Correspondence from Edmisten to Leonard; Answer to Second Supplement to Complaint

    t
\

No 891968

Irr 1ts8

Suprrup @nrrt sf the lfurilPil Ftulrr
OqrosEB thu, 1985

L.e.cY E fgoRNsvr;c, et al.,
Aypellant^s,

Y.

R.l,rrs Gwcrrs, et al.,
Appelleec.

On Appcel fron thc United Stat6 District Court
for thc Eastpra Distrist of North Carolina.

BRIEF A}IICUS CURIAE OF TEE
BEPUBLICA}T NATIONAL COMMIITEE

TN SrTppr}P'n nrl Appnr.T.nns

BoemAr. nt MooBE.
E. MAsrBuoras
MfCgAl[ { Elnsg

310 First Sheet, S-8.
Washiagtoq D.C. 20003
(202) 868€688

AttorneAs for Amicus Curioi
R epub l;ic an N otton ol C ommitt e e

' 
'CouasdofBecord

Au$st30,1986

Wrl.rox - EFI, rtlli.?lxo CO.. lXC. . 7ag.Oog6. Watt{tr{C?Or.. O.C. 2OOO!



?'l
.t

TA3I..E OF CONTENTS

TABIJ OT AI]ITEOBTTIES

INTEREST OF TEE AMICUS

. SUMMABY OF ASGUIIENT
I

aaeul&Nr
L lte Distrist Court Properly Refused to Guar'

aoteeProportio,rlMinorityBeprese,ntatiotr.---- 3

I[. The District Court Properly Ddered to Legis'
-- l,ative Priorities In Considening A Bemedy ------ 7

IU. ThE Distriet Courf,s Findiuep of Fact Are Not
Clearty Erroueoug, But Are Based Oa A Par-
ticulariy Localized Facttl8l Record 9

CONCLUSION

Page

ii

1

,

3



ll

TABLE OF AUTIIORITIES
CASES Page

Andersonv. Cita of Bessemer City, 

- 
U.S.-r-,

63 U.S.L.W. 4314 (Mar. 19, 1986) 9,10
CitU of Mobile v. Bold.en,446 U.S. 66 (1980).......... 3
Daois v. Bandemer,6O8 F. Supp. 1479 (S.D.Ind.

1984), ?rob. iuris. noted,, No. 84-1244 (Mar. 29,
1985) ....-.. 2,4

Gingles v. Eilmistet, 690 F. Supp. 346 (E.D.N.C.
1984), prob. iuris. nated sub nnn. Thornburg v.
Giry7les, No. 83-1968 (Apr. 29, 1986) -...-3, 6, 6, 7,8, 10

Ilunter v. Ericlcsot,, 393 U.S. 386 (1969) 4
I(archer v- Dagsett,462 U.S. 726 (1983) 2
Pu,llmnn.-Sto,nd,a.ril v. Swint, 466 U.S. 273 (f982).. 11

Uniteil Jewish Organizations v. lYilson, 610 F.2d
612 (2d Cir. 1974), d.ff'd sub nom. United Jewiah
OrganizationB v- Carey, 430 U.S. 144 (19771- -- 3

Uniteil States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333
u.s. 364 (1e48) I

Uphamv. Seamon,466 U.S. 8? (f982)
Washington v. Seattle School Distriet Nb. ,, 468

u.s. 46? (1e82) 4
White v. Weiser,4lz U.S. ?83 (1972) I
Zim,tner v. McKeithen, 486 F.zd 1297 (6th Cir.

1973) (en bane), aff'd, on other 11round,s sub nom.
Dast Carroll Parish School Boaril v. Marshall,
424 U.S. 636 (1976) (per euriam)---..---..-----....-- 4

STATUTES
The Voting Rights Aet of 1966 (eodifled as

amended at 42 U.S.C. $ 1973 (f982) ) ...,---3,6,6, 7, l0

OTIIEN
Iloward and lloward, The Dilemma of th,e Voting

Rights Act-R ecog nizing the E mer gin.g P olitical
Dqtnlity Nortn,83 Colum. L. Rev. 1616 (1983).- 4

Rule 62, Federal Rules of Clvll Proeedure -.-.-..-.-.-.- 9, 10
Senate Comm. on the Judielary, Report on the

Voting Rlehts Act Extenslon, S. Rep. No. 417,
9?th Cong., 22d Sess. 193 (f982), reprinted in
1982 U.S. Cong. Code & Ad. News 177 ........-.-..-.- 6

IH Tnn

$utrrmru (0uurl rt tlp lllnilril Stulrr
OcronuR Tonu, lg86

No. 83-1968

Llcy H. THoRununc, et al.,

v. Appellants,

Rarrn Grnclns, et. o,1.,

ApTtell.ees.

