Correspondence from Williams to Greenberg and Nabrit; Pugh v. Hunt Complaint; Gingles v. Edmisten Complaint; General Assembly of North Carolina House Bill 415; Senate Bill 313; Senate Bill 87

    t7r

Napoleon Williams

Itl
,l
tl

I " //ln^o f,o,n
I
I
I

December 2, l9g1

To : Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III

NBW/r
Attach

EncLosed is a copy of the complaint
in the reapportionment suit filed
in North Carolina by the Republicans
and a copy of the complaint filed
by JuIius.

I would appreciate your ideas on
how to proceed. '..



;rrrrr, Doxlrr3ox,
JgousEn & Krranl
ATTORNEYS AND
JNSELLORS A? IIW
IORTH I(AIN ETREET
LISBUBY, I. C. 2!1,14

NORTH CANOLINA

IREDELL COUNTY

ALAI.I V. PUGH , GBEGORY T. GRIFFIN '
MASON MCCULLOUGH, PAUL B.
EAGLIN , and ETHEL R .' TROTTER,
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

JAMES B . HUNT, JR. , in his caPacitY
as Governor of the State of North
Carolina; RUFUS EDMISTEN, in his
capacity as the Attorney General of
North Carolina; JAI\'IES C. GREEN,
Lt. Governor of North Carolina, in his
capacity as President of the North
Carolina Senate; LISTON B . RAMSEY '
in his capacity as Speaker of the North
Carolina House of Representatives ;

THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS OF
NORTH CAROLINA: ROBERT W.
SPEARMAN , ELLOREE M. ERWIN,
RUTH T. SEIYIASHKO, WILLIAM A.
ITIARSH , JR. , and JOHN A. WALKER,
in their official capacities as members
of the State Board of Elections of North
Carolina; and THAD EURE, in his
capacity as Secretary of State of North
Carolina,

THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DTVISION

81 CVS

COMPLAINT

IN

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

.)
Defendants.

Come now the Ptaintiffs, and for their causes of action against the Defendants

and each of them in their respective offieial capacities, state and allege as follows:

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

JI]RISDICTION

1.

Plaintiff seeks in this action injunctive, declaratory, and other relief to

redress the deprivation of rights and privileges secured Plaintiffs by the 14th

Amendmentto the Congdtution of theUnited States; by Article I, Sec. 3, Sec. 18,

and Sec. 35 of the Constitution of the State of.North Carolina; and by 42 U.S.C.

Section 1983, which provides for the redress of deprivation of Constitutional

rights under color of law
!

i
\\



:li
ll
ll
iI

tl
t:

i:
I

I'
rl
ll
ti
il

i,
I
ll
t;
i,

ri

tl
ir
lt
ti
t'
ti.il
il
il
ti
li
t;

li
;l
ii
li
lr

li

il
ri
tr

ti
I

lr
L

rl
,:l

ll
rl

l!

i:
t,

it

tl

l'
il
lr
I

it

tl

lr

i;

i,
il
I

li
l,
Ir

ii
II

il
rl

,.i
li

lt

tl

il
,l
i.

li
li
rl

,i

il
I

l:
I

i

il
ll
,i
.t,i

li

-o-

2.

This ection is filed to enjoin enforcement of North Carolina General Statutes

S120-1 and SL2O-2 and related Statutes, in and for the reason that such Statutes

violate the 14th Amend.ment of the Constition of the United Ststes as well as Article

I, Sec. 3, 18, 1g and 35 of the Constitution of the State of North Carolina. The

Statutes rlfemed to above unconstitutionatly reapportion and redistrict the 
i

State Legislature of North Carolina. Accordingly, this action is also filed re9ueetin{
I

the Court to order a reapportionment and redistricting plan within the guideline' I

I

established by the United States Constihrtion and the Constihrtion of North Carolina

where the latter does not conflict with the former

VENUE

3.

The proper. venue for this action is Iredell County '

PAXTIES

4.

That Plaintiff , Alan V. Pugh, is a resident, elector and tax payer of the

County of Randolph, and State of North Carolina

5.

That Plaintiff , Gregory T. Griffin, is I resident, elector and tax payer

of the County of Sampson, and State of North Carolina

6.

That Plaintiff , Mason McCullough, is a resident, elector and tax payer

of the County of Iredell, and State of North Carolina, and is a black citizen of

the State of North Carolina

7.

That Plaintiff , Paul B. Eaglin, is a resident, elector and tax payer of the

County of Cumberland, and State of North Carolina, artd is a black citizen of

the $tste of North Carolina. That Piaintiff , Ethel R. Trotter, is a resident,

and tax payer of the County of Moore , snd State of North Carolina.

elector i



-3-

8.

That the Defendant, James B . Hunt, J!. ,.is the Governor in and for the

State of North Caroliaa, and in such capacity is the Chief Executive Officer

of the State charged with the dufy of enforcing compliance with State legislation

under Article III, Sec. 5(4) of the Conbtitution of North Carolina'

o

' That the Defendant, Thad Eure, is the Secretary of State in and for the

State of North Carolina, 8nd in such capacity is the officer in charge of receiving,

mairrtaining and certifying the results of all North Carolina Senate and House

of of Representatives from multi-county district".

10.

That the Defendant, Rufus Edmisten, is the Attorney General in and for

the State of North Carolina, and in such capacity is the principal attorney for

the State of North Carolina charged with the duty of enforcing the laws of the

State of North Carolina and repreeenting the State of North Carolina in those

eivil actions in which the State of North Carolina is a party.

11.

That the Defendant, James C . Green, is Lieutenant Governor of the State

of North Carolina, and is President of the North Carolina Senate.

L2.

That the Defendant, Liston B . Ramsey, is Speaker of the North Carolina

House of Representatives .

13.

That the Defendant, State Board of Elections of North Carolina, is charged

with the duty of supervising and conducting primary and general elections,

controlling the conduct of primary srrd general elections , 8nd for computing,

maintaining and reporting the results of multi-eounty primary and general elections

That Defendanta,

William A. Marsh, Jr. ,

14' 
r

I

Robert I{. Spearman, Elloree M. Erwin, Ruth T. Semashko,l

:

and John A. Walker eonstitute the members of the North

-,. -._-..-l . , ..,,



-4-

Carolina Board of Elections and the eame Robert W. Spearman is Chairman of sald

Board, all of'said Defendants being charged with exercising the powers and duties

of the State Board of Elections.

15.

By performing their reqpective duties as concerns the challenged Statutes,

Defendants, and each of them in their respective official capacities, aet under

color of State Statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages. Such acts

have resulted in and will result in a deprivation of rights guaranteed the Ptaintiffs '

as voters, and each of them, by the Constitution of the United States and the

State of North Carolina

CI,ASS ACTION

'u'
Plaintiffs, Alan V. Pugh, Gregory T. Griffin, Mason McCullough and Paul B .

Eaglin, are a}l qualified and registered voters of multi-member Senate and House

Districts of the North Carolina General Assembly, and Plaintiffs, Mason McCulloug'ii

and PauI B . Eaglin, are black "itir"rr" 
eligble and registered to vote in the State

of North Carolina, &nd pursuant to Rule 23O) of the North Carolina Rules of

Civil Procedure bring this action on their own behatf , snd on behalf of all residents

citizens and.qualified voters in all multi-member House and Senate Districts and

on behalf of black citizens of said districts. The class is so numerous that joinder

of all member is impracticable; there are questions of law and fact common to

the elass; the claims and defenses of Ptaintiffs are typical of the claims and defensesi

of the. class, and Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of

the class. Adjudication with respect to individual members of the class would

as a practicd matter be dispositive of the interest of the other members not parties

to the adjudication; that counsel for the Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect

the interests of the class. Ptaintiff, Ethel R. Trotter, is a qualified and registered

voter of a single-member representative district.



'5-

ALLEGATIONS OF FACT

L7.

That Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution of North Carolina provides

in part that North Carolina General Assembly rt . . . at the first regular session

convening after the return of every decennial census of population taken by order

of Congress, Ehal'l revise the senate districts and the apportionment of Senators

amongthose distriets . . .t'; that subsection (1) thereof provides for equality

of representation in senate districts; that subsection (3) thereof provides that

nNo county shall be divided in the formation of a senate districtrr; that upon infor-

mation and belief , the United States Department of Justice did not preclear subeectio

(3) , pursuant to its authority under 42 U.S.C. 519?3 CVoting Rights Aet) .

18.

That prr"sr"rrt to the Constitutional mandate refemed to in Paragraph 1?

herein, the North Carolina General Assembly met and on the 3rd day of July,

passed Senate Bill 313, Chapter 821 of the 1981 Session Laws codified as N.C.G.S.

120-1, and the Defendant, James C. Green, President of the Senate and the

Defendant, Liston B . Ramsey, Speaker of the House, signed said bill on the 3rd

day of July, 1981. (Exhibit "Afi)

19.

That Article II, Section 5 of the Constitution of North Carolina provides

in pairt that the North Carolina General Assembly r' . . . at the first regular

session convening after the rehrrn of every decennial cenaua of population taken

by order of Congress, shall revise the representative districts and the apportionmenf
I

of Representatives among those districts . . ."; that subsection (1) thereof provides

for equality of representation in repreeentative districts; that subsection (3i

thereof provides that rtNo county shall be divi<led in the formation of a representativ!

districtt'; that upon information and belief, the United States Department of Justice

did not preelear subsection (3), pursu&nt to its authority under 42 U.S.C. S19?3

(Voting Rights Act).

j
I



-6-

20.

That pursuant to the ConstitutiorrJ mandate referred to in Paragraph 19

herein, the North Carolina General Assembly met and on the 3Oth day of October,

1981, passed House Bill 1428, Chapter 1130 of the 1981 Session Lawe, eodified

as N.C.G..S . L2O-2, and the Defendant, James C. Green, President of the Senate,

and the Defendant, Liston B. Ramsey, Speaker of the House, signed said bill

on the 3Oth day of October, 1981. (Exhibit rrBrr)

2L.

That N.C.G;S. 120-1 institutionalizes 16 multi-member senatorial districts,

namely: District 1, (2); District 8, (2); District 11, (2); District L4, (2);

Dietrict 15, (3); District 18, (2); District 19, (2); District 2L, (2); District 22,

(3);.District 23, (2); District 24, (4); District 25, (2); District 26, (2); District

27 , (3); District 28 , (2); and District 29 , (Z); the remaining 13 districts are

sin gle -memb er districts

22.

That N.C.G.S . L20-2 institutionalizes 31 multi-member representative

districts, namely: Distriet L, (2); District 3, (3); Distriet 4, (3); District 5,

(3); District 6, (4); Distriet ?, (2); District 8, (2); District 10, <2); District

11, (3); District 13, (3); District 14, (5); District 15, (2); District 16, (2);

District 17, (6); District 18, (3); District 19, (3); District 20, (4); District

24, (3); District 26, (3); District 27, (2); District 28, (2); District 29, (7);

District 30, (4); District 31, (5); District 32, (5); Distriet 33, (6); District

34, (8); District 35, (4); District 36, (3); Distriet 38, (5); District 39, (2);

the remeining 9 districts are single-member districts.

2g.

That former Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution of North Carolina

(Const. 1868, L872-3, c.81) provided that ". . . each Senate district shall

contain, &s near a6 may be, an equal number of inhabitants . . and no county

shall be divided in the formation of a Senate district, unless sueh county shal}

be equitably entitled to two or more Eenators. r'



-7-

24.

That former Article II, Section 3 of the Constih.rtion of North Carolina

(const. 1868) in effect provided that most rePresentative districts were to be

eingle-member distriets, but it did not prohibit the division of eounties in the

formation of a representative district '

25.

That Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution of North Carolina provides

in part that the people have the right to regUlate the internal government but

,,. . . every such right shall be exercised in purguance of law and consistently

with the Constitution of the United States.

26.

That prior to November 5 , 1968, the North Carolina General Assembly

proposed an amendment to the Constitution of North Carolina which was adopted

by the vote of the people at the general election held November 5, 1968, which

is now designated as Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution and contains the

provisions referred to in paragraph 1? herein which prohibits the division of

counties in the formation of eenate districts '

. 27.

That the electoral process in eaeh of the 40 counties covered under Section

S of the Voting Right Act, 42 U.S.C. S19?3c was adversely affected; that upon

information and belief , the United States Department of Justice did not preclear

those provisions of the Constitution of North Carolina prohibiting the division

of counties in drawing district }ines all pursuant to its authority under 42 U.S.C.

! 19?3

28.

That prior to November 5, 1968, the North Carolina General Assembly

proposed an arnendment to the Constitution of North Carolina whieh was adopted

by the vote of the people at the general election held November 5, 1968 ' which

is now designated as Article II, Section 5 of the Constituion and contains the



-8-

provisions referred to in Paragtaph 19 herein which prohibits the division of

counties in the formation of representative districts

29.

Upon information and belief that the Constitutional Amend'm'ents referred

to in Paragraphs 26 and 28 herein were not submitted for approval to the Attorney

General of the United States pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 519?3c, nor were they subjected

to court approval under said act; and, therefore, the United States Depaitment

of Justice d,id not preclear those amendments which prohibited the divisj'on of

counties in forming districts.

30.

That the General Aesembly of North Carolina in its mistaken adherence

to the Constitutional Amendments of .1968 prohibiting the division of eounties

in Senate and Representative districts has diluted the voting strength of minorities;

that it is impossible to devise a plan that doesn't dilute the voting strength of

minorities without the ability to divide counties in such redistricting. 

""1

31.

That Defendants in enacting redistricting legislation and ionducting electic 
r

pursuant to such enactments are violating the Equal Protection Clause of the

14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States , 42lJ.S.C. S1983, Section

5 of the Voting Rights Act and Article I, Section 3 and Section 35 of the Constitution

of North Carolina

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

. 32.

As their Second Cause of Action, Plaintiffs reallege Paragraphs 1 through

31 of their First Cause of Action as though fully set out herein.

oa

That N.C.G.S . 120-1 and N.C.G.S . 120-2 are in contravention of the 14th

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America by denying voters

in single-member senatoria.l and single-member representative districts due
li

tl
li

li

ti

l'



.9-

process and the equal protection of the Jaw, and by violating the rrone man

one voterr rule in the following particulars:

A. The voter in a single-member senatorial district or a single-

member representative district i5 nl'l6wsd only one vote for

for one candidate, whereas a voter in a multi-member district

is allowed as many votes as there are seats in that district.

As a result, a single voter in a single-member d,istrict is a

constituent of and is represented by only one senator or

representative, whereaE a Eingle voter in a multi-member

district is represented by as many senators or representatives

apportioned to that district.

The voter in the single-member senatorial or representative

district is unable to trweightt his vote by refraining from

voting for other eligibte candidates in order to enhance the

value of his vote. In a multi-member district, by allowing

a voter to vote for only one candidate when he is entitled to

vote for aE many candidates as there are seats, a voter ln a

multi-member district is capable of casting as many votes for

a single candidate as there are seats in that district by casting

one vote for that candidate, and casting his/her remaining

votes against that candidaters competition, by failing to cast

any more than one vote. The problem is compounded as the

number of seats and candidates increases

By allowing voters in multi-member senatorial and representa-

tive districts to ttweightt' their votes, ttle rrone man - one vote"

rule is violated by making the vote of a voter in a multi-member

district more valuable than a vote of a voter in a single-member

district.

B.

c.



10-

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

34.

