Motion to Dismiss or Affirm

    fil
. -tllsl

J

-l

0l,l sl I(,N5 PRI :;t Nlt l)

I. Irt t.his aetion brouqht rrrrder Seetiorl 7

of the Votinq Ritlhts Act, the Disl ricl

Crrrlrt fotrnd a!i a mal.ter oI far-'t' t.hal , ttnder

the total il y of relevarrl rirr''tlmslarlt'es itr

Nrrrth Carolirra, the use oI tlre chatlentlr:tl

ler;islal ive dislriclr; resrrlts ilr hlar:k

'vrrlets in thrrr;e rl istricts lravirrt'; ltrs:i

r)l)porltrnity ilralr tJo rtlller memlrt:rt; rrl' llrn

'electttrale lo Jrarl icipale in the polil ir:al

proees'9 arld trl elect represrlrrl at ives uf

t.he i r cho Iee.

l{ere ttrese f indings of fact clearly

errorreolts untler Rule 5Z(a)?

II. [)oerr arlrnirrislral ive ;rreclearatl(le of 't

lerlislat ive rlislrit:t rltld+rr Strel iorr 5 rtf tlro

Vnl int; lliglrl s Acl ahsrtltll ely har pp ival rr



r)

Rlghts Aet, ln the face of eleei etetutory

Ienguege to the eontrerY?

CrrJ

part

thet

tt

les fror tlttgetlng the legellty of

d ist rlet under Sect lon 2 of 'thc Yot lnq

- ttr

IABLE OF COTITENI S

-

ilo[I0r{ Io DISHISS 0n ArrIR}l

Paqe

I

I. TIIE DISIRICT COURIIS DfTTRHI,'IATIO,I,
tHA I llOR IH CAflOL ll{l 'S GtttlERlt
ASSTIIOLY DISTRICIS YIOTAIE $ Z OT IHt
rOI TilG N IG}IIs AC T 15 ITASED OT{ THT
COfiRfC, SIA,.IDARD A}ID IS ITIOT CI.f ARIY
f flRot{toils

lhe Dletrlct 0ourt Applted tlre
Correet Standetd in Deterninlng
Ihct the Electlon Dletrlcts ln
Suestlon Heve s Dloerlrlnatory

Ihe Oi et r lct Cour t 'R Ul t lnote and
Subeldiery Fintllnge Are llot
Clearly frroneoue ...

l. Ihe Court lleighed the Per-
tieulnr Clreureterices Rele-
vant to Ihls let lon in
ilaking Ita Flndings

2. Ihe Dlstrict Coue t rs Firrrling
oF flecIalIy PolerIzed Vot inq
ie t{ot Cleerly f rro-
ngOUO r....

,. Ihe t)[et riet Court's Ult i-
nete Findinr; of Dl.scr inlna-
tory Result le not flearly
frtoneous ... .......

l,

B.

l4

l4

22

t5



1..

o

I i. IHE olsrnIII counr PRoPf,RtY co]l-
stornro ett rHt slArt's tvlDtrcf ..

I I I . P8f CTEARAI{CE UiIDTR STCI ION 
'OT IHf YOII}IG RIGHI$ TCT OOTS

ior gan APPELLEtS' ctAIH ullDtR
SECTION 2 ..- "'e"'

CONCLUSIOI* .."""" ""':""""'

C\r.J'

lv

IABLE OT TUIHOR I I IES
cases r. L"J-"

Alexandar v. Gerdner-Denver Co;penyt
ql, u.s. t6 (1974) ...".....-.... 5l

lllcn v, lleCurrY, 409 U.S. 90
('l9so) ........ ..... o....... - 50

Clrendler v. Boudebrteh, 425 tl. S. B40
(1976) ... ,l

Peoe

t2

t,
,6 45Coo;ier v. Aeron' ,tB U. S. I ( l9t0) .. ..