On Appenl from the Unlted Sl,ntes Dlstrlct Courl,
for l.he Enstern Dlstrlet of North Cnrolinn

NNIET A}IICUS CUNIAE OF TIIE
NEPURLICAN NATIONAL COIUMITTEI'

IN SUPPONT OT APPELLEES

The Republiean National Committee subrnits this brief
as arnicus awina in support of appellees' claim that the
Judgment of the United States Distriet Court for the
Eastern Dlstriet of North Carolina, enterecl on January
27, 1984, together with ihs supplemental judgment of
April 20, 1984, should be affirmed. Pursuant to Rule
36.2, all parties to this appeal have given their written
eonsent to the filing of this brief. Copies of the letters
of eonsent have been filed with the Clerk of the Court.

INTENEST OF TTIE AMICUS

The Republiean National Committee (RNC) submits
this brief on its own behalf, and on behalf of Robert
Bradshaw, Charlotte, North Carolina, Chairman of the



North Carolina Republiean Exeeutive Committee and a
member of the Republiean National Committee

The RNC has partieipated in a variety of eleetion law
and voting rights eases before this Court as either a
party or amieus. most reeently ln Rarcher v. Daggett,
462 U.S. 725 (f g8S) , and Dauis v. Band,emer, 608 f. Supp.
1,479 (S.D. Ind. 1984) , prob. iurts. noted,, No. SA-tdiA
(Mar. 29, 1985). The RNC and its membership support
fair and elleetive representation for all the eitizens of
North Carolina in their state legislature and believe that
the judgment of the eourt below effeets sueh a r.esult.

The amicus also believes that the appellants misrep-
resent both the nature of legislative representation in
North Carolina and the effeet of the judgment below.

SUMMANY OF TIIE ARGUMENT

The amicus Republiean National Committee takes issue
with the argument of the appellants that the judgment
of the distriet eourt either implieifly or explieitty i*-
posed a requirement of proportional representaHon for
blaeks in the North carolina legislatuie. The distriet
eourt's initial, January 27, 1984, opinion reveals no
attempt at maximizatlon, and the eourts April 20, 1984,
supplemental elearly demonstrates that, the eourt reJeeted
the notion of maximization or proportional representa-
tion that appellants now attempt to aseribe to tire eourt.

Rather than impose what the eourt thought, intui-
tively, to be the plan whieh d;id, maximize blael eleetoral
ehanees-a plan the plaintiffs themselves proposed to the
courL--the distriet eourt lnstead deferred to the priori_
ties established by the North carollna legislature and
adopted the state's plan as a remedy.

- 
In reaehing its eonelusions ln both its tniHal and sup_

plemental opinions, the distriet eourt reviewed a eomplex
faetual seenario, and its findings as to both subsidiary
and ultimate faets shoutd be sustained unless elearly

3

erroneous. The faets in this ease are peeuriarry roear in
nature, the determination of whieh is partieurorry *ituato the district eourt. Not onry was tie tristrief eourt,sfinding as to a key fact-the p....r.* of polarizecl vot_lng.-not elearly erroneous, ttie expert testimony upon
which the eourt baserr its finding was not ser.iousry con-testecl. The amicu,s berieves tha-t this ease is rounJ'ny
it's particular faets, and is an inappropriate vehiere foreonsidering the merits of the stantlards'for reriew-rriu.
Seetion 2 of the Voting Rights Aet.

ANGUMENT

I. The Dlstrlct _Cour[ 
properly Refuserl to GuarnnteeProporfional Mlnorlty Representailon.

of partieular interest to the RNC as amia* is theappellants' claim that, sinee minority voters fr"* ,orlght' to the creation of rristriets wtrietr *orla yi.rd 
";;p;.-

sentation in proportion to their numbers, [n" aist'J.teourt, erred in flnding a Voting Rights Aet violati;;. 
^ ^

It, is elear that the loting Rights Aet, anrl in particu_lar, Seetion 2 of the Act, i-rpoi", no requirement thatany 
-minority aehieve repr"senlrtion in propr.iio,i' d'il,numbers in 

-the 
population. The statute, as amended in1982, provides that "nothing in this seetion estabrishesa right to have members of a prote.t.d .rr.. 

