Preliminary Request for Documents and Information Concerning Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment

    o
FERGU SON, WATT, WALLAS & ADKINS, P.A.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 730 EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA

95I SOUTH INOEPENDENCE BOULEVARD

CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 2A2O2
TELEPHONE (7O4) 375-846 r

August 30, 1985

JAMES E, FERGUSON. II

MELVIN L, WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS

KARL ADKINS

YVONNE MIMS EVANS

JOHN W, GRESHAM

LESLIE J, WINNER

JOHN I NOCKLEBY

GERALOINE SUMTER

FRANK E. EMORY JR,

THOMAS M, STERN

The Honorable Joseph Spaniol
CIerk
United States District Court
Washington, DC 20543

Dear Mr. Spaniol:

RC: THORNBURG v. GINGLES

upon reviewing Appendix A to apperlants' Jurisdictional
statement, which sets out the order and Memorandum opinion ofthe united states District courtr oD which the appeal is based,f have observed that this appendix contains several errors and
does not accurately reproduce the District Court's Memorandum
Opinion as follows:

1. On page _9a r_negh+mism should be mechanism. See
Memorandum Opinion page I0.

2. On page lOa, in the second parag'raph, irwe preface
our findings and conclusions with the summary
discussion of the amended statute and of our
understanding of its proper application of thevote dilution claimr w€ may properry rest decision
on the amended statute alone and thereby avoid
addressing the still subsisting constitutional
claims seeking the same relief . ,' should be ',Wepreface our findings and conclusioiE-tuEE-trre
summary discussion of the amended statute and of
our understanding of its proper application to the
evidence in this case. Because we find it

may
properly rest decision on the amended statute
alone and thereby avoid addressing the still
subsisting constitutional claims seeking the same
relief. " See Memorandum Opinion at page 1I.

-r-



Honorable
August 30,
lage Two

Joseph Spaniol
1985

At footnote 8 on page 10a, the last sentence now
reads "Neither is there any suggestion that the
remedy for an unconstitutional intentional
dilution should be any more favorable than the
remedy of discriminatory intent might nevertheress
have rimited rerevance in establistring a section 2rresults'c1aim is another matter.', it shouldread, "Neither is there any suggestion-EtraE tfre
remedy for an unconstitutional intentional
dilution should be any more favorable than the

3.

remedy for a Section 2 ,resutlq' violation.
wbeLbef the e nt
might nevertheless have Iimited televance-I;
establishing a Section 2 'resultst claim is
another matter. " See Memorandum Opinion at page
I1-

At footnote 9 on page
reads "AII generally
Treen... " It should

10a, the second sentence now
support the Maior v.
read "AI1 generally

the interpretation we
support
the

13 Qaoensuing discussion.
Ivlemorandum Opinion at

give the statute in
See Major v. Treen,
page 11.

5.

6.

On page 34a, the last sentence in the first full
paragraph now reads "since then two black citizens
have run succgssgglly and no black now serves onthe SenatE-dElegEEioi.', rt should read "Sincethen two blacks citizens
and no bracks no serve on the sena@"
See Memorandum Opinion at page 43.

On page 36a in the last fuII paragraph the last
sentence now reads, "In Halifax County,citizens have run sgccessfully for tha
County Commissionerd anci foi tfre City Council of
Roanoke Rapids." That sentence should read "InHalifax County, black citizens heve-?un

black
Board of

unsugcess.fully for the Board of County
Commissioners and for the City Council of
Rapids. " See Memorandum Opinion at page

Roanoke
46.

-2-



Honorable Joseph Spaniol
August 30, 1985
Paqe Three

7. On page 39a, in the first fulI paragraph of
footnote of 29 the second sentence now
reads,"Aside from two mathematical or
typographical errors, Dr. Hofeller did not
guestion the accuracy of the data, its adeguacy asa reliable sample for the purpose used, not thetthe methods of analysis used were standard-in theliterature.', This sentence should read "Asidefrom two mathematicar or typographical errors, Dr.Hofeller did not guestion the accuracy of thedata, its adeguacy as a reliable sample for the
purpose used, n9r that the method of analysis used
were standard in the literature." see Memorandum
Opinion at page 49.

I would appreciate your bringing these errors to the attentionof the court as several of them are materiar to the guestions
presented.

Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

,W:+,::y
Attorney for Appellees

LJW: acw
cc: Ms. Kathleen McGuan

Mr. James Wallace, Jr.
Ms. C. Lani Guinier

-3-