As their Third Cause of Action, Plaintiffs 3gn'l'lgge Paragfaphs 1 through

33 of their First and Second Cauees of Action as though fully set out herein.

. 35'

' That N.C .G.S . 120-1 end N.C.G.S . 120-2 are in contravention of the

14th Amendment to the constitution of the united states by denying votere in

multi-member senatorial and representative districts due process and tJ1e equal

protection of the law, and by viotating the "one man - one voten rule in the

following Particulars:

A. By allowing the election of representatives and senators in

rnulti-member districts at.large , it is possible and indeed

likely that most senstors and representatives will be elected

from a certain, limited georgTsphic location and from a

certain, limited, socio-economic class, to the exclusion of

proportional representation for minorities who do not reside

within that geographic location or occupy that socio-economic

class

B. By exposing the voter in the multi-member district to numerous

candidates which deserve the voters time, consideration, and

attention during the campaign, in order for the voter to cast

an informed vote, logistical problems alone deny the multi-

member d.istrict voter the ability to discriminate between and

among the views of numerous candidates, compared to the

ability of a single-member district voter to discriminate among

the views of a limited number of candidates.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

36.

Plaintiffs, for their Fourth Ceuse of Action, reallege Paragraphs 1 through

of their prior causes of action as though fully set out herein.35

I

I



-11 -

37'

That N.C.G.S . 120-1 and N.C.G.S. 120-2 are in contravention of the 14ih

Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of Ameriea by denying potential

legislative candidates in multi-member repreeentative and senatorial districts

due process and equal protection of the law in the following particulars: '

A. The candidate in a multi-member district must run against,

B.

in the caee of Senatorial District 24, three other

candidates for his/her seat rather than one other senatorisl

candidate, or in the case of Representative District 29,
i

six other, candidates rather than one other representative

candidate, thereby incurring larger costs in terms of dollars,

time, organization and interest in the pursuit of public office.

The same problem is present and inereases in direct proportion

to the number of seats in a particular district.

The multi-member senatorial and representative candidate is

exposed to the hazard of the t'weightedtr vote and related

organized politicai m&neuvering that does not confront the

eandidate in a, single-member district.

The representative or 6enator of a multi-member district is

accountable to a number of constifuents far in excess of that

number to which the representative or senator of a single-

member district is accountable

c.

FIFTH CATISE OF ACTION

38.

plaintiffs, for their Fifth Cause of Action, reallege paragraphs I through

3? of their prior eauses of action as though fuIly set out herein.

39.

The General Assembly on Juty.!, 1981, ratified Senate Bill 313, Chapter

821 of the Session Laws known Bs t'An Act to Establish Senatorial Districts and

to Apportion Seats in the Senate Among Districts" codified as N.C.G.S. S120- 1.



lr

I;

ii

ii
rl

lr

il
ti
ir

il
t;

ti

ii
,i

ii

li

ll

t;
1i

ti
i,

I

ll

i;
li
rl

il

li
ri

ir

It

li

ir

ti

ti

il

ii
rl
il
lr

lt
I
lr

ti
ll

li

l!
ll

li

il
li
t;

ii

li

li
t:

rl

tl

t;

ll

ti

lr

I'

i;

I

ti
. lr

i:
rl

.l
I

lt
lt

il

-L2-

40.

The General Assembly on October 30, 1981, ratified House BiU 1428 known

aB tAn Act to Appordon The Disbicts of The North Carolina House of Representa-

tivest' codified as N.C.G.S . 5120-2.

41.

According to the 1980 decenia.l cenus taken by the United States Bureau

of the Census, the State of North Carolina has a total population of 5,874 ,429.

The North Carolina Senate has 50 seats. The North Carolina House of Representa-

tives has 120 seats. Accordingly, t'he norm or ideal population size per member

of the Senate is ll?,489, and the norm or ideal population size per member of

the House of Representatives is 48,954.

42.

The redistricting plans for the Senate and The House of Representatives is

The North Carolina General Assembly has failed to ma.]<e an honest and

good faith effort to construct Senatorial and Representative districts for the North

Carolina General Assembly as nearly of equal population as it may be, in viola-

tion of the right of Plaintiffs and nll sfhsrs similarly situated secured by the
:

f q"t.Proteetion Cleuse of the_ 14th Amendment ,. 42 U.S .C . S1983 and Article

I, Seetions 3 , 19 and 35 of the Constitution of North Carolina.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

. 44.

Plaintiffs, for their Sixth Cause of Action, reallage paragraphs 1 through

43 of their prior causea of ection as though fully set out herein.

45.

The reapportionment a-nd redistrieting of the North Carolina General

Assembly enacted and codified as N.C.G.S. 5120-1 and $L20-Z has the intent

now

and

ofw

and





lr
lr

il,.1,
t,
I

i;
t'

i,

I
It

ii
I'
tl
I

,t

,:
t:
Ii
,l

lr
l'
I

lilr

ll
ti

t:

it

l

ii
L
:

i,
l:
L.ir
Ir
t,

li
l:

t,

i
. ri

ir
rl

li
il
;l

ir

lr
,l
:l

I

Ir

I
t.
I
l;

li

I

I

';

lr

ii

t'.t
t.
lr

il

i

i

il

ll

I

ll
lr
l1

:t

ll

tl
ll

l'
ir

ii

li
.l

I
:l

It

t:
rl

:i

!i
t:
lr

It

I

II

il

-13-

purpoee and effect of diminishing the concentration of blaek voter8 and decreasing

the effectiveness of black citizens.

SEVENTH iEUST OF ACTION

46.

plaintiffs, for t}eir Seventh Cause of Action, reallege Paragraphs 1 through

45 of their prior causes of action as though fully set out herein.

47,

The reapportionment and redistricting of the North Carolina General Assembl

enacted and codified as N.C.G;S. S120-1 and 120-2 has the intent purpose and

effect of diluting the votes of black citizens in violation of 42 U.S.C. 51981 and

S1gg3, and the Equal protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amend -

ment to the United States Constitution.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that the Court:

1. Grant Plaintiffs pre[minary and permsnent injunctive relief against

Defendants from effecting or performing any of their statutory duties with

respect to the conduct of primary or general elections pursuant to the l98l

redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and the North Carolina House

of Representatives;

2. Declare that Article II, Section 3(3) and Article II, Section 5(3) of the

North Carolina Constitution are in violation of the greater rights secured by Article

I, Sections 3, 19 and 35 of the North Carolina Constihrtion; Section 5 of the Voting

Rights Act of 1965, as amended; the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of

the United States and 42 U.S .C. $1983;

3. Declare that the apportionment and redistricting of the North Carolina

Senate and North Carolina House of Representatives as enacted by the North

Carolina General Assembly in l98l violates the Equal Protection Clause of the

14th Amendment to the United States Constitution and the North Carolina Consti-

hrtion;
4. Order into effect s court devised plan for the North Carolina Senate and

I

the North Carolina House of Representatives which provides single-member district$

statewide and substantial equality of population among the distric'ts;



-14-

5 . Grant Plaintiffs their taxable costs of this action ' necesgary expengeg

of the litigation, and reasonable attorneyrs fees; and,

6. Grant plaintiffs such other and further reUef as the Court deems just

and equitable. .l-a
This the j J - daY of November, 1981'

BURKE, DONAIJ)SON, HOLSHOUSER & KENERLY

Attorneys for Plaintiffs
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144
Telephone: #?04-63?-1500

Robert N. Hunter, Jr.
Attorney for Plaintiffs
Post Offiee Box 3245

201 West Market Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

Telephone: #919-3?3-0934

North Carolina - Iredell CountY

Mason McCu1lough, being first duly 8worn, deposes and says: That he

is a Plhintiff in the above-entitled action; that he has read th€ foregoing Complsint

and knows the eontents thereof and that the sarne is true to the best of his know-

ledge, except as to those matters and things therein stated upon information and

belief , and as to those he believes them to be true '

Mason McCullough ' Affiant

Sworn to and subscribed before me

this the daY of November,
1981.

