434
520
852
1.59%
2.32%
17.86%
0.75%
742
1645
2.19%
4.96%
6289
5103
35.57%
10.54%
18.67%
15.97%
722
1026
564
2.07%
3.02%
1.67%
2.37%
3979
13512
11.85%
36.84%
3253
3037
9.51%
9.29%
756
701
967
1149
2098
2.09%
2.64%
3.36%
6.42%
EXIDBITG

Alabama state House - HB 16
atltrld
43
44
45
46
47
48
<49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
Popul.lon
44413
46341
47555
46855
47664
43561
43545
44997
46974
47763
47701
46781
46912
47706
47583
47439
47006
44168
44317
44127
46509
46421
43917
44303
43820
45757
46878
45842
46556
46585
45723
45941
47775
47670
<46683
46443
44674
47404
46877
44134
44871
47033
Devi lon
-1108
820
2034
1334
2143
-1960
-1976
-524
1453
2242
2180
1260
1391
2185
2062
1918
1485
-1353
-1204
-1394
988
900
-1604
-1218
-1701
236
1357
321
1035
1064
202
420
2254
2149
1162
922
-847
1863
1356
-1387
-650
1512
'" Deviation
-2.43%
1.80%
4.47%
2.93%
4.71%
-4.31%
4.34%
-1.15%
3.19%
4.93%
4.79%
2.770/0
3.06%
4.80%
4.53%
4.21%
3.26%
-2.97%
-2.64%
-3.06%
2.17%
1.98%
-3.52%
-2.68%
-3.74%
0.52%
2.98%
0.71%
2.27%
2.34%
0.44%
0.92%
4.95%
4.72%
2.55%
2.03%
-1.86%
4.14%
2.98%
-3.05%
-1.43%
3.32%
18+_Pop
32707
33531
36066
35074
36738
32452
33428
34706
36032
37286
39106
36449
35320
35784
36882
34546
34150
34373
33241
32619
40656
36091
32949
34161
32225
34265
35118
35788
35074
35684
33727
35998
36184
37488
35289
34690
33828
34659
36268
33909
37848
35220
18+NHOOJ
B_
2701
3052
4499
6985
2395
3363
20015
2162
2275
19634
21393
19662
21696
18605
21352
19333
19539
19702
4574
5450
7820
11167
4642
878
21273
8302
19545
18767
18360
19310
27599
8420
7144
8809
20076
19365
10316
4916
1901
17313
4748
8711
%18+NH
Any Port
DOJ Blod<
Blod< 18+
8.26%
9.10%
12.47%
19.92%
6.52%
10.36%
59.87%
6.23%
6.31%
52.66%
54.71%
53.94%
61.43%
51.99%
57.89%
55.96%
57.22%
57.32%
13.76%
16.71%
19.23%
30.94%
14.09%
2.57%
66.01%
24.23%
55.66%
52.44%
52.35%
54.11%
81.63%
23.39%
19.74%
23.50%
56.89%
55.82%
30.50%
14.18%
5.24%
51.06%
12.54%
24.73%
2763
3109
4556
7138
2444
3413
20126
2201
2312
19863
21573
19821
21822
18745
21478
19470
19676
19817
4644
5481
7908
11281
4713
902
21433
8386
19687
18943
18503
19447
27818
8555
7215
8917
20272
19610
10404
4988
1932
17471
4864
8841
%AnyP8r't
Hi..,lc
Blod< 18+
18+
8.45%
9.27%
12.63%
20.35%
6.65%
10.52%
60.21%
6.34%
6.42%
53.27%
55.17%
54.38%
61.78%
52.38%
58.23%
56.36%
57.62%
57.65%
13.97%
16.80%
19.45%
31.26%
14.30%
2.64%
66.51%
24.47%
56.06%
52.93%
52.75%
54.500/0
82.48%
23.77%
19.94%
23.79%
57.45%
56.53%
30.76%
14.39%
5.33%
51.52%
12.85%
25.10%
2672
1287
1281
2925
1072
966
343
1561
463
2984
930
1003
487
1174
753
1126
1360
1158
1730
658
1214
534
573
980
209
301
834
1282
345
478
552
884
549
548
1663
1592
1006
870
384
776
1123
778
% Hispanic
18+
8.17%
3.84%
3.55%
8.34%
2.92%
2.98%
1.03%
4.50%
1.28%
8.00%
2.38%
2.75%
1.WIo
3.28%
2.04%
3.26%
3.98%
3.37%
5.20%
2.02%
2.99%
1.48%
1.74%
2.87%
0.65%
0.88%
2.37%
3.58%
0.98%
1.34%
1.64%
2.46%
1.52%
1.46%
4.71%
4.59%
2.97%
2.51%
1.06%
2.29%
2.97%
2.21%
EXHIBITG
Population Sununary Report

