Memorandum from Ganucheau to Counsel for Receipt of Order Denying Certiorari

    /
t

I
I

No.83-1968

Ix Tss

Suprrmr 0trur! sf thr lfluitril $tutrs
Ocroann IE.M, 1986

Lncv H. TnonNsuBG, et oJ,,

AppeUmrta,
v.

R.lr",rs GtNcl,trs, et a).,
Appellees.

On Appeal from the United States.District Court
for the Eastern Dlstrict of North Carollns

BRIEF OT AMICUS CURIAE
TEE ITASEINGTON LEGAL FOUNDATION

IN SI'PPORT OF APPELLANTS

Dexur,J. Porpo
Gnoncs C. Surrs '

wAsEINcroN LEcAL Fout olrtor.t
1?06 N Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.20036
(202) 867-0240

Attorneus for Amian Curiac
W osfuing ton L e g aJ F omfution

' Counsel of Bccord

WlLaoN. Etla ltttx"lNo Co.. lxc. .7ge'OOeC ' WaaHlxorox. O.C. 2OOO!

t'



QUESTIONS PRESENTEI)

1. Whether the Voting Rights Aci requires stabes to

tleviso election rlistricts and procedures which, wherever

the concentration of minori[y voters is sufliciently large,

will enable minorities to clictate election oubcomes if they

arlhere to minoriiY bloc voLing'

2. Whether the tlistrict conrt in this case relied ex-

."s.irely on a Senate Ju<liciary Comrnitt'ee Report's pro'

nouncements as to the meaning of Section 2 of the Voting

il;tB Act, to the exclusion of the language of the stat-

ute itself.

3. Whether the failure of non-minority cifizens to vote

in sufficient numbers for minority candidates in a given

jurisdiction may eonstitute grounds for holding thaf ju-

iir.li.tio, in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights

Aeb.

4.Whetherthedistrictcourterredinholdingthat
thereisatlegreeofpolarizedvo[ingsuflicienttosusbain
a violation oi tt " 

Aci whenever the results of a districtis

elections would differ depending upon the race of the

voters whose votes were counted'

Ir';
(i)



-|-

TABLE OF CONTENTS

QUESTIONS PRESENTIID .----------

TABLE OT AUTIIORITIDS

INTERDSTS OT AMICUS CURIAE

STATEMDNT OF TITtr CASE

SUMMARY OT ANGUMDNT ..-..--...

ARGUMENT .---.....-------

I. TIIE DISTRICT COURT ERRED IN INTER-
PRETING TIIE VOTING RIGIITS ACT AS

TIIOUGIT IT GUARANTEES MINORITIES
..SAFTtr" DISTRICTS I'NABLING TI{IEM TO

CONTROL EI,ECTION OUTCOMES BY RA-

CIAL BLOC VOTING

A. The Court Improperly l)iscounted a Provetl

Record of Minority Political Access and Elec-

tion Success -----------------

B. The District Court Erroneottsly Applied the

Act as though lt Guarantees Minorities a
Minimum Share of Political Power, as Op-

posed to Equal OpPortunitY

C. The Court Applied a Clearly Erroneous In-
terpretatiou of Illegal Vote Dilution '-'-'-""'--'-

D. The District Court Errerl in Interpreting the

Controversial Senate Judiciary Committee

Report as Though It \Yere the Statute-

II. TIIE DISTITICT COURT DRRED IN ITS

CNITICAL RELIANCE ON TIIE TACTOIT OF
..POLARIZDD VOTING", WI{ICI{ IS TOTAL-

LY INVALID AS AN INDICATOR OF VOT-

ING RIGIITS ACT VIOLATIONS ...........--....-....

Page

i

v

1

a)

o

4

11

13

(iii )

18



lv

TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued

:

A. Polarized Voting is a Prevalent American

Voting Pattern

B. The Court Applied an Unreasonable Stand-

ard in Fincling That a "substantively Sig-

niftcant" Degtee of Polarized Voting Existed-'

coNCLUSION -.----------

Page

19

23

26

Cases

v

TABLE OF AUTIIORITIT'S
Page

And.erson a. Marlitr. S?6 U.S. 399 (1064) 12,25

Collins a. City of Norf ollc,605 F.Supp. 377 (II'D'
Va. 1984) '-"-4,20,24

Daairlson a. Gard.ner',370 F.zd 803 (6th Cir. 1967) -- 16

Doaea. Moore,639 F.zd 1152 (8th Cir. 1979)'-'--'-' 7-8

In. Re Uuans,462F.2d,1239 (D.C. Cir' 1971) , cert'
d,enied.,4O8 U.S. 930 (19?1) I --- " 16

Genet'al Btti,ttlinrl Cotttractot's Association, Inc' a'

Pennsylaan'ia,L)Z S.Ct.3141 (1982) 2

Harclirt u. Kentuclcy Utilita Commission, 300 U.S'
1 (1968) t7

Jones a. City of Lubboclc, 727 F.Zd 364 (6th Cir'
L984) ..-.. - . ---- 18,2L

Jorilan a. City of Greenwooil, 634 F.Supp' 1351

(D.Miss. 1982)..----..-- 19

I{irtesey a. Citu of Jaclcson,633 F.zd 659 (5th Cir.
1981) ...--...- -------------.-72-13, 19,25

Illem,pltis Firefigttters a. Stotts, 104 S.Ct. 2576

(1e84)
National Association of Greetingl Caril Ptr.blislters

o. U.S. Postal Seroice,103 S.Ct' 2?17 (1983)---.-- 17

Porter a. Mrut'ay,69 F.Supp. 400 (D.D.C. 1946)---- 16

Seamon. a. Uplmm, 536 F.Supp. 031 (E.D.Tex.

1982), af il. sub nom Straltc a- Seantort.,105 S.Ct.

63 (1984).-.- 7,1L
Terrazas a. Clentcnts, 581 F.Supp. 1329 (D.Tex.

1984)..-.-.... --7,L7,24
tlnited Sfotcs a. Marengo County Commission,'I3l

F.zd 1646 (1lth Cir. 1984) ---------

United Steelworkers o. Weber, 444 U.S. 193

(1e?e)
Wh.ita u. Regcster',412 U.S. 765 (19?3)

C onstitutional an d S tatutory Authorities

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1971(b)

2
10

18

13

42 U.S.C. Sec. 1073 -.... -. - - -. - - - - - - -pagslm,



TABLE OT

vi

AUTIIORITIDS-Continued

Lagislatiae llistonl

II.R. 3112-S.'R"p. 
No. 9?-41?, 9?th Cong'' 2d Sess' (1982)-""'

M is c ellnn e o w Auth' o r i ti e s

Levy atttl I{ramer, Ttrc Dttmic-Factor: IIow Amer-

ica's iltinorl'iies Deciite Dlectiott's (Simon &

Schuster, 1972) --"-""-'-----""'-': ""-'-"-"""'-'-"'-------'
I(. Davis, ea"i'tstratioe Law Trcatise Sec' 3A'31

(19?0 SuPP')'-"--'--'-"'-'
Election'alt Ilan'dbook, National Journal (Oct' 29'

1983) .-.-.----

Cavanagh ancl--Foster, Electiott' '84' Report #2'

Jesse Jaclcs'is Campaign: The Primaries onil

Catt'cttses, Tahie-4 (Joint Center for Political

Studies, 1986) "'--""

Page

16
14-18

16

6,22

22

20

IN Tnu

Supmmp ([rrrrrt rrf t!r'lltrtitril Sluter
OctorPn Tntrtvt, 1985

No.83-1968

Lrrcv II. TlronNrunG, et al',
ApPellants,

v.

RAt l'H GINct tx, et al.,
APPellees.

On Appeal from the United States District Court- 
foiitre Easl.ern District of North Carolina

TTRIDF OF AI\IICUS CURIAT'

THE WASIIINGTON I,I'GAI, ITOUNDATION
IN SUI'I'ORT OF API'DI,I,AN1'S

INTENESTS OII AMICUS CUNIAII

The WashingLon Legal Founrlation (WLF or Fottnda-

tion) is a nafronal nonprofit public interesb law center'

iiol'"ngnges in litigation ancl the adrninistrative pr.ocess

in mattirs affecting" the broad public interesb' WLF has

more than 80,000 metnbers locatetl throughout the United

it *., incluriing in tho State of North Carolina' whose

interests the Ii'oundation represents'

This brief is {iled with the written consent of all parties'



2

WLllfocusesitslitigationeffortsoncasesofnation.
wirle Jgnific:rnce affecting tho liberties ancl values of its
mernberi. The Irounclation has been especially active in

cases challenging misguicled atrd overbt'oad applicabions

oi-iuAo.nf civil rig'hts"larvs. Ii'ot' cxartrple, WLF ]r-as 
nte.a

ttmicus briefs with this Courl itt sttch cases as Memplis

t;irelightet's 'u. Stntts, 104 S'Ct' 25?6 (1984); Gen'u'al

ndtitin,u Contt'uctors Associa!;ittn, Itw' u' Pen'nsyluun;ia'

102 S.bt. 3141 (1982) ; antl Un'i'ted Steeluot'lcers u'

Welter,444 U.S. 19S (19?9). In tltese cases, WLI" has

consis[ently pressed the view that ths civil tights lalvs

provitle legai protection for all Arnelicans and cannol' be

invoke. to juslity rever.se rliscrinrinalion or exacting 
'ep-

aral,iotrs frotn any class of citizens'

Inthiscase,WLFseelrstollrotectt}reintet.estsofits
member.s againsl, a funrlarncnLal rlistortion of [lie federal

VoUing nig'trts act. The tlecision on appeal hele-antl
,,u*"r].ur* other. fccleral clecisions of sirnilar thlusb-1tur-
polts to guat'anLee prefelred rninoriLy groups tho right

io ,lu,r,uu.l ,,safe', election rlistricts allorving lhern to tlic-

tate elecLion outcomes through lacial bloc voting for
rninolity candidates. In so holtling, Lhe districi cout't

would rira.4aLe a fortn of prolr.rLion^l rellt'escntation by

race rvlticlt Conglcss expressly rejected in fhe 1982 VIiA
Arneutlnteltts.