NOTARY PUBLIC

My Commission ExPires:



IN TITE UNITED STATES T STR]CT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT: )F NORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGH DIV]!JION

RALPE GINGLES, SIPPIO BURTON, FPED
BELFIELD and JOSEPH MOODYT oo
behalf of themselves and all
others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,
V.

RUFUS EDMISTEN, in his capacity
as the At,torney General of North
Carolina; JA}IES C. GREEN, Lt.
Governor of North Carolina in his
capacity as President of the North
Carolina Senate; LISTON B. RAMSEY
in his capacity as Speaker of'the
North Carolina llouse of Represen-
tatives; THE STATE BOARD OB
ELECTIONS OF NORTH CAROLINA;
R. KENNETE BABB, JOHN L. STICKLEY,
sR., RUTH SEMASHKO, SYDNEY F. C.
BARNWELL and SHIRIEY IIERRING, in
their official capacities as
menbers of the State Board of
Elections of North Carolina; and
TEAD EURE, in his capacity as
Secretary of the State of North
Carolina,

CIVIL ACTION

NO.

Defendants.

COMPLAINT

r. Introduction

1. This action is brought by four black citizens on behalf

of themselves and all other black citizens who are eligible and

registered to vote in the State of North Carolina. They bring

this action to enforce thetr right to have an effect,ive vote in-.

the election ,it Ehe North Carolina General Assembly and in the

election of the North Carolina Representatives to the United

States Congress. They seek declaratory and injunctive relief to

prevent any election from being conducted pursuant to the appor-

tionment adopted by North Carolina in 1981 because that apportion-

ment does not comply with the one person one vote requirement and

because it dilutes the vote of black citizens. In addition they

seek to prevent enforcement of the provisions of the North Carolina

Consitqtion which prohibit dividing counties in apportioning the

North Carolina General Assembly because those provisions were not



Precleared in accordance with 55 of the Voting Rights Act of

1965r ES amended, and because the provisions have the intent and

effect of diluting the vote of black citizens.
In 1981, the North Carolina General Assembly created the

representative districts which wiLl be used for the next t,en

years. These districts lrere drawn in order to dilute and with
the effect of diluting the vote of black citizens. In addition,
the total deviation between the population of the largest Senate

District and the population of the smallest Senate District is
over 22 percent; the total deviation between the population of

the largest House District and the population of the smallest
Ilouse District is over 23 percent.

Thus plaintiffs Gingles and other class members are under-

reprexented in the North Carolina House of Representatives, and

plaintiff Burton and other class members are underrepresented in
the North Carolina Senate.

The 1981 apportionment rdas enacted pursuant to provisions

of the Constitution of the State of Morth Carolina which prohibit
dividing any county in creating the legislative districts for the

North Carolina llouse of Representat,ives and the North Carollna

Senate. These provisions, which were adopted in 1967, have never

been submitted to the Department of Justice or to the United

States District Court for the District of Colunbia pursuant to S5

of the voting Rights Act of 19651 6s amended. The effect of the

provision is to prevent, the creation of single member representa-

tive d'i=t=i.t" and'of representative districts with substantial

Percentages or majorities of black registered voters. lhe purpose

and effect of the provisions is to diminish the voting effectiveness

of plaintiffs and of other black voters who are members of the

c1ass.

Finally, in 1981, the North Carolina General Assembly enacted

a.p1an of districts for the United States Congress. This plan

has the purpose and effect of diluting the vote of black citizens
and avoiding the concentration of registered black voters.

-2-



This action is brought pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of

1955r ES amended (hereafter nthe Voting Rights Act"), 42 U.S.C.

SI973 et seq, and under 42 U.S.C. SS1981 and 1983, pursuant to

the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States

Constitution, in order t,o prevent defendants from holding elec-

tions for the North Carolina llouse of Representatives, the North

Carolina Senate, and the United States Congress pursuant to an

apport,ionmenL which denies black citizens effective representation

because of their race and pursuant to an apportionment which

underrepresents them.

II. Jurisdiction
2. The Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. SS1331

and 1343 and 42 U.S.C. S1973c. This is an action arising under

the statutes and Constitution of the United States and an action

to enforce statutes and constitutional provisions which protect

civil rights including the right to vote.

. 3. Plaintiffsr claims under 55 of the Voting Rights Act of

1955r ES amended, and under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments

to the United States Constitution must be determined by a three

judge court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 52284(a) and 42 U.S.C. S1973c.

4. Plaintiffs seek declaratory and other appropriate

relief pursuant to the DecLaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. SS2201

and 2202.

III. Parties

5. Plaintiff Ralph Gingles (hereafter nGinglesn) is an

adult, black citizen of the United States who resides in Gaston

County, Nort-h Carolina. Gingles is properly registered to vote

in elections of the North Carolina Eouse of Representatives and

Senate.

6. Plaintiff Sippio Burton (hereaf,ter nBurtontr) is an adult

black citizen of the United States who resides in Cumberland

County, North Carolina. Burton is properly registered t,o vot,e in

elections of the North Carolina House of Representatives and

Senate.

7. Plaintiff Fred BeLfield (hereafter "Belfieldn) is an

adult black citizen of the United States who resides in Nash

-3-



county, North carorina. Belfield is properly registered to vote

in elections of the North Carolina llouse of Representatives, the

North Carolina Senate, and the United St,ates Congress.

8. Plaintiff Joseph Moody (hereafter "Moodytr) is an adult
black citizen of the United Stat,es who resides in HaLifax County,

North Carolina. lloody is properly registered to vote in elections
of the North Carolina llouse of Representatives, the North Carolina

Senate, and the United States Congress.

g. Defendant Rufus Edrnisten is an aduLt resident of the

State of North Carolina. lle is sued in his official capacity as

Attorney General of the State of North Carolina on behalf of the

state of North carolina. rn his capacity as Attorney General, it
is his duty to represent the St,ate in all civil actions in which

the State is interested.

10. Defendant James C. Green is an adult resident of North

carolina. IIe is sued in his official capacity as Lieutenant

Governor of North Carolina and as President of the North Carolina

Senate.

11. Defendant Liston

North Carolina. EIe is sued

of the North Carolina Eouse

Ramsey is an adult resident of

his official capacit,y as Speaker

Representatives.

B.

in

of

L2. Defendant Thad Eure is an adult resident of North

carolina. EIe is sued in his official capacity as secretary ot
State of North Carolina. In that capacity it is his duty to
certify the results of all North Carolina elections to the United

States Congress and all elections to the North Carolina Senate
1

and House of Repreientatives from multi-county districts.
13. Defendant State Board of Elections of North Carolina

(hereafter "the Board of Elections") is responsible for supervis-

ing and conducting prlmary and general electlons in the State of
North carolina. rt has the authority to cont,ror the conduct of
primaries and general elections. rt is e.1so responsible for
computing the results of multi-county elections.

14, Defendant R. Kenneth Babb is a resident of North ,

Carolina and a member of the Board of Elections and is its
Chairman.

-4-



15. Defendant John L. Stickley; Sr.; Ruth Semashko, Sydney

F. C. Barnwell and Shirley ilerring are residents of North Carolina

and members of the Board of Elections.

15. As members of the State Board of Elections, defendants

are authorized to exercise the powers and duties of the State

Board of Elections.

IV. Class Action

L7. Plaintiffs bring this action as representatives of the

class of all black residents of the State of North Carolina who

are eligible to and registered to vote.

- 18. The elass is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable.

19. The question of the legal:.ty and constitutionality of
provisions of the North Carolina Constitution and the apportion-

ment of the North Carolina General Assembly and Congressional

Districts which are at issue raise questions of law and fact
conmon to the class.

20. The claims of the representative parties are

the claims of the other class members.

typical of

2L. The representative parties have a personal stake in
this controversy and have retained competent and experienced

counsel to represent them. They will fairly and adequately

protect the interest of the class.