Alaba"", State House - HB 16
BI_
18970
12801
7510
24132
5635
18684
6107
3564
2674
3766
2181
1718
18594
19596
19229
6030
18586
3360
5998
3964
4438
DOJBI_
52.51%
38.78%
22.68%
70.62%
15.98%
53.19%
17.28%
9.91%
7.95%
10.45%
5.98%
4.93%
54.19%
60.30%
54.39%
17.02%
57.00%
9.75%
16.28%
12.08%
12.65%
AIIyP
Block18+
19208
12922
7634
24385
5771
18835
6343
3608
2742
3811
2231
1761
18788
19779
19468
6147
18802
3437
6075
4042
4500
906474
24.85%
917500
18+HHDOJ
District PopuIOllon
47810
85
86
43292
87
43802
88
43557
89
46182
90
46798
91
47813
46408
92
93
44050
94
47205
95
45995
96
45148
97
44970
98
43552
99
46486
100
45892
101
45871
102
47705
103
46907
104
44145
105
47664
Total
Median
Mean
4779736
Deviation
2289
-2229
-1719
-1964
661
1277
2292
887
-1471
1684
474
-373
-551
-1969
965
371
150
2184
1386
-1376
2143
'" DlYI.,on
5.03%
-4.90"10
-3.78%
-4.31%
1.45%
2.81%
5.04%
1.95%
-3.23%
3.70%
1.04%
-0.82%
-1.21%
-4.33%
2.12%
0.82%
0.33%
4.80%
3.04%
-3.02%
4.71%
10.05%
3.02%
2.96%
18+_Pop
36124
33006
33118
34171
35271
35129
35336
35978
33647
36048
36487
34883
34310
32498
35354
35439
32607
34444
36838
32827
35094
3647Z77
%18+NH
%AnyP.t
BI_18+
53.17%
39.15%
23.05%
71.38%
16.36%
53.62%
17.95%
10.03%
8.15%
10.57%
6.11%
5.05%
54.76%
60.86%
55.07%
17.35%
57.66%
9.98%
16.49%
12.31%
12.82%
HIII*\'c
18+
1539
745
883
826
801
332
3020
432
838
871
2293
1449
444
364
785
1244
750
1085
919
493
849
25.16% 118336
%HI_nIc
18+
4.26%
2.26%
2.67%
2.42%
2.27%
0.950/.
8.55%
1.20%
2.48%
2.42%
6.28%
4.15%
1.29%
1.12%
2.22%
3.51%
2.30%
3.15%
2.49%
1.50%
2.42%
3.24%
~-~~.-----~-~~~
,
-1/._
I-.
I"ALLADEG1"
PICKENS
.
,
-------~-----~r-----
,I
r:pflLAY
~
I
I
I
I
I
COOSA:..
,I
____ .A._...
~
'
'
'
;CHAMBERS'\
...._
--,-~- .'\
ALL[ffi0S'1
'
,
l
HENRY
DALE'
, ._r
-------: ....
_-,
~
GENEVA:
i-----J,
IHOUSTON ~~
\
-----------~---~~-~
EXHIBITH
Alabama State Senate