Donnel I Y . Unlt ed 5t et es , 682 F .2d
240 (D.C. Glr. 198?, ...... - -. ....

f e st Cer rol I Per lsh School tld . v '. llerehell, q?q U.5' 6rG (1976) ....

,4

l? rzl

Jones v. Ctty of Lubbockr fex., 727
.'f .?d ,64 (lth Clr. l9s4) -.o.---- ltt,l'

(irkeey v . Board Lf S,rp"rv isoro , J54
f',Zd lrg (9th Ctr. 19771 ...'..' 4t

l(rener v . Cher lcel Const ruet lon
Corporetlon' 416 U.S. q(rl

. (tybz) ... ......o ... '. - 50

lleJor y. freen, tlq F. SupP. ,25'(E.D.
La. lg[t)(ttree Judge eourt) t4r40r48



,C
\J

- vi - vll

Whlteomb v. Chevis,40l U'S. 1Zq
(1e71) ...

tlhite v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755
( 1e7 r) 12,1r,41 r42

Zimmer v ' I'lcKeithen, tt85 F.2d 1297
(>ur cir. 197r) 12,27

Qonstitutirlnal and Statutory Provisiotts

I I, 59tt F .?d I 064 ( rtn

Peo e

50

h5

5r r54

?7 ral

Paqe

40

pa_ss im

pass iI

Hdtter of Merri
Ci r . 1979)

llonroe v. Bd. of Commisaioners, t91
r,. s. 450 ( 196S ) . .

Morris v. Gressette, tt'T U'S' 491
(1e77 ) ...

NAACP v. Gadsden Co. Sehool
6s1 f .2d 975 ( 1 lth cir '

Port er and Dietsch, Ine ' v '
. 605 F.2d 294 (7th cir.

Bd.
1e02)

F.T.C.,
1s79)',

U. S. Const. Emen

Voting Rights Ac
Pub. l-. No.
1tt (tesz)

H. R. Rep. No . 97 -221 ,. let Sesg. (19s1)

0ther Aut hor i t ies

Hright, MiIler antl
Pract ice and

d. xIv

t. Amerrdrnent of 1982,
97-2O5, 96 St.at.

,Z

cert . denied 'a?i5-u.s-nf (1e7e)

Pullman-Standard vo 5wint, tt56 U'S' 27'
fiv8z) ...

Rogers v. Lodqe, qrl U'S' ('lt (l9SZ) "'

Rybicki v. Sbate Bd. of flection of
Illinois, 574 F. SuPP' 1147 (f'O' tt
iggll ( trriee Judge court ).

Swantr v. Charlotte-Hecklenb'I9-89.'. ^ ..
, of Ed., tO6 F. SuPP', 1291 (H'D'N'C'
' 7geii. "ri'0, 4oz il.s' 1 (1971) .."'

llnited States v. East Rat-on Rouge
' Par ish Sehool Rd ' , t94 f 'Zd 56 ( ltt'r

Cir. 1979t

Unitecl St.ates v. l{arengo Co ' Comm" 7t1
F.2.J 1546 (1tth Cir' les4)

Velasqtrez v. Citv or-fbil:::.lt*'' 725

51

15

15rt2

t.
14, (tO

4B

14, /10

lttrl5

Voting Riqhts Aet of 1965, (tZ U.S-C.
$ teTl(c)

Rule 52(e) F.R. Civ. P.

20 crR $ 51.41

28 CFR $ 5t.46

Legislat ive llistorv

S. Rep. No. 97-417,97t.h Corrg.'2d
Se.gs. (19SZl

15

5)

,t

44

97 t.h Cong . ,

Cooper, .Federal
Pror:edure:

g,1or1r)17,
ttt ,41 ,48 ,49 ,50

9 ,48

;.r; tot7 (itt cir.1eo4)
Juiiitiiction [ 4416 el. se-q. 50



00
-f

No. 8r-1968

IT{ THE

SUPflE}IE COURT OT IHE UilITED 5tAIT5

ocIoBtR Ifnl'|, 198'

RUrUS t. EDI{ISItl{' et el.,

Appellentst

v.

