Correspondence from Winner to Williams, et. al., Memo in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Supplement Complaint; Motion to Supplement Complaint; Supplement to Complaint; General Assembly of North Carolina Bill 1428

    I

i
JULrus LEVoNNa d*on 

"a"tJAMES E. FERGUSON. II

MELVIN L, WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS

KARL ADKINS

JAMES C. FULLER. JR.

YVONNE MIMS EVANS

JOHN W. GRESHAM

RONALO L. GTBSON

GILOA F- GLAZER

LESLIE J, WINNER

JOHN T NOCKLEBY'

. OF O, C, EAR ONLY

LJW: ddb
Enclosure

,t
ofior".*=tor.oN, wArr, WALLAS, ADKTNS !r...*. ,.o

ATTORNEYS AT LA\^/

SUITE 73O EAST INOEPENDENCE PLAZA

95I SOUTH INDEPENOENCE BOULEVARO

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202
TELEPHONE (704) 375-8461

November 18, 1981

I'Ir. Napoleon Williams
Legal Defense Fund
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Mr. Steve Suitts
Southern Regional Council
75 Marietta Street, NW
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

Re: Ralph Gingles et
Rufus Edmisten.

al. v.
et al.

Dear Friends:

Please find enclosed copies of the l4otion to Supplement the
Complaint and our response to defendant's Motion to Stay in
Gir,rgle_s v. Edmisten. I apologize for not showing these to
all of you prior to fLnaLizing them. Unfortunately, I ran
a little short of time before the deadline for filing the
response to the Motion to stay and wanted to file the Motion
to Supplement aE the same time. I will try to be a better
team member next time.

Dr. Raymond Wlreeler
3724 Warrington Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina

Ms. Lani Guinier
Legal Defense Fund
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019

Sincerely,

/lzz,+Leslie J. Winner



IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH

RALEIGH DIVISION
NO. B1-803-CrV-5

,'.J

COURT
-l: :.,-

CAROLINA

RALPH GINGLES, et dI.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

RUFUS EDMISTENT et aI.,

Defendants.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that I have served the foregoing Motion to Supplement

Complaint and Mernorandum in Support of Plaintiffsr Motion to

Supplement Complaint on all other parties by hand delivery with copy

of same to:
Mr. James Wallace, Jr.
North Carolina Attorney General's

Office
Raleighr North Carolina 27602

and further by placing a copy thereof enclosed in a postage prepaid

properly addressed wrapper in a Post Office or Official Depository

under the exclusive care and custody of the United States Postal

Service, addressed to:
Mr. Jerris Leonard
900 17th Street, NW
Farragut Building, Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 20005

This 13th day of November, 1981.



IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH

RALEIGH DIVISION
NO. 8r-803-CrV-5

COURT

CAROLINA
I ,,

RALPH GINGLES, eT a1. ,

Plaintiffs,
v.

RUFUS EDMISTEN, et aI.,
Defendants.

MEMOMNDUM IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO
SUPPLEMENT COMPLAINT

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

Plaintiffs in Lhis action are black citizens of the State

of North Carolina who brought this action alleging that the

provisions of the North Carolina Constitution which prohibit
dividing counties in the apportionment of districts for the

North Carolina House of Representatives and the North Carolina

Senate have the purpose and effect of diluting the vote of black

citizens in violation of the Voting Rights Act of L965, as amended,

42 U.S.C. SSf973 and 1973c, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution. Plaintiffs further
allege that the apportionment of the North Carolina General

Assembly and the North Carolina's Congressional districts violate
the "one person-one vote" mandate of the equal protection clause

of the Fourteenth Amendment and dilute black vote in violaEion of
the Voting Rights Act and the FourEeenth and Fifteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution.

II. FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS MOIION

On October 30, 1981, after this action was commenced, the

North Carolina General Assembly repealed the Ju1y, 1981, appor-

tionmenL of the North Carolina House of Representatives and enacted



.a

a new aPportionment of the North Carolina House of Representatives.
Plaintiffs file this motion to supplement their complaint to
put the aPPortionment which was enacted subsequent to the filing
of this action andplaintiffs'challenges to it before the Court.

A proposed supplemenEal complaint is attached to plaintiffs'
motion.

Because the Court has granted defendants extension of time

in which Eo answer, Do responsive pleading has been fited to
plaintiffs' original Complaint.

