Correspondence from Chambers to Williams

    IN TTIE SUPREME COURT

OCTOBER

ET AI., APPELI.A}TIS

OF THE I'NITED STATES

TERI'|, 1985

I.ACY II. TEORNBIJRG,

No. 83-1968

RAI.PE GINGLES, ET AL.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

It is hereby certified that all parties required to be
served have been served copies of the MoTIoN FoR LEAVE TO

PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGLMEM by Mall on JIILY 12' 1985' to:

(SEE ATTACIIED SERVICE LIST)

JI,LY 12, 1985

Form OSG-7
APR 1978

DOJ



NO. 83-1968

- SERVICE LIST -

JERRIS LEONARD, Eequlre
KATELEEN EEENAN l{cGUAlt' Esqulre
900 17th. Street ' N.W.
Sulte 1020
Waahlngton, D.C. 20OO7

(Flrst-Clase MalI)

JAMES I{ALLACE' JR., Esqulre
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Affalra
Attorney Generalrs Offlce
North Carollna Department of Justlce
P.O. Box 629
Ralelgh, North Carollna 27602
(Ftret-Claee M811)

JIILIUS CIIAIEERS, Esqulre
LAI{I GUINIER' Eequlre
NMCP Legal Defense & Educatlonal Fund, Inc.
16th. Floor
99 Hudson Street,
New York, New York 10013
(Special DellverY Ma11)

LESLIE J. I{INNER, Esqulre
Ferguson, Watt, Wallas and Adklns' P.A.
951 S. Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carollna 28202
(Ftrst-Class Mall)

DAI{IEL J. POPEO' Esgulre
GE0RGE C. SMITII, Esqulre
Washlngton Legal Foundatton
1705 N Street, N.W.
Washlngtou, D.C. 20036
(Flrst-Class Mal1)



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ocToBER TERI4 , 1985

No.83-1968

LACY H. THoRNBURG, ET 4!., APPELANTS

v.

RALPH GINGLES, ET AL.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT

Pursuant to Rule 38.7 of the RuLes of thls Court, the Actlng

Sol1cltor General, on behalf of the Unlted States, moves for
Ieave to partlclpate ln oral argument ln support of appellants

and that the Unlted States be allowed 10 mlnutes of argument

tlme. Appellants have agreed to cede thls amount of tlme to the

Unlted States and thus Joln thls motlon.

On 0ctober 1, 1984, the Court entered an order lnv1t1ng the

So}lcltor General to express the vlews of the Unlted States 1n

thls case. We responded ln a brlef urglng summary afflrmance on

two questlons and plenary revlew on two others, and the Court

noted probably Jurlsdlctlon on the Latter two questlons on Apr11

29, 1985. The Unlted States has also flled a brlef on the merlts

urglng reversal of the dlstrlct courtrs Judgment.

Thls ls the flrst case 1n thls Court to accord plenary

appellate revlew to a trla1 courtrs flndlng of a v1o1at1on of the

7982 amendment to Sectlon 2 of the Votlng Rlghts Act of L965. The

lssues 1n thls case concern the proper constructlon of amended

Sectlon 2. The Unlted States has the prlmary responslblllty for



,l

t
enforclng the Votlng Rlghts Act and shares wlth prlvate partles

the authorlty to enforce amended Sectlon 2 of the Act. Ehe

Unlted States thus has a substantlal lnterest 1n assurlng that

the Act ls construed ln a manner that advances, rather than

lmpedes, the Actrs obJectlve.

In vlew of the strong federal lnterest ln the lssues

presented ln thls case and the dlfferent perspectlve that the

government w111 brlng to bear on the lssues, w€ belleve that oral

presentatlon of the governmentrs vlews along wlth those of the

state and prlvate partles would be of materlal asslstance to the

Court.

Respectful ly submltted.

CHARLES FRIED
Actlng Sollcltor General

JULY 1985