Itrven ttt<.rre tlisturbingly, tlie decision elevates tho com-

monplace pltetrotrtetron of "polarizetl voting" to a pivotal

r.olo in tlctennining wheLher state redistricting plans vio-

late sccLion 2 of. the vltA. After defining [haL concept

in terrns trr.ortl enough to allply virLurrlly evet'ylltere,

tho rlistr.ict cour.t heltl that the pcrsistettce of polarizetl

vo[ing lnty condelnn it s[itte ot' loctlity to pelpeLual non-

cotttlllitttrce rvith the VItA.

'fhccourb'sinterpletatiorlofSecLion2.inthiscase
thus enl,ails an ontinnus threaL Lo the voLing autononry

of ntrnrninorities in countless julisdictions; ultless thcy

3

elirninate polarized voting (i.e., the common situation

where whi[es 1"nd to vote tlifferently than blacks in rela-

tion to a canditlate's l.ace or his position on racial issues)

bj voting cornpliantly for any minority candidato who

*ppunt* in the ballot, their local electiotr systems cau bs

irivalitlaterl and enjoinctl by federal courts'

WLF's brief will uniquely focus on tho foregoing con-

cerns. In the briefs filetl prior to the noting of probable

jurisrliction, neither tho North Carolina appellanls nor

ihu Unit",l States as ant;ic,,s curiae challe,ged the very

validity of polar.izerl vo[ing as all indicator of section 2

violations. ;fhit bti*f cloes so. Thus, WLf will present

signilicant arguments lvhich no existing party to this

caso is likely to Press.

STATEI\IEN'T OF I'IIE CASE

In the interests of brevity, the amicus curiae adopts

the statement of the case set forth in the brief of the

North Curolina aPPellants.

SUNIIIIAITY OIi' ARCT]I\{ENT

1. The clistlic[ cortt'b misapplied Section 2 of thc Vot-

ing Itights Act ("VllA") in striking down the Nolth
c.rrolina redistric[ing plans. The court inexplicably dis-

regarded the convincing ancl dispositive proof that blacks

in all thc challengetl tlis[ricts had achieved cffcctive

access to the political process through demonstrated suc-

cess uL the polls by blach canditlates' It erroneously

*ssumed tha[ the VIiA t'equires l,hat, whetleve, the

stitte's rnirtority popttl:rtiott pool is lat'ge enouglt, some

election disLricls rnust be fashionccl so that tninority
voting blocs will always be able to dichte election results

nntl ais,re t1e electio, of minoril,y candidates. The court

furLher erred in lesting iLs clecision upon the otle-siderl

viervs of i non-controlling portion of the legislative his-

tory of the 1f)82 VRA amentltnents, t'ather than upon

the language of the stttute itself.



4

2. Thc cour'l's tlecision wtrs brtsctl trpou its cl'l'oneotls

vicw that, the llcrsistence of racially pol:u'izetl voting out-

*.isil tr.h positive evitlence its J)l'oven ltl:tck acccss to

hey" elecberl posLs in deterrnining whether there is a

Sectir-rn 2 viol:ttion. In rtrling thtlt tr tlistrict' must elim-

i*i" poforizetl vol.ing to bi syre .of compliance rvit'lt

the VliA, the co,r,ii inconstituLionally pettalizes a loc:ll

g"uot,rt".i,t siniply becausc it's ciLizens t'efttse Lo cotr-

form thcir vol,ing behzrvior to the itleological plcrlilec-

ti,,r* nt a fc<lcral cottt'L' Irut'l'hct', evetr if llollrrizetl vot-

i;;;;," rt valitl littntrs tcsL for VII'A cornplittnce' the

cotrr.trrpplierltrgrosslyovet'-inclttsivetlefirrititlnofLhc
cottccpL rvhich goes r'lich farther thln tlre Act's stantl-

artls of ctlu:rl access autl ctlttitl ollpottttniLy t'cqttire'- 'l'lte

,ii.tri.t cortrl,'s inl.elpretaiion atutl applica[iott. .ttf t.]:
polalizcd voLitrg factor is ull'irnately ittcottlltitItltlc wtttt

ihe consbit,ul,ional r.ighl' of ttll ciLizens t'r-r vote as they

please, for attY I'cason.

AITGUI\IDNl'

PrclirninarY Statenrent

'fhis casc involves a futttlitmental altrl dangerous dis-

tortion of thc plinciples which origin:rlly rnotivaterl the

n;ai;; Itighls Act oi ts(il, 42 u's'c' scc' 1e73 (herc-

after ieferie<l to as "VRA" or Lhe "Acl"')'

The purposc of the VRA was to gtttr:rnleo to all Amer-

icaus, regrr,',lless of t'ace, the right-,-l'he oppotLunity' and

thc fleerlortl to vote for thc cantlidltes of tltcit choice'

NotrviLlrstantling the lltuettLs of [ltosc rvho thrivc by

cull,ivitting g,'i"ur,i,.o*, thc VIiA htts sttcceeded' Rlacl<

volc. ,'cg:isLirrtion artd blacl< voting ltllve gt'owll enor'-

n]o..slyshrcc1$6I-l,antlirianitrct.eirsingtttttnbct.ofjtu.is-
tlictiorlsL}ropt:rcentageoflllacl<sr.e.,gist,cr'etlttrvr,rtetttttl
turtringottl,[ovote"nolclvcee(lsthat'ofrvhit'es''l']oll

5

taxcs, literacy tcsts, antl other obstacles to black politiorl

pilti.iprtiotr anrl ,nting have all becn tlistn:rntlctl' Blacl<s

ni'u ,.i,rnirtg for' :tttrl cltptttring clectivc oflices in ul'r-

;;;;,i;,"ri.,f ntttnbet's throughout the Nation-inclurling

in thc DecP South.

Bttt sotne litigious elcntetlts at'e ttot content with equal

,-,..o5 to the pitiric*t plocess ancl cqgitl opporttrnily to

uoio fu,' the cirntlitlitte'of one's choice' Ilucortr:rgcrl and

fomenLed by sweeping conrt interprctations of the 1982

arnen,lrncnts to tlre Vn^'L, the appcllees ttntl othet's irt'e

,ow clui,rring a "l'ight" Lirat lvtls ncver corttetnpllted by

a;;,il".;t in" ptssirig thtb legislrttion: thc matrrlittory

io,.,rlati,,,, of is*fe', rni,ority election dist'icts w'ct'evet'

iirninority poptrlntion basc is lat'ge ettottgh to allow for

such tlisLlicLs to be tlevisetl'

Thc rlecisioll oll :tppcal here ltlopts that samc tlis-

tottetl apploach to tltc ctrliously evolving jurlicial conccpL

,i- ; ,"ti,.ls r.igh[s". lt, holtls that clection clistricts n[rst

Ire en,llcsJly shapctl :rntl leshtped trntil they at last pro.-

ilu.o * sufncienil.y comtnnntling m:rjo'ity of "minot'iLy"

vote t's. Morcovcr, il, pltces tlispositivc sigtrifictrnce otr

the ntisleatling antl mistrnderstootl tu'l"tpt of "polat'iz'ed

,oii,,g" in diitling rvltether a- jurisdiction is itr viola-

tion rf thc vRA. 
"Unrle, 

bhe clistrict court's vicrv, only

ihosc jttl'isdicLions wltere a rnajolity of white voters ctttt-

.irtu,rity vote for blacl< c:rurlid:rtes (whatever tltcir viervs

or' rr,,iincations) cltn avoitl the stignta of "politrizcrl

u.rting'" iltttl a jurlicitll tlel'et'tuiuation of non-colnpliance

rvith the VRA.

Neithcr the vIlA nor its 1982 trrncnrlmettts atttholliz'erl

the cottrts [o clictirtc the fashioning of "safe" disl"r'icLs for

minor.ities,ortocottrlcmnjurisclictionsfol.violaLirlgthe

I Scc,
(li.D.Vt.

e.11., (iollirts a. City ol Ntn'lollt, 6()5 F'Strlrp' 377' 385
-iiirraj 

t*r,n*irrg signifrcant'ly higher ratcs of voter rcgis-

tration itntl turnouL :lrnollg blllcks thnn ilmotlg rvhitcs in Norfolk'

Vir*i"i".l In thc tl)82 (longlcssionrtl elections' blacks ttrrncd out

to vote at a higher tate th:rn rvhites in nine states' Sce Naliortal

i""*^f, Itlectiin,'81 lltnxlltottlr, p' 2208 (Oct' 2$' 1C83)'



6

VRA mercly bccattse the majorily of whit'c votcrs itt

those juris,ii.tion* have not generally votcd for black

canaiaates. YeL that is eracl'ly how the court belorv has

-ppfi.A the VRA to the Nortll Carolin:t commttuitics rL

issue in this case.

This Cotrrb shoulrl cmphatically revel'sc the rlislrict

courb's rlecisior-r and theleby prcvettt' the VItA fltltn bcing

rusctl to pcrpclttatc t'aciltl division :lt the polls for ycals

to come.

I.TIII'I)ISI.RICT(l0tIItl.IiItIlDI)ININl.Irnl)Rll,l..
IN(;l.IIIivo,t.INGRIGII'I.SA(l't.AS,l.II()tIGIII.l.
GT]AITAN'I'I'I'S[IINORITII'S"SAITI'''I)IS'I'IIIC'I'S
DNAIII,IN(I'T'IIDN'I'I'O C()NTIIOI, BI'IiC'TION OU'T''

CO]\IIJS I}Y RACTAI, I}I,OC VO'I'IN(;

A. The CorrrI Inr;lrollerly I)iscorrntcrl a l't'ovetl Itccord

of Minorit.y I'olitictl Acccss anrl lllcctirln Sttcccss

InlrolrlingtlrattheNor.tlrCal.rllilrtr.ctlistricl,ingplans
violatetl Suciion 2 of the Voting Rights Act ("VRA")'

the distlicb cottrt completely lost sighb of that legisla-

tion's pl'opct' objective.