III. ARGUMENT

Rule 15(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states:

(d) Supplemental Pleadings. Upon motion of a

party the court ilay, upon reasonable notice and upon

such terms as are just, permit him to serve a supple-

mental pleading setting forth transactions or occurrences

or events which have happened since the date of the

pleading sought to be supplemented. permission may be

granted even though the original pleading is defective
i-n its statement of a claim for relief or defense. If
the court deems it advisable that the adverse party plead

to the supplemental pleading, it shall so order, specifying
the time therefor

The purpose of Rule I5(d), as well as Lhe entire philosophy of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is to reduce unrltiplicity of
litigation by permitting as many of the claims between the parties
as possible to be settled in one action. The Court should consider
whether the entire controversy between the parties could be settled
in one action and the extent to which the additional claim involves
the same or similiar issues, subject matter, or facts. 6 l.Iright and

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, s1506 at p. 547-549.

The Supplemental Complaint which plaintiffs seek ro file sets

forth transactions, occurrences, and events which happened subsequent

-2-



to the filing of the action. The parties are identical. The

Supplemental Complaint asserts facts which are necessary to a full
determination of the issues already before the court, and it
asserEs claims which raise issues which are the same as or similar
to the issues already before the court. rn addition, the claims
in praintiffs' proposed supplemental complaint require a three
judge court under 28 U.S.C. 52284 as does the original complainr.
Thus judicial- economy requires that plaintiffs be allowed to
supplement their complaint.

In addition, defendants have not answered the original complaint
and are not required to until the Court rules on Defendants, Motion
to Stay Proceeding. There is, therefore, no prejudice to defendants
by the granting of this motion.

This 73 day of November, 1981.

Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas,
Adkins & Fuller, p.A.

Suite 730 East Independence pLaza
951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
704/ 37s-8461

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

LESLIE J.-WINNER

-3-



IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT

FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH

RALETGH DIVISION
NO.81-803-CrV-5

jJ/'t-
V . sU YVIIII

LESLIE J.
Chambers,

Adkins &
Suite 730
95f South
Charlotte,

MLPH GINGLES, €t al. ,

Plaintiffs,
v.

RUFUS EDMISIEN, et al.,
Defendants.

This 13 day of November, 1981.

a

COI'RT

CAROLINA

Pursuant to Rule f5(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,

plaintiffs move the Court to permit them to serve a Supplemental

ComplainL to seL forth transactions and o.ccurrences which have

happened since September L6, 198f, the date the Complaint was filed
in this action. Plaintiffs' proposed Supplemental Complaint is
attached hereto.

Plaintiffs further request that the Court order defendants to

answer the Supplemental Complaint at the same time that they

answer the original Complaint.

MOTION TO SUPPLEMENT
COI(PLAINT; RULE 15(d

Ferguson, Watt, Wa1las,
Fuller, P.A.

East Independence Pl-aza
Independence Boulevard
North Carolina 28202-



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGH DIVISION

RALPH GINGLES, et dI.,

Plaintiffs,

v. CIVIL ACTION

NO. B1-803-CrV-5RUFUS EDI'IISTEN, in his capacity
as the Attorney General of North
Carolina, et al.,

Defendants.

SUPPLEMENT TO COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

In October, 1981, after the Complaint was filed in this
action, the North Carolina General Assembly convened,

repealed the apportionment of the North Carolina House of
Representatives which it had enacted in July, 1981, and

enacted a new apportionment. The new apportionment was

enacted in accordance with the provisions of the North

carolina constitution which prohibit dividing counties in
the apportionment of the House of Representatives even

though that provision had not been precleared as required by

55 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965r Ers amended. In addi-
tion, the plan adopted still has a large range of population

deviation per representative. Thus plaintiffs remain under-

represented in the House of Representatives in violation of
the "one person--one vote" requirement of the equal protec-

tion clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States

Constitution. Finally, the new apportionment continues to
dilute the vote of black citizens in violation of 52 and 55

of the Voting Rights Act, the Fourteenth and Fifteenth
Amendments to the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C.

s198r.



The allegations contained in this Supplemental

Complaint refer to the new apportionment of the North

Carolina House of Representative. The allegations in this
Supplemental Complaint are in addition to the allegations
contained in the Complaint filed in this action on September

16 , lgBI.

II.

85.

Assembly

purpose

Carolina

Senate.

