Draft of Letter Objecting to North Carolina Reapportionment

    DRAFT OF LETTER
OBJECTING TO

NORTH CAROLINA REAPTORTIONMENT
HB 415'--1981' .

I. CHANGES IN THE NORTH CAROLINA POPULATION FROM 1970 TO 1980

Since 1970 the number and proportion of North Carolina's
rblack population has increased. In 1970 one million one hundred
twenty—sixfithousand (1,126,000) blacks constituted twenty-three

(23) percent of the state's population, but by 1980 the numbers '%
had increased.to 1,316,000 constituting more than 24 percent of
the state"5 total population. -

Most af'North Carolina's black population are now congre-
gated in metropolitan areas in;the rural, coastal counties in the
eastern part of the state. {he percentages of the black popula—
tion have grown in these two areas since 1970. For example,
eastern, rural Bertie County had a 56.6 percent black population
in 1970. Ten years later, the black population of the county
had grown to 59.1 percent. -

In Charlotte, North Carolina, the percentage of the black
population.increased from 72,972 blacks to 97,627 -- an increase
of about one-percent from 30 percent of the population in 1970 to\
31 percenILin 1980. In the township of Durham, North Carolina,
the total.population increased over the last ten years by about
6,000 people. While the white population decreased by 6,000

residents, the‘black population increased by roughly 12,000.

Hence, the-black population in Durham township increased from

37.4 percent to 45.6 percent over the last decade.1

In sum, when the regular session of the 1982 North
Carolina General Assembly met to reapportion according to the
1980 census the district lines of the State House of Represen-
tatives, the State Senate, and 0.8. Congressional Districts,
the state had.increased its numbers and percentage of black

populatiom.which was increasingly concentrated in metropolitan
a”; __

areas\ifl’the rural urban counties of the east.
l‘..

\.

 

 

1 See General Population Census. 1970, North Carolina, P.C.
(l) -- B‘Kgiand Census OY’Population and Housing; 1980) North

 

Carolina, Advance Reports, PHC 80 - U - 35.

II. THE HISTORY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING IN NORTH
CAROLINA

Although the efforts to disfranchise black voters in North
Carolina at the turn of the century were profoundly successful,1
the barriers to black voting in the state have never been abso-
lute as they were in many places in the South. North Carolina
repealed its poll tax in the 1920's, and by 1930 blacks were
allowed to qualify to register in limited numbers in some
locations.2 By 1941, Raleigh, North Carolina, had two black
registrars and two black judges of election for two predominantly
black precincts.3 During this time, ten percent of the
eligible voting age population of blacks were registered

in the state. Indeed, from 1940 until the middle of the

1960's the number and percentage of the black registered voters

in North Carolina exceeded the registration of blacks in most

other Southern states.4

 

1 See J. Morgan Kousser, The Shaping of Southern Politics,
(New Haven, 1974), pages 193-195 and C. Monroe Work, Negro Year
Book: 1931-1932 (Tuskegee, 1932), page 14. ’"“‘fi““”
2 Raleigh News and Observer, June 2, 1930, quoted in Work,
page 106.

3 Jesse Parkhurst Guzman, Negro Yearbook: 1941-1946 (Tuskegee,
1946), page 261.

4 Margaret Price, The Negro Voter in the South (Atlanta, 1957);
Price, The Negro and The BalIot (Atlanta, 1959); Voter Registra-
tion in the South, publication of the Voter Education Project of
The Southern Regional Council (Atlanta, 1966); Donald A. Matthews
and James Prothrow, Negroes in the New South Politics (Chapel Hill,
~1966).

 

This tradition of permitting limited black voter registra-
tion in North Carolina was never extended to permit black citizens
an effective voting strength. From 1910 until the late 1960's,
the number of black elected officials at any level never grew
more than a handful and held office only when the jurisdiction
applied almost exclusively to black citizens. After the passage
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the North-Carolina legislature
continued to legislate attempts to dilute the vote of black
citizens who registered. The legislature has enacted laws or
permitted local governments to maintain or adopt multi-member,
at-large electoral schemes for governing boards. In the late
60's the General Assembly enacted anti "single shot” voting laws
in the majority of the state's counties.

