§ 51.19 Standard for decision concerning submissions.

Section 5, in providing for submission to the Attorney General as an alternative to seeking a declaratory judgment from the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, imposes on the Attorney General what is essentially a judicial function. Therefore, the burden of proof on the submitting authority is the same in submitting changes to the Attorney General as it would be in submitting changes to the District Court for the District of Columbia. The Attorney General shall base his decision on a review of material presented by the submitting authority, relevant information provided by individuals or groups, and the results of any investigation conducted by the Department of Justice. If the Attorney General is satisfied that the submitted change does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, he will not object to the change and will so notify the submitting authority. If the Attorney General determines that the submitted change has a racially discriminatory purpose or effect, he will enter an objection and will so notify the submitting authority. If the evidence as to the purpose or effect of the change is conflicting, and the Attorney General is unable to resolve the conflict within the 60-day period, he shall, consistent with the above-described burden of proof applicable in the District Court, enter an objection and so notify the submitting authority.

§ 51.20 Notification of decision not to object.

(a) If the Attorney General decides to interpose no objection to a submitted change affecting voting, the submitting authority shall be notified to that effect. (b) The notification shall state that the failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar subsequent litigation to enjoin enforcement of the change. (c) A copy of the notification shall be sent to any party who has commented on the submission or has requested notice of the Attorney General's action thereon. § 51.21 Notification of decision to object.

(a) When the Attorney General decides to interpose an objection, the submitting authority shall be notified within the 60-day period allowed. The reasons for the decision shall be stated.

(b) The submitting authority shall be advised that the Attorney General will reconsider his objection upon a request by the submitting authority within 10 days of such objection, for an opportunity to present further substantiating or explanatory information which was not previously available to the submitting authority. In appropriate cases, the Attorney General may request that local public notice of the request for reconsideration be given by the submitting authority.

(c) The submitting authority shall be advised further that it may request a conference with a representative of the Department of Justice to reconsider an objection when such new information has become available.

(d) A copy of the notification shall be sent to any party that has commented on the submission or has requested notice of the Attorney General's action thereon. $51.22 Expedited consideration.

When a submitting authority demonstrates good cause for special expedited consideration to permit enforcement of a change affecting voting within the 60-day period following submission (good cause will, in general, only be found to exist with respect to changes made necessary by circumstances beyond the control of the enacting or submitting authorities), the Attorney General may consider the submission on an expedited basis. Prompt notice of the request for expedited consideration will be given to interested parties registered in accordance with § 51.13. When a decision not to object is made within the 60-day period following receipt of a submission which satisfies the requirements of § 51.10(a), the Attorney General may reexamine the submission if additional information comes to his attention during the remainder of the 60-day period which would require objection in accordance with § 51.19.

§ 51.23 Reconsideration on request.

(a) If a submitting authority requests a conference to produce information not previously available to it in support of reconsideration of an objection by the Attorney General, a meeting shall be held at a location determined by the Attorney General.

(b) When a submitting authority requests that a conference be held concerning a change affecting voting to which the Attorney General has objected, individuals on groups that commented on the change prior to the Attorney General's

52-004 O - 75-40

objection or that seek to participate in response to any public or other notice of a request for reconsideration shall be notified and given the opportunity to

confer.

(c) Such a conference shall be conducted by the Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, or his designee in an informal manner. Those present will be permitted to present facts in support of their positions.

(d) The Assistant Attorney General or the person he has designated to conduct the conference may, in his discretion, choose to hold separate meetings to confer with the submitting authority and interested groups or individuals.

§ 51.21 Decision after reconsideration.

An objection shall be withdrawn if the submitting authority can produce information not previously available to it which satisfies the Attorney General that the change does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect. The Attorney General shall notify the submitting authority within 60 days of the request for reconsideration (provided that the Attorney General shall have at least 15 days following any conference that is held in which to decide) of his decision to continue or withdraw an objection, giving the reasons for his decision. A copy of the notification shall be sent to any party that has commented on the submission or has requested notice of the Attorney General's action thereon. § 51.25 Withdrawal of objection.

Where there has been a substantial change in fact or law, the Attorney General may, if he deems it appropriate, withdraw an objection on his own motion if he determines that the objection is not in accord with the standard for decision in § 51.19. Notification of the withdrawal of an objection shall be sent to the submitting authority and to any party that commented on the submission or has requested notice of the Attorney General's action thereon.

§ 51.26 Records concerning submissions.

(a) Section 5 files: The Attorney General shall maintain a section 5 file for each submission, containing the submission, related written materials, correspondence, notations concerning conferences with the submitting authority or any interested individual or group and a copy of any letters from the Attorney General concerning his decision whether to object to a submission. Communications from individuals who have requested confidentiality or with respect to whom the Attorney General has determined that confidentiality is appropriate under § 51.12(c) shall not be included in the section 5 file. Investigative reports and internal memoranda shall not be included in the section 5 file.

(b) Chronological file: Brief summaries regarding each submission and the Department of Justice investigation and decision concerning it will be prepared when the decision whether to interpose an objection has been made. A chronological file of these summaries, arranged by the date upon which such decision is made, will be maintained.