22. The prosecut,ion of separate actions by individual
members of the class would create a risk of inconsistent or

varying adjudications which would establish incompatible stan-

dards of conduct for defendants. The State of North Carolina can

have only one plan to apportion the representative districts of

its legislature and congressional districts. Inconsistent adjudi-
cation of the legality of the current apportionment or of the

requirements of a future apportionment would establish incom-

patible standards of conduct for defendants.

23. Since North Carolina conducts elections in accordance

with only one apportionment and in accordance with the North

Carolina Constitution, defendants have acted and refused to act

-5-



on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making

appropriate final injunctive reLief and corresponding declaratory
relief with respect to the class as a whole.

V. COUNT ONE: NORTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS
eONeffiTNc AppoRTToNMENT cE THE NoRTH cARoLTNA GENERAL
ASSEllBLY.

24. The North Carolina General Assembly consists of the

Senate and the House of Representatives.

25. In 1967, North Carolina amended its constj.tutj.on to
change the manner of apportionment of the General Assernbly.

26. Article fI, S4(3), was adopted and provides that no

c9unty shall be divided in the formation of a Senate district.
27. The 1969 revision of the North Carolina Constitution

retained this provision but renumbered it to become Article II,
s3(3).

28. Prior to 1967 the North Carolina permitted the General

Assembly to divide a county in forming of a senate district if
that county was entitled to two or more Senators; since 1967 the

North Carolina Const,itution has prohibited the General Assembly

from dividing a county in forming a Senate district.
29. In L967 r the North Carolina Constitution was amended by

adopting Article II 55(3) which provides that no county sha1l be

divided in the formation of a representative district.
30. The 1969 revision of the North Carolina Constitution

retained this provision but renumbered it t,o become Article II,
S5(3). 

,,

31. Prior to L967, the North Carolina Constitution provided

that most representative districts were to be'singre member

districts.
32. Forty of North Carolinars counties are subject to 55 of

the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. S1973c.

33. ELections in each of these forty counties were affected
by the 1967 amendments to the North..carolina constitution.

34. The named plaintiffs reside in four of the counties

which are covered by 55 of the Voting Right,s Act of 19G5r as

amended.

-5-



35. North Carolina did not submit the 1957 amendments to
the North CaroLina Constitution to the Attorney General of the

United States for approval pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S1973c, nor did
North carolina obtain a declaratory judgment from the united
states District court for the District of corumbia that the
Constitutional Amendments do not have the purpose and will not
have the effect of denying or abridging the right, to vot,e o-n

account of race or color.
36. The purpose and effect of the ];967 amendments to the

North carolina constitutionr ds described in paragraphs 25 and

2: above, is to dilute the voting strength of black citizens and

to deny them the effective utilization of the right to vote on

account of their race.

37. rn 1981, North carolina enacted a reapportionment of
its General Assembly.

38. According to the united states census for lggor the

population of Gaston county, North carolina, in which plaintiff
Gingles resides, is 162,568.

39. tf the North Carolina Constitution did not forbid divid-
ing counties in creating representative districts, Gaston County

could be divided into three representative districts.
40. According to the united states census for r9go, the

population of Cumberland County, North Carolina, in which plaintiff
Burton resides, is- 247 1150.

41. If the North Carolina Constitution did not prohibit divid-
ing senatorial districts, Cumberland County could be divided into
at least two senaiorial districts.

42. fn each instance, dividing the county would concentrate

the vote of black citizens and enhdnce the effectiveness of the

vote of bl.ack citizens.
43. The 1981 apportionment of the Generar Assembly obeys

the North Carolina Constitutional prohibition against dividing
counties and, therefore, has the effect of diluting the vote of
black citizens.

44. The Board of Elections will supervise and conduct elec-
tions for the North Carolina General Assembly in even numbered



years from 1982-1990 in accordance with an

pursuant to Article II, SS3(3) and 5(3) of

Constitution unless the Court orders them

apportionment adopted

the North Carolina

not to do so.

A. First Claim for Relief
' 45. Plaintiffs' first claim for relief is brought pursuant

to 55 of voting Rights Act of 1965r rs amended, 42 u.s.c. S1973c.

45. Defendant,s continue to enact apportionment plans and to

conduct and supervise elections for the North Carolina llouse of
Representatives and the North Carolina Senate in accordance with
Article fI, SS3(3) and 5(3) of the North Carolina Constitution.
iiis practice violates 55 of the voting Rights Act since North

Carolina did not submit these provisions either to the Attorney

General of the United States or to the United States Distrlct
Court for the District of Columbia for approval in accordance

with 42 U.S.C. 1973c.

B. Second Claim for Relief

47. Plaintiffsr second claim for relief is brought pursuant

to 52 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 51973.

48. The provisions of the North Carolina Constitution which

prohibit dividing counties in the establishment of representative

and senatorial districts were adopted with the purpose of prevent-

ing a substantial number or majority of black voters from conpris-
ing a representative or senatorial district and with the purpose

of preventing black citizens from effectively exercising their
right to vote on account of race or color. I

49. The effect of these provisions of the North Carolina

constitution is to dilute the vote of black citizens and, thus,

to deny and abridge their right to vote on account of race or

co1or.

C. Thlrd Claim for Rellef
50. Plaintiffst third claim is brought pursuant to 42

u.S.C. 51983 to enforce the equal protection clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment t,o the United States

Constitution and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. S1981.

-8-



51. The provisions of the North Carolina Constitution
which prohibit dividing counties in the establishment of rep,resen-

tative and senatorial districts were adopted with the purpose of

Prevent,ing a substantial number or a majority of black voters

from comprising a representative or senatorial district and with
the PurPose of preventing black citizens from effectively exercis-
ing their right to vote on account of race or coIor.

52. The effect of these provisions of the North Carolina
Constitution is to dilute the vote of black citizens and, thus,
to deny and abridge their right to vote on account of race and

color

IV. COUNT TWO : MALAPPORTfONMENT OF THE NORTH CAROLINA
ffisEMBLy

53. fn 1981, North Carolina enacted a reapportionment of
the North Carolina General Assembly.

54. A true and accurate copy of Chapter 800 of the Session

Laws of 1981 which establishes representative districts for the

North Carolj.na llouse of Representatives is attached as Exhibit A

to this Complaint.

55. A true and accurate copy of Chapter 821 of th Session

Laws of 198I which establishes senatorial districts and apportions

the seats of the North Carolina Senate is attached as Exhibit B

to this Complaint.

56 r The 1981 apportionment of the General Assembly does not

have Representative or Senate districts with a reasonably equal

number of citizens per Representative or Senator.

57 . The average population per member, fo.T the North

Carolina llouse of nlpresentatives is 48tg54.

58. The plan which the North Carolina General Assembly

enacted has districts which range from a population .of 55,285 in
llarifax county to a population of 43,724 per member in the three

member district composed of B1aden, Columbus and Sampson Counties.

59. This deviation of population from the average popula-

tion per member results in a overall range of deviation of 23.6

perc'ent.

-9-



50. Plaintiff Gingles, plaintiff t'loody, and the other
class members are underrepresented in the North Carolina House of
Representatives

61. The average population per member of the North Carolina
Senate is L!7 ,489.

62. Under the plan adopted by North Carolina, Senate

Districts range from a population of 1321374 per senator in the

senate district composed'of Harnett, Lee and wake counties to
105,718 in the Senate district, which consists of Guilford County.

63. This deviation of population from the average popula-

tlon per Senator results in a overall range of deviation of 22.'l
percent.

64. Plaintiff Burton and the other class members are

underrepresented in the North Carolina Senate.