The VRA tlocs tro[ compel t'he crcation of elector:rl

rlisLricts or systents which will tllow minoriLy bloc vot-

i,rg t" rlicta[L the outcome of elcclio.s wSer.eve' tlrerc

ar.e suflicient r.aw nunrbers of nlirloritics f t'otlr lvhich

to fatshion such tlisLIicl.s. Ratltet', thc Acl, t'cqtrircs only

thirt elector.al tlistricts musL nol, be tlesigned Lo plcvent

rninorifies from enjoying cqual access to lhe political

process antl zrn ,qrril o7'p"t'Lttrr'ity to- elcct t'eprcscntativcs

of ttroi,'choice. 42 U.S.C. Sec' 1973(b)'

UntlertlratlegiLim:rtestanrlirt.rl,tltechrtllclrgedNol'Lh
car.olinil tlistricts casily p:tss ttrtlsLcr. '['he t'ecot'rl cott-

t,,in. .n,nl,reltensive cvidencc provillg l'hat minoriLy vo[-

ing has ttirrl a tclling effect on tlc politic:tl power struc-

tui.c antl that bl*c1 c*ntlitlatcs 6itvc e*joyerl -*ubst*ntial

succcss in kcy electiort l'aces' J'S' App' 344-37a; 47'a'

7

llut the Districl cour.t clicl not upply the "eqttal oppor-

tunity" st:rndald as set forth in thc statute' Instcatl' il'

,,frfrfi".A a strntlar.d that can only be srttisfied if the 
'e-

rlistlicf ing plittt essentially gltraxttrt'ces that minotity

cantlitlnte**s will be electecl in ploportion to thc minority

sltareofthepoptrlation.YetCongresscxplicitlyr.ejectctl
su"l, a stantlu'il in amentling Scct'ion 2, 42 U'S'C' Scc'

19?3(b). Alrtl the cottrts lr:rve sitrce nrrtdc it c]c:tr tlrat
;,uo 

11ruu,, is c,title4... to ]rave its political clouL mitxi-

niizcil." 
-seanunr 

tt. (l1thcttn', {-136 tr'Sup1l' 931, 945 (lt'D'

Tex. 1982) , afJ'd sub tt'otn St'ralce u' Seoinon, 105 S'Ct'

63 ( 1984 ) | enrPhrsis atldedl .

Various decisions havc I'ecognized that thet'c can llc

no cognizuble violation of section 2 irr t district where

minorlities h*ve achieved substantilrl sttccess i, gaining

access to key elcctive oflices antl political posts' Il'g ''
Doue u. ll[oot'c,539 F.2d 1152 (81"]r Cir' 19?9)' A fintl-

ing of eonsistently utlvet.se electoral t'esnlts foI minor.ity

.r,--r,li,lut.* is a nccessat'y, thottgh not a sullicient, ele-

rncnt of a secLion 2 claim untlct' thc results test. Sce

Seuntltt, u. Llphunt, sll1l'o; 'l'errazus u' Clttnrcnl's, 581

li'.Supp. t329 (D-Tcx. 1984).

llerc thc rlistt.icts in rluest.ion a].e rtll chttritctcriz.ed by

Iecords of proven rninolity access to influentilrl clective

pos[s. The ilcction of bl:rch r.epreseutattives to thesc posi-

iions rlernonsl,r.*tcs that-cont'ayy to t5e dist.ict cottl'1.'s

ruling-a "s:Ife" bl:tclt rlistrict in tertns of rarv poptrll-

tiorr :ilignments is simply ttrt neccssat'y for blacls to par-

ticipate effectivcl.y in the political pr.ocess or 
-to 

elc'ct

Icprese ntatives of their choice, 1'crt'azas a' Clcnt'enl's'

sxr)ta,581 I".SrrpP. at 1354.

In I)ttrham Cottnty, for insLance' one of Lhc cotttrty's

tltrec represenb:ttives to the Ilortse has alwltys bectr

blacli sirice 19?3-even though less tha, 29/' of Dtrr-

hatn County's t'cgistererl votet's at'e blacl<' 'I'S' App' 35a'

BIack ,cpresentation has also heen substanl,ial, ztll(l often

irr ,*roi, of what p'opor.tional rcpt'csettLzrtio, woul4



8

pl'oduce, oll the Cottrlly Commission, the Cottnty Roartl of

itrlections, and tlte County Dernoclatic Party learlership'

iiri. A.gr'.e of provcn niinori[y access to key political

ollices is"in itseli incompatible rvilh a claim of unl:rwful

voLcrlilrrLitrn.Douell.-I|l[oore,539Ii'.2(lrtt115l]-55.

'lhe sttme hcalthy clegrce of :rccess Lo thc poliiicrtl

pru"o.. is cstrtblishcO tcyona qttestion in Lhe other dis-

iricls hct'c in isstte. 'fne City of CharloLte has l black

;;;;t;evcn though the city poptrl:rt'ion is only 31ln bllcl<'

/r1. at 354. In lrorsytho inunly, trvo ortt of fivc (40%)

membcrs of the I'Iousc dclegation tre bhcl<, cven thorrgh

<tity ZZ'p of thc county uuting :rge popul:rtion is blrtch'

Id,. In Wake Cottnty, rvhere only 20/n of thc voLing itgc

pnpJntinn is black, it bl:,rcl< cantlitlltte receivetl the higlt-

l*i ,ot* tot,al i, a 15-m*, Derno,'^l.ic prim:t'y for-thc
Distt.ict I{ouse se:rl,s antl wits srtltseqtrently c_lect crl Lo

the cottttty's six-tnelnber llottse delegntion' Antl trvo ottt

of the eighL QSy"1 clccLed DisLrict' Jutlges in Wal<e

Cotrn[y ale ltlach.

'lhcsc filcts alc simply incomllatible with l'he elements

of a Secbion 2 violatiolr-uncler the VRA Amendments of

1982. Untler the plain latlguage of tlre sL:rtutc' a viola-

tiotr can only be established by proof Lhat:

1. The political processes Ieuding to uotnination or

electiott are lroL equ:rlly open to parlicipatiotr ll'y members

of the cotnplaitling minority, in' Llru'L

2. its menrbcrs ltlve lcss op2olttlrlity thtn obhet' tncm-

bcrsoft,lreclcctoratetollarticip:rteinthepoli[icalproc-
ess antl to elect t'epresenlativcs of their clroicc' 'prouid'ed

that,

3. tlrere is no right, to hilve ttrentllet's of a minorily

elccterl in numbers eqtr:tl to thcir prolrcrtioll in the polttt-

lation.

The fot'cgoing f:rcts confirm l'hat blacl<s do enjo.y full
antl fair access Lo tlre political l)rocosses irl tlre challenged

I

rlistricts anrl that Lhey h:rve enjoycd at least cqual op-

potiunity to elcc[ r'cpiesentatives .of tlteir choice' Werc

[tii., not" so, it is simpl.y irnplausible that thc FolsytJre

A;;,rit I.Iouse tlclc,gatioir *out,l be 40/, 5lacl< (reurly

ctouble rvhnt proporiiunal r.ellrusentatio. w.ultl produce) ;

that the Durlhanr County IIouse tlelegation rvortltl lt:tve

fr*r, one-thil'cl blactr since L9?3; or th:rt the Cil")' of

Charlolte tvoultl have a l-'lack mayor'

Tltc court belolv, Itowcvet', was wlrolly indiffclenf to

this evidence of exLcnsive blachaccess, parLicipation, antl

.u..o.r in the political proccsses of the tlistricts in issue.

It was less conccr.ncrl with the harcl fact thtrt blacl<s were

iui,r,,ing majo. clccLions at all levcls tha, il wrs lviLS

inrrr.rti,.,g upon the SisLorical conseqllc,ccs of "past dis-

crirninator.y,; ltr.ucticcs or the nbsLrac[ inlplications of so-

calletl "poiarizcd voting". Alrtl it rv:rs so preoccupied

withtlrcmisbegoL[crrno[iorltlratr'acialblocvotingby
minori[ies, rnusL bc itllowed t0 contt'ol clccLion ouLcotnes

tlrar, it failed to r.ccognizc. thal, Illacl<s lvct'e alrently ctt-

joying full anrl fair par.Licipation in the clccLion pl'ocesscs

*ittru-ut thc divisive r.acial ge'r'yt,uttrlcrittg tletnttndcd by

this decision.

Ij. l he l)istlict Court Erroneously Applied the Act as

tlrougltlt(iuitranteesl\Iinoriticsai\IinirnurrlSlrare
of l'olitical l'ower, as Opposed to Equal Opportunity

'llhe I)isl,ricf Cottrt, set zrn erroneotls couISe fl.om tlle
outseL of its clecisiotr, when it strtted zrs follows (J'S' App'

at 14t) :

'flte essencc of racial vote diluLion itr the lVh'ite a'

IlagasLet. scnse is lhis: Lhat primalily because of the

2It is highly r.evealing that the dist,rict court's approach to

votirrgrightsisltrenrisctlotrtlreviewthlrtl.rlocvotirrgllyl.rrcial
rnin0ritics is t,l bc exlrectetl:urtl:rccommotlltcd (i.e., by gel'ry-

mantleriDg distr.icts to allow suclt bloc voting to colrtrol elections),

wlrile bloc vr.rting lry r.acial nrttj0ritics is consitlcretl so lterllicious
that it alone nray give rise to a violatiolr of tlre VRA' J'S' App'

14a-15a, 4la, arrtl 4?a.