RALPH GINELES' et. 81.,

Appellees.

On Apperl Fron the tlntted Stetee
Dlctrlct Court For the Eestern

Dlstrlct of North Carollna

Hor t0il I0 tllslllss 08 Arr IRH

Pursuent to Rule 16. I r APPeI leea t

Ralph Ginqles, et el-, tove thet the Court.

dlarlss the apPedl or efflrr the jutlgnent

he I or ort the ground thet the quest ions on



'0
-2

rhich the decision of the ease depends dr6

so unsubstential as not to need further

argument.

Statement of the Case

Appellees filed this action on Sep-

tember 16, 1981, chsllenging the t98l

apport ionment of both houses of t.he North

Carol ina Generel Assemtrl y ( "the General

Assembl y" ) on the grounds, inLer al ia, that

t he appor t ionments irere i t l.egal end

unconst i tut ional in t.hat : ( t ) esch had been

enaeted purauant to provisions of the North

Carol ina Constitution which i,ere required

to be but had not been preclesred under

Seet.ion 5 of the Vot ing Rights Act of 1965,
1as amended, 4? ll.S.C. $ 197)c ("$ 5 of the

,!\
\-r

-,

Voting Riqhts Actr or ',Seetion j")i anrl (Z)

the use oF multi-memtrer rJistricts illeqalty
submerqetl minority poplrlation corrcentra_

l ions nrrd d i l uted minor i t y vot inq sl renrlilr
irr violation of ilre Consl ilrrl ion ;rrrtJ

Seetion 2 of the Votinq Riqlrts Act rrf 1g651

a:i amen<led, 42 U.S.C. $ 1glt.

. After ilre ComJrlaint was filetl, ilre
Stat.e of North Carolina submittect ttre

provisions of the North Caroltna Corrst_i_

tut ion, whieh prohib it tlividinq cr)unt ies in
tlre formation of a legislative rlistrict,
for preel earance under Seet iorr 5 - Ihe
At torney General, in a letter siqnerl lry

l{illiam Brarlforcl Reyrrolrlr;, objeeted to the
provisiurrs, tindinq ilrat ilre use of larqe
multi-member rlisl.ricts "necessar i I y
suhnerqes coqniznble mirrorit y populatit.rrr
(-'oncerrl rat iorrs irrto lart;rrr white elec_
l.trrates." .-luriscliel iorral Sl atement al (.ta.

Ar;!a

Forty of Nortlr Carolina's
t ics are c'overed by Sect. ion
Vot.inq Riqht.s Act..

100 coun-
5 of the'



I

I

ar
\ -\ ;)

\t



{I
_(r_

minimal electoral success of black cendi-

dates; the uae oF reeial eppeals in cen-

paigns; and a persiet-ent f eilure of nost

white voters to vote for blaek eandidetee'

In short, the Court found thet, while there

has been some progreser the gap tretween the

atrility to partieipete of white and bleck

voters remains substant iel.

Based on these fintling the. District

Court entered a unsnimous 0rder which

declarerl that the Epportionment of the

General Assembly in slx challenged multl-

member distriets end one sinqle member

distr iet v iolate Seetion 2 of the Votlng

Rights Act, and enjoined eleetions in those

dist-riets pending cotlrt approvel oF a

rtistrlct ing plan which does ttot violat'e
2

Seet ion 2.

