Ltr. from Paola Maranan to Lani Gunier and Article from Alabama Briefs Newsletter

    ,z? "u,

Crvu- LIsrRlrr:s LINToN oF Ar-ABAMA
P. O. BOX 447

MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36101 ffi;
*a%

16 May 1985

Ms. Lani Guinier
NAACP Legal Defense and
Education Fund, Inc.

99 Hudson Street
New York, New York 10013

Dear Lani:

I read of your involvement with the Thornburgh v. Gingles
case in Linda Gieenhouse's April 29 artic
Times.obvious1y,theeventua1outcomeofthiscasffi
hEE-far-reaching effects. I would like to keep up with.it.

Please send me some background materials on the case.
I have already written one newsletter article for the March/
April edition of Alabama Briefs and I would like to update
as necessary. I have enclosed the article for your review.

Thank you for your assistance. If I can be of any help
to you, please do not hesitate to cal1.

Sincerely yours,

Paola Maranan
Project Coordinator
Alabama Voting Rights Project

PM/dd

Enclosure

MARY B, WEIDLER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR

1205) 262-0304

\



Page 2

LDT' CLAIMS JUSTTCE DEPARTMENT IS ON WRONG SIDE IN THORNBURGH CASE

on April 29, the supreme court agreed to hear Thorn-
burgh I^ cingles, a North Carolina case that shouldprovide the Court wlth the first major lega1 test ofthe-Voting Rights Act as it was amended by -Congress in1982. The central issue in this case is how thd courts
-should interpret the iresults'language that is at theheart of the revised Voting Rights -acf. Congress sitpu-Iated in its 1982 amendments that any voting procedirre
'which results in a denial or abridgement of Ehe rightsof any citizen of the United StaEes to vote on accountof race or colorr is il1ega1 under the Voting RightsAct. Congress adopted this language in an attempt to
counteract the Supreme Courtrs interpretation of Sec-tion 2 of the original Voting Rights Act of 1955 as
reguiring proof of discriminatory intent.
The caae concerns
the staters reapportionnent of its legislative
districts in response to the 1980 census. A three-judge FederaL District Ccurt in Narth CaroLina
determined .in 1984 that the state iras in violation ofthe Voting RightE Act in seven of its legislative
dist.ricts because, although it would have been feasible
to drbw some districts with 6izeable black majorities,
all but one of the districLs had clear yhite majori-
ties. While the District Court denied any guarantee ofnproportional representation" they did aisert that due
Eo circumstances surrounding the arears history and the
general refusal of whites to vote for blacks, that some
changes and considerations were in order on the part of
the state to a11ow blacks an equal opportunity toparticipate in the political process.

The controversy surrounding the Supreme Courtts
agreement to hear the Thronburgh case concerns
assertions made by the NAACp LegaI Defense and
Educational Pund regarding the stand that the Reagan
Justice Department has taken 1n the case. When the
Supreme Court received North Carolinars appeal last

falI, the Justice Department was asked for its views onthe case. The Justice Department angered voting rights
and civil rights aEtorneys by arguing in a briet itratthe District Court had ignored'significant blackelectoral sucessn that had been acheived in thechallenged IegislaEive districts. The JusticeDepartment said that in five of the challenged dis-tricts, a total of five seats (out of.22) werl won byblacks. The Justice Department accu6ed the District
Court of ignoring the6e sEatistics, t.hus effectively
asserting that blacks were "guaranteed elect.oral. succ.oi;
in proportion to the black percentage of the popu_l.r-
tion." The brief went on to say that, "minorj.Ey vot.ers
have no right t.o the creation of safe elecEoral dis-
tricts merely because tbey could be feasibly drawn."

The NAACP Legal Defense Fund, representing the
plainEiffs in the suit, responded by saying that. black
electoral sucess was just one of the factors that was
taken into account by the District Court in its "pene-
trating inquiry" into the elecEoral, and racial history
of the area. LDF wenE on t.o point out that, contrary
to the Justice Departmentrs assertions of"significant
black electoral- sucess', in a state with a 22t black
population, Less than I0t (16 out of 170) of the state
legislators i{ere black. A group of North Carolina
Republicans fil,ed a Eupport brief that criticized the
Justice Department for its "one-sidedo examination of
the evidence.