Map Layers
~:::County
c=JBlack Belt Counties
20
40
60
Miles
SB5
EXHIBIT I
Popul.ion
Di_
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
140388
134295
130349
137728
131831
143058
130746
131242
132513
139698
131085
141344
130675
142070
142187
143055
143078
137788
134921
131581
138288
140430
139084
139895
133302
131409
140247
137287
138136
133544
129990
136413
133858
138061
140160
Total
4779736
Median
Mean
Devl.ion
3824
-2269
~215
1164
-4733
6494
-5818
-5322
-4051
3134
-5479
4780
-5889
5506
5623
6491
6514
1224
-1643
-4983
1724
3866
2520
3331
-3262
-5155
3683
723
1572
-3020
-6574
-151
-2706
1497
3596
Alabama
State Senate
- 58 5
18+_Pop
18+NHDOJ
81_
% 18+NH
DOJ81_
2.80%
-1.66%
-4.55%
0.85%
-3.47%
4.76%
-4.26%
-3.90%
-2.97%
2.290/.
-4.01%
3.50%
-4.31%
4.03%
4.12%
4.75%
4.77%
0.90%
-1.20%
-3.65%
1.26%
2.83%
1.85%
2.44%
-2.390/.
-3.77%
2.70%
0.53%
1.15%
-2.21%
-4.81%
-0.11%
-1.98%
1.10%
2.63%
108405
100527
99178
104981
102093
110987
100732
99526
102501
105517
102081
108454
100403
106572
104836
109111
109158
110472
102268
96999
109052
107082
103932
107362
101596
97591
108656
105133
105205
102867
99325
105967
99080
104338
105290
11316
19514
10357
1195
9449
11635
40389
2546
5690
6182
26089
11899
26666
15201
11704
12533
7051
61575
64145
57208
17262
20940
56761
57985
32264
67666
23169
52719
18097
18125
22341
7631
67849
13510
18011
10.44%
19.41%
10.44%
1.14%
9.26%
10.48%
40.10%
2.56%
5.55%
5.86%
25.56%
10.97%
26.56%
14.26%
11.16%
11.49%
6.46%
55.74%
62.72%
58.98%
15.83%
19.56%
54.61%
54.01%
31.76%
69.34%
21.32%
50.15%
17.20%
17.62%
22.49%
7.20%
68.28%
12.95%
17.11%
11468
19948
10560
1282
9602
11780
41329
2618
5879
6344
26331
12042
26921
15415
11904
12786
7161
62170
64512
57607
17424
21200
57188
58417
32706
68221
23544
53319
18457
18419
22770
7766
68338
13782
18290
10.58%
19.84%
10.65%
1.22%
9.41%
10.61%
41.03%
2.63%
5.74%
6.01%
25.79%
11.10%
26.81%
14.46%
11.35%
11.72%
6.56%
56.28%
63.08%
59.390/.
15.98%
19.80%
55.02%
54.41%
32.19%
69.91%
21.67%
50.72%
17.54%
17.91%
22.92%
7.33%
68.97%
13.21%
17.37%
4011
4087
5689
4803
2218
1737
5504
5888
2677
7602
1910
2054
1991
3382
5900
5279
1863
5480
2283
3475
2965
1528
821
1803
2605
3538
3182
3131
3328
2658
3427
4589
1465
2521
2942
""Hispanic
18+
3.70%
4.07%
5.74%
4.58%
2.17%
1.57%
5.46%
5.92%
2.61%
7.20%
1.87%
1.890/.
1.98%
3.17%
5.63%
4.84%
1.71%
4.96%
2.23%
3.58%
2.72%
1.43%
0.79%
1.68%
2.56%
3.63%
2.93%
2.98%
3.16%
2.58%
3.45%
4.33%
1.48%
2.42%
2.79%
9.58%
3647277
906474
24.85%
917500
25.16%
118336
3.24%
Devl.lon
2.80%
2.81%
AnyP ..
BIKkl8+
%AnyP ..
81_18+
HlI!I*'IC
18+
EXlllBIT J
District Assignments by County with Extra Legislator Tally -- 5B 5 and HB 16

Extra
Extra
County
Population
AP Black
%APBlack
SB 5 Senate
Ideal
Senators
HB 16 House
Ideal
House
Total
Extra
Members
Legislators
Legislators
AUTAUGA
54571
9976
18.3%
0.4
1.2
BALDWIN
182265
17996
9.9%
1.3
4.0
BARBOUR
27457
13021
47.4%
0.2
0.6
BIBB
22915
5136
22.4%
0.2
0.5
BLOUNT
57322
909
1.6%
0.4
1.3
BULLOCK
10914
7706
70.6%
0.1
0.2
BUTLER
20947
9179
43.8%
0.2
0.5
118572
25322
21.4%
0.9
2.6
34215
13473
39.4%
0.3
0.8
CALHOUN
CHAMBERS
CHEROKEE
25989
1319
5.1%
0.2
0.6
CHILTON
43643
4431
10.2%
0.3
1.0
CHOCTAW
13859
6052
43.7%
0.1
0.3
CLARKE
25833
11442
44.3%
0.2
0.6
CLAY
13932
2174
15.6%
0.1
0.3
0
0
CLEBURNE
14972
560
3.7%
0.1
0.3
COFFEE
49948
8800
17.6%
0.4
1.1
COLBERT
54428
9155
16.8%
0.4
1.2
0
1
CONECUH
13228
6220
47.0%
0.1
0.3
COOSA
11539
3622
31.4%
0.1
0.3
COVINGTON
37765
4948
13.1%
0.3
0.8
CRENSHAW
13906
3356
24.1%
0.1
0.3
CULLMAN
80406
1032
1.3%
0.6
1.8
DALE
50251
10353
20.6%
0.4
1.1
DALLAS
43820
30666
70.0%
0.3
1.0
DEKALB
71109
1309
1.8%
0.5
1.6
elMORE
79303
16375
20.6%
0.6
1.7
ESCAMBIA
38319
12454
32.5%
0.3
0.8
EXHIBIT J
District Assignments by County with Extra Legislator Tally -- SB 5 and HB 16