COUNT FIVE: REVISED APPORTIONMENT OE THE NORTH
NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

On October 29 , 1981, the North Carolina General

(hereafter "the General Assembly") convened for the

of reapportioning the districts of the North

House of Representatives and the North Carolina

86. In response to the filing of the Complaint in this
action, the General Assembly repealed the July, 1981 appor-

tionment of the North carolina House of Representatives as

contained in Chapter 800 of the Session Laws of 1981.

87. On October 30, 1981, the North Carolina General

Assembly enacted Chapter 1130 of the Session laws of I9BO,

entitled "An Act to Apportion the Districts of the North

Carolina House of Representatives" (hereafter "Chapter

1130" ). A true and accurate copy of this bill is attached

to this Supplemental Complaint as Exhibit A.

88. On September 22, 1981, defendants submitted

Article II SS3(3) and 5(3) of the North Carolina Constitution
to the Attorney General of the United States for preclearance

under 55 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 r ds amended , 42

U.S.C. St973c (hereafter "S5 of the Voting Rights Act,').
Defendants supplemented this submission on september 24 and

September 28, 1981.

89. Defendants made this submission in response to the

filing of the Complaint in this action.

-2-



90. Chapter 1130 was enacted in accordance with
Article Tr, 55(3) of the North carolina constitution even

though the Attorney General of the United States had not

objected to or approved Article II, 55(3) of the North

Carolina Constitution pursuant to S5 of the Voting Rights

Act.

91. The apportionment of the North Carolina House of
Representatives contained in chapter 1r30 has districts with
a popuration range from 45r308 people per representative in
Guilford county to 52,947 peopre per representative in the

district composed of chero-kee, cray, Graham and Macon counties;
this resurts in an overall range of deviation from the ideal
distrlct size of 15.61t.

92. Plaintiffs Gingles and Moody are underrepresented

by the apportionment of the North carolina House of Represen-

tatives as enacted in Chapter 1130.

93. The General Assembly had before it and available
to it plans for apportionment of the districts of the North

carolina House of Representatives which had overarr ranges

of population deviation of less than 10t.

94. On or about November 4, 1981, Chapter I13O h,as

submitted to the Attorney Generar of the united states for
preclearance under 55 of the Voting Rights Act; it has not

yet been objected to or approved.

95. During the October 29, I9B1 Session of the North

carorina General Assembly no new apportionment of the North

Carolina Senate was enacted.

96. During the October 29 , 19BI Session of the North

carolina General Assembly, apportionment plans for the North

carolina senate which had an overall range of population

deviation of less than 10t were considered and were rejected
by the North Carolina Senate.

-3-



97,

Carolina

dered and

minority

A.

During the October 29, 1981 Session of the

General Assembly, the North Carolina Senate

rejected apportionment plans which diluted
vote less than the enacted plan does.

Ninth CIaim for Relief

North

consi-

98. Plaintiffsr nineth claim is brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. SI9B3 to enforce the equal protection clause of the

Eourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
99. The apportionment of the North Carolina House of

Representatives as described in paragraphs 85-94 above results
in plaintiffs' being underrepresented, does not comply with

the "one person--one vote" requirement for legislative
apportionment, and denies plaintiffs their right to equal

protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution.

B. Tenth Claim for Relief

100. Plaintiffs' Tenth claim is brought pursuant to 52

Act of 1965r ds amended, 42 U.S.C.and 55 Voting Rights

SS1973 and 1973c.

101. Chapter 1130 of the Session Laws of 19BI was

enacted in accordance with Article II, 55(3) of the North

Carolina Constitution even though that section has not been

precleared under 55 of the Voting Rights Act and is unenforcable.

102. The intent and effect of the apportionment of the

North Carolina House of RepresentaLives enacted in Chapter

1130 of the Session Laws of 1981 is to dilute the vote of
black citizens and to deny plaintiffs their right to use

their vote effectively.
C. Eleventh Claim for Relief

103. Plaintiffsr Eleventh claim for relief is brought

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S1983 to enforce the equal protection

clause fo the Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment

to the United States Constitution and pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

s1981.