Appellees dtrl not chall'enge all
multi-menber dlstriets used by t'he Stote
nor did the District Cour't rule thst' the
use of multi-member districts is pg se
illegal. Ihe District Court's 0rder leaves

o
-1

AJrgrel larrl st pet il iorr f-or a slay of Ilre

Orde r wRs unBn imorrs l y den i erl lry t lre

Districl Court, and wos suhset;rrently denic<l

hy Chief Just iee Rur(ler, on l.ehruary Zttt

19Olt r 8nd hy t,he f ul I Court on Mareh 5,
t

1984.

ulrtouched J0 mul t i-member distriet.s irr ilre
llouse and 1t in the Senate. Ihe Dislrict
Court's 0rder rJid rrot atf eet 40 oI Nrlrl ]r
[]arolina's 5, llouse of llepreserrlative
Distrielr; and dirl not affeel 27 of Norttr
Carolin6's 29 Senate Distriets.

I tty subseqrrent orclers, l he Disl r ict
Court "pproved the Sl.ate's ;rro;:ost-,11
remetlial rlist.riets frrr six of tfre severl
challenr;etl districts, an<l ;rrimary elec-
tions have beelr held irr llrrrse rlislriets.
Ihe Di st r iet Corlrl lr:ts not ar:l erl on t lre
Defentlarrtst proPosed renretlial apfr()rI irrn-
menl of one rlist r ict., forrner llouse
Dist r icl No. B, grerrdIlrr; preclearance of
tleferrdarrl st proposal urrrler Sect itrrr 5.

Pr.Jf



-B

ARGUHEN T

I. IHE DIStRICI COURI'S DEIER-

MINAIIoN ;it;i NoRTlt --cARoLINA's

GTNERAL nssiMgl-Y DISIRI.cIS vI0l-ATE

gz.or rui.vbirr'rc RIGItTS'ACI Is
BAsED 0N iHr-connrcr s.IANDARD ANo

rS UOI CLTARLY ERNONEOUS

A. The District Cburt APPI iert

the Co"""i ii"tO"rtl in-Determininq
That the iio"tio" Distriet-s in Qtres-

tion l{ave ;";i"t"i'ninetory Result

Seet ion Z of the Vot ing Riqhts Act nas

amertrlerlinlg82,bythe.VotinqRiqhts

Amenclme^ts ol' 1982, 96 Stat' 111 (June 29'

1982) r to provide thnt a claim of unlawful

vote dilut.ion is established if ' "based on

t,he t'otality of eifcUmstances,.'. merf,bef s of

e racial minority rtfteve less 'opportunity

tlran other members to participate in the

pol it ical proeess arrcl Lo eleet. repre-

sentatives of ttreir ehoice.'' ttL U'S'C'

$197,, as amended' Ihe Comm'ittee Reports

ar)companyinq the ametrdment nreke plailr the

(),

-9

eonqressional interrt to reach elecl ion

plarrs thet rninimize the votinq sl renqtlr of

m ino. it y vot ers. S. Rep' No ' 97 -417 ' 
eTt lt

. Conq., ?-d Sess. at 2B (1952 ) (trereaf t er

"Senal e ReJrtlrt" ol- "S'llep.''); ll' n' Rep'

No. 97-227,97tlr Con<;', Isl Sess' at 17-1tl
lt

(tsOt) (herpafter "llouse lleport")'

Ihe lirrrrale Re;trtrl, nl l)a(les ?l-)ll' sets

irut a rletailerl arr<l specific roarl mill) l-trr

tlre appl icat ion rrf lhe amerr<led Set:t Itrn 2'

l{l'ren called ttpotl to aPply ltre slaltltet

ils amended, to a claim of urrlawfttl diltl-

A.'lf
{

4 lppellarrts assert that the leqislative
histtrr y of the 1902 amendmenl s is rtr-rclear
hecarrse there is no conference commit tee
report. J.5- at B' llowever, as tlre.[lotrsrt
ttnan itnotls I y adopl ed 5 ' 1992, wlr i ch h-arl treen

re;lor t.ecl orrt o l- t-he Serral s fi1lttlm i I t ee ('rr

t he Jutl ic i ar y an<l adopt etl by I lte Senat e '
thr:re wils rl() nrletl for a ('oltfr)retttle
comlnitlr:e t)r for a corlfert'rtt:e (l()nlmill'ee
report. i"u 'l':;' at 9a, rr'7' It-t fat:l
tl'rere *:rs ,,i-?,rrltlict bel woell lhe irll enl
of t. lre llotlse antl of I tre Serral e ' llle
Senate atlopt.erl stlbst it rrt e lalrtlrlage l rr

sJrell otlt more specitit:ally the rrtandard
wirir:h tlre llotlse meant i o ctrrl i f y ' S' Rep '
et 27 .



