U.S. Rejects 2 N.C. Plans for Districts (The Charlotte Observer)

Press
December 9, 1981

U.S. Rejects 2 N.C. Plans for Districts (The Charlotte Observer) preview

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. U.S. Rejects 2 N.C. Plans for Districts (The Charlotte Observer), 1981. ea6bb108-dc92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/110eec27-62e9-4b9d-879b-971d29d39076/us-rejects-2-nc-plans-for-districts-the-charlotte-observer. Accessed July 13, 2025.

    Copied!

    htg:lrr
., t a{q

''a t'ih)

)...

-. (:
'('-'

-?l

.a ii
:- :'.,

:-8:gl
a

.iJ
,)

'*rli'.

,&rl
.t'.
.,:liEI

::
:a

lt}
t,,
N
o()
o

t
I
It
h't

l;
a ,oo!.rv.r tl.fl wrlLr 'mOStfy' laStern Coulties in NOrth

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Carolina and all of South Carolina.

2 Ntr

Justice Department landed a one- ln his.letlef to'Brgck, Bradford
two punch Tuesday bn North Car- neyircilOi,"t'eaa of the depart-

rj'olina's already battered legislative ment's"iivil'iiltrts' division, said
igedistricting plans. ',.1;': .: ,- the N.C..lorigiessional plan was
'.:'. In a lettei io state'ete;tions of fi- rejected :'beciuse of questions
-cials, the department iejected new abbut the placement of 

- 
Durham

-maps for both the state-'s congres-. ,County, .which."has,a large black
sional and state senatorial dis- population. "}.,.:i.
tricts on grounds some of them When new ccingressional !is-
nahe it more difficult lor blacks, tricts wereteb{tea..Uy state lliw.
to Elect candidates, thus vlolating r rliakers earfief this year; supfrrt-

'. Unless state officials fight the fought. to keep Durham County
Justice Department ruling in- i'frOm'.being 'addrid to Fountain's
tourt, it will effectively force the 2nd District, causing a.sometimes
;N.Cl General Assemblyto meet in ; bitter deadlock. ' ' I t",i, i.',; I i
its third special session in foulrtr'The 1980 census showedfouh-
moirths to draw'new districts for'i tain's district was undeipopu-months to draw new dtstricts for':i tain's district was underpopu- ,r
the state's ll members of Con- , lated. . I ' . .'---!'.'artl I
gress and 50 state 5gn3ls15.'lJ..,ii: i,.t nut'irisieaO Lt f,COine Oi?i,". '

ilThis means that they-cannot': county,- tfrg.[6rrymakers-apprbr;eo I

2 N.C. Plahs
For f)istrictS'-. ., ,

Continued from Page lA . .

counties. ;' "- ' -

He also seemed to urSe the le8'
lslators to use single'member dis'
trlcts, in which each of the 50 sen'
ators would reptesent' one
ceparate district rather than the
culrent sltuation under which
some dlstrlcts elect 8s many 8s
,our senatorg.'iria. t.' ' : '

t .. ., lti'. ' :.S'::''"'' -''The 
Justibe DePartment ruling

adds to what alreadY has been a
trying experience for the General
Aisefrutv.,,i'S*" 

i i\\ 1 qffill;{i}
State legislators' adoPted .4ew

congressional, .i'state House ind
rtate Senete distrlcts before ad'
lournlng last JulY, as required bY
ihe state and federal constitutions.

The NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund later filed .sult
egainst all three Plans, charglng
that they 'watered down bleck
voting strength, devisted too far
lrom- statistically ','equal" , dis'
trlcts, and relied on q 1968 coqsti'
tutional amendment .that ..w8s
never submitted for Justice Pe'
partment reviey. ..,' . . ,.:l til

i Under the Voting' Rlghts iAbt,
any change in eiection law ln cov'
ered areas must first be aPproved
by the Justice Department or thc
U.S. Distrlct Court ln Washlngton
before it can take effect. ":ri: r ' '

- !-,: .' . '. j .q -.- :r) ' -.rt': i',|.t t"-
'Because ol that NAACP defense

fund lawsuit, lawmakers met
acain iil late October to draw-still
nEwer stite legislative plans that
would more. closelY meet'equal
oopulatibn itandaids,' tlthough
itr6 Senate' deciied to change
nothlng until lt heard from the
Justice DePartment. The House
drew a new maP lor lts 120 mem'
bers th-at ls still under 1evte1- .,

Slnce then, stlll another lawsult
challenging the plans has been
tiled by state Republlcans, and the
Justlce DePartment has reJected
thc 1968 constltutional ban \rn
crosslng county llnes, whlch elec'
tion officials finatly submitted for
review. I

EI
o.lolcl'I
N]

I

E
€
ogl
(o

d(o
(o
(o
I

o,F
G'
o(,
o
.Eoo

Lo
.=
oo
o
Eo
E
Lo
IL

..:

ilrhis means trrat tir""y : sln nrt: I .i;i;ii:'i"hx"-:iit"3J;Tr1,il r

elect -congressmen dr state rsen- ta btari ttriftiAdea alarhairie.'anA i

ators under those' plans"tv said ,.ChLttam couhties to'hi$ distiict. i

John Wilson,'a Justice De'part-,cinA put Oianee.b1rt"m'A;d ;6;: I

ment spokesman. "It means that .i 
trloui Wake c-ounties toeeiher'in'a I

both plans arei-legally unenforce-]'lh6w4thDistiict.'- rtti:.-]..yJ' ; I
able.":. .; '.;.. I'i'':.:."i l:t-Becauie ot-:ttj ctrariiieilitic I

Alex Brock, N.C. electiofl$ dl.',silIoe. Fouiitatfirs aistrict came\a I

rector, said legislative leaders ibe 'knowir nationalv as .,Foun- I
would meet this week to decide. tlain's Fishhook,'r; aiO ReynoiOs Iwhat to do about the decislons. . ' , ilrew attention icj its shaoe-in his I

Brock also said it was inevitable letter.. 'i ' ' ' j'; '' "';..' I

l! li .t !e:f l[1;l i :' ::ll' t,Yn"] L1 kii;, it., i? ffi:i1', {, i[ti1;' Io'llf 
illt,rink there,s aly_11,9,,; *:;,, ri;ilf.t'*imi,,.,ftl,'.I 

ition thev're soins to .,?.T"._I1.\1" lpp.ii, e;lfi;Ato uiiri,a"'pur- iBrock said. "rhe question it f,I",ri'ioilili"il"; ifritl,oi#Jit lwhen." l-io'tr,.-iiouif cJnliur- 
'The ruling represents tlg.fir:l !,|XTit'*"o,rtrictins Committee,s i

I..::".1:l'"i",i:l:'.:.i$?":[ff 'r,ii'i"sgff."1f, :*;;'J.;#.h;;,\The department enforces the Vot- ,j.l:^',;" caizr r.ar rha ciaro,c l.
ing Rights act, tirsi"' "'' :".'- Revnolds said that the state's

r b? s 
-ii- 

t.u 
"rq; 

d. f ; tT 
{llc^hr"q il Hii?i:: : * l, r l lt :l.t:., l?u Tli'"l i

Hlli fi li:', Jl :,tH,' 
"' 
Uf.".:X: gix*; H*l ;.,::*l* {:}:,ffgressional redistricting plan. :'*""- All or part of 22 statis are cov- See U.S. Page l7A, Col. I

oo'

o)
doo
6Eoo
tr
!o-

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Return to top