-4-



104. The intent and effect of the apportionment of the

North Carolina House of Representatives enacted in Chapter

1130 of the Session laws of I9BI is to dilute the vote of

black citizens and to deny plaintiffs their right to use

their vote effectively.
III. SUPPLEMENTAL PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray that the Court:

I. crant the relief prayed for in the Complaint in
this action;

2. Declare that apportionment of the North Carolina

House of Representatives as enacted in Chapter 1130 of the

North Carolina Session Law.s of 1981 violates the equal

protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution because the apportionment does not have

representation districts which are equal in size and enjoin

defendants from participating in, supervising, conducting,

or certifying the results of any election pursuant to this
apportionment and from enacting any apportionment in the

future which has representation districts which are not

equal in size;

3. Declare that the apportionment of the North Carolina

House of Representatives as enacted in Chapter 1130 of the North

Carolina Session Laws of I9BI dilutes the vote of black citizens
and denies plaintiffs and other class members the right to use

their vote effectively because of their race in violation of S2

and 55 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965r Ers amended, in violation
of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments ot the United States

Constitution, and in violation of 42 U.S.C. S1981 and enjoin
defendants from participating in, supervising, conducting, or

certifying the results of any election pursuant to this appor-

tionment and from enacting any apportionment in the future

which has the purpose or effect of diluting the vote of
black citizens.

-5-



4l Award the costs of this action, including reasonable

attorneysr fees, to plaintiffs; and

5. Grant such other and further relief as may be just
and appropriate.

This l) auv of November, 198I.

LESLIE J. WINNER
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas,

Adkins & Fu1ler, P.A.
951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
7 04/37 5-8 46 1

JACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NABRIT, III
NAPOLEON B. WTTLIAMSE JR'
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New York 10019
202/ s8 6-8 39 7

Attorneys for plaintiffs

J. LEVONNE

-6-



1., GENU 1- ASSEMBLY 0F NoRTH Il0LtNA
SESSION 1981

RATIFIED BILL

CsAPTER 1130

BOUSE BILL 1028

IN. ICT TO APPORTIOT TEE DISTBICIS OT THE f,OBTH CIROLITI EOUSE OP

NEPAESETTATTYES.

The Geueral. l,sseubly of f,ortL Carolina enacts:

Section 1- c.S. 120-2 is reuritten to reail:
rs 120-2- Eogse appoglignnent specifie0.--por the purpose of

noninating ancl electiug aenbers of the Xorth Carolina Eouse of
f,epresentatives in 1982 anrl perioclically thereafter, .the State of
Xorth Carolina sha11 be tlivitletl into the follouing tlistrlcts:

District 1 shall consist of canclen, chorian, currltuck, Dare,

Pasquotank, PerquiDans, Tyrrell, ancl rashiugton couuties, aDcl

shall e1ect tro Bepresentatives

Ili-strict 2 shall consi-st of Beaufort ancl Hyde Counties, autl

shall elect one Representative.

Di.strict 3 shall consist of Crayen, Lenoir, aucl panlico

Counties, ancl shall elect three Representatives.

District 0 shall consist of Carteret ancl onslou Counties, antl

sha1l elect three RepreseDtatives.

District 5 shall consist of Bertie, Gates, Eallfar, Eertforcl,

llartin, and llorthanptoa Couuties, antl sha11 elect three

ttelt16oont at lvos

District 6 shaIl consist of Eclgeconbe, Xash,

Counties, and shall elect four Representatives.

I,

.)

(

EXHIBIT A (5 pages)

ancl Ei-lson



' 
. 

'. 

rr=.rr". 7 sharl (rG. of Greene anit pitt 
"(la-"=, auct shatl ' ' t

elect tvo BepreseBtatives.

oistri.ct I shall consist of Hayne County, antl shall elect tuo

Representatives.

District 9 shall consist :of Dupli.n ancl ilones Counti.es, aucl

shal1 elect one Representative.

District 10 shall. consist of Bladeu, pender, ancl Sanpsou

Counties, anrl sha1l elect tyo Bepresentatives.

District 11 shall consist of Bruusvick aud ltev Eanover

Counties, ancl shall elect three Representatives.

District 12 shall consi.st of Colunbus County, ancl shall elect

one Representative.

District 13 shall consist of Robeson, Hoke, ancl Scotlantl

Counties, and shall elect three Represeutatives.

District 14 shall consist of Cunberlancl County, and sball elect

five Representatives.

District 15 shaIl consist of Harnett anrl Lee Counties, ancl

sha11 elect tvo Bepresentatives.

District 16 shall consist of Franklin antt Johuston Counties,

anrl shal1 elect tro Representatives.