- 10

L ion, the federal courts were directed by

assess the interaction of the

electorsl mechenism with the

_ 11

meJority vol-e requirement -- llre crr:ation
oI eaCh of t.he rntllt i-metnher rlist rir;ts

challerrqecl irr this sctiun resrllts in l. lte

hlack reqisterecl voters of that dist.rir:l
beinll submerqtrtl as a vrtt irrq minor il y in tlle

;i;i',i"t arttl thereby havirrq less lPlor-
l.rrnity [.halr rlrr otller 'ne'ni"'rs 

ol- lhe

el.ctorat. I, f".ti.ipate i^ 6e,.litit:nl

;;;,;"nn- "",J 
t-o eleel represe.lal ivt::; of

t ht- i r clro ice .

2. Consirlerecl irr eon'irltrcl iorr wittr t-lre

same c ircr','lro-t"""u", tlie r:t'eat ion 'rF
sinqle-membe. 

-Su""te 
bistriet No' 2 t'esttlIs

i; itte [rlack registererl.vot.ers in arr srea

(:overed by S"n"i" Oislricts Nos' 2 and 6

hev inq their voLing st rengllr rliluted .by
fracl ur ilrg I he it "']'-'tentrel 

ions irrto two

tlistriets irr eaelr oI which l-[rey ere n

vot inq minority and it.' eonsP(lllellce have

ler;s ofrpo.tt".ri'tiy t.harr tlrr. oIher members of

Ihe eleetrr"ln-' to ;rarl ieipate irr tlre

i,,riit.ieal ltrocess and lo elecl rel.,reselr-

t at ives of tt'ei r choice ' J':;' at 51a'5Za '

c

AJrpellarrts a!;serl lhat "lhe rtisl ricl

c(,rrrt erretl by equat-irtt; a violal iorr oF

Sect.itrrr 2 with tlre allsenee ttl' t;ttarartteetl

l)roportional representstion"' J'S' at 9'

st.atemelrt ' 
stlp[)otterl otrly hy a

ence fraqrnetrt frorn the rr;rirriorr' '-l':"

:rt 9-10r t-ll-rtssly dislort.s lhe t;larrrlarrl

rtr:lrlally tlttr:tl by the Distrir:l t-orlrl' atld

f f(

Congress to

chal lenged

relevant fect-ors enumerated

ReJrort al- 28-29'

I t is aPParent from t he anal Ysi s o f

5eet. ion 2 eonbained in the Hemorandum

0pinion and from t'he rtetailed sssessment of

Lhe faets that t'he Dietrict Court urrder-

st ood arrd properly appl ied it s Congree-

sional cherge to the Facts ol''this cese'

Ihe actuel st anrlard . eppl ied by the

Distr ict Court is emtrodied in its Ultimete

Findlngs of Fact':

in t he Senate

l.Consirlererlirrconjunetionwithtlre
tot.ality or rei"'""t cireutns-tanees found by

the court --"'il;' 1i''q"rinq efl'eets of

sevetrty vear; ;;-oriicier ii""riminetion
eqainst blaeL' cit'izens in mat.ters totrchitrg

reoistration ;;; voting, substantial to

severe racl"r 
-po'r"ti'"tio't ln voting' the

e I f ee t s o f th irty y.",'.t,1^ro t--f:ii"t;"t :":

