Correspondence from Hair to Ifill, Karlan, and Guinier; Memo from Hair to Birnhak
Working File
August 29, 1989

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Attorney Notes Page 19, 1983. 4ea7663c-e092-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/ee81623e-b687-4065-bb24-63015bc68737/attorney-notes-page-19. Accessed April 06, 2025.
Copied!
19 These patterns must be viewed in the context of the districts in guestion. for e xample , i n ltAke County 85S of the registered voters are white. Since 70t of thenr oD the average, do not vote for the black candidate in the primary, Lhat presenLs a substantial hurdle to black voters in electing candidates of their choice. Similarly, in SD S 22, which is 83t white in voter registration, only a third of white voters voted for black candidates in the primaries. For the 17t of the voters who are black overcome. The effects of 2/3 of the 83S voting against this is a formidable task. The district court found, in accord- ance with the testimony of both the expert for appel 1 ants and appellees, that in order to have any choice of overcoming the barrier created by the unwillingness of white voters to vote for black candidates,