Memorandum in Support of Motion for Further Relief

Public Court Documents
September 20, 1984

Cite this item

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Further Relief preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorney
- Leslie J. Winner
Organization
- NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.
Matter
- Gingles
Case
- Thornburg v. Gingles
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- a0d1b3a8-d592-ee11-be37-00224827e97b

Cite this item

Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Correspondence from Winner to Guinier, Suitts, and Wheeler; from Winner to Dupree, 1982. c9ccfeae-d792-ee11-be37-6045bddb811f. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/54a4da1a-ee80-4d65-b312-afb890ae8835/correspondence-from-winner-to-guinier-suitts-and-wheeler-from-winner-to-dupree. Accessed May 22, 2025.

Copied!

o
CHAMBERS,

o
NS&FERGUSON. WATT. WALLAS. ADKI FULLER, P.A

ATTORNEYS AT LA\ru

SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENOENCE PLAZA

95T SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 2A2O2
TELEPHONE (704) 375.8461

January 12, L982

JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS

JAMES E. FERGUSON. II

MELVIN L, WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS

KARL ADKINS

JAMES C, FULLER, JR.

YVONNE MIMS EVANS

JOHN W. GRESHAM

RONALO L. GIBSON

GILOA F. GLAZER

LESLIE J. WINNER

JOHN T, NOCKLEBY'

. OF O, C. BAR ONLY

Ytrls. Lani Guinier
Mr. Napoleon Williams
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
10 Columbus Circle
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019

Mr. Steve Suitts
Southern Regional Council
75 Marietta Street, NW
At1anta, Georgia 30303

Dr. Raymond Wheeler
3724 Warrington Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina

Re: Gingles, et al. v. Edmisten, et aI.

Dear Friends:

Rich Leonard, the Clerk, advised me to write the attached letter
to Judge Dupree.

Sincerely,

J. Winner

LJW: of h
Attachment
cc: J. LeVonne Chambers

CHAMBEQ, FERGUS.N, *ATT, *ALLAS, ADKI
o
NS&

JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS

JAMES E, FERGUSON. II

MELVIN L, WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS

KARL AOKINS

JAMES C. FULLER, JR.

YVONNE MIMS EVANS

JOHN W. GRESHAM

RONALO L. GIBSON

GILDA F. GLAZER

LESLIE J, WINNER

JOHN T, NOCKLEBY'

. OF O. C. BAR ONLY

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA

95I SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARO

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 2A2O2
TELEPHONE t7041 375-A461

January 11, L982

Re: Gingles, €t
et al.; No.

FULLER, P.A

al. v. Edmisten,
81-803-CrV-5

-t

The Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr.
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court, Eastern DisErict
PosE Office Box 27585
Raleigh, North Carolina 276LL

Dear Judge Dupree:

Gingles v. Edmisten is an action challenging the North Carolina
apportionment of both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly
and the North Carolina disEricts for the United States Congress.

Since the Supplement to the Complaint was filed on 19 November 1981
the following relevent events have occurred:

1. 0n 30 November 1981 the United States Department of Justice
entered an objection to Article II, 53(3) and 55(3) which prohibit
dividing counties in apportioning the General- Assembly.

2. On 7 December 1981 the United States Department of Justice
entered an objection to Chapter 894 of the Session Laws of 1981, the
Congressional Redistricting Act, and to Chapter 82L of the Session
Laws of 1981, the Senate Redistricting Act.

3. The state submitted its revised North Carolina House of
Representatives Redistrieting Act to the United States Department
of Justice, and the deadline for a response to that submi-ssion is
20 January L982.

Thus, unless the state appeals the Department of Justice rulings
to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,

The Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr.
January 11, L982

Page 2.

there are no enforcable Senate or Congressional reapportionments,
and we do not now know whether or not the House app6itionment wiit
be enforcable.

A-ccording to the best information available to the plaintiffs inthis action, the General Assembly plans to convene in special
session at the beginning of Februdty, L982 to enact new apportion-
ments and to postpone the date of the primary election fr6ir its
current date in t"tiy , L982.

)

The Court has set 19 February L982 as the date by which discovery
must be gompleted and by which the parEies shouid be ready for a
-pre-trial conference. However, dt this time it appears likely that
between now and then new apportionments will be enlcted. At ttristime it is, therefore, inefficient and wasteful of the time of thelegi-slators, the Court and the parties to proceed with discovery
on tlr. original apportionment acts or to have any hearing or trial
on the merits with regard to those acts.
r-, therefore, request that the court not schedule a hearing forthe three jduge panel or a final pre-trial conference untif it be-
comes aPparent whether or not the legislature will enact new appor-
tionment legislation and postpone the primary election. At thattime the Court will be able to set a schedulL which conforms totltu changes in the status of the apportionment legislation and inthe election schedule and which avoids unnecessary expenditures ofthe time of the Court and the parties.
Thank you for consideration of this matter.

'il;;ff
Attcrnei

ner
Plaintiffs

LJW: ddb
ccci J. Rich Leonard

James Wallace, Jr.
Jerris Leonard

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Further Relief

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorney

Organization

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in