In 1967 the General Assembly reapportioned its own two
houses_and Congressional Districts in response to a federal court
order to achieve greater adherence to the principle of "one
person -- one vote."5 The Legislature's new plan created
multi-member districts where the aggregate voting strength of
black citizens were lessened by including enough white citizens
within most districts to constitute a majority of the voters.
Until its Acts were disapproved by the Department in 1971, the
legislature maintained numbered posts for many of its multi-member

districts created in 1967 in order to reduce further the

 

5 Drum v. Seawell, 249 F.Supp. 877 (M 1965).

effective voting strength of black citizens.6

As evidenced by the long absence of any black members in
either of its houses, the North Carolina legislature's use of the
numbered posts was an effective device for diluting black voting
because it was built upon an electoral system of bloc voting. In
its report on implementing the Voting Rights Act, the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights decumented in 1974 the existence of
bloc voting in North Carolina elections. Election returns
and more recent reports on voting in North Carolina confirm the
continued pattern of voting in which the white majority of voters
refused to support candidates who are responsive to the needs
and interests of black citizens.7

The results of the continued use of these means of diluting
black voting strength by the governmental units of North Carolina

and the persistence of bloc voting has had a startling effect on a

 

6 See Letters of July 30, 1971, and September 27, 1971, to
Mr. Alex K. Brock, Executive Secretary, State Board of Elections
of North Carolina from David L. Norman, Assistant Attorney General,’
Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, DJ 166-012-3,
issuing letters of objection to general and local legislation
creating numbered posts in the General Assembly.

7 See The Voting Rights Act: Ten Years Later, report of the

U.S. CommIs51on on CivIl’RigHts, 1975; The Voting Rights Act:
Unfulfilled Goals, a report of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights,
September, 1981; and Appendix II ~ A.

 

 

political participation in a state where one in four citizens
are black- In 1980 only 247 blacks held elective office in any
capacity in Nerth Carolina. Black elected officials last year
comprised.only 4.7 percent of all the 5,295 elected offices of
state and.lpcal governments. # ‘
In.thefflbrth Carolina General Assembly, only one black
senatar and feur black state representatives sit among fifty
members in.the upper chamber and 120 members in the lower house.
One of the first two black state representatives since the early

1900's was elected in the district representing Robeson, Hoke,

and Scotland.66unties.

 

 

III. NORTH CAROLENA GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S PLAN FOR THE STATE
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES DILUTES BLACK VOTING STRENGTH

The North Carolina legislature adopted in HE 415 during the
.1981 regular session a reapportionment plan which created in
the state house of representatives forty-five districts, one more
than exists presently. 0f the forty—five, only nine are single-
member districts, and none is located in the metropolitan area
of the state where there are large numbers of blacks living
within small, contiguous areas that could constitute majority
black legislative districts. In Charlotte, North Carolina, for
example, an analysis of the population by census tracts from 1970
data shows that at least three majority black districts could be
created easily and naturally if the legislature established
single member districts for the house and senate in metropolitan
areas (see Appendix III-A).

Indeed, there is only one majority black district and one
other district with a non-white majority among the populations of
the forty«£ive districts in the State House by the 1981 plan.
These jurisdictions are: 1

District 5 - 54% black population;

District 10 - 25% black population and 35% Indian
‘ population.

While the two districts have a majority of non-white residents,

only one has a.majority of non—white registered voters or probably

a majority of the voting age population.1 In effect, the State
House plan.is designed without any actual majority black voting
population.in the state -- where nearly one in four persons

is black. I I

Although the total absence of an actual majority black voting
district continues a pattern in the 1971 reapportionment plan,
the 1980 re-districting goes further to reduce the strength of
black voters- Although the number of representatives from
District 5 remains the same in the proposed plan as in the 1971
plan, District 21 had a 52.9% non-white population in 1970 and
elected three representatives. In the 1981 plan, District 10,
involving much of the same population, with a nonewhite popula-
tion of 60%, elects only two representatives. The net effect of
the change is fundamental: the new legislative reapportionment
proposes that one of only two legislative districts with more
than 50% non-white population lose one state representative.

The Legislature had to go out of its way to achieve this
effect in the 1981 plan. Presently, District 21 is composed of
the counties of Hoke, Robeson, and Scotland with a total popula—
tion of 128,207 persons and a 52.9% non-white population. 'If

1 The 1980 census data on population by age has not been re-
leased by the Bureau of Census as of this date; however, the
differential between the total population and the voting age
population among non—whites in the counties composing these two
districts in 1970 suggests that there does not exist a majority
of blacks who are voting age in District No. 5, (See Appendix
III-B.)

-2-

this district had kept the same boundaries in the proposed plan,

35d: 32?

the total p opulation would have been 125, 700 (?1‘with a 51% \F§L
non-white population. /P/ 7 t:/ ,,Lf$rwaio C/ 3 w1~u,..:7...