27 of the 67 Counties Have One or More Extra legislator
E'xtra
Extra
County
Population
AP Black
%APBlack
SB 5 Senate
Ideal
Senators
HB 16 House
Ideal
House
Total
Extra
Members
Legislators
Legislators
ETOWAH
104430
16468
15.8%
0.8
2.3
FAYETIE
17241
2055
11.9%
0.1
0.4
FRANKLIN
31704
1382
4.4%
0.2
0.7
GENEVA
26790
2708
10.1%
0.2
0.6
GREENE
9045
7402
81.8%
0.1
0.2
HALE
15760
9333
59.2%
0.1
HENRY
17302
5038
29.1%
0.1
0.3
0.4
101547
27058
26.6%
0.7
2.2
53227
2054
3.9%
0.4
1.2
658466
280083
42.5%
4.8
14
14.5
20
LAMAR
14564
1731
11.9%
0.1
0.3
LAUDERDALE
92709
9879
10.7%
0.7
2.0
LAWRENCE
34339
4123
12.0%
0.3
0.8
140247
32884
23.4%
1.0
3.1
LIMESTONE
82782
10995
13.3%
0.6
1.8
LOWNDES
11299
8351
73.9%
0.1
0.2
0
0
HOUSTON
JACKSON
JEFFERSON
LEE
21452
17920
83.5%
0.2
0.5
334811
83918
25.1%
2.5
7.4
12
MARENGO
21027
10970
52.2%
0.2
0.5
MARION
30776
1293
4.2%
0.2
0.7
MARSHALL
93019
1951
2.1%
0.7
2.0
412992
145793
35.3%
3.0
9.1
13
MACON
MADISON
MOBILE
23068
9771
42.4%
0.2
0.5
MONTGOMEF
229363
127181
55.4%
1.7
5.0
MORGAN
119490
15012
12.6%
0.9
2.6
PERRY
10591
7312
69.0%
0.1
0.2
PICKENS
19746
8327
42.2%
0.1
0.4
MONROE
EXHIBIT J
District Assignments by County with Extra Legislator Tally - 5B 5 and HB 16

Extra
Extra
County
Population
AP Black
%APBlack
SB5 Senate
Ideal
Senators
HB 16 House
Ideal
House
Total
Extra
Members
Legislators
Legislators
PIKE
32899
12288
37.4%
0.2
0.7
RANDOLPH
22913
4729
20.6%
0.2
0.5
RUSSELL
52947
22686
42.8%
0.4
1.2
ST. CLAIR
83593
7548
9.0%
0.6
1.8
195085
21688
11.1%
1.4
4.3
4
7
SHELBY
SUMTER
13763
10352
75.2%
0.1
0.3
TALLADEGA
82291
26618
32.3%
0.6
1.8
TALLAPOOSA
41616
11295
27.1%
0.3
0.9
TUSCALOOSA
194656
58564
30.1%
1.4
4.3
WALKER
67023
4260
6.4%
0.5
1.5
WASHINGTO~
17581
4446
25.3%
0.1
0.4
WILCOX
11670
8496
72.8%
0.1
0.3
WINSTON
24484
170
0.7%
0.2
0.5
4779736
1281118
26.8%
88
35
161
105
24
249
33
Total

3-1 Complaint With Color Exhibits

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

3-1 Complaint With Color Exhibits

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 1 of 43

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ALABAMA LEGISLATIVE BLACK

Civil Action No.

* c;2_: \~-cv -l~9\- W\LW

THE STATE OF ALABAMA; BETH

(3-judge court requested)

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 2 of 43

2. Acts 2012-602 and 2012-603 violate the one-person, one-vote standards

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 3 of 43

6. Plaintiff Bobby Singleton is an African-American citizen of the United

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 4 of 43

legislation affecting Marengo County, particularly local legislation, by splitting

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 5 of 43

10. Plaintiff Rhondel Rhone is an African-American citizen of the United

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 6 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 7 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 8 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 9 of 43

in May 2011, see

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 10 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 11 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 12 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 13 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 14 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 15 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 16 of 43

deviation. The Reapportionment Committee will not approve a

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 17 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 18 of 43

which event each new county shall be entitled to one representative.

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 19 of 43

48. In Sims v. Baggett, 247 F. Supp. 96 (1965) (3-judge court), on remand

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 20 of 43

the whole-county provision in North Carolinas constitution should be adhered to

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 21 of 43

Count II: Dilution and Isolation of Black Voting Strength

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 22 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 23 of 43

the following relief:

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 24 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 25 of 43

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 26 of 43

Alabama State House

Act 2012 - 602

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 27 of 43

Population Summary Report

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 28 of 43

Population Summary Report

House - Ad: 2012-602

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 29 of 43

Population Summary Report

House - Act 2012-602

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 30 of 43

Alabama State Senate

Act 2012- 603

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 31 of 43

Population Summary Report

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 32 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 33 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 34 of 43

Case 2:12-cv-00691-WKW-WC Document 3-1 Filed 08/13/12 Page 35 of 43

Alabama State House