"r..i"J--i,T_rT!_9"r equat to 
^their _proportion in th* ;o;;;li;r.,,4I-US.C. $ fg?S (f982). Thls'language is 

"rr.irlunt ,iglthis Court's approach to the ques[ion'ot proDor.tional ren-resentation in both eonstitutionar and ,t"tirtri"";;;#
rights eases.t The dis-triet eourt explici,y r;rilr#;;;
ldonle-d that approach in lts opinion. dingtes"v.-E;;;'"_
ten, 690 F. Supp. 846, 966 tn.O.N.C. f9g4):

I citu of Mobite v. Borden,4d6 u.s. 66, 69 (1980 ) i rlnited JeutishOrganizations v.lVilson,610 F.Zd 612 (Zd Clr. lg74), af.il, stft nont.United, Jewish Organizations v. Carey)AsO U.S. f44 GgZ?).



4

Nor does the faet that blaeks have not been eleeted
unrler a ehallenged 'distrleting plan in numbers pro-
portional to theii pereentage of the population -[alone
establish that vote dilution has resulted from t'he dis-
trieting plan.l (Citing Zimmer v. Mcl{eithen, 485

F.zd l29i (6th Cir. l9?3) (en banc) , afr'd on, other
grounils sub nnm. East Carroll Parish Sch,ool Board
'v. 

Marshnll,424 U.S. 636 (1976) (per curiam)'

The ami.cus Republiean National Committee has histori-
eally been a proponent of strong, majoritarian goyeT-

-unt in the Unitetl States. Ours is no[, nor should it be,

a proportionat system of government. The views of the

RNC 
-in 

this regard were se[ forth in detail in another

voting rights ease penrling before this Court, Dauis v'
Band,emer, No. 84-1244.'

t lnstead of requlrlng that leslelatures do the lmpossible by pro-

vkllng proporilonal representatlon for all polltleal lnterests, this
Cou.i has prtrdently requlred only that the electoral proceer be

structured in ways that permlt each voter nn equal olryortunitg tn

select hls leglslatlve representatlve and thereby be given an equal

chancd to lnlluenee publlc pollcy. Thls court's foeue mttst continue

to be on emphaslzlng proeedural falrness ln the polltlcal process

by requlrlng tlrat redlstrletlng taws "provlde a just framework
wlthln which the dlverse polltleal group6 ln our soelety may falrly
compete." Washington v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 468 U'S' 467'

4?0 (1982), (eltlns Hunter v. Dtickson, S!)S U'S' 886, 893 (1969)

(Ilarlan, J., coneurrlng) ).
The RNC expllcltly rejects the notlon that the ereatlon of "aafe"

minorlty dlstrlets ls the only available remedy under Seetlon 2 of
the Votlng Rtghts Aet, and agrees wlth the appellants that sueh a

rule of taw would be undesirable. The creatlon of permanent, safe

dlstrlets for any mlnority, raclal or polltleal, ls antithetleat to our

maJorltnrlon eystem of government, and lnstltutlonalizes the very

proportlonat government thls Court has reJected' In lts brlef ln

Daais v. Band.etner, $uqra, the RNC argued strongly that leglslntlve
rllatriete whlch ore deslgned to be non-competitlve to the excluslon

of one politicel party are both eonstltutlonnlly and phllosophlcally

repugnant. The inherent tenslon between proportlonnl representa-

6nn in raeial equal protection eases and what has been called the
..emerglng polltical norm" has been reeognlzed nnd discuseed at

length ln Howarrl and lloward, The Dilem'mo ol the Voting Rightd

5

The a,micus does not dispute the appellants' eonten[ion
that Congress elearly had no intention to invalidate dis-
[rieting plans where minority eandidates have had an
equal opportunity to be elected, even if they did not
neeessarily win a proportional share of the seats. How-
ever, while no group has either a statutory or eonstitu-
tional right to proportional representation, the statute
does not prohibit ang eonsideration of the relative repre-
sentation of a proteeted elass. In faet, the 1982 amend-
ments do pennit consideration of "the extent to which
members of the minority group have been eleeted to
publie office in the jurisdietion" as part of the "totality
of eircumstanees" whieh may be probative of vote rlilu-
tion. S. Rep. No. 417, 97Lh Cong., 2d Sess. 193 reprinted,
in 1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 177,206-07. In
assessing the suecess of blaek eandidates, the eourt below
eoneluded that:

[Thel suecess that has been ,achieved by black eancli-
dates is, standing alone, too minimal in total num-
bers and too reeent in relation to the long history of
eomplete denial of any eleetive opportunity 'to eom-
pel or even arguatrly to support an ultinrate finding
that a blaek candidate's raee is no longer a signifi-
eant faetor in the politieal proeesses of the state-
either generally or specifically in the areas of the
ehallengerl districts. 609 F. Supp. at,367.