The 1981 proposed reapportionment plan splits the three
counties of District 21 and creates a new District 10 entirely
out of Robeson.County and keeps onIy Scotland and Hoke Counties
in District 21- Essentially, the legislature took the same
multimember district and divided it. Thereby, the legislature
eliminated.the possibility that the non-white population of
the three cnunties can elect two representatives to the state
legislature-

Clearly'not required by shifts in population, this change
was enactei purposefully for only one result: to diminish
to practically nothing the voting strength of a non-white popula-
tion in these three counties.

The dilution of black voting strength in North Carolina has ,
also been accomplished in the proposed legislative plan by reducing
the possibility of black citizens using effectively the vote as a
"single shotV'in multimember elections. In the 1971 legislative.
scheme, North Carolina House had twelve districts where the I
percentage of blacks or non-white was sufficient to permit black
and other non—white voters to use the single shot vote in multi-
member districts under the best of circumstances under bloc voting
(Appendix III-C). In the proposed plan, the North Carolina
Legislature diminishes the number of such electable districts for

blacks to a.tota1 of ten —- a reduction of two.

-3-

In District 6 of the proposed reapportionment plan, for

example, the legislature reduced the number of state representa-

wLa-c. ILWFfi/Cgur: it. ww~.( I ,/ a ,r
tives from two to one -- probably a fatal change for black voters
r— cask/«m; Cm AW. ”inf wars
who represent 47% of the proposed district’ 5 population. The
other loss occurred when the legislature redrew District 21 and
dropped the number of representatives from three to one while
creating a.new District 10 with only two representatives.

This increased limitation on the opportunity for black
voters to make H‘single shot" vote effective is clear retrogression
under currentlaw;2 nevertheless, experience in North Carolina
shows that these particular changes may reduce not only the
potential of‘black voting strength but also will cause a set back
in one of the few gains already achieved by North Carolina black
voters in state legislative elections. There has never been
more than fbur black representatives sitting in the lower house
of the General Assembly and one of those four has always come
from the counties of House District 21. Although the percentage
of non-white population in that district was greater than 50%
(and the percentage of non-white registered voters was nearly
50%), results of primary elections show that the black candidate

usually received less than 30% of the vote.3 For example,

with only 28.6% of the cast votes in the 1974 general elections,

 

2 Beer v. United States, 96 Sup, Ct. 1357 (1973) at 1363-1364,

 

3 See pages 445-446 of For the Record: 1976, Southern Govern-
mental Monitoring Project, Southern Regional Council (Atlanta, 1976).

 

-4-

’\

black representative Joy Johnson was able to win only because
the District was electing three representatives.

With the division of District 21 under the 1971 plan, it
appears unlikely that black voters will be able to use single
shots to elect a candidate. I
‘ In its pending redistricting plan, North Carolina Legislature
also has created enormous deviations from the judicial rule of
"one person -- one vote.”4 In the House plan, there exists a
maximum deviation of more than 23% with 12.83% in District 17
under-represented and 10.68% in District 19 over~represented.

While substantial deviations from the average population per
legislator in each district distorts all citizens' rights to
vote, the general pattern of deviation in the lower house of the
General Assembly has had‘a particularly racial impact that
disserves black voters. Among the counties with substantial
black or non-white population in the eastern part of the state,
the proposed legislative plan usually creates districts that are
under~represented when they border other counties with substantial
black populations. On the other hand, when the bordering districts
include counties with less than 30% black population, the districts
are usually over-represented (See Appendix III-D). For instance,
State House District 5 -— the only majority black district

composed of Northhampton, Bertie, Gates, Hertford, and Martin

 

4 See Reynolds v. Simms, 377 U.S. 533 (1964) and Chapman v.
Meier, 420 U.S. l (1975).

 

counties in the northeastern corner of the state -- is under-
_represented by 3.9% while surrounded by counties with no less
than 40% black population. District 1 which is located to the
east and south of District 5 is also under-represented by 1.71%
and is surrounded by counties with no less than 33% black
population. . ’s

The significance of this under-representation is not
giMl'A/U‘L/‘W’, I
dimptive. As Appendix III-E illustrates, if the under-represented
districts with 30% or more black population were provided with
their rightful share of the voting strength, under one person --
one vote, nearly one half of a representative would be due this
part of the state where blacks are concentrated heaviest in the
population.