10

intelacliott tlf sttbsLatrti:rl antl pet'sistenb racial po-

lariza[ion in voting 1r:tl,tet'lts (racial bloc voting)

rvitl a ch:rllc,gcrl e'iccio'al tncchattism, . t'itciitl nti-

nolity with rliitincLive gronp inter.ests thtt il'c' ca-

1i*ble" of *i<l or. :rmelior.:rtion by gove,,nel)t is cffec-

iil;lt iicnietl t)rc TtttliLictt'L Tttttottt' -t, ftt'Lltet' those in-

tercsts tlruL rntnr,ltct's aLo*i tuoultl prentnqttiuel'y gliue
,itinavoLingcottst,iLuetlcyrrotr.acilllly-lrrrlar.izctlin
iLs voti,g b"ehavior'. [citaLio* ot*iltetl; ent,h*sis
adtledl.

,l.his stateurent bcars mreful scr'utit-ty, for ib states [he

criLical pr.onrisc fot. tlre colll't's ultim:rLe tlecisiou. l[ is a
staLerncrit thab t5e VRA guarantees mirtorities Lhe 

'ig5[
to elcclxlral tnccltltnistns which will invari:tbly maxitttiz'e

the impact of rninoriLv bloc vol.ing, .wltile il, cffectively

condemns n0n-minot.il,y voters for faililrg to emltrace mi-

nor.ity canrli<lates (i.e., "llersistent polarizittion").'l'his
is a false lnrl uuc0nsti[ul,ional inLerpretzrtion of the

VRA.

Initially, tlte ctturt's statemcnb glibly asserts-that the
pivnLal <iccision in Wltite u. Ilegcster, 412 U'S' 755

ifOZgt, ltittl ernphasizerl nrcially polarized vol'ing as a

key elemc,t of irnl*lvful r.acizrl voLe rlilution. B,t this

critical point, is cornpletcly false.

'l'ltc tt'ue lrolding of lAhile is highlv important to cttr-

renl, sccLion 2 anal.ysis, bccause tlre single poinl otr lvlrich

mosb Congt'cssiott:tl cletttettts agrced itt 1l:tssing the 1{)82

antcutlrno}tLs wts thal, they lvere i[rtcutled Lo cotlify tlre

lrrincilrlcs of tlccision h \Vltitc u. liegest'ct" Yet otre 'rvill

scarcli i, v*i, for t,y rne,tion (muc1 less :ttt.y sig,ili-
c:urL rrrenti0n) of pOlirr.ized oI racial bloc vr,rl,ing in lvltit,c
u. Iiellttstct,s tliscussion of thc v:rl'ious eletnents of :t voLtl

rlilul,ion claittr ttntler Lhe VRA- Sea 412 U.S. at 760-(i7'

In fuct, lhe sour.ce of tlrc disl,r.ict coul't's lrcavy t'cliltnt:c

orr thc lrolar.izcd voling firctor. was trot 11/lrit,e u. Rellcsttr
al, :rll, btrt r:ttlrct. thc itlaccttlltte ltor[rayal of 14/hile t'
Rcgcste'r scL folt,h itl zt contt'ovcrsial segrlttlnl' of tlre leg-

11

islative history of the AcL's 1982 antentltrtents (see Point

\.D., itt'fra).

Morc iniportantly, the disl,rici courf interpreLecl Scc-

ti0n 2 as tliough iL conrpels states to tlevise electoral meclt-

anisms wlrich will gtt:trtrutce bhe elecbion of mitrority can-

clid:rtes by facilitat-ing minofil,y bloc votiilg' 'lhal' is, if
il is nt all possiSte 1o fashio, a tlis[t'icl, rvith ettottgh

blachs to always gu:rrunLcc the elecfion of thc "blat'lt"
can4idate by tircir "r*w numbc.s alotte", theu the cott.t

belorv rvould compcl l,he stette to tlo so.

,lha[ vierv of thc vltA is invtlirl antl unsountl. As rc-

ccn[ly statetl by t]re cotlrt in 'l'errazas u' Clenrcnts, slt-

2ra, 581 F.SrrpP. :tt, llll-r{)-60:

In tltc allsencc of ir tlelti:tl of access, or tlisct.intina-
iory intcnt, the failure to consolidate the Irninolity]
pofulttion may cotrsl,iLute a Iess-atlvanLageotts polit-
ical r.esult, lnit, rtoL utr, nttltrtufu| t'csult' l.em,lasis
atltledl.

The court belorv invnlirlal"etl the Nor:th carolina l'c-

districting plans rncrely because t,hey failecl to provide a

perfect *i:.r,,rgonlunt for preemptive racial voting by rtri-
notit,ies. Thzrl wtls revcrsiblc erl'or' bec:ruse tlrc VltA
sirnply cloes not r.cquilc the states to "tnllxitnize the politi-

cal cloul" of any racial, rcligiotts, or cbhnic gl'otU)' Setu

'nlotl 1,. (12thnnt., .sll./),'o, 536 I''.Supp. aL 945' All that the

Act, r.equii.es is cqu*l ecce,o to the poliLical ltrocess-zuttl
the cr'catiott of "sltfc" mitloriLy districLs is sinrply not a
prerequisitc lo cqutl ilceess.. 'l'errazas u' Clenrcrt'ts, sll?),'o,

581 P.Suplt. ttl. 1354.

C. 1'he Corrrl Altplietl it Clelrly lNt'rotteotts Interpretit-
tion of lllegal Vot'e Dilutiott

1.hc ovcr.inclusive c0ncept of illegal vobe diluLion relictl

ott by the dist,r'ict, cottrt completely disl'orts thc plinciple
of equal political access which untlerlies the voting Ilights
Act. Itrqiral opportuni[y {or mi.orities t. particiytate in

the elecLive pl'occss tloes noL-cannot-inclttcle atty re-



12

(luiretncut thai non-minoriLics must sttltttt'tlitrate or com-

pronrisc tlteir constittttionzrl lighb kr vole for wltontcvcr

ihe.y ple,rsc, anrl for wltltLevet' l'easoll' Iiirlisey u' Cily oJ

Ju|,lciu,r,633 I'.2(l (;59, 662 (5th Cir" 1981) ; Antlerson

u. Mut'tin',3?5 U.S. 399, 402 (1964).

Ycl, the clist|icl, court tietl its holtling in tlris casc to

thc foll,rwing extraorrlinitry interprel:rtion 0f vote tlilu-
tion untler tlrc VIIA:

I Tlhe rlemonstrable ttnrvillittgncss of substantial
irurlbet's of the t':tcial majotity tr-r vote for any ttti-
nority t.ace cancliclate or any candidale identilietl
rviLh rnittolity t'aco interests is Lhe linchpin of vole
rliltrtion by tlistricling. U.S. Atrtr. 14a-15a' l

'fhc courl, rnacle iLs position st,ill clearer lvlten, aftet'

achnowlcclging thal, blacl<s have matle subsLantiiil progress

in gaining acccss to pnlitical powet in the North Caro-

lina tlistlicls, il, empltasized that this plogress

. has not llroceedcd to the point of ovet'coming
sbill entlencheil racizrl vote polai'iz:rLion, and in<lee<l

has :tltparently done littls Lo clirtrinislt the level of
that single mosb ltorverful facLor itr causing racial
vole cliltttion. lld. tt, 47a.1

'l'htts, the tlistricL courb repe:rlcrlly cntpltasizecl its vierv

that t.he tnosl, cri[icitl component of l"he violations in this
case-antl thc "sittgle mosL ltorvcrful faclor" in fincling a

vol.e rlilul,ion violal,ion-wils the ftiltrre (or "unrvilling-
ncss") of white citizens to vote itt cssellLi:tlly l'he silme

wa.y :ls bhck cil,izetrs. Whetr otre t'eltds bctrvcell tlre lines

of the foregoing l)l'ollollllcclncnts, iL is evitlent that' the

court is issuing a notte-too-sublle rvat'trittg to NolLIl Caro-

lina's wlrite voters. 'lhe wzrr.ning is Lhu[ unlcss they stlrrl,

L0 vote for minor.ity candidaies ( r'cg:rrtllcss of the candi-

tlutc\ inrlivitlual rnerit ol' qualiLics) in "sttbstatttial Ilttttt-
l)el's", the court lvill conLinue to hokl t,lrlr[ Lhcre is |'racial
vote dilution" in tlteir tlistricls- Antl as lottg as' tlre cr'rurt

|o[s Lhat vielv, i[ tvill continue to invulidate anrl ettjoitr
the district's elcctions.

13

This constituLcs a ltr.ofoulrtl dislortion of Llrc l't'ue goals

antl pr.incil;lcs of tho voLing Iliglrts Act. Thc tlistrict,
.u,,rCblithcly tlismisscrl lrarrl evirlc,ce tha[ 5lacl<s tlo en-

joy equal ilccess to the polilical/clectil'e pl'ocesses (e'g',

U5'/, t'e1n'escntatir,rtt ott llottsc tlclegation of tlistlicl, com'

posetl of oriy 22'/o Slrtcl< vo[ct's) lttrtl focttsetl insteacl on

ihe allegetlly culltable belttvior of while votet's in failing
to :rlterl their votirlg prcfct'ctrces itr favot' of minority
candidittes.

'.llris clabbed antl punitive approach to voting rights
law itbitndotrs tlte ltltsic eletuenb that Sccl.irllt 2 of Lhe

VIIA can onl.y lre violtted by l,he rliscl'irninatory pl'ac-

tices :rrrrl policies of got'cnr,tnenLs; SecLion 2 cattnot be

violaLcrl by cibiz.ens in thc cxercise of tlreir :rbsoltrLe lrilst
Amenrlmettt right to vote for tltc canditlate they prcfer,
for whatever l'ettson. I{irlcsey, slrpra. 6(i3 tl.2rl at 662."

