![[logo]](http://ead.lib.virginia.edu/vivaead/logos/vcu.jpg)
VCU James Branch Cabell Library
Special Collections and Archives 901 Park AvenueFunding: Web version of the finding aid funded in part by a grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities.
There are no restrictions.
Collection is open for use without restrictions.
Box/folder, Richmond Annexation Files, M 183, Special Collections and Archives, James Branch Cabell Library, Virginia Commonwealth University
The materials were originally deposited in the Department by John V. Moeser and Rutledge M. Dennis who used the materials to write The Politics of Annexation : Oligarchic Power in a Southern City (1982). The materials were then given to the Department by W.H.C. Venable, the primary lawyer involved in the trials, in 1983.
The legal battles fought over the 1970 Richmond annexation are considered by many observers, including attorneys in the U.S. Justice Department, as the most complex, prolonged, and far-reaching of any legal action triggered by municipal boundary expansion. For the Richmond power structure, the Holt suits quickly became much more than minor irritants. They had the potential to radically change the city's political landscape. What in past years involved fairly simple and straightforward strategies designed to maintain the political status quo now required, given the sophisticated legal challenges that Curtis Holt mounted against the city, equally sophisticated legal responses. The long cycle of action-response-reaction that characterized the sequence of events in the he courts was emotionally draining on both the participants and the observers. The information generated by the tedious research undertaken by attorneys for each side of the suits and by consultants versed in urban and regional planning, economics, and public administration, plus the lengthy depositions and courtroom hearings was comparable to that of a small library. The legal battle was made more complicated by the intricate routes traveled by the litigants and the fact that the routes at different points crossed each other, ran parallel to each other, and diverged at right angles. Journalists covering the cases over the years were hard pressed to summarize the proceedings in an intelligible fashion, as each year one case became more complicated or else was set aside as another equally complex case, was begun.
The litigation began in February 1971 was Curtis Holt initiated his first suit contesting the annexation on constitutional grounds, and concluded over five and a half years later in November 1976 following a second Holt suit and a suit brought by the city. Litigation over annexation led to a U.S. Supreme Court order suspending local elections in Richmond that lasted five years and enabled the 1970 council, which was to serve until 1972, to continue in power for almost seven years. The arguments surrounding the various suits were presented to six different judicial bodies, the U.S. District Court in Richmond, a three judge district court in Richmond, a three judge district court in Washington, D.C., a Special Master in Washington, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court...Holt's first suit (Holt I) against the city was successfully argued before the U.S. District Court in Richmond. The city, however, was successful in overturning the decision in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Holt's response was an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court denied the writ.
Prior to the termination of the first suit, Holt brought a second suit (Holt II) against the city. Holt II was stayed by the federal court, though no before the Supreme Court had enjoined further city council elections. What prevented Holt II from moving forward was a suit which the city filed.
"The city's suit was itself complex, notwithstanding the confusion which was generated by the combination of the city's suit, Holt I, and Holt II. The city's suit was brought before a special three judge District Court in Washington which referred it to a Special Master for hearings and recommendations. Upon receiving the recommendation of the Master, the Washington court ruled against the city. The city appealed to the Supreme Court where, by Unanimous vote, the justices held that there was racial motive for the annexation. The Court also ruled, however, that, given the single-member council districts (Richmond had developed such a plan) and justifiable reasons such as economic or administrative benefits reaped by the city from the annexed area, the city could retain the annexed area. But, the city had to prove that such justifiable reasons existed and, moreover, had to revert to ward representation.
The Supreme Court returned the case to the Washington District Court to determine whether verifiable reasons did exist. The Washington Court, once again, referred the case to the Special Master. The Master found that the city could prove that it received economic and administrative benefits from the annexed area and recommended, therefore, that the city retain the area. The Washington Court agreed with the recommendation of the Master and affirmed the annexation.
After conferring with members of the city's black community and deciding that appeals and other legal action were only delaying the reinstatement of councilmanic elections, Holt did not appeal the decision to the Supreme Court...With the City's suit resolved, the injunction against elections were lifted and local elections were called for March 1, 1977. Furthermore, Holt II, which was stayed pending the outcome of the city's suit, was withdrawn by the Richmond District Court upon the request of both the city and Curtis Holt. -Excerpted from The Politics of Annexation, p. 11-14.
The materials cover the period 1942 to 1976 with the majority of the collection focusing on the period 1969-1975. Primarily notes, briefs, motions, replies and questions, the documents reflect the scope of the annexation trials of the 1970s of the City of Richmond. A large portion of the materials are not dated and others, because of the interdependency of the multiple trials described above, are as easily placed in one series as another. Documentation that may be of interest aside from the trial proceedings include; comparative population studies, master plans, financial reports for the City of Richmond, school board budgets and reports, and city budgets.
Materials arranged in chronological order. The collection has been weeded and arranged as closely as possible to reflect the separate legal actions involved in the annexation of Chesterfield County and subsequent legal actions. Since the processing has occurred over time many of the folder headings do not accurately reflect the contents of the folders. The guide headings and folder numbers correspond to the actual folder numbers and contents. Although mistakes in arrangement have probably been made (there are some marked Holt III and IV for which there is no description) considerable effort has been expended to make the materials understandable.