55. At the time when the apportionment of the North Carolina
General Asembly was adopted, the members of the General Assembly

knew the extent of the deviation of population sizes from the

average population Per district, and they enacted the apportionment ,

disregarding this deviation.
A. Fourth Claim for Relief
65. Praintiffst fourth claim is brought pursuant to 42

u.s.c. s1983 to enforce the equal protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment to the united states constitution.
67 - The apportionment of the North carolina llouse cf

Representatives and the North Carolina Senate as described in
paragraphs 53 through 55 above results in plaintiffs r being

underrepresented, does not comply with the 'one person--one vote"
requirement for legislative apportionment, and denies plaintiffs
their right to equal protect,ion under the Fourteenth Amendment to
the United States Constitution.

VII. COUNT TIIREE: DILUTION OF BLACK VOTE IN NORTH
emEEffiffinERAL ASsEMBLy

58. lhe apportionment of the North carolina General

Assembly enacted in Chapters 800 and 821 of the Session Laws of
1981 has the purpose and effect of dininishing the concentration

-10-



of black voters and decreasing the effectiveness of the vote of
black citizens.

" A. Fifth Clain for Re1ief

69. Plaintiffs' fifth claim is brought pursuant to s2 and

55 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965r ds amended, 42 U.S.C. SS19Z3

and 1973c.

70. The int,ent and ef fect of the apportionment of the North

Carolina General Assembly which North Carolina adopted in 1981 is
to dilute the vote of black citizens and to deny plaintiffs their
right to use their vote effectively.
'' B. Sixth Claim for Relief

7L. Plaintiffs' sixth claim is brought pursuant to 42

U.S.C. 51983 to enforce the equal protection clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment to Ehe United

Stat,es Constitrition and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 51981.

72. The intent and effect of the apportionment of the

North Carolina General Assembly which North Carolina adopted in
1981 is to dilute the vote of black citizens and to deny black

citizens the right to use their vote effectively.
VIII. COUNT FOUR: APPORTIONMENT OF UNITED STATES6ffi1onal DrsrRrcrs

73. In 1981 North Carolina enacted a reapportionment, of its
representative districts for the United St,ates Congress.

74. A true a?d accurat,e copy of Chapter 894 of the North

Carolina Session Laws of 1981, which establishes representative
districts for the united states congress, is attached to this
Complaint as Exhibit C.

75. Plaintiffs Belfield and Moody are eligible to vote and

are registered to vote in the second congressional District.
76. North Carolina excluded Durham County from the Second

Congressional Dtstrict for the punpose of and wlth the effect of
preventing the black citizens of the Second Congressional

District from effectively exercising their right to vote.

A. Seventh Claim for Relief
77 . Plaintiffs' seventh claim for relief is brought pursuant

to s2 and s5 of the voting Rights Act of 1965r ds amended, 42

-11-



U.S.C. SS1973 and 1973c.

78. North Carolinars apportionment of its representative

districts for the united states congress has the purpose and

effect of diluting the vote of black citizens and of denying

black citizens .the right to use their vote effectively.
B. Eight Claim for Relief
79. Plaintiffs' claim for relief is brought pursuant to 42

U.s.i. 51983 to enforce the equal protection clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment and the Fifteenth Amendment t,o the United States
ConstiEution and pursuant Eo 42 U.S.C. 51981

. North Carolinars apportionment of its represent,ative

districts for the united states congress has the purpose and

effect of diluting th." vote of black citizens and of denying

black citizens the right to use their vote effectively.
V. Equitable Relief

81. In 1971 the North Carolina General Assembly was appor-

tioned in accordance with the provisions of the North Carolina

Constitution.

82. In L972, 1974, !976, 1978 and 1980, defendants con-

ducted elections pursuant, to the L972 apportj.onment plan.

83. Unless the Court orders defendants otherwise, in 1982

defendants will supervise and conduct elections for the North

Carolina Senate, the North Carolina House of Representatives, and

the united stat,es congress pursuant to chapters 800, B2L and 894

of the North Carolina Session of 1981.

84. Plaintiffs have no remedy at Iaw which is an, adequate

redress for being deprived of their right to vote and for being

rePresented by a legislature that is illegally and unconstitu-
tionally constituted.

VI. Prayer for Relief
WHEREFORE plaintiffs pray that the Court:

1. Convene a three judge court in accordance with the

provisions of 28 U.S.C; 52284i

2. Certify this action to be a class action;

3. Declare that Article II, S3(3) and S5(3) of the North

Carolina Constitution are in violation of S5 of the Voting Rights

-1 )-



Act of 1965r &s amended, and enjoin defendants from enacting any

legislation and from conducting, supervisirg, participating in,
or certifying the results of any election pursuant to an apportion-
ment which was enacted in accordance with these constitutional
provisions until and unless these constitutional provisions have

been submitted and approved in accordance with 42 U.S.C. S1973c;

4. Declare Article II, 53 ( 3 ) and 55 ( 3 ) of the Constit,ution

of North Carolina to be in violation of 52 of the voting Rights

Act of 1965r ES amended, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amend-

ments of the United States Constitution and enjoin defendants

from enacting any apportionment of the North Carolina General

Assembly in accordance with these provisions and from conducting,

participating in, supervising or certifying the results of any

election for the North Carolina Senate or the North Carolina

Ilouse of Representatives pursuant to any apportionment enacted in
accordance with these constitutional provisions;

5. Declare that apportionment of the North Carolina Senate

and North Carolina llouse of Representatives as enacted in Chapters

800 and 821 of the North Carolina Session Laws of 1981 violates
the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the

united States Constitution because the apportionment does not

have representation districts which are equal in size and enjoin
defendants from participating in, supervisingr cooducti.ngr oE

certifying the results of any election pursuant to this apportion-

mbnt and from enacting any apportionment in the future which has
ii

representa_t,ion districts which are not equal in size;
6. Declare that the apportionment of the North Carolina

Senate and the North Carolina llouse of Representatives as enacted

in Chapters 800 and 821 of the North Carolina Session Laws of

1981 dilutes the vote of black citizens and denies plaintiffs and

other class members the right to use their vote effectively
because of their race in violation of 52 and 55 of the Voting

Rights Act of 1965r ds amended, in violation of the Fourteenth

and Fifteenth Amendments t,o the United States Constitution, and

in violation of 42 U.S.C. S19S1 and enjoin defendants from

-13-



participating in, supervising, conducting or certifying the

results of any election pursuant to this apportionment and from

enacting any apportionment in the future which has the purpose or
effect of diluting the vote of black citizens because of their
race i

7. Declare that the apportionment of the representative
districts for the United States Congress as enacted in Chapter

894 of the Session taws of 1981 denies plaintiffs and other class
members who reside in the Second Congressional District their
right to use their vote effectivery in vioration of 52 and s5 of
vgting Rights Act of 1955r ds amended, in violation of the
Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the united states
constitution, and in violation of 42 u.s.c. 1991, and enjoin
defendants from participating in, supervising, conducting, or
certifying the resurts of any election pursuant to this appor-

tionment and from enacting a plan of apportionment of united
States Congressional Districts in the future which has the purpose

or effect of diluting the vote of black citizens because of their
race;

. Award the costs of this action, including reasonabre

attorneysr fees, to plaintiffs; and

9. Grant plaintiffs such other and further relief as may

be just and appropriate.

rhis /6 a^v ot 1",k 
y"-\,e+ , 1e81.

LEVONN ERS
ambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wal1as,
Adkins s Fu1ler, P.A.

951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 2.8202
7 04/37 s-8 461

JACK GREENBERG
JAl,tES t{. NABRIT, III
NAPOLEON B. WILLTA!,!S, JR.
10 Colunbus Circle
New York, DIew York 10019
2t2/586-8397

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

-14-



GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NONTH CAR.0LINA

SESSION 1981

RATIFIED BILL\-,

CEAPTEE 8OO

EOgsE BIL1 tt15

AN ACl IO APPOBTIOX IIIS DISIEICTS Or TEE UORTB CIEOLIUA IIOUSE:OP

R EPBESEIITITI VES.