The rlisLrict court's opinion et'retl in f:riling to grasp this
disl.inction.

I). I'hc I)istlict Cortrt Drred in Interprc(ing lhe Con-

trovcrsial Scn:rte Jtrdiciary Conrmittec Ilcllort as

'fhough It Werc the Stltutc

The disLrict cottt't rvas ablc to rc'ach its et'ronetltls con-

cltrsions only by tttisitttcrltreting Scctiott Z <tf the Acl,.

Its misintcrpt'etatiotr wts harclly srtrprising, Itowcvet', lle-
carrse tlte courL nevcl' evell altentltted to ilrtet'pt'ct the
actual latrguage of the stat,ttte itsclf. Instettrl, it relied
rhnosl, exclusively ttpott select,cd ltorl,ious of a Senate Com-

sTlre VIIA itsclf,42 I].S.C. Sec. 19?1(b),lirohibits alv form of
intinrirlltirrn or coerciotr irrtcntletl to irtterfele rvith any pcrsott's

riglrt "to vote ns lrc nuy cltoose." Iernphasis ttltlctll Iltrt tlte
court's a<ltnoniti0rr th:rt the ritciitl Inljot'ity's "entrcnt:hetl" failrrre
to vote for rrtittolity r:alttlitlates may rcsult in a violatiorr of Scction 2
is itself n folnt of cocrcion or irrl,inritlatiott intetttletl lo altcr rvhite
voting behavior. It is rrot flrfetched to argtte tlrat tlrc court's
onrinous warnings coulrl thenrselves violate the vltA's Drohibition
of intirnidlrtiott or coercit)ll, were it not for judicial intrnurrity.

\

I



74

mittee Ileport.{ 'l'ltat reltot'[ reflecterl the vicws of only

a morlcst majoriLy of the scnate .Iutlici:rry comrnittee,

whereas the enacted slatutc reflcc[etl tl cotltplex colnpl'o-

mise bctrveen a wide var.ieLy of factir-rns irr the full sen-

nte atrtl the f trll lIousc, as well its tltc views of the

Prcsident.

'['hc tlistricl, courL's sllvish :rclhercncc to tltc one-sidcd

obscr.vutions of thc sen:rle comrnilLee lteport is toLally

unjustifiable unrler blach lctter lules of staLutot'y inter-

p..tutiun-but it is unrler.stanclablc in one signillcant

resllecf.

Only by treatirlg tlte Comtnittce Iicport as though it
*u.u [1.,o il.{initiuu outholiLy ol1 alrcndetl Sectio, 2 coultl

thc cortrt possibly justify il,s rigid application of [he R.e-

po.t's *o-.*11.,1 "iline factors" test ( including "p,l.t'izetl"
voting) as the rlcfinitivc stanrlard for tlctet'mining viola-

tions of SecLion 2. Sce S.Iiep. at 2tl-29' Anrl only by

placing such cxaggcrated relirnce on tlte comnlittee lle-
port's1,,ine faclor.s" co,l4 t5c court fin4 a violatio, i,
ihe North Carolirra rlistricts ut issue. Iror the acbttal stab-

utory lailguuge of secbion 2 norvhcr'e ntentions such ollen-

en4sl facio's as "polarizetl voLing", ,ri.orily etnploytnenl'

corrrliLions, or llolitical "r'es1)ousiys1"1s55"-r1111l, tlrc 1932

antl,trlnrents ruortltl ltcuer houc ltasscl tlt,e lull scnnte ot'

been signerl by t.lrc PresitlutL lrutl, srdt' cttn'tro'^ersia'l uttd

' rliaisiuc f actors lteen' er'pl'icitLy inun'ptn'aLerl in' Lhe statuLe'

The ulLinratc langttltge of tlte 1$82 amotilments to Sec-

tion 2 rvas intleed a coulpr.olnise of conflicting viclvpoitrts.
But Lhe senate Judiciary committee [lePor'[ r'loes not evert

begin to r.eflccL the tliverse clements of thaL rnulti-partite

l S.Itep. No.0?-41?, Iieport of the Scwrtc Judit:inTy Conntittec on'

S. 1992,9?th Cong., 2d Sess., ot'tlered to be pt'irttctl It{a.v 2l-r, I982

(here:rfter citctl ils "S.Rep."). Setr:ttot's 'l'lrttt'mortd, llrttch, Lnxalt,

Drilc, Grasslcy l4ast,:utrl l)entorr all founrl iI necessary to appettd
.,arltlitional,,, ,.suppleruental", or disselrlirtg viervs to the cornmittce

Ilcport.

15

courprontise. Ittste:ttl, il, r'cflects only thc one-sitled aspira-

tions of u facl,iott of Jtrtlicialy CommitLee Setttttors \t'ho

favorecl the mosb exltansive inter'llrel.atiotl of Scction 2
they coukl prottrttlgitte withoub killing tlre legisl:rtion
altogcther.

'l'he e:tt'liet' Ilr-rttsc-p:rsserl bill (H.R. 3112), rvltich was

sullsequently introtluccrl verbitlitn in thc SettelLe by I(en-

nctly antl Mathias, lrttl raisetl scriotts concel'lls Lhat, it'
ruright ultirnzrtely t'etyuit'e llrollot'tiottal reltrcsentation of
rninorities amollg elcctetl oflicials. 'l'o elinlitrate these

concerns, Senator Dolo introdttcetl thc lrroviso which ex-

plicitly disclaints that the section ct'crtes any right to
prollortionltl represertIat ir-ut.

At the Sertatc mat'lt-tt1r of Lhe bill, Scnatnr f)ole articu-
lated the essence of the cotnltt'omise which linally resultecl
(S. Rep. aL 223) :.

[Tlhal, is thc tht'usL of ottr cotnprotnisc: equal ac-
cess, whethcr ib is open; equal acccss to the lrolitictl
l)l'ocess, not, whcl-her they ltave achieved pt'opot'Lional
elcct,iotr results.

Onl.y rvhcn l'resitlent Reagan signaled that the Dole

substiLute was accellt:rble to hirn (i.e., thai he rvoulcl not
veto the bill if p:tssctl) tlitl the divergcnl, fot'ces anrl fac-
tions in Lhe Ilorrsa itntl Settate corne togelhcr to enact
the legislation. Sincc l"he Ilortse simply adopted tlie Sen-

ate-passetl Dole subst.itute withoub change, tltere was no

need for' :t Cottfct'cttce (iornmittce-ancl there was llo
Conference Comnrittcc llepol't leflecting tlte untlerstancl-
ing antl intent of both llouses in passirtg the bill.

N{oreovet',.thet'e is no plartsible basis fol viewing the
Scnate Jurlicialy Cornmittee lteporL-rvhich was intcnsely
clisputed cuen uitltin tlrut one contntittee of one IIouse-
as though it re{lectetl lhe conscnstts undet'stantling and
intent of both llouses, as well as that of thc Presidcnt.
It simply did not. It rcflected only the subjccl,ive views



16

of sonre elcvcn members of thc eiglrtccrl-rnettrbct' senate

Judiciary Cotntttittee.6

Rut lhe cottrL below approaehed ltre ttel statubory lln-
guage of Sectiorl 2 as thoughit wcre iI lnere ltftert'liought

io ti" controversial Senate Judiciary Cortttniltee Reporb'

Mrrrespecilically,thecotrr.tjudgctll,lreNtrr.tlrCar.olina
clisLricts by tho sLandarrls of the Scttate Ileporf rather

tlian by Llie sLantlards .f t5e skrtute. This violates tho

first prirtciplcs of sl,atutory cotrstt'ucLiott and, in itself'

is cleally reversible el'r'or.

Il, goes withoul, saying th:rl, cottttltittee repolLs are-nei-

ther 
-enaclcrl by congress noI sigttetl by the Prcsitlent,

:rrrrl thcy sirnply do not, Itltve the force of law' Irt' re

INuans, 
-AfiZ 

ti.i<l tZSg (D.C. Cir. 19?1), cert. tlenicd,

408 u.s. 9:j0 (1971).

In Duuitlstnr u. Cru'tlner, 3'.-0 I'.2t1 803, B2B (6Lh Cir'

1.96?), t.he Sixth Circuit colrecLly statcd thc exlrernely

lirniteil :tuthorily of the reltort of a single house of Con-

gress rvilh rcspcct to intelpreting the resulLlnt statute:

ithe llouse Report, i4 this t'cgard, rvas ttot agrecrl

[o in the Senale ReporL, nor wiIS :tny nrention rnade

of it in lhe Confei'ence ltcpot'|,. 'l'h'e reltort of a

Contmi.Ltec of ttrc llmtsc "d'ocs not llo ucty lat to

sltrtru tlrc irtictttiut, ol a muiot-i|y of botlt' Imtses of
Con11t'css." Ptn't,er u. Mrurroy, (i{) }i'.Supp. 400, 402
(D.D.C. 1946).

As fur'[hel statetl by the CourL in Portct a' Mun'ay,
09 tr.Strpp. at, 402, the t'eporl, of a single comnti[tce of
thc Senate is tlisbincl,ly "less pct'sttasive on the issue of
congressionzrl intenb than the t.eport, of a confet'ellce conl-

nrilteu of bofh lrlouses". Accot'd: l(. I)avis, Athnhr'ist;ro'-

L7

tiue La:m'l't'eatise Sec. 34.31 (19?0 Supp') il 175 (l'ffe
bnsic principle is quite clemetrtary: 'fhe contenL of the

law must rlcpend trlron the intent of both I{ottscs' rlof of

just otte." ) .