The appellants eorrectly point, out that "Section 2 of
the Voting Rights Aet does not entitle protected minor-
ities . . . to safe eleetoral distriets simply because a mi-
nority eoneentl'ation exists sufficient to ereate sueh a

district." Appellants' Brief at, 19. Ilowever, the appel-
lants then suggest that the opinion below mandates iust
that sort of proportional representation.

A ct-Reco g nizitr.g the D mer g ing P olitical lN qr mlit11 N ot'tn, 83 Colu m.
L. Rev. l616 (f983). Thnt tension, however, does not exlst in this
ease beeause the distriet court did not endorse but rather, explicil.ly
rejected a maxlmlzation plan.



6

The appellants attempt' to isolate the remedial aetion

of the district court from its initial judgment. This pre-

sents an ineomplete piettrre of the distriet eourt's rea-

soned approaeh to thl proportional representation issue'

After the rlistriet eourt enjoined eertain elections un-

der the ehaltenged P!an, th; North Carolina- General

Assembly responierl by enaeting, in the form of six new

fiii., " 
redisirietirg pl"n ereating 

-new 
boundaries for

eaeh of the invatidited districts. On Mareh 12, 1986'

the state submitted these plans to the district eourt for
ii- ,pprrral, and eontemporaneously submitted the plan

to the Attorney General of the United States for pre-

elearanee insofar as the ehanges affeeted distriets cov-

ered by Section 6 of the Voting Rights Aet'

Three days later, on Mareh 16, the plaintifts objected

to the proposed plan and requested modifieations, in par-

tieular wifh respeet to the areas eovered by former Hgqse

Districts 8 antl 36. The distriet eourt denied the plain-

tiffs' motion for further depositions and a hearing on

the question of the remedial adequaey 9f lhe state's plan'

and iesolved to tlecide the question of the s[ate's com-

plianee on the reeord as then extant' 690 tr' Supp' aL377'

Although they rlid not coneede the plan's validity in

other res"peets, ihe plaintiffs objeeted speeifleally to-the
area eomprising th" Mecklenburg distriet, eontending

that the plan fraetured substantial black populatlon eon-

eentrations. These populations were insuflieient to eon-

stitute another voting majority, but plaintilts argued

that they might, noneth"less, give that minority popula-

tion eonsid.*bt" voting power as a substantial voting

minority in at teast one of the newly eonstrueted 
-s.ingle

membei dlstricts. Id. at 879. This newly "paeketl" dis-

triet would have eontained a blaek population of 44'7

pereent. Iit. at 380 n.1. By contrast, none of the- white

majority tlistriets under the state's plan eontained black

populations ln exeess of' 28.2 pereent' Id'

I

7

The eourt characterized the plaintiffs' proposal as re-

quiring that "a state redistricting plan arlopted to rem-

.ay SuOi"ially found dilution by subntet'gence (or frac-

ttrring) of effeetive vote majorities must, not only remedy

the s[eeilie vlolation found but also maximize the

voting strength of those blach voters outsitle the reme-

rlially drawn single-member clistriets." Id' The court
wiseiy riljected the plaintiffs' invitation to maximize mi-

nority ,rtirg strength, relying upon Seetion 2 jurispru-

denee antl equitable eonsitlerations. Id. at 382'

The eottrt's faetual findings led it to a eonelusion that
the rehallenged plan violated Seetion 2. Ilaving so tle-

termlned, the eourt's Janttary 2? opinlon mttst be re-

'viewed together with its sttpplemental opinion' By ex-

plieitly relecting, in its supplemental opinion, a proposal

itat tiouti have maximized minority voting strength, the

distriet court demonstratecl that its goal was not propor-

tional representation. The distriet eourt's opinion tloes

not hold that blaekd-or any minority-are e,titled to pro-

portional representation. Remarkably, appellants failecl

io r.p.od,r., thi. supplemental opinion in their Jurisdie-

tionai Statement, but instead invoked this Court's juris-

dietion on the basis of an ineomplete reeord'