Ihio

:rettl

erteers t'r 
;'i;'pr'liticol campaignsr. a

::i l; l, JII"#;'l:,J-"i"'"'t';i';";';"'i; ii';il ":
:::;iil;;' i;"'"iq"iricalt- <reqree rrom :
:;;;; ; ; ;I q#,,1",1,1?,#ffu"T':?'n "tion, and



f
-12

lgnores the ext-ensive discussion by the

Distr lct Court of the meaning and proper

appl icat ion of Seet ion 2 of the Voti'nq

Right s Act. J' 5' et lle-1Be' In that

discussion, the District Court explicitly

statecl it-s inierpretat ion of the st'andard

t o be aPPt ied anrl t he f ac t ors to be

c0nsidered:

t\
\-l'

_ 1)

I ttreteaft er the Dist ricl Cotrrt listecl the

faetors enumerated at pp. 20'29 of t.he

Senate Report. l .'f . S. at 12a-1)a.

Ihe District Corlrl rlid rrot igrttrre

Hhite v. Reqester-t tt12 t,.5- 75, (tvZr;, arr<l

it.s proqenY, ttL,r tlitl llrt: Dir;tricl [-'trtlrt'

interprel tltrrse eascs to reqrtirt: l)ro-

grort iolral re[)reselttal iotl- Sce J. S.

14a-15a. As lhe Cotrrt explicitly said,

" I I Jhe f aet that b l ackn have rtol been

eleeted under a ehallenqed t'l ist.ricl irrq plarr

ln numbers proportional t-o t-heir Jrercerrlage

of the poptrlation Irloes not establish that

vote riilutiorr has restlltedl." J.S. at l5a.

In sum ' the Dist r ict Court examinetl

eaeh factor specitied hy Corrgrerls ill the

Senate Report antl, without Iimit irrq its

assesstneltt t,o just one f act or, as appel -
.5

lants do, assessed them as a tol al il y. Ihe

f A.J

In determ in ing whet.her ' "bssed
on th; totelitY oi eircumstences"'

" state's eleeIoral mecheni-sm does

"r.--- 
,,fe.Ulf" in raCia.l voLe

ai r rt ion, t'he ConqreEa . intended
It rt courts ehould look Io ttre

int.eract- ion of the ctral lenqed
;;;i;rnis, with those historical '
,r"i"f anrl Politicel fectors
qenerally srrggest'ed as probative of
i"i i'*-i'" i. frhi13, -'-:-1T""* [;i:subsequent-lY
io.ru. FifLh Circuit in Zimmer v'
McKeithen, 485'i.il tTit fftfiT:
ffi; banc),sf fld , on- other

f;#s.*'ffi
i uriam)'
i;;". 

-itpical lY inelude' .Per II:
Senate 

'ileport. accomPenYinq the

"rtpromise 
version enaeted as

Ilre []ottrI s of
ttre Cottrl lrelow,
emenrlerl Ser-'I ion to

trtlrer cirr:tlitr;, as tlitl
have ilrterprctr-t.l the

rerlttirr: llte trial ctttlrt

amended Sectiorr 7t



f
- 1tt

Dlstr ict Court cleerlY engeged in

Congressionally mandated enalysis

appl ied the ProPer standard '

B. The Distrtct Court's Ultimate
and SubsiJi""Y Findinqs of Fact
Are Not CleerlY Erroneous

Since the District Court' applied the

proper st.anderd to the f act s before lt ' 
t.he

realqUestlonraIsedtlysPpellentsis

whether the three Judges properly weigherl

t o ex am ine the ieetors I isted at peges

28-29 of the seriat.e Report end' q:l:11::-
;;;'ti'e 

-t.Lt"titv or the .c 
iretrmstances'

rletermirre whether'the ehaI Ienqed eIeit ion

,"'ttt"a v ioletes Seet i"l-l'- ^Y'5;.rI'ffiii^,i|iry;!*r,ffi.; r 'rA r-Ah -1o-f Lubbock, 727 F '2d t64 ' 
)aq-)u ) t ''L