Tbe Geueral Assenbly of xorth caroriaa eDacts
. Sectioa 1. G.S. 120-2 is reuritten to reacl: ) ;

ttl 120-2. House apportiouneut specifi.ed.--por the purpoSe of
Doninatiog aod electing nenbers of the Uorth Caroliua Eouse of
RePreseltatives iu 1982 aucl every tro yeats thereafter, the State
of North caroli.oa shall. be rlivided into forty-four dtistricts as

fol].o cs:
\-/

District 1 shal1 cousist of Caaclen, Chorau, Currituck, Dare,

Pasquotank, PerquiEaus, IyrrelJ., aacl [ashingtou. Couuties, aurl

shail elect tro Bepreseatatives.

District 2 shall consist of Beaufort ancl Ejrde couaties, and t

shall elect one BepreseBtative.

District 3 shall cousist of Cravea, .rones, Leuoir, aacl paulico
counties, aacl shall elect three gepreseatatives.

Dj-strict tl shalt coasj.st of Carteret aocl onslor Couaties, ancl
. sball elect three gepreseotatiyes.
'. District 5 shall cousist of Bertie, Gates, .Hertforcl, ltartj.a,
' and Horthaapton Couuties, alld shall elect tro Represeotatives.

District 6 shall cousist of EaU.far County, aacl shalJ' el6ct one

v Represeotative.

EICIIBIT A--5 pages



Distrj.ct 7 shata 
t .oo"j-st of Edgecoobe, Nas- , and Filsou

,

Counties, and shall elect four Bepresentatives

District 8 suall consist of Greene aad Pitt Countiesi and shall \-/

District 9 shaII consist of Iayne Couoty, antl shall elect,tro

Rep reseot atives .

District 1O shall consist'' of '. Robesoo Couuty r.', ancl shall elect

tro BepfeseOtatives. :-i: : '":'i'' ; ' 'iri: - ' -'r;

Distrj-ct 1 1 sball cousist of Brunsrick, Duplin, and Peuder

Countj.es, and shall elect tro Eepreseutatives- : r.

District 12 shall consist of Neu Baaover County, and shall

elect tvo Representatives l

District 13 .sirall cousist 'of CasvelJ., 'GEaoYiIle, Person, YaBce,
:-

and llarrea Countiesr. ancl sball elect three'Bepreseutatives
i
District 14 shall cousist of'Frank1in 'and Johsston Counties ,

anti shall elect tro BePresetrtatives \i

District 15 stliU consist of Pake County, aud sball elect six

Representatives::".--....'.'.':i.'.,
District 16 sha1l cousist of Durhan County, aod shall elect

three Bepreseotatives.

Distiict 1-7 shall cousist of Chathao anct Orange Counties, and

shall elect tt o BePreseotatives.

District 18 sha1l coosist of Haruett and Lee Couaties, and

shall elect tuo BePresentatives.

District 19 sh all coosist' of Blatteu, Coluutbus, and Sanpson

Couuties, ancl sball .elect three Bepreseutatives.

Eouse Bill 415



Ilistrict 20 shall consist of Cuoberlatrd CouDty, aud shall elect

fj.ve Representatives.

\/ Oistrict 21 shall coosist of Eoke'aacl Scotland Couuties, aucl

shaII eLect otre Represeotative

District 22 shall'consist of Alauaace ancl Bockinghau Couutles, 
i

aod sirall elect four Bepreseatatives.

District 23 siraIL coosist of Guilforcl Couuty, aud sbalf elect
seven Bepresentati ves.

District 24 sha1l cousist of Randolph Couuty, and sha1l elect,

District 25 sha11 cousist of Uoore'County, anil shalJ. elect oDe

Rep:eseotative. , '
. .ii- i"

District 26 shaIl cousist of Ausoo auit lloutgooery Couuties, and' .

shall elect one Represeutative. .: ;

District 27 sball consist of RicL,uoad Couaty, and,. shall elect 
:

\/
one Represeotative '

:

District 2A shall coosist of Alleghauy, Ashe, Stokes, Surry,

and llatauga Couaties, aocl shall elect three Bepreseotatives.,

District 29 shall consj.st of forsyttr Couuty, and shall elect

five Representatives.
' District 30 sbal-l consist of Daviclson aucl Davie Couaties, and

shall elect tb,ree Represeatatives..

District 31 shall coasiJt of Rorau County, aoil shal1 elect tro '

epreseotatives

District 32 shall gousist of Staaly County, aad sball elect oDe
:

: Representative. i

llouse BiIl 415



- Dj.strict 33 shalL ct,-sist of Cabarrus-asd Uoion -ouaties, aqd

shali elect three Bepreseatatives.

Drstrict 34 shall cousist of ' CalitueLl, Bill<es, and Iadkin \J
couoties, aod shaII elect three Represeutatives.

Uistrj.ct 35 shatl coosist of ,A.f,erarder ancl lredelJ- Couuties,

ancl sha1l elect tro R.epEeseD.tatives.

Drstrj.qt 36 shal]. coasist 'of lleckleaburg County, aud shall

elect oioe Bepresentatives.

District 37 sbalJ. coasist of Catarba'Cbunty, aucl sha1l elect.

District 38 shal.]. consist of Gastoo and, Liacola Counti.es, and

sball elect four Represeutatives. ' ;.

District 39 shall consist of Avery, Burke, and litchell
Counties, and. shall elect tro Represeutatives.'

District ItO shall. consist of Clevelaod, Polk, and Rutherford. -

Counties, and, shall elect three Bepresentatives. -, !
District q1 sbaIl coasist of EcDorell'aucl lancey Couuties, aod

shal-L elect one Bepreseatative

District 42 shal]. consist' of Buucombe, Heaclersou, aad

Transylvania Countiqs, aucl slatt elect five Representatives.

Distri,ct 43 sbal.l consist of Hayuood, Jacksou, Eadison, and

Suain couoties, and shal1 elect tuo RepieseatatiYes.
.

Dj.strict 44 sha].l cousist of Cherokee, CIay, Grahau, ancl |tacon

Countj.es, and sha1I elect one.:Eepreseutatiye. rr

rl

:

Eouse Bill 415



this the

Sec.2.
In the

3rd day

tbis,act is effective'
Geneial tsseubly Eead

of JuIy, 1981.

qpoa ' ratlficatiou.
tbree tiues aacl:ratified,

JAMES C. GREEN

Jases C. Greeu

Presidleat of the SeBate

E.

USTON B. RAMSEY

li.ston B.

Speaker of

t'

Baosey

tLe Eouse of Bepresentatives

House Bill tl15



GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

SESSION 1981

RATIFIED BILL

CEAPTEE 821

AN ACT TO ESTABLISE SEUATOBTAL DISTBICTS AXD TO APPOSIIOH SEATS

III TgE SEUATE AUOITG DISTS]CTS.

the General Asseobly of Xorth Carolina eoacts:

Sectioa 1. G. S. 120-1 is bereby cleleted, aocl

folloriag iaserteil ia lieq thereof :

tt I 120- 1. Senators. --For the purpose of noninatj.ag aad
- ,"..;; senate in '1ga2 aucr everr tso yearselecting nenb

thereafter, seuatorial tlistricts are estabiisheil aad seats iu the

sesate are apportiouecl aooug those districts as folrors:' :
District 1 shalr cousist of Beaufort, Bertie, caadlen, chorau,

currituck, Dare, Gates, Eertforrl, Eyde, forthaapton, pasquotauk,

Perquioans, Tyrrell, aocl lasbingtou Counties ancl shall elect tro
Seoators

District 2 shall consist of Carteret, 'Craveu, andl paalico

Couaties aqd shall elect oae Seaator.

District 3 shall coasist of Oaslor County asdl shall elect oue

Seoator.