Il. The Dlstrlct Court Properly Deferred to Leglslntlve

Prlorltles In Conslderlng A Remedy'

Even prior to the remetlial 6tage of this litigation' the

district eourt resolvecl to tlefer to "the primary jurisdic-

tion of state legislattrres over legislative reapportion-

ment." 590 F. Srpp. at, 376. The court noted that this

wasespeeiallyappropriatewherethelegislaturehadbeen
anordea no lit.uiors legislative opportunity to assess the

substantial new requirement under the 1982 amendments

to section 2 of the voting Rights Ac[ for affirmatively

avoiding raeial vote rlilution rather than merely avoitling

its intentional imPosition. Id'



8

Furthermore, the eourt reeognized 'lthe diflieulties
posed for the state by the imminenee of 1984 primary
eleetions" and ollered to eonvene at any time upon the
request of the state to eonsider and promptly rule upon
proposed remedies. fd.

In ibE supplemental opinion, the district eour[ reeog-
nized that neither the Voting Rights Act nor equitable
eonsiderations require-and neither do they permit-"the
rejeetion of a legislative plan simply beeause the review-
ing eourt would have adopted another thought to pro-
vide a better, more equitable overall remedy for the
originally found vote dilution." 690 F. Supp. at 382. The
eourt noted that sueh a prineiple of judicial deference to
legislative aims elearly applies in eonstitutional redis-
trieting eases, White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783, 794-97
(19721, and properly extended that deference to its anal-
ysis under the Voting Rights Act. Cl. Upham v. Seam,on,
456 U.S.37 (1982).

The tourt, refused to aeeept plaintiffs' strggest,ion that
raeial vote dilution may be found "not only with respeet
to aggregations of black voters large enough to make up
effeetive vobing majoritles in single-member distriets, but
with respect to smaller aggrega,tions as well," antl that
rlilution in that sense resulted frorn the state's remedial
plan'with respeet to blaek aggregations outside the re-
medially-ereated single-member distriets. 590 tr. Supp.
at 380. In eonsidering whether, under the eireumstanees
of a partieulat' ease, a 28.2 pereent blaek minority may
have less voting strength than a 45 pereent minority, the
eourt noted that sueh a determination depended, among
o[her things, upon the philosophical-political makeup of
the poprrlation majorities in the district.

The eourt refuserl to substitute its "intuitive" sense
that the overall voting strength of blaelrs might be en-
haneed by paching them into a 45 percent minority tlis-
trict and, as a result, refused to substitute the plnintiffs'
proposal for the state's.

I

III. The Dlstrlct Corrrl's Flnrllngs of Fnct Are No[ Clearly
Erroneous, Rut Are Bnsed On A Partleularly Localizerl
Fnetual Ileeord.

Rule 62(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Pt'oeedure
provides that findings of fact shall not be se[ aside un-
less clearly erroneous, with rlue regard to be given to
the opportunity of the trial eourt to judge the cred-
ibility of the witnesses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 52 (1984). This
Court, has enuneiatetl general principles governing the
exereise of an appellate eourt's power to overturn find-
ings of a clistriet eourt and has sta[ed that the "fore-
most of these prineiples . . . is that 'a finding is "elearly
erroneous" when although there is evitlenee to support
it, the reviewing eourt is left with the definite anrl firm
convietion that a mistahe has been committerl,' United
States v. Uniteil, States Ggytsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395
(1948)." And'erson v. Citg ol Bessem'er City, 

- 
U.S.

-, 
53 U.S.L.W. 43f4 (Mar. 19, 1985).

As this Court recently enrphasized in Anderson, supra,
'lthis standard plainly cloes not entitle a t'eviewing eourt
to reverse the finding of the trier of fact simply beeause
it is convineal ,that it would have decidetl the case dif-
ferently." Id.

The appellants' prineipal objeetion to the opinion be-
low is the district eourt's lindings with respect to raeial
polarization. Appellant's llrief at 27, 34-35. While the
amicus is not in a position to express a view as to whether
or not racially polarized voting does exist in North Caro-
lina, we rlo believe tha[ the district eourt's determination
that it rloes exist was not clearly erroneotls. In fac[, there
was no significant difference in the testimony of opposing
experts on 'this issue.

