Brief for Appellees

    lrF--!
i

. IONY HAFRISON. Pr..i.rit

MAFY FMT€ES OEFFNEH. Vic}Pr.1d'il .

a JULIUSL. CHAyEEF6. Prll Pr..id.nl

S?EVE SUITTS. Er.cuirv. Oir.ctor a JOSEPH HA S. Corrn .l

rl
I
I

t
75 IARIETTA STREET, N.W. ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 {40.1 522-r7t.

IvIEMOMI{DI,M,

T0: North Carolina Reapportionment Working Group

FROM: Steve Suitts

RE: A Review of Our Status

DATE: October 5, 1981

I thought it would be he1.pfu1 for each of us to have a common
document which reviews the status of our challenge of the North
Carolina legislative reapportionment before the Justice Department
and Federal 'District Court.

At the neeting on Wednes day, September ?3, in New York at the
offices of the NMCP Legal Defense Fund, we reviewed the events to
date and attempted to project a budget and a schedule now that the
complaint in federal court has been filed. At that meeting we
set the following tinetable:

subrnitted to the Justice Department urging disap-
proval of the reapportionment plan under Section 5;

October 16-20: Filing of the letter urging the Justice Depart-
ment to disapprove the reapportionment plan;

October 16: Completion of the review of newspaper clippings
concerning the 1981 reapportionment in the General
As sembly;

October 15 - November 15: Depositions for the federal action;

Novenber 6: Completion of historian's work on the history of
the state constitutional provisions.

Since our meeting, we have begun to redirect some of our
discussions about a computer analysis of the present reapportionment
plans and a new plan which would best avoid the dilution of black
voting strength. Leslie Winner has had discussions with a professor
at the University of Washington and Raymond Wheeler has had further
discussions with folks at Chapel Hil1. By last word, no firm arrange-
ments had been made.

a



b.' r

A1so, since Septenber 23, the state of North Carolina has
submitted the 1976 amendments to the state constitution which we
alleged in ouf federal complaint had not been submitted as required
by law under Section 5. This action by North Carolina requires usto expedite the historical research on these provisions iri the
state constitution. Since securing arrangments for work on historical
research has fal1en in Julius'bailiwick, I trust he has read this
sentence carefully.

Although it now appears that the issue will not be raised in
_qot{t-, I- ?r- putting under cover for Napoleon and Leslie copies ofbriefs which were filed in the case surrounding Edgefield tounty,
South Carolinar orl the issue of whether a filing under Secti.on S'
which implies a preceding change which has not been filed does infact constitute a filing-of both changes. While North Carolina.has
cgmPlied and apparently will not raise this issue, r'e should rememberthat it is within the range of possible for the Justice Departmentto declare that the issue has aiready been submitted.

For Raymond, I am including here a copy of the complaint which
was filed in federal court. I hope he doesn't mind the circuitous
route of Charlotte to Atlanta to Charlotte.

Itre set no future date for a meeting although when Leslie
returns fron Raleigh, r expect'that we'11 want to have a meetingin late October.

I think this brings us up to date.

a