The sttue point appliers ltel'e with regartl to the sub-

jeclive viervs of the grtul' of Jurliciary CornmiLtee st'aff-

l.* r"hu dr.trfterl Lhc. Eena[e Jtrtliciary Comrniltec Report'

The Jurlici:lt'y Comnrit[ce Ileporb w:rs sinrlrly not a-con-

sensual legisiative rloctrrnent, antl it provirles:t highly

','r,..tanrlrrn,.eliirlrlcirrrlicatorofl,heirrtetltof[hewlroleCongress.

Cottfronting t silnilu' clispute over Cottgressionrl-.in-

terrb anrl lcgi.si:rtivc hist,r'y ii IIut'tl;in' u' I(eiltcley (lt'il'ilu

Cotwttissiolt, S00 U.S. 1, 1l (1968), this Cottlt st:rLcrl:

Wo think ' thrt the language of thc Act in its
final fortn is'l c,,rnpromisJonil th*t thc viervs of

those rvlto soughL the InosL restrictivo rvording c:rn-

irol, conLr.ol int'cr.prelaLion of the cornpr.ortrise version.

I'Ict'c, in the sltlre vcin, tlte vielvs of tltosc who soughl

the nrost e.t:l)uttsiua wortling of Section 2 likewise cantlrtt

control inter'prct:rtion of the comlrlomise legislation' Yct'

thet'e can be no tltrtrbl, t}r:rt tlre Seltzrto .Itrrliciirr'y Comtnit.

teo Ilcport lllinralily reflects the viervs of Scnators

Mathi*s,, anri l(e,.erly-the sattre two senaLol's rvlto hiltl

origirrally inLrotluced lr Senate Bill rvhich wirs itlen'tical

to Ihe far mole liberal I'Iouse-passed bill (II'R' 3t12)'
Since nciLhct' tlte I-Iortse nor the PresiclenL ever allltroved

ol joined in tlrc Sortlrtc Comrnittee Repolt, il' is tolally

invrlid for cout'ts to place such cribical ernphtsis on its

corrtent in consLr.uing thc stzrtute. Nalional Associatiut,

ol Gt'eeting Car<t I'tiblishers u. U.S. Postal Set'uice, 103

S.Ct. 2?1?, 2731 *28 (1983).

T)rc courL's unqttesLioning leliance on the ttine factors

Iistecl in the Conimiltee Report has resulted in a rigidr, It worrltl havc lrcetr a simplc matter to list tlre "nitte filctors"
cited by the senato lleport in the botly of sectioll 2 itself. why this

w:rs not rlonc is r_rbvious: the Selrate rvoukl lrave nevcr passetl it

l.,ill with tlrgse highly coltrovelsial flctors, antl tfue l)resitlctrt rvguld

rrevcr ltave signed it.

o It wits Scttator
Comnril,tec". S.ReP.

Matltias who "liletl the majorily vicrvs of the

at 1.



1B

"fttctor-cotttrtittg" mel.hotl of judgrnenl, which completcly

obscures Lhc original purposes of the Act' Since the vl-
lirlity of tlrc tlisLricl, cour.l,'s rlecision tlepends on [he con-

tt.olling legal fr}l.ce of the conrrnitl.ee llepoIL's "nitre fitc-

tol's", lrntisince LSosc "nine factot's" zrt'c tteit'ltet' ,at'L of

tho sLalute'llol'a valid st:rtctncnt of its nreaning, the rle-

cision bclorv shoulcl be leversed on th:tt brrsis as rvell'

IT. 1'IID I)IS'TITICl' COUITI' IiITIIEI) IN I'I'S (]IIIl'I(:At,
ItIiI,IANCL ON TIIII FAC'I'OII Ol'' "l'Ol'AItlZItl)
YO'I'IN(;'" WIIICIT IS'I'O'I'AI,I,Y INVAI,II) AS AN
INI)ICATOIT OII VO'I'ING IIIGII'I'S AC'I' VIOI,A'
,I'TONS

'l'hc tlecisiott bclorv follorvs :r distrrrbing tlentl in voling
righl-s cuscs rvhich lllaccs all btrl, dislrositive signific:ttrce
otr tlro exisl.cnce of racitrlly llolu'izcd vol"ing. See also

IJnitt:rl Slclcs tt. lllorengo Ctttttt.t'y Connni:;sirttr', ?31 li'.2t1

154(i, 15(i7 (11th Cir'. 1984) ; Jottcs u. Cit'y o.f Ltiltboclc,

727 \'.2d 3(;4, 380-81 (5Lh Cir. 1984). In tht: ll[at'ut'go
Coutttll cilse, for exatnltle, the courb stltctl that

Sontc uu[ltorities suggesl, t.]rat :t lintling of discrirni-
nntory t'esttlt is cotttpcllerl rvlten pl:rintiffs shorv ra-
cially pol:rrizcrl voting cornllincd with zttt abscnce of
tninoriLy clcctcxl o[Iicia]s. [731 l".2tl aL ll>74; en1-

plt:tsis atlrlcrl I

'Iho tlist,r'icl cottrb in this c:rse tll bttI cortfir'lnccl [hat
tlro lrclsisLcttcc of polarized vot,ing will olmtys llrovide
gloutrds 1'or I)ntling il violat,ion of Lhe VIIA, evett rvltet'c

rninorities havo :tchicverl cotrsirlerable sttcccss itr g:tining
itrtporlunt cleclivc llosls. (J.S. App. 47a)' Tlre cottt't was
explicit in holtling that it, views lroltrizctl voting its tlte
"sittgle trtosl, powet'ful fac[or'" ttntlct'lying violaLiotts of
tho VIIA. Id.

It is painfully clear that the cotlrL's cottcellt of po-

larizetl vot,ing, and its applical,ion of thtt cotlcepL to the
facts of this citsc, rvas the "littchltitr" of its nrling Lhat

Nolth Carolinil hatl violatecl thc AcL. Rtrt Lhis coltsti-

19

tutcs an exLrcmely tl:tnget'orts and divisivc interllrctation
of voting rigtl,s iarv: it requires injurious legal conse

quences 
"to 

f,e irnposed unless an iclen-tifiecl clitss of citi-
z.ens is rvilling to altcr theil voting behaviol in a tn:lnuer

considct'etl desirablc by some fetleral cout'l'.

The existence of polarizcd voting cannol' lawfully pro'

vido grountls for holtling thab a state or local govern-

rncnL'.'has violzttctl VIIA-leasb of all whct'e (as hcre)

tlrer.o rvould be no gl'rtunrls fot. finding a violttion bul, for

tlre polalizcd vol.irr-g. Al, least in the Uniled Sl'atcs, thc

nr,,,,iro,' in rvhich tiro citize,s of vltriotts I'aces or elhrtic

gtoul)s exel'cise [heil voLing franchise, indivitlually or as

[,'nui,t, is utterly beyontl the larvful powcl of a SLate or

froliLic:rl subtlivision to contr.ol. Evert if some ciLizens

i.ots with 4iscrirninatory motives, those mo[ives cantroL

bo itrrltutctl to thc State' I(iflcsey u. Cit11 ol Jacksut',

s'tLln'o., 663 li'.zd :rt 662; Ju'dan u. City ol Grcentoood,

534 Ir.Sulrp. 1351, 1366 (D.Miss. 1982).

Thus, it, is legall.y alrd logically insuppoltabltl to allow

the valitlity of I St,ato's elecl.ion systetn to rlcpentl upon

horv its citizcns cltoose to votc. Yet Lhat is eractl'y what
the clistrict cou|1, tlid in Lhis cilse, tttttlcr tlte rtrbric of

"llolarizcd voting".

A. I'ol:trizotl \rttt.ing is a Prevaleul. Amct'ican Voting
Pattern

Given thc totte of sevet'e t'ebuke rvith whiclt the court
proclainted that lrolarizecl voLing lrersists in these Nolth
Ctrolint tlistlicts (.I.S. App. 14a-15a, 47a), one rvottld

think thaL ib cotrstitutes some folm of insitlious, abrtot'-

nral departut'e ft'ont prevailing American voting patterus.
On lhe cotttt'at'y, iL lvoulcl be fal nlole acctll'ate to l'ccog-

nize polat'izetl vol.irrg for what it is: tt prevailing Ilol'ln
in voting behavior Lhrotrghottt Antct'ica' It therefore
seenrs highly illogical-not to ntenlion hylrocritical-fot'
tho law to cotrrlemn a jurisdicLion's eleciiotr systcm pri-



20

mal'ily becattse its citizens nranifest tlte samc cross-t'acial

vot,ing disct.cpancies that charactet'izo votct's naLionrvicle.

Polarizcd voting' mealls only Lhat voters of diffet'cnt

r'flces, ils gl'otllls, tend [o votc tlifferenl'ly frotn one an-

t-rLher in I'eiation Lo the t'zrcc of the candirlates (or itl re-

liltion to tho cantlirlal.e's idcntificfltion rvitlt rnino)'i[y is-

sues). .I.S. App. 38a-39a tt.Z{); Cottirts u' CiLtl o.f Nitr-

Jollc, sttltt'o, t;ilS tr.Su1rp. :rl, 3??. lrt this case, the tlis-

i'ici coirrt atlo,Le4 the view tlrat thcro is :t "sttbstan-

tively sig.i{ic:,i1" tlcgteo of pnl*r'izalion whenever' "t'he

,u.uil, ,if tt,n inrlivirlual clcction rvoulrl have been rlif-
fcrcnt clePentling upon rvheLhet. it hatl bcen Ircltl antoltg

onl.y lhe rvhite t'otcrs ot' only l.he blaclt vrttcrs in thc

clcction." (J.S. ApP. 39a-404).

This Ineans Lhat, lvhettever a majorily of black votet's

support a blach candiclatc al, the polls thero will alwilys

be a "substartLivcly significant" degrec 0f pol:rlizctl vob-

ing nnlcss :r rnajority of whitcs vote fol' the black carttli-

rlatc as rvell.