Plaintiff's expet't, Dr. Bernard Grofman, used an "ex-
treme ease" analysis (foeusing on voting in racially seg-
regated precincts) and an "ecological regression" analysis
(foeusing on both raeially segregated and raeially mixed



l0

preeinets-). Determining that .the results under both anal-
yses eonform elosely in most areas, Dr. Grofman opined,
and the eout't found, that raeial polarization did exist and
was statistically signifieant. 690 F. Supp. at 367-368 and
n.29.

Defendants' expert, Dr. Thomas llofeller, had studied
Dr. Grofman's data and heard his live testimohy. The
eourt notal that, "[alside from two mathematical or
ty$ographieal errors, Dr. Hofeller did not question the
aeeuraey of the data, its adequacy as a reliable sample
for the purpose used, nor that the methods of analysis
used were standard in the litera'ture." fd. at 368. lVhile
Dr. Hofeller did question the reliability of an extreme
ease analysis when standing alone, the eourt noted that
he had made no specifie suggestion of error in the ffgures
used.

The eourt further noted that the general ac*uraey and
reliability of Dr. Grofman's data were eonfirmed by the
testimony of Dr. Theodore Arrington, expert wi.tness for
the intervenor-plaintiffs. "Proeeetllng by a somewhat dif-
ferent methoclology and using diflerent data, Dr. Arring-
bon eame to the same general eonelusion respeeting the
extent of raeiel pol,arization. . . .,, Id. ut, 868 n.Zg.

The districL eourt's flnding on ,this subsidiary faet, was
not the subject of extensive dispute be[ween the parties'
experts, but was a reasonable finding about whieh there
was, in faet, some degree of agreement among the ex-
perts. As this Courb has recently cnonftrmed:

[lVhen] a trial judge's ffnding is based on his deei-
sion to credit the testimony of one of two or more
witnesses, eaeh of whom has .told a eoherent and
faeially plausible story that Is not eontradieted by
extrinsie evidenee, that ffnding if not, internally in-
consistent, ean vir.Uually never be elear error. 

- 
An-

d,erson v. City ol Bessemer Cil,y, supra at 4817.'
Nor does Rule 52 make an exeeption to applying the

clearly erroneous standard to this finding on the basis

ll

that it is merely one of several subsidiary faets. The
rule does no0 make exceptions or purport Uo exelude eer-
tain eategories of faetual ffndings from the obligabion of
an appellate court ,to aeeep[ the district eourt's findings.
The rule "does not divide faets into eategories; in partie-
ular it does not divide findings of fact into those ,that deal
with 'ultimate' faets and those that deal wi,th 'subsidiary,
faets." Pul.lmnn-Sto,nd,ard, v. Stoitr,t, 4bG U.S. Z7g, 287
( 1982)

The facts in this ease lend themselves to a loeal consid-
eration particularly suited bo the trial eourt. The facts
in this ease are further eomplieated by North Carolina,s
sehizophrenie status under the Voting Righte Act. Only
40 of its 100 eounties are subjeet to the pr.eclearanee pro-
visions of Seetion 6 of the Aet, and that divided eoverage
results in different standards of review within the same
state under the two seetions of the Act.

The numerous faetual diserepaneies in the briefs on
appeal have further muddied an already obseur.e factual
reeord. Supplemental Briefs of Appellees ancl Appellees-
Intervenors. These disputes, and the partieularly loealized
elreumstanees in this case, make lt an inappropriate vehi-
ele for a eomprehensive review by ,this Court of the sub-
stanee of, and standards untler, the 1982 Amendments to
the Votlng Rlghts Aet.

The three members of the district oour.t panei were resi-
dents of North Carclina who eonseientlously sorted the
eomplex loeal factual issues presented to them. In sueh a
ease, deferenee to the faetual flndings of the distrlct
eourt is partieularly warranted.



CONCLUSION

The deeision of the Unlted Stated Dlstrlet Court below
should be affirmed.

Respectfutly subrirltted,

RoomAu,ex Moonu.
E.llem Bnanrx
Mrcnarsr A. Hlse

8lO Flrst Street, S.E.
Washlneton, D.C. 20003
(202) 863-8688

Attoraeya tor Amhu Ct 
"incR epublic an N atioml C ommitt ee

t Counsel of Reeord

August80,1986