IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

COLUMBIA DIVISION

Patricia A. Evans, ) Civil Action No.

)
Plaintiff, )
)
vs. ) COMPLAINT
) (Three-Judge Panel Requested)
City of Columbia, )
)
Defendant. )
)

Plaintiff Patricia A. Evans, complaining of the Defendant City of Columbia, hereby

alleges and would show as follows:

BACKGROUND

1. The City of Columbia is attempting to conduct an election to determine whether

the City’s Hollywood–Rose Hill Neighborhood will be subject to a new zoning designation that

would restrict property development within the Neighborhood. The procedures that the City has

prescribed for the April 11th Election, however, deviate significantly from the current baseline

voting procedures for municipal elections in Columbia, South Carolina, and threaten to dilute the

Neighborhood minority vote in violation of both the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection

Clause. These procedures have not been precleared by the United States Department of Justice

or been declared acceptable by the District Court of the District of Columbia, and, therefore, this

Court should enjoin the City from conducting the April 11th Election.
 PARTIES

2. Plaintiff Patricia A. Evans is a resident of the Hollywood–Rose Hill

Neighborhood, which is located in the City of Columbia, and is a registered voter in Richland

County, South Carolina.

3. Defendant City of Columbia is a political subdivision of the State of South

Carolina and is organized pursuant to the state’s laws with the power to conduct elections.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This action is brought to enforce Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as well as

rights protected under the United States Constitution by way of 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly,

the Court has jurisdiction of this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

5. All allegations contained herein arose in Richland County, South Carolina.

Venue is therefore proper under 28 U.S.C. § 121(2).

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

6. In June 2010, the City of Columbia passed Ordinance No. 2010-060, which

creates a new set of potential property restrictions on residents within the City. These new

restrictions, termed “Community Character Protection” restrictions or “CC1” restrictions, set

forth a series of demolition and developmental limitations on residential property.

7. The Hollywood–Rose Hill Neighborhood is not currently subject to these CC1

restrictions.

8. The City has determined that the residents of the Neighborhood shall vote on

April 11, 2011, to determine whether the Neighborhood will be subjected to the new CC1

property restrictions on a permanent basis.

2
 9. Residents of the Neighborhood were given notice of the April 11th Election by

way of a postcard that was sent by the City of Columbia. A true and correct copy of one of these

postcards is attached hereto as Exhibit A. Ms. Evans received one of these postcards.

10. The top of the City’s postcards declares as follows:

VOTING for Hollywood–Rose Hill

Community Character Proposal (CC1)

Property owners of Hollywood–Rose Hill will have the opportunity to vote

on a permanent Community Character (CC1) overlay on:

Monday, April 11, 2011 from 4 to 7 pm

at Rose Hill Presbyterian Church Fellowship Hall
(229 S. Saluda Ave.)

One vote per parcel is allowed. Those who own multiple properties are allowed to
cast votes equal to the number of properties they own (i.e. 4 properties = 4 votes).

For more info call:

Guy Jones, HRHNA President, [email address redacted], [telephone number redacted]
Or Staci Richey, City of Columbia, slrichey@columbiasc.net, 803-545-3328

Also, visit www.columbia.sc.gov/coc/index.cfm/development-gateway/planning-

and-development-services/preservation-and-design/community-character-
protection/

Exhibit A (emphasis in original).

11. The lower portion of the City’s postcards purports to be an absentee ballot, and it

states as follows:

3
 ABSENTEE BALLOT for Hollywood–Rose Hill
Community Character Proposal (CC1)

Those not able to vote in person may submit this card with the appropriate box
checked as an absentee ballot. This ballot must be postmarked prior to or by April 11,
2011 in order to be counted.

Hollywood-Rose Hill Community Character Protection

(CC1) and its boundaries:

__________ I APPROVE
__________ I OPPOSE

Please separate this card from the top portion and return it in an envelope to:

City of Columbia
Planning Department
1136 Washington Street, 3rd floor
PO Box 147
Columbia, SC 29217

Property owners may mail their ballot, bring it by the City office, or bring it to the
polls during the hours of the vote listed above. Absentee ballots will remain sealed
until all ballots are publicly counted on April 11, 2011.

Id. (emphasis in original).

12. Affixed on the opposite side of the “absentee ballot” portion of the postcard is a

preprinted label that identifies the property owner or owners by (a) name, (b) address, and (c)

Tax Map Number.