Lani Gauinier of LDF has accused the Reagan
Administration of seizing the,t'hornburgh case as an
opportunity to 'gut the Voting RighCs Acti. Reagan rras
originally opposed to the 1982 extension of the Voting
Rights Act and was particularly opposed to the
'resultsn language in the amended Section 2. Gauinier
points out that it is the first time Ehat the JuEtice
Department has openly aligned itself before the Supreme
Court with a jurisdiction that was found to be
discriminatory and in violation of the Voting Rights
Act by a lower court.

GRi\YSON UNSATISFIED WITH HUNTSVTLLE TASK FORC]] ]:I!.GISLATIVE RECOM}'IENDATION

The Euntsvj,lle Governnental Study Task Porce, a 9rouP
created by Ehe Huntsville-Madison County legislative
dlelegatio-n to 6tudy the possibility of adopting a

sinqf-e-n;Uer distrl-ct eleCtlon system for Ehe city of
Run-tsvil1e, voted 1n !'tarch to - recommend that the
legislative delegation adoPt the Task Porcere plan for
i iew method oi election for the Buntsville City
Councit. The pian cal1s for a seven-nember city
councj.l conpcsed- of four nenbers elected from single-
mernber disfricte and three nembers elected at-large'

Senator Louell Barron introduced legislation (s' 566)
Efrat nouta fotlow the task force's ieconnendation for
the Huntsville City Council. The bill has passed the
i"".1. ina is penaing 1n the House committee on LocaI
Legislation 14.

Representative George Grayaon, who-has brought suit
igiin"e the at-Iarge -etecti6rl 

!ystem for the Huntsville
city council and school aoard and the !ladison county

RUSSELL CgUNTY CASE SETTLED

E11.qbru rI^ BuEs.ell County, an AVRP case being handled. by

iiE-iloflire rim oTTf,iik"her' uenef ee and stein has
;;;"";;ttied andt it -"*i-itin9 Preciearance fron the
ii"'di." -otpitirent-and f inal- Spproval by th.e court'
lit-iinEy-, 

- tr,e r i".- rn.,o ber nus se f,- county com m i ssi on i s
eiectea-fron at-]ar!e districts.' .Under the terms of
ifrJ-""tti"r"nt, the tounty commission will be elected
;i ;-f-;"r"n iingi"-me'6er districts' rhe current
counEv conmission riii ot allowed to serve out their
;;;;:'(;;;ffs; leidil- t'" additional members will be

;i;;;d -iiom -singr"'ln"'6ut disEricts immediatelv and

iii-""""" positio-ns vill be elected fron single nenber
districts in 1988.

Commisslon and Board of Education, has promised that he
will block the ProPosed bill in he House because it
retains some at-large seats for both the City Council
and the City school Board. Grayson wil'1 block the
legislation because'he believes that any retention of
an at-1arge seat dilutes black voter strength and he
wil.l not accept itr' according to Joseph LamPley, Gray-
son's attornet in the suit. Grayson has indicated that
he has secured enough other votes anong the Huntsville-
Iiladison County Legislacrve Delegaiion to biock Barron's
bi11.

Lampley believes that the caserGISJSgIl y^ t'!adlson Cgun-
ty, -will not go to trial until 1985 and plans to file a

not,ion to enjoin next sunnerrs city election and.pre-
vant it from being hetd out of at-]arge dist.ricts.
Larnpley has also secured the assistance of Jerry,I{il-
sonr- a- redistricting expert and coordinator of the
SouEhern Regional Councilts voting Rights Project,. in
draving up ledistricting Plans for all four bodies
named in the suit.

The 3la!-aon .Erle-C.E ls a publlca Llon of the
ALabama VoL1n6 Rlghts ProJect,. QuesLlons and
comments regardlng Lhe content of thls
neHsleLter should be addressed Lo the ProJecL
Coordi.na!or, Alabama VoLing RlghLs ProJecL,
P.O. Box {4/, HonLgomery, AL 3610I. The
Alabama VoLlng RlBhLs ProJect is sponsored by
the Civ11 LlberUies Unlon of Alabama.

ProJecL D1recLor.... .....Hary lreldler
ProjecL Coord1nator.............Pao1a Haranan
EdiLor, Paola Haranan