The folly antl irtappropri:tteness of rel.ying ttpotr this

vierv of "polarizccl voting" as an index of acLion:rble vol'-

ing righLs discrimination is illtrsLratecl by Lhe voling re'
rult. of thc 1f)84 I)ettrocr:tt,ic l'r'esidential pritttltries'

In tnosl, of those 1tt'itttltl'ies, l.he votcs rvclc divitletl bc-

t\r,cen W&lter Montlalo antl G:rry ll:rrt, rvho at'e lvhiLe,

artd Jesse .I:tcltsott, rvho is bl:tck. As cstitblishcrl by data

conrpiletl for the .Ioinl, Center for l'oliLical Studies (see

Appentlix A),? the Detnoct'rt[ic Prc"sirlentiltl pt'imaries ilt
euet'!! rnto of thc [hiltcen stzrtcs sttt'veyed were cltat'ac-

terized by tlre nrost exlr.enre .[onn r-rf racial polarization.

In most of the pritnaries sttrveyed, J:tchsotr received

less tlm.n,Sfu of the white vote but otter 75/o of the blacl<

? The data ltre tahen fronr Thornts E. Cnvanitglr lltrtl Ixrrlt S,

Foster, Illectitttt' '81, Iieltot't lt2, Jcsse Jacltstnr's CtnTnigt: The

Prinruries orttl caucuscs, 'Iilble 4 (Joint (-lcuter for l'olitic:rl
Studies, 1985).

2l

vote. In New Jet'scy, Jacl<son received 86% of the black

vote, buL ottly 4/n of thc white voto; in Nerv York, it' was

87'/o of the hlacl< vote, ccuttp:rrerl Lo oriy 6/" of tfe
wlrile vote. In none of the surveyecl primaries tlid Jach-

son t'cceivetl as tnttclt its 70'/o of the white voLe, or less

Lltut 50/o of the l.,llcl< voLe.

Unless this Coult is lrt'epat'ecl to tleclare that the white
rnembet'ship of tho l)entoct'ertic pally is composal of rac-

ists flom coast to coast, tlten l,het'e mrtsl, be something

elso besirles anl.i-black lacial prc'judice to explain the ex-

tretno statisfical polalization in the 1984 primttt'y elec-

tion voting. That "sotnetltitrg else" tnay rvell have been

Jesse Jacl<son's tolltl lack of govel'llmelll, expclience; his

stntus its a 1tt'acticing clergylllalr; his cr-rntroversial "ad-
venlures" in the field of foleign alfails; or a cotlrbitla-
tion of sttch factot's. Ilrrl, only thc lnost it't'atiotral an:rl-

ysis could conclude that the low white vol.e for Jacl<son

coultl itccurately be atLributed to lvlrite racisrn; the Ie
rvele sitttply too tttittty other objcctivc factors to explain
a rejeclion of his 1)r'csitlenLial cantlitlacy.

Sirnilar consitlcr':ttiotts tregate the significatrce of any
legal conclusi<ttts dt'ztwu frorn the "polarized" voLing plrt-
tclns fountl to exisl in this case. Blltck candidates who

rccciverl liLtlc strp;rorL frorli whilc voters may just as

well lravo bcen lejcctctl for their stands on tltc issues,

thcir libelal irlcology, or their' lrersonaliLy as for their
rrrce. Sce ..Iortc,s u. City ol Lu,bbodc. ?ll0 F.2tl 233, 234
(5th Cir'. 1984 ) (IIigginboLharn, J., concut'ring sl)e-

cially).

'l'he st:rtistical "evidetrce" olfct'ecl lly appellees ott "po-
latizctl" voting therefore fails to come to grips with an
inescapable facL: white voter lejcction of a black can-

dirlate ean bc bascd lll)on a host of factols that have
noLhing a[ all to tlo with race.

The 1984 l)etnoct'it[ic plimaly stat,isLics pl'ovc tllat
even the most exlt'etne tlegt'ees of t'acial polalization in



22

voting often bcttr no relationsltip rtL all to the kind of

tliscr.irnination tz,.getecl by the VltA. The t,et'e fact

uurt overwhelming uutjor.iLies of blacks vo[c fot' a given

blacli cantlitlate (sttch as Jessc J:tcksrttr) plovitles llo

gr.ounrls rvhttsocver. to quesLion tlttt attitutles of whites

ivho ovc,.whclrni,gly reject the sitmc canrliclate. T. holrl

othct.\vise affr.onts ltolh comtnon sensc ilntl thc eclu:rl pro-

tcction clitusc. Yel, the court.s rliscrerlit the inLcgrity of

thc rvhite vote ever.y Lirne they irtv0l<e "polltl'izetl votittg"
to justify finding a violittiou of thc VItA'

One coultl give iltnttmerable cxlttnplcs of horv thc con-

ccpl, of "pol:rlizccl voting" is :t completcly mislezrding

i,ilicutt,r of c,nrlitio,s lrerl.incnl. Lo geltttit-tc Votipg
Il,igtts Act violations. Fcrv elccl.iolrs wcre ntot'e l'acially
polar.izerl thu, the 1984 I,resitlenti*l elecLiort; white

votcrs ove r.rvhchningly r.ejectcrl Lhc Monrlale cantlidacy

which black voter.s wel'e all but unrttitttotts in srrppol'Ling.

Ycl, no one coukl lesponsibly ar.glre Lhflt this sharp diver-
gence in poliLical attitucles along r':rcial Iincs sotncltow

iaints the valiclity of o,r Pr.esiclenti*l elcctio, system or

that it, unftrirly dilutes the blaclt votc.

Moreover, cvcn urbatr juristliclions tt'het'e black polit-
icul ltowcr is most vigot'ous-Chic:rgtl, Newarl<, I'}ltila-

dclphi&, ALlantzr, all of which lt:rve slt'ottg bl:tclt nlityors-
have bccn churflcterized by vcr.y high levels of rztciill

polarizalion in voting.s This ag:rin unrler'cuts the notion

ih:rt pohrizetl voting prevenLs cllcctivc access to thc
poliLical system.

s Illack cantlitlate Ilarold lvaslrington reccivcrl 360,3.10 Llack wartl
votes but only 19,252 rvhite rvar.d votes irr rvintting tlre chicago

rrxryor:tlty election in 1982; sonre 24rr,84rt rvhitcs votetl agaittst

lrinr. Nrttiorral Jotrrlral, Illection'81 Ilttrullto<l;2209 (Oct' 20, 1983)'

'l'he blat:k carttli<latcs elccted mayot' itt Now:rrk, Nerv 'f et'scy, (lal'y,

Itrrliitnrr, :rntl (llevclantl, Olrio, rcceived 9G(/,,, <)''lol,, land' 9$/s of the

blrrclt vgte, resgrectivcly, ils against ortly l(i'/,, 70(/o, irttd 1t-r'16 of t'he

wlrite vol.e. Levy anrl I(ranrer, T',hc lltlntic Fuctot': IIoru Ailttt1'icu's

Illirtot'itics Decide lllectiotts (Sirnon & Sclrusl'er, 1972)'

23

Polalizcd voting is sirnply a cotrtempol'al'y chlt'actel'-
istic of Antet'ican politics; it reflccts thc re:rlity of the
wirlcly rlivet'se political pt'efct'enccs which :rlc inevibable
in a tnr-rlLi-l'acial tlctttoct'ltcy. But thc existcllce of sttclt
tliversity Irarrll.y provides legitimatc gt'ottlltls fot' col"l-

clcnrning state atttl locll electiou sysl"erns.

Tlrc Act's gttat'attLec of all eqtrltl opporLu.tr'i|11 for'
minoritics to parlicip:rtc in thc poliIical pl'ocess, 42

U.S.C. Sec. 19?3(lt), rtcerl not :tlltl cantrot bc c<lnsLrtted

to letluire rr?r?/ collU)l'olnise of the consli[trLit-ut:rl gttar:rtr-
tee of the frecclont to vole tts ono pleases. I\{.ore to the
poiut, the legrtliLy of :t state's clcclion systenr c:tnnot be

contlitionctl ul)ort iI shifb of whitc citizctts' voles to black
canrlirlatcs wlrich rvill lte strfficieni to stlisfy Lhc expecltr-
tions of tltrec fcdertl judgcs.

It. 'l'he (loru't Applietl att Unrcastlnablc Standartl in
lrinrling tlraI t "Sttbstitntively Signi(ic:tnt" I)egrce
of l'olitrizod Voting llxistcrl

Even if polarized vol"ing could be vicrvcd :rs zt t'elcv:rttt
intlicator of Section 2 violal,ions, the district court ap-

lllietl an uttt'c:tsouable ttttrl invalid stlttltlald in finding
thrt it existcd to a criLical clegt'ec irt this easc. The

coult heltl thab a "sttbstatrtively sigrlificlttr[" tlcgl'ce of
polarization occurs rvltcncvet' the elecLion's ottLcotne rvottld
be differcnt clcpcnding ou vi'ltetltet' il, rvrts lrcld antong only
blach voters ot' only tvhite voLel's (J.S. App. 394-40a).

This givcs thc polulizat.iott faclor u scol)e tlltl wcight
fal beyonrl what Congt'ess contemplttctl in passing the

1982 amendtnenLs. 'l'he stttttte itself ttort'hcre luentiotls
(let alone eonrletrttts) polat'ized vobing. llvcn if Congt'ess

did inLend for polariz:rtion to be treatcd as perstt:tsive evi-
tleuce of zt votittg lighLs vitllltiotr, it strrely llad in mind
sonrethirrg f:rr di{fclcnt thitn the l<intl of ttnexccption-
able vot,ing pultertts cxatnined in this case. Jut'isdictions
whelc blitclt t:itnrlitl:.rtcs llc :tblc to attract 50f', (Dis-
tricl, No. 3$), 40i1" (Dislrict No. 39) , 37% (District



t!