(c) The contents of the above-described section 5 and chronological files will be available for inspection and copying by the public during normal business hours at the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C. Consistent with the Department of Justice regulation implementing the Public information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act, 28 CFR 16.4, the fees for copying the contents of these files will be 50 cents for the first page and 25 cents for each additional page.

(d) The Attorney General may, at his discretion, call to the attention of the submitting authority or an interested individual or group information or comments related to a submission.

SUBPART E-PETITION TO CHANGE PROCEDURES

$51.27 Petitioning party.

Any interested individual or group may petition to have these procedures amended by new provisions.

§ 51.28 Form of petition.

A petition under this subpart may be made by informal letter and shall state the name and address of the petitioner, the change requested and the reasons for requesting the change.

$51.29 Diposition of petition.

The Attorney General will consider a petition under this section and make a disposition thereof. Prompt notice, accompanied by a simple statement of the reasons, shall be given to the petitioner if the petition is denied in whole or in part.

Mr. W. II. FEDRIC,
City Attorney,
Grenada, Miss.

EXHIBIT 8

DEAR MR. FEDRIC: This is in reference to the 1973 annexation to the City of Grenada, Mississippi, submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Your submission was completed on December 7, 1974.

We have given careful consideration to the submission and the supporting materials, including the information contained in the Urban Fringe Study of Grenada by Urban Consultants, Inc., along with data published by the Census Bureau and information received from interested parties. On the basis of our analysis, however, we have been unable to conclude that this annexation will not have the effect of bridging voting rights on account of race.

Our information shows that the 1973 annexation to the City of Grenada is the 8th successive annexation to the city since November 1, 1974. With the exception of one annexation in 1965 of a school and recreation area, all of these annexations appear to have been exclusively white residential areas.

In addition, the submitted information reveals an area of concentrated black population immediately contiguous to the City of Grenada which is not part of the city but which, as a result of the City's annexation activity since 1962, is now surrounded on three sides by the City of Grenada corporate boundaries. According to our information, this area, known as Pine Hill, desires annexation and has cummunicated that desire to the City to no avail.

One of the basic issues we review in connection with annexation is whether the annexation is part of a pattern by a city to annex areas with entirely one racial composition to the exclusion of other areas with an entirely different racial composition. Under Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339 (1960), a city can no more exclude black residents from the city by refusing to annex black neighborhoods than it can exclude black residents from the city by evicting or deannexing its black voters. In either event, this effectively prevents black residents from participating as voting members of the municipality.

We are mindful of the fact that the 1973 annexation herein submitted consists primarily of seven commercial establishments and vacant commercially zoned land. Nevertheless, the annexation involves the addition of 57 white residents to the city and no black residents. We do not perceive such a situation as insignificant when viewed in the context of six other annexations to the City of Grenada since November 1, 1974, which also added only white residents.

We also recognize the fact that the Urban Fringe Study, financed in part by a federal grant under Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954 and prepared by Urban Consultants, Inc., recommends that Unit 8 (of which the contiguous black area of Pine Hill is part) be annexed next along with Unit 4. However, according to our information the Grenada City Council has not committed itself to following the recommendations of this fringe study in that regard and apparently is under no legal obligation to do so. In any event, even if the city council were so committed there are no indications of any time frame within which Unit 8 would be annexed.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the City of Grenada has the burden of proving that the annexation has neither the purpose nor the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. (28 C.F.R. 51.19) Given the history of the seven successive all white residential annexations since November 1, 1964, and the unsuccessful attempts by an adjacent black area to get the city to initiate an annexation ordinance in its behalf, we conclude that the burden of proof has not been met. I must, therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to this expansion of the City of Grenada's corporate boundaries.

As provided by the Section 5 guidelines, 28 C.F.R. 51.23 and 51.24 (copy enclosed), if you think that important and relevant considerations were not called to our attention concerning this annexation, we will examine any information not previously available to us in support of a request to reconsider the objection to your submission. Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act,

you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia that this annexation neither has the purpose nor will have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race.

Our information indicates that the City of Grenada has implemented all of the other annexations made to the city since November 1, 1964, but, according to our records, none of them were brought before the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or were submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Additionally, we note that, in a private suit, Walker v. James, N.D. Miss. C.A. No. WC-68-12, to enjoin the implementation of a new City of Grenada ordinance changing the method of electing the city councilmen to an at-large basis, a three judge federal district court issued an order on June 12, 1969, enjoining the further implementation of that voting change until Section 5 preclearance requirements had been met. Thus, the City of Grenada was put on notice by the district court at that time as to the requirements of Section 5, but the City has implemented 2 annexations since that court order and continued to implement 5 unsubmitted prior annexations without instituting the necessary procedures to satisfy the requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Changes affecting voting such as annexations are legally unenforceable until such time as compliance with the requirements of Section 5 have been satisfied. Because the Attorney General's responsibility for enforcing the Voting Rights Act of 1965 includes an obligation to insure that the requirements of Section 5 are fully met for voting changes, we request that you inform us within 10 days after the receipt of this letter whether the city intends to submit the other seven annexations to the Attorney General under Section 5 or whether the city intends to seek a declaratory judgment in the District Court for the District of Columbia with respect to them. If the City of Grenada chooses to submit to the Attorney General, we would like to receive the submissions within 30 days after the receipt of this letter.

Sincerely,

J. STANLEY POTTINGER, Assistant Attorney General Civil Rights Division.