The only major exception to this rule of under-representation.
in eastern North Carolina is District 2 which is over-represented
by 5.75%. It is noteworthy, however, that this jurisdiction with
32% black population is the only district on the eastern coast
with only one representative. In this district bloc voting prevents
black voters from electing an effective representative. Thus,
in this district the over-representation does not add to the
voting strength of blacks as it might if there were a multimember
district in whcih a single shot vote could help elect a repre-
sentative. Thus, the exception follows the effect of the overall
pattern: it limits and dilutes the possibility of black voters

electing a representative to the State Assembly.

IV. THE NORTH CAROLINA REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN FOR THE STATE

W

The proposed reapportionment plan for the General Assembly
creates 29 Senate districts, two more than presently exists, al-
though the number of 50 State Senators remains the same. Of the
29 districts, none has a majority black population and only one
has a majorit373hite population: District 13 which has a combined
total of 60 percent black and Indian population. The District is
represented by one State Senator.

District 13 has only a bare majority of non-white registered
voters. Blacks and Indians in the district make up only 54.9
percent of the registered voters. A black or Indian has never been
elected to the State Senate from the counties of District 13,

Hoke and Robeson.

Although the 1981 reapportionment plan creates two new senatorial
districts and four additional single member districts, the legislature
went out of its way to assure that these changes continued the
pattern of dilution of black voting strength. The 1971 reappor-
tionment the legislature created District 6 with Edgecombe,
Halifax, Martin, and Pitts Counties which had two representatives
from a district With 43.1 percent black population. The percentage

of registered black voters, in the early 1970's, however, was only

approximately 29 percent. In 1980 the four counties of existing

Senate District 6 increased its propotion of black population and

the percentage of black registered voters (Appendix IV — A). With
this increase of'black residents and voters, District 6 was split

into two districts in the 1981 plan so that Edgecombe and Halifax

represents District 6 and Martin and Pitt represent District 7.

In this scheme, both have only one State Senator.

In effect, the proposed State Senate plan puts an end to the
possibility that black citizens could use their vote as a single
shot to elect one out of two of the State Senators.I§the present
plan is approved, black citizens in these four counties will be in
two districts -- each with one State Senator -- where bloc voting

will assure the white majbrity controls elections in which the

winner takes all.

A endix III-6

Legislative Districts in the House of Representatives of North Carolina General Assembly Created in 1971 and.
Proposed in 1981, Number of Representatives, Percentage of Non-White Population and Deviation Factor.

Percentage of Non-

 

 

 

 

District No. No. Reps. White Population- Deviation from One Person — One Vote
1971 1981 1970 1980 1971 1981
l 2 2 40.2‘% 31 % -11.6 % i 1.70 %
2 l 1 34.4 % '32 % - 1.9 % — 5.64 %
3. 3 3 32.3 75 3?. Z + 7.8 % + 2.79%
4 :3 3 15 % 1.7 4 +6.11% +427776
6 2 , 2 56.7% 54 % . 9.6% + 3.97%
6 2 . 1 48 % 47 % + .8 % a 5.28 %
8 2 2 24.5%1 35 16 + 4.9% +1.90 2
9 2 2 33.5 % 32 % + .8 % - 0.87 %
10 1 2 34 Z 60 % -10.3 % + 3.74 %
11 1 2 36.4% 31 % +1.5% +1.04%
12 2 2 22.9 % 21 % _+ 2.) % + 5.68 %
13 3 3 44.2 % 42 % - .7 % - 6.82 %
14 2 2 27.5 % 26 % + 4.6 % + 2.80 %
15 6 6 22.6 % 21 % -10.1 % + 2.42 %
16 3 3 32.9 % 36 % + 4.4 % + 4.03 %
17 2 2 22.4 % 20 % + 3.0 % +12.83 %
18 2 2 24.4 % ‘ 22 % - 5.4 % ,— 1.65 %
19 3 3 35.2 % 33 % — 6.8 % -10.68 %
20 5 5 26.5 % 35 % + .1 % . + .97 %
21 3 1 52.9 % 47 % + .9 % + 7.56 %
22 4 4 19 % 19 % + .4 % - 6.76 %
23 7 7 - 22.5 % 39 % - 2.7 % r 7.44 %
24 2 2 7.4 % 6 % - 8.9 % - 6.17 %
25 1 1 25.1 % 21 % - 7.8 % + 3.16 %
26 1 1 36.8 % 36 % + .9 % - 1.88 %
27 . 1 1 29.7 % 26 % ~ 5.9 % e 7.09 %
28 3 3 4.4 % 3 % - 6.0 % + 6.30 %
29 5 5 22.5 % 24 % + 1.2 % - 0.44 %
30 3 3 10.3 % 10 % —10.0 % - 6.19 %
31 2 2 16.1 % 15 % + 6.3 % + 1.30 %
32 7 7: 11.0 % 11 % + 1.1 % ' — .89 % '
33 3 3 17.4 % 15 % + 1.8 % + 6.41 %
34 3 3 5.7 % 5 % + 2.9 % + 5.43 %
35 2 2 15.2 % 14 % + 8.2 % + 9.83 %

 

Appendix III-C (contd.)