Distri.ct 4 shall coasist of feu Eagoye! and pencler Cousties and

shalI elect one Seaator.

District 5 shall coasist qf Dupliar'ioaes, ancl trenoir Couuties

and shall elect oae SeaatoE. ;

District 6 shalt coasist of lld,gecoabe'aadl ialifar couuties aacl

shall elect oae SenatoE.

tbe

E)GIIBIT B--4 pages



-\
''Distri.ct 7 shall Coosrst of Eartis atd, Pitt Coqur.res aad shall

elect one SetratoE.

District 8 shall cousist o.f, Franl<Ij-ur. xash, YaDce, Ilarreo, and \J', ,. : .

lli-tson Couuties aacl shalJ. e].ect,$ro ,seuators.

District 9 shall coosist of Greene aod llayne Couaties aDd sha1l

District 10 shaLL cossi-st of,'Johnstoa ancl Saapson Couuties aad

shall elect oDe Senator.

District 11 shall coasist of Cauberlatrdl Courty aucl sbal-l 'elect

tro S€uators -- -.

Distrj.ct '12 shalJ. coasist'of Bladea, Brunsrick, aud. Coluubus

Cousties an<l shal]. elect one Seoator.

District 13 shaIJ. coasist of Eoke and Bobesou Couuties..and
a!

shall elect otre SeDator.

District 14 sha1l coasj.st of Durhau., Graaville, ancl Person i.:
\JCounties aucl shall elect tro Senators.

District 15 sball consist of Baruett, Lee and Hake Couuties and

j'shall elect three Seaators. 
\

. Distri.ct 16 shaLl coasist of ;Alleghauy, Ashe, Surry audl ilatauga

Counties ancl sball elect oue Seoator. :

District 17 shall consist "of Eockiaghar and Stokes Counties au<[
l'r

sball elect oue SeDator. , .

. District 18 shall . coosist of .cbatbau, uoore, oraage, aod

Ranrlolph Couuties and shalJ. eJ.ect tro SeoatoEs. ,

,.
District 19 shalJ. coasist of, Aasonr' [oatgoaeEy, Ricbuoad,

scotlaad, Stauly, aad thj.on couaties aad i shall elect tyo

Seoators. . i i

ii \J.:i
: I 

serate Bill 313



District 20 shall coailst of Alaoauce and Casrell Couuties aacl

shall eLect one SeoatoE.

\--l District 21 shall coosist of Forsyth County aucl sha1l elect tro
. SeDators.

District 22 shal1 coosist of Guilforcl Couoty anil shall Elect
three Seaators

District 23 sba11 cousist of Davidsoo, Davie, and, RoHaE

Counties auil shaLl elect tro SeDators.

District 24 shalI cousist of Cabarrus and Ueckleaburg couaties
and, sha1l elect four Seaa-tors.

District 25 shall cousist of Ale:auder, Catarba, rreciell, aurl

. radkin counties aad shall erect tro seuators
D-istrict 26 shall cousist of Avery, Burke, calclrell, ttj.tchell ,

and Filkes couoti.es aacl shall elect tro se[ators.
District 27 sha11 coasiit of Clevelaad, Gaston, Lincola, aad\./

Rutherford counties and sharl erect three senators.
District 28 shall cousist of Buncoobe, [aclison, ItcDouell, and

rancey couaties aod shalr erect tro Senators.

District 29 shaIL consist of Cherokee, Clay, Grahau, Eayroocl,

Henderson, Jacksou, Eaco[, PoIk, Srain, ancl Transylvaqia Countj.es
and shall elect tro Seoators.rr

3
SeDate 8i11 313



r;: --: -i.;

JAMES C. GREEN ,

LISTOI! B. RAMSEY

Llstd:' 8.' ..8ansey

Spcal,er'of the Eouse of Bepreseatatives

:', r'. l.rr'..j*ti..',-, .^.i...

I

I

t

,Seqate BiIl 313

//
4



GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA

SESSION 1981

RATIFIED BILL

CEIPTER 894

SETATB BII,I 87

AI{ ACT TO DTVIDE }IORIE CTROLI}II IXTO EI.EYEX COITGBESSIOXTtr

DIS TRICTS.

.TheGeoeraI.Lsseub1Ioft{ortbCaro1inaeuacts:
Section t. G.S. 163-261 is rerrittea to read,:

ns 163-201. Qouqressiooal districts specified.--(a) For tbe

PurP-ose of noniaatiag ancl electiug neabers of the Eouse . of
Eepresentatives of the Coogress of the Uaited States in 1982 lud

everl' tuo yeaEs tbereafter, the'State of ttort'h Carolisa shal1 be

divided iuto 11 ctistricts as follors:
FIIiSt DISIRICT: Eeaufort, Bertie, Caudlen, Carteret, Ch6uan,

aveo, Currituck, Dare, Gates.r 
- Greeoe, Eertf ortt, Eycle, Leooir,

EattiD, Northatrpton, Panlico, pasquotank, perquisaus, pitt,
TyrrelJ., aacl Iashiagtou Counties.

SECOND DISTRICT: AJ.arauce, Casrell, 'Chathao, Eilgecoube,

Frauklin, Graaville, BaJ.i faz, Xashr person, vancer. IaEEeo, aad

Ii.lson Counties.

THiBD DIStRIcf : Blaclen, Dup1ia, Earaett, .IohustoD, ilo[es, Lee,

0uslor, Pender, SilEpsonr aBd layue Couaties.
t

PO0BfH DISTBICT: Durhau, Oraage, atcl lake Couuti.es.

. FrFTH Drsr8rcr: aleraailerr Arleghaay, Asbe, Forsrth,
Bockioghan, Stokes, Surry., aail Eitrkes Couatj.es.

- SIXTE DIstBIct: laviclson, euilford, aud Bandolph Couatles; ancl

' ooly the folloring tornships of loore Couaty: Tovuship 1

E)CIIBIT C--3 pages

7__



\
(L)arthage) , T.orasbip, J (sbef,fierd,s) , toruship q (Bitters) ,.\
Tornsbip 5 (Deep Eiver) r and totuship 6 (Greearood).

SEVET{'jH DLSIgI CI:. -Bruas*ick, Coluabus, Cuoberlaod, ller
Hauovec, aad Bobeson Couaties- : :l 

_ _

' EIGHTH. DIsTBIcT :. ABso[ r. ca,barrus, Davie, Eoke, ilontgooeEy,
Ri-chooud,, RoraD, scotlaucl, stanlyr- [IDiou, ancl. radkin couaties;
aad all toraships of loore couatl erceptl rounsbip 1 (carthage),
tornship 3 (sheffierds),r, Toruship q (nittersl , Tornsbip 5t (Deep
&iver) , touuship 5 (Greearood) ..

NrilTIt, DrstRrcr: rredell, Lincohr..aad. Eecklenburg cougties.
rENtfl DrstRicr: ayery., Burker. _ca1dre1l, catauba, clevelalcl,

Gastonr. and latauga Couaties..

EtEvElrE DrstRrcr: gon;oit"r, crerokee, c1ay, Grahao, Hayrood,,
Hendeisoa, racksonr lacon,';;;;=";:t1";.r;;' rr..o"rr, pork,.
Rutherford,Srain,TraasyIYaaia*and1YauceyCouaties.

(b) the Bane aacl boundaries of toroships specified io this
sectioo. are as they yere le.galr.y defiaed aucl io .effect. as of

1980 g.S. Census.rl

Seaate Bi].l A7
2



i;.

a*

sec- .2- this act is effective upou ratificatiou.
rn tbe ceoesal asseably reacl three tioes aud ratified,

this the 9th d,ay of JuIy, 1991.

JAMES C. GREEN

Presitleot of the Seuate

LISTOT{ B. RAMSEY

Listoa B. Bansey

Speaker of the Eouse'of Bepreseatatives

I

JSenate Bi.II 87