;ffi:igni6fte 1as quu 1, .,-cj-t v- g r, 89 i I 9T9Utr.r t/\'arr i, Cif .Iex. , 729 F.'.?t 
Elect ions,iq''rrli nyuicki v. .stat9,9d-',o=r ,

'lrnt' l '
iioll( tnree' judge eourt ) '

o
_ 15

t6e vol gm i r-rogs sv iflence. Whi Ie t llr: .irt<lr1r'n

lreard eiqltl clays of test imol)y' PXatninerl

irUrrrlretls o f tlttcttments, artd madtr [.hirt y-

lhree lla(leri oI facttral tilrtlirrqs' ltre

allJreIlants lrase tlreir arqtlrnetrt ' irl Psserlce'

(rn one faet: tlle eteetoral rlt'c('eris oI a

f ew b l ae k c anrJ itlet es in 1982 ' The qlre!r-

tionthustaiserliswhetlrer,irrassessirrt;

tl"re tot.ality trf circumstances, tlte Distrir:t.

Cnur t ' s .i ttdrlmorrt as to t lre l)r ol)e r we itlht l o
(t

give lo this fact is clearly el'rorle()tls'

ff

the

an tl

1.

llule 5Z(a), F.R.Civ'P'' provides tlral
neither the rlltimate rror the sttbsidiary
tinclirrqs of fact of the Dist r ict {--ourt may

tre reverserl unless [.trey are clearly
u.r,r,rt,r,,,r. Iggi.s v.- Ltrdqe' 450 t' 'S' 611'
627 -(tz ) I o7TT[ffi)-Ti[?ar I v errorre(!trs
it",r.tard appl ies to tinrl irrq tlrat arr at

large vot ing systern is heirrg tnairtt airred
io.', tliserimiiratory I)t'rl't)ne arrd to t-ire

undertying strbsirliary fintlings)-;'911-
man-St arrdard v. Swint , tt56 ll' S' Z l l 

'
4ry Vr'l asrltte z

v - r-' i I v or Au i t n,re, lo'. frz ffia lilT[-fiiiT

Ihe Cqurt We iqlred Ihe Part icu-
ar Circums anee9 elevant lo

s Acf lon



ff o
- 16

The Dlstrlet Court anelyzed each of

the fectors suggested by Congrees to

determine its bearing on the abil ity of

black cit izens to eleel candidates of their

choiee ttr the General Assembli. One factor

is the extent of black eleetoral suceess.

lli th regard to that f ector, it is pl ain

that before this action waa commeneed in

1981, a nominal number of blacks hed been

e I ec t ed t o the Gene ra I Assemb I y. Ihe

Dist r ict Court diseussed the 19BZ eleet ions

and f ound them to be unehereet.er lst ie.

After examining black eleetoral auccesses

and failures, Judge Phillips coflcluded:

I t Jhe strceesa that. has beerr
achieved by blaek eandidetes to
date is, standing alotre, too
minimal in totel numbers and too
recent in relet ion to the lonq
history of eomplete denial oF any
elective opportunities to conpel
or even arguably to support an
trltimate findirrg that e blaek
carrdidateIs rece is no Ionqer e
s igni fleant edverse faetor in the
pol i t ical proeesses of the stete

17

-__ either qe,rerally (rr
eifically in ilre arens ol.ehallenqerl dist riets.

sf)(j-
l lrc

J. S. at

rr.27 .