24

No. 23 ), gg% (Distlicb No. 21), ttnd 32% (Districl' No'

8) of itre whitc vote-sec J.S. App. 4la-46a-sirnply
c:rnnot be chiirlcterizcd :rs pockcts of culpable lesistance

to the aspirittions of blacl< cttndidacics' Yet tha[ is pre-

cisel'y rvlt:tt thc district court's holdirtg says about these

North Carolina districts.

As shorvn by thc t"lumefous successful blach cantli-

cl:rcics in these clisLricts and elsewhet'e tltroughout the

natiou, the forcgoing levels of rvhite voter suppot't at'e

morc than suflicienl, to give blacl< catrtlirlates effective

acccss to the political sYslem.

I,'or cxittnlllc, in 1'ett'a.zas u. Clcnt'en'ts, 311p1'a, 581

Ir.Supp. lL 1352, thc minoriLy (Ilispanic) calrditl:rte for
,r,ryor: rcceiverl l)0/. of Lhe hisll*nic vote as cotnpat'ecl

to only 35'/o of thc white vote' When Lhe plainl'ilI's "cx-
pcrt" opittrttl Lhal, this constitutctl significanbly polarized

voting for VILA purlroscs, l.he cottt't flatly rejcclcd his

opinion. 'I'he cotrlt took thc soutrtlct' vierv that polarized

,uLing is only meuningfnl in thc lcgll sense rvhen it tle-

plivcs thc tninority of etluill opporltrnity to pallicipate
i,, the polil.ical pI'ocess. Stlessirtg thab the II isJranies

coukl fornr coalitions to gain gleateI political acccss Llt:tn

thcir rarv ntttnbers itlonc wottld givc lltettt, id. tt' 1354,

l"he cout'b tulccl that the 90/35 v:rt'irtttce in llispanic/
anglo voLing rlicl nrrt consLiLtttc ;r lcgally significanl' tle-

gree of polarization. Irl sharp contr:ls[, the cottrt in this
ctrse ct-rltsitlet'ctl cvell a 79/ro0 bltclr/wlrite variatrce to
be :u signilicatt[ tlcgrec of polarizrtt'ion. (J'S. App' 3Ba-

4la). Sce ulso C<tllitts 'u. Cit,y ol Nu'follc, str2r'4, 605

Ir.Supp. at 3ti8-89 (t'ejecLing clitittts of polarized voting
wlter.e lcvels of whiLe suppolL for bltck cztnrlirlttcs were
deciderlly krwer than in this case).

To hold that staLe elecLion tlisllict,s violitte Lhe VIIA
nrelcly bccause a majoriLy of theil whitc votcls tlo nol'

succutnll to judicial pl.essllr.es antl subrnissivcly voLc for
blach canrlirlates is not merely an unlawful tlistortion
of the VIiA. \Vhen lr court cocrccs voters to sut'rcntler

25

fheir freetlom of cltoice in ot'tlct' to appe;tse tltc court's

thr.eaLs to condetnn their clection sysLetn ", it violates the

I,.irst Amcnclment-b:rsctl guar.antec of absolrtte freedom

to voLe as one chooses. I{iflasey a. CiLy ol Jaclcsott', stl:Pt'q',

6ii3 Ir.2rl ut 662; Auletsrnr a. Il[at'tirt', s'tl'pl'a, 375 U'S'

*,402.
Untler Lhe tlistrict, court's approach to polat'izcrl voting,

there woulcl be felv, if :rny, districts in the rvhole united
Strtes which coukl pirss mttstcr utrder Secbion 2'

Consistcnt wilh the liberal vielv of the Senate Com-

mibtce liepolL, the <listlicl, cottrt ploceerletl as though a

finrling of poltrrizetl voting pltts oue other of tltc "tline
f:rctori" wotrlrl be ertottgS to sttstain a finding l'1at Scc-

tion 2 lrttl bcen violllerl. J.S. Apll. 14;r-15t :tnd n' 13'

Givcn that the niue flactol.s Ar.e hopclessly llt'olttl atrrl

amorphous-c.g., ,,uu.y history of official tliscrimitration"
(Facior l)-aiU locrllc can easily bc fountl guilt'y of at

least scveral of thcrn. Ancl few Amet'ican jtrl'istlicl,ions
.w0ultl not also be "guilty" of polal'izecl voting trntler the

disl.rict courL,s stanrlar.rls. The l984 Dcrnocr':rtic Prcsi-

denti:rl Pr.imary l'esults (not to tnettLion thc 1984 Plesi-

dential clection itselt ) conclusivcly tlentortstt':rte that
extrctnc polarizcd voting is m:tnifest' tlirotrghoul' the

Unitcrl Stitl.es. Scc Appentlix A.

Tltus, the appt.o:rclt htken by thc tlistrict corrll' in this

case sirnply pr:or"s too ntttch. Congt'css c.trnol' have iu-

teDrletl to cnacL & stantlnl'd for section 2 cotttpliitncc

rvhich c:rn only lle tttcl, rvith ccrtltinty by homogenous-

jurisrlictions tlrat tlo nol, havc to copc wilh thc politicnl

iensi.,s of racial rliver.sity. T1e rlistrict c.ttt'1,'s intet-
prctal,ion 0f the vIlA woukl conrlcttrn thc elcction sys-

o In f[ct, the cour.t's owrr opini0n shon,s tlr:tt tlris phcnomcnon

may have alre:rtty occrtrrctl in Norl'h Otrolina' J'S' App' 37A n'27'

'l'he notnble success of bluck c:rntlitlates in the 19tt2 clection rvas

ascriberl to white support rvhich rvas rcputedly basetl on fear tlrat

the defeat of l-rlnck cantlidates wotrld atlvet'sely afiect the vRA
litigation.



<
+

 
H

(io
tr

r-
f 

5P
 

=
=

=
' 

a.
=

'=
*

- 
:-

 
g?

=
<

o=
=

.=
 

- 
-=

.:=
E

gX
€ 

s=
 

91
a;

 E
 s

;3
 =

3:
 i=

xa
-C

Jr
 

(a
 =

 
-''

--
 

^ 
a=

.=
o 

- 
a;

 
B

 5
 =

.9
6-

: 
aa

7;
;E

e8
_ 

=
3 

"r
=

-
H

 
*=

 r 
se

 =
;"

q 
l.E

 3
p:

 i 
+

;s
ff 

I 
E

'- 
E

 q 
=

'E
i 

; 
"E

'- 
b<

-'
i.,

i. 
a5

 p
 s

.=
7 

lB
 

-.
E

 H
 *

d 
=

i.
=

2 
-^

.=
z6

F
=

- 
e1

.;*
€.

9
ffi

 
aG

*e
=

F
l,=

 
]E

S
"=

v.
"e

a,
r 

!r
 E

E
 9

 3
iE

*a
:iE

;,l
ie

g$
?

aE
;:E

zE
ae

 E
 p;

 E
 ]i

aE
l+

a;
F

iq
;;;

; 
x

sB
r$

ir6
-=

 .
+

 r
 2

 :f
*E

=
?r

; 
i;?

a=
il

E
ilX

:p
z=

g 
;*

 ?
 z

*.
8-

::i
=

:=
;?

F
3B

'"t
5-

i4
ii 

=
 

H
 

=
3-

aE
s'

?4
1i

l9
+

e-
'i5

-i[
 

=
=

i 
f 

3 
+

-:
11

=
iE

*l
r1

if:
si

 H
 ! 

F
 

a 
F

=
r:

;*
5?

9L
gr

lg
:

iH
 

Z
 

I 
-^

3p
--

.8
3 

*€
3i

i;f
r

3 
i 

i 
;g

ra
+

i::
E

E
E

;;+
2 

E
 

E
s=

?L
il 

r"
*?

;+
6

W
hi

te
s

A
P

P
E

N
D

IX
 A

T
ab

le
 4

. 
19

84
 D

em
oc

ra
tic

 p
re

si
de

nt
ia

l 
pr

im
ar

y 
vo

tin
g 

by
 r

ac
e'

B
la

ck
s

11
'h

ite
pe

r-
ce

nt
ag

e

B
la

ck
pe

r-
ce

nt
ag

e
of

 s
am

pl
e

G
le

nn
 H

ar
t

Ja
ck

so
n 

M
on

da
le

 o
f 

sa
m

pl
e 

G
le

nn
H

ar
t 

Ja
ck

so
n 

M
on

da
le

S
ta

te
D

at
e

A
la

ba
m

a
G

eo
rg

ia
Ill

in
oi

s

3/
73

 
40

%
3/

13
 

28

2e
%

32 47 57

37
%

38 45 36

66
V

o

69 69 70

1% 5 4 o
25

s/
20 5/
t 

26

o/
o 

oo

5,
/8

 
14

s/
8 

24

r/
8 

27

5/
8 

19

6/
r

A
,/A

tV
o

1

50
V

o

61 79 87 77 76 83 7t

47
%

30 t7 8 18 oo 16 20 13 13 la 16 11

32
%

:

t% 1 A 6 4 2 4 o 5 o 5 9 4

N
ew

 Y
or

k 
4/

3 
23

P
en

ns
yl

va
ni

a 
4/

10
 

16

T
en

ne
ss

ee
T

ex
as

 *
In

di
an

a
M

ar
yl

an
d

N
o.

 C
ar

ol
in

a
O

bi
o

C
al

ifo
rn

ia
N

ew
 J

er
se

y

S
ou

rc
e 

t 
C

B
S

/N
eu

: 
Y

or
k 

T
im

es
 e

xi
t 

su
rv

ey
s.

* 
S

am
pl

e 
of

 c
au

cu
s 

P
ar

tic
iP

an
ts

3 r) 1 I 2 1 3 5 o

82
 

43

7L
 

43 6l
D

b 
o,

85
 

61

73
 

35

69
 

4L

79
 

50 48 38

83 84 81 78 86

50 51 50 44 53 46 44 40 ob