FOR A FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the Voting Rights Act)

13. Each of the paragraphs above are restated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

14. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act requires that any “voting qualification or

prerequisite to voting, or standard, or practice, or procedure with respect to voting” different

from that in force or effect in the City of Columbia on November 1, 1964, may not be lawfully

4
implemented unless the City obtains a declaratory judgment from the United States District

Court that the voting change does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or

abridging the right to vote on account of race, except that such change may be implemented

without such judgment if it has been submitted to the United States Attorney General and the

Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days. 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

15. In furtherance of the April 11, 2011 Election, the City has implemented voting

changes different from those in force or effect on November 1, 1964, for which Section 5

preclearance has not been obtained.

16. In particular, the City has implemented at least the following changes:

a. The City has made property ownership a prerequisite to suffrage, thus

potentially reducing minority participation.

b. By allowing one vote per parcel, the City has restricted suffrage in some
instances—that is, instead of allowing one vote per person, multiple residents
within a dwelling will not be allowed to cast their own ballots, thus potentially
minimizing the impact of minority voters.

c. By allowing one vote per parcel, the City has expanded suffrage in some
instances—that is, instead of allowing one vote per person, a resident who
owns multiple parcels will be allowed to vote multiple times, thus potentially
minimizing the impact of minority voters.

d. By affixing a preprinted label with the property owner’s name, address, and
Tax Map Number to the so-called absentee ballot, the absentee ballot is not
secret.

e. The absentee ballots are not sworn under oath, as required by South Carolina
Code § 7-15-220.

f. The absentee ballots are not presented in the form set forth by South Carolina
Code § 7-13-400.

g. The City will only keep the polls open for three hours, rather than for twelve
uninterrupted hours, as required by South Carolina Code § 7-13-60.

h. The City’s postcards were not disseminated until late March, and do not
provide the notice required for municipal elections.

5
 17. The implementation of the new voting standards, practices, and procedures

described above constitutes a change that affects voting within the meaning of Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act.

18. Upon information and belief, the City has not sought, nor has it received,

preclearance for these changes from the United States Attorney General. Nor have these changes

been approved by the United State District Court for the District of Columbia.

19. The City’s failure to obtain preclearance of or a declaratory judgment regarding

the voting changes described above renders them legally unenforceable.

20. Unless enjoined by the Court, the City will continue to enforce the above-stated

voting changes without obtaining the requisite preclearance in violation of Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act.

21. The Court should issue a Temporary Restraining Order with respect to the City’s

April 11, 2011 Election to prevent injury to the voting rights protected by the Voting Rights Act.

Additionally, the Court should issue both preliminary and permanent injunctions to restrain and

enjoin the City from proceeding with any elections that would impact the property rights of

residents of the Hollywood–Rose Hill Neighborhood until such time as it secures the

preclearance or declaratory judgment contemplated by the Voting Rights Act.

FOR A SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Violation of the Equal Protection Clause)

22. Each of the paragraphs above are restated and realleged as if fully set forth herein.

23. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees that all

citizens shall be guaranteed “equal protection of the laws.”

24. The Equal Protection Clause ensures that each voter’s vote counts the same and

that each vote given the equal weight.

6
 25. By giving voters one vote per parcel, the City has violated the Equal Protection

Clause insofar as it has given some voters more opportunities to vote than others and thus

breached the constitutional “one person, one vote” principle.

26. By only permitting one vote per parcel in the April 11th Election, the City has

violated the Equal Protection Clause insofar as it has prevented multiple voters within a single

dwelling from casting a ballot.

27. By requiring property ownership as a prerequisite to voting in the April 11th

Election, the City has violated the Equal Protection Clause insofar as it has impermissibly barred

from voting those with a domicile in the Neighborhood but who do not own real property.

28. This prerequisite of property ownership is tantamount to an unconstitutional poll

tax and limits voting rights to those who can afford to own real property.

29. There is no principled basis for any of the violations of the Equal Protection

Clause stated above.

30. By violating the Equal Protection Clause as set forth above, the City has, under

color of state law, deprived Ms. Evans of rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the

United States Constitution, entitling her to a remedy under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

WHEREFORE, Ms. Evans prays that the Court issue an order:

(a) enjoining and restraining the City from proceeding with the April 11, 2011
Election;

(b) enjoining and restraining the City from proceeding with any election until it
complies with the requirements of the Voting Rights Act, the United States
Constitution, and South Carolina law;

(c) awarding Ms. Evans the costs and expenses of this litigation, including her
reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973l and 1988; and

(d) awarding such other relief as may be appropriate.

7
 Respectfully submitted,

HALL & BOWERS, LLC

By: /s/Kevin A. Hall

Federal Bar No. 5375
Karl S. Bowers, Jr.
Federal Bar No. 7716
M. Todd Carroll
Federal Bar No. 9742
1329 Blanding Street
Columbia, SC 29201
(803) 454-6504

Attorneys for Plaintiff Patricia A. Evans

Columbia, South Carolina

April 6, 2011