Correspondence from Bradford Reynolds to Brock

    U.S. Department of Justict

CivilRights Division

Officc of the Assistont Attorncy General Washingon, D.C. 205j0

3 0 floy ,98,

Mr. Alex Brock
Executive Secretary - Director
State Board of Elections
suire 801, Raleigh Building
5 West Hargett Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 2760L

Dear Mr. Brock:

This is in reference to the 1968 amendment (H.8. No.47L
(f967) ) , which provides that no county sha1l be divided in the
formation of a Senate or Representative district and which was
recently submitted to the Attorney General pursuant to Section 5
of the Voting Rights Acr of 1965, BS amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c.
Your submission was completed on October 1, 1981.

We have made a careful review of the information that you
have provided, thq events surrounding the enactment of the change,
the application of the amendment in pasE legislative reapportion-
ments, and comments and information provided by other interested
parties. On the basis of that analysis, we are unable to conclude
that this amendment, prohibiting the division of counties in
reaPPortionments, does not have a discriminatory purpose or effect.

Our analysis shows that the prohibition against dividing
the 40 covered counties in the formation of Senate and House
districts predictably requires, and has led to the use of, large
multi-member districts. Our analysis shows further that the use
of such multi-member districts necessarily submerges cognizable
minority population concentrations into larger white electorates.
In the context of the racial bloc voting that seems to exist, such
a phenomenon operates and would continue to operate "to minimize
or cancel out that voting strength of racial elements of the
voting population.'r Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433, 439 (1965).



2-
Ttris determination with respect to the jurisdictions

corzered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act should in no
way be regarded as precluding the State from follow'ing a
1rcIicy of preservj-ng county lines whenever feasible in
formulating its new districts. Indeed, this is the 1nIicy in
many states, subject onry to the precrearance requirements of
Section 5, where applicable. In the present submission,
howeverr w€ are evaluating a legal requirement that every
county must be included in the plan as an undivided whole.
As noted above, the inescapable effect of such a requirement
is to submerge sizeable black communities in large multi-
member districts.

Under these circumstances, and guided by the standards
established in cases such as Beer v. United States, 425 U.S.
130 (L976), we are unabre to ffitudeEE:El:EiffiB arnendment
requiring nondivision of counties in legislative redistricting
does not have a racially discriminatory purpose or effect.
Accordingly, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must
interpose an objection to that amendment insofar as it affects
the covered counties.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment
from the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia that this ctrange has neither the purpose nor will
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race, color or membership in a language minority
group. In addition, the Procedures for the Administration of
Section 5 (Section 5I.44, 46 Fed. Reg. 878) permit you to
request the Attrrney General to reconsider the objection.
However, until the objection is withdrawn or the judgment
from the District of Columbia is obtained, the effect of the
objection by the Attorney General is to make the 1968 amendment
legal ly unenforceable.

If you have any questions concerning this matter,
please feel free to call Carl W. Gable (202-724-7439), Director
of the Section 5 Unit of the Voting Section.

Sincerely,

Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division