Attorney Notes
Working File
January 1, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Draft of Facts: Senate District #2, 1983. 91104f54-e092-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/50d542fb-5b09-44a9-8fc6-407ad565c15d/draft-of-facts-senate-district-2. Accessed May 22, 2025.
Copied!
r ,, fnn^6 N s1 *--*s. SENATE DrsrRrcr #2 # Senate District #2 was a single member district in rural ,(ortheast North Carolina. It covers all of four counties and parts of four more. Px I0. 46.2t of its registered voters rrere black. Stip. 57. Appellees claimed, and the District Court found, that this district and District #6 were divided in a way that fractured a substantial concentration of black voters, thus minimizing minority voting strength and denying black citizens an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect candidates of their choice. J.S. App. 52a. Appellants offered no witnesses from this district and put forward no evidence as to the operation of the district as enacted. The Solicitor General does not contest the ultimate finding of fact as to this district. U.S. Br. 7, n. 11. [check amicus on jurisdiction for clearer statement l Few, if atry, blacks have been elected to public office from qlcs majority white elector++< in the area covered by SD#2. (f. 847) No black has ever been elected to the North Carolina Senate from a county covered by this district, and the two blacks elected to the House from that area-in J-9B2 are from majority black districts. Stip. 95; T. 830. Contrary to appellants' assertion, although blacks have run for both the Halifax County Board of Commissioners and the Roanoke Rapids City Council, none have won. T. 780-782. Nor does the record disclose any black who has been elected to the county commission in any of the other counties in this district. The area covered by SD#2 is polarized and segregated. The undisputed testimony is that voting is significantly racially polarized, and that white voters will not vote for black candidates. J.S. App. 46a, T. 846, 779, I39-141. In fact, it is unrealistic for any black candidate to expect to receive open support from any influential white citizen. T. 866-7. There is little social interaction between the races, residences are segregated, and schools remain, by and large, segregated. It is unacceptable for blacks to campaign in white residential areas, nor do black candidates normally get invited to attend meetings of white M clubs. T. 775-776, 838-844. Thus it is difficult for black candidates to gain exposure to white voters. For each of the counties in question (except Gates) the percentage of the black voting age population that is registered to vote is much lower than the percentage of whites. J.S. App. 25a, n. 22. The causes of this include the use of the literacy test at least until 1965, the embarrassment of older blacks who have little education because they cannot read or write, and pressure by white employers on their black employees not to participate in politics. In additionr so many black candidates have run and lost that many blacks believe it is futile to register or vote. T. 845-849, 864, 773-774. Even those blacks who have registered often have trouble voting because they lack transportation to the polls or because the white farm owners who K employ them mafle them work in the fields the entire timei the polls are open. 849, 866, 770. 2- SD#2, as it was at the time of trial, was adopted by the State in April L982, after the first two districts proposed for this area had been ob jecte{under 55. The uncontradicted testimony showed that the purpose of enacting SD#2 was to adopt a district with the lowest black population that could receive S5 preclearance. As the Chairman of the Senate Redistricting Committee said, "We hrere given three pills and we swallowed the smallest one. " This was true even though the Committee had available to it proposed districts which met all of the CommitteeL criteria which had higher black populations and which divided fewer counties. The secondary purpose was to avoid having a high enough percentage of black voters that the reelection of the white incumbent might be threatened. T. 1114-6; J.S. App. 51a. The district which appellants proposed as a remedy in this "r# and which the District Court adopted, is 60.1|black in population. D. Ex. 71. 3-