Percentage of Non-

1981

Deviation from One Person - One Vote
1971

 

no

08
.19
t1l

3
1|

u

o
P

e0
t7
.19
h]
w

No. Reps.
1971 1981

District No.

 

Wflflmdhwhdub %%%%

456077545

&Lk&&L.L&
.+++i++++

%%%%%%%%%%
AmsnnmaHQwoniuobomam
++++i+++++

6915.600714]
2 .II ].

%%,%%%%%%%%
19934.27708

...........

4815644852
2 .I 11.

(.

824 23,1142

36
37
38
39

40
41
42
43
44
45

Appendix III-

Percentage of Non—White Population and Non-White Registered Voters
For T971 DistriEts and 1981 Prggosed Districts of tfie Reapportionment
6f the House of Representatixes of tHegflgrth Carolina General Assembly

 

 

 

(only districts with 30% or more Non-White Population)

 

 

 

f Jistrict No. Percentage of Non-White Population Percentage of Non—White Registered Voters
1219 12§9 1219 12§9
1. 40.2% ~ '31% 24.5% 23.6%
2. _ 34£4%' 32% 20.5% 21.6%
3. 32.3% 32% ' 25.1% 25.3%
5.' 56.7% 54% 47.4% 44%
.6. 48% 47% 32.2% 36.5%
7. I 39.8% 39% 27.5% 26.2%
8. i 35% 21.9% 28.4%
9. i 33.5% '32% 21.9% 24.2%
10. 34% 60% 20.4% 55.6%
11. 36.4% 31% ' 25.4% 25.3%
13. 44.2% 42% . ' 33.8% 36%
16. 32.9% 36% 23.7% 25.2%

19. 35.2% 33% ' 23.7% 28.4%

20. 35% 21.4% 23.3%

Appendix III— (contdLZ

 

 

 

 

 

District No. Percentage of Non—White ngulatiOn Percentage of Non—White Registered Voters
1970 1980 1970 1980
21. 52.9%. 38% 25.4% 35.8% .

23. 22.5% 25% 15.6% 17.3%
26. 36.8% 36% 21% 25.4%

APPENDIX III- A

.1". 9:9. ‘iifi‘i’a Mcfi 35,003 155.17., _ .
IL? Fqi- HI,‘i%S Bum 32.61% 184%. HOWE SEATS
cmam (SIN)

  
  
 

- . 91 H 31.90; 358% 81.02
D .PP ) ZO ‘ . 3; a d b6 ‘ CA
gx f‘Pop. @210 311ch Z‘a)é§~.% 92.5 31 ‘i‘o 5.10% Yep;

 

6min“.
non .

. t
‘ o
.
.' “00‘ 31.02
N
. '4:
a. .' g ‘1», 'I'
’ 5: . ,
K. > Q .'
up '2‘ R 6'32,
.. ”all
I
+° 31.01 ,r
,' ‘I [4’

cm

 
  
  

. SS'O
ice 3/ Hi5

 

~— \ V [QlJLoKH
Peg. \Cfio 01,148 c—‘nyzs entme¢+c 5.1.5 Veg.

:2: I :!Q ‘lZfifiL 2'3? &\O~M.

DiSTR\;‘_'IS - 43.5fm» Ha»: 52:32: (Bung) I

#51 33421 (329:) . ,
50 ‘ 5298 (51%) - ' . i
#9 2.116 Lame) "

‘18 (.1403 (1.52.57
57. 351-12 (28:19)
\ 6 225% 0144)
71‘ H113 QM)
"i 31%: Kluge)

‘ 8 ‘1an {gas}

‘ Co 3532. (.3519) -seosw

V l 1065 (H12.

,— 3 525 Casi)

" 24° {3'52 {151(3)

‘ 25 2343“! Cite?) '

"7 2. A "

H1245 {35mg “633% @“K

MU S253
1 Pef.\O\‘)-LOLil
kaatfi CW7 »

Z.3=?- SendTOf—s

43-15512ch snowro
has Pop 4 101.4960
15,24»! - (NV/o

BLACK —

  
 

 

 

H "J
“Wu.
’0
mama
s

)
C ”fit

01
9°
0
~\
a?“
J.