District 17 shall consist of flake County, ancl shaIl elect six
Represeutatives -

District 18 shall coasist of Casvell, Grauvi.lle, Person, Vance,

and flaEreo Counties, and shall elect tbree Representatives.

District 19 shal1 consist of Durhan County, autl shall elect

three Represent atiYes.

j
.,t.l

,a

House Bill 1428



1,, ,

District 20
o

shal.]- consist of chathan, f"on", ald Raudolph

Counti-es, aDd shall elect four Representati-ves.(
\ District 21 shall coosist of lloore county, and shall elect one

Representative.

District 22 shall consist of Richnonct County, ancl sha1l elect
oDe Representative.

t,' District 23 shall consist of lnson anil ltontgonery counties, an<t

" shall elect oue Representative.

District 24 shaI.l consi.st of Cabarrus ancl Union Counties, ancl

shall e}ect three Bepresentatives.

District 25 shall consist of Stanly County, ancl shal1 elect one

Bepresentative.

oistrict 26 shal1 consist of Daviclson ancl Davie Couuties, aucl

shall elest three Representatives..

District 27 shall consist of Rovan County, anrl shall elect tuo
Represeutatives.

District 28 shall consist of Alanance County, aud shall elect
tvo Representatives.

District 29 shalI consist of Guilforcl County, antl shall elect
seveD Bepreseutatives

Ili-strict 30 sha1l consist of alleghany, Rockingham, Stokes, ancl

surry couuties, anil shal1 elect four Representatives.

District 31 shall consist of Forsyth County, and shall elect
five Representatives.

District 32 sharl consist of lshe, avery, carclverr, ltitchelr,
flatauga, Filkesr orrd yaclkin counties, ancl shalr erect five
Represent atives

llouse Bill 1q28



District 33 .n"S Q"nsist of alexanaer, ,fO, catarba, and.
I

freclell Counties, anil shall elect six RepreseDtatives.

District 34 shall consist of lteckrenburg county, and shalr
elect eight Representatives.

District 35 shall consist of Gastou ancl Liucoln Couuties, ancl

shall elect four Representatives

District 35 shall cousi.st of Clevelancl, Po1k, anrl Rutherforil

Counties, ancl shall consist of three Representativesi

District 37 sha11 consist of tlcDovelL ancl Yancey Counties, ancl

shal1 el.ect one Representative.

District 38 shalI consist of Bonconbe, Eentlerson, and

Transytrvania Counties, ancl shall elect five Representatives.

District 39 shall cousist of Hayroocl, Jackson, ilaclison, ancl

Svain Counties, and shall elect tro Rep_resentatiyes.

District q0 shall consist of Cherokee, CIay, Grahan, antl Hacon

Counties, ancl shaI1 eleet one Representative.tr

Sec- 2- 1981 Session Lavs Chapter 800 is repealed.

Sec- 3- (a) Notuithstanding G.S- 163-106 or aDy other

provision of lar to the contrary, the filing periocl uncler Article
10 of General Statutes Chapter 163 for legislative offices (State

Senate, State Eouse of Bepresentatives, ancl U- S. House of
Represeutatives) for the filiug year 1982 on1y, shaIl counence at
12:00 Doort on ttouclay, Pebruary 15, 1982, ancl shall expire at

12:00 noon on llouday, llarch 1, 1982.

(b) fn acldition, the State Boarcl of Elections is hereby

authorizetl to establish the opening clate for j.ssuance of abseutee

ballots to be voterl in tie 1gB2 Prinary Electiou anct said Board

I
I

I

c,

House Bill 1428



shall establish "Qnaooro, tlate as early 
"= ?"aicabre penttins

the printing of the ballots. Such opening rtate shall also apply

to any referenclun or election helcl on the <late of the priuary
election. lbsentee ballots authorizecl uncler G.S. 163-227 (b, (lt
antl G. S. 163-227 (b) (41 sha'll be coveretl uncler the authori.ty
specifiecl herein.

(c) fhe authority establishecl i.n this sectiou shall
terninate folloring the conduct of the llay tt, 1982, prinary
elections.

Sec. 4. This act is effective upon ratification-
fn the General lssenbly reacl three tines anrl ratifietl,

this the 30th ctay of October, 1981.

JAMES G GREEN

Janes C. GEeen

Presiclent of the Senate

LISTQN B, RAMSEY

Listou B. Ransey

Speaker of the House of Representatives

t
House BiIl'1q28