]74-18a. See also, J. S. st J7a

Ihis eonclusion was eonsidererl alorrt;
with tindings on ilre other faet,rs en,mer-
at-ed in the Senate Reprrrt. Ihese are
surlmarizetl as follows:

Ihere is a crrrrent rlispnrity irr
blaek and white voter reqistration result_
ing from the direet. derriaI and cfrillinq l,y
the State of reqistratiorr hy blaek citi_
zens, which extended official ly into the
197O's with the uEe of a literscy test anrl

enti-single shot. votinq laws errcl numbere<l

seat reqrrirements. The raeial anirnosities
altd resistence with whieh white cilizens
have responded to at_tempts hy trlack



/-\
\-,rA\Jff

- 18

citizens to partlclpat e effectlvely ln the

potitical process are still evldent todey'

J.5. at 22a-Z6a'

b. Within eech challenged district

raeially polarized voting is perBistent '

severe, and statisticetly signifieerrt' J'S'

at lBa-)9a, 464

c. North Carol ine has a maiorlt Y

vote requirement whlch exists es a con-

t inu i n.q pr8:tieal impediment to the

opportunity of black vot'inq ninoritles in

the chal lenged clistr icts ' J' S' et 294-]0e '

d. North Cerollne has a long history

of publ lc end privete racial rliscriminetion

in almost all areas of life' Segreqation
:

laws were not repealed until the late

1960, s and eerl y 1970's. Public schools

werenotsignlflcantlydesegregeteduntll

the eerl y 1g7O's' Ihus' blec.ks over l0

years old at tenderl qual it at ive.ly inl'erior

segreqated schools' Virtuelly all rrelgh-

- 19

trorhoocls remein r:acially iderrtifiahte' and

past discr iminat ion in employment cont-inues

t-o rliss<Javantaqe blaeks' 0lack hortseholds

are three t imes as likety 8s wlrite house-

holcls t.o be below povert'y level ' The lcrwer

socio-eeonomie status of blscks restltts

from the.lonq history of discrimirration'

t;ives rise to spet-ial (lrot'l) irllrlrests' atrtl

currently hirlrJers tlle qrott;r's nhility trr

nart ieipate ef fet:t ively in the polit ical

process. J.5. at 25a-29a'

e. From the Reeonstrrlct ion era to t'he

presertt t.ime, appeals to racial prejtldice

against blaek cit'izerrs heve beerr used

effeetively as a mearls oF irrfluencinq

vot,ers in North Carol ine' As recent'l y as

19tlt, lrol it ical camPaicpt rnalerials reveal

an rtnmist akable irrtent ion to exploit wlrite

volerst existinq racial fears antl ;lrej-

urliees and lrt create llew orres'

lln-]24.

J.S. at



-20

f . Ihe extent of elect. ion of bl aeks

to publ ic offiee at all levels of govern-

ment is minirnal , and bleck candidates

cont inue to be at a disadvantage' l{tth

regard to the Generel Assembly in partieu-

lar, black ealrdidates have been signif i-

cantly less suecessful than whites' J'S'

at )ia')4e, )7a-)Ba'

g. Ihe 5t ate gave as i t s reaaon for

the mult i-member districts' its pollcy of

leav ing eount ies whole in Epport loning tlte

General AssemblY' However, rhen the

challenged apportionments Here enacted' the

Stete, s pol icy was to dtvide eounties when

necessary to neet- populet'ton devietion

requ i rements or to obtain Sect ion 5

pree I earnnce. Many counI ies were cliv ided '

Ihe policy of dividing counties to resolve

some ;rr ob lens but not' others does not

just ify rtistriet ing which results in raeial

vote rlilrrt ion' J'S' at 49e-504'

/4.
\J

-21

Ihe Dist rict Court includerl tlte exttrttt

to whieh blacks have heen electerl to rlIfice

as Itone cireumst-ance" to be consideredr 42

t,.5.C. $f97r(b)r made en intensely loeal

srrd detaile<I appraisal of all of the

relevanl circtlmstances, attd tletermilred tlrat

the challenqetJ tlistricls have a rlisr:rimi-

lralory restltl.

For tlr is Court l.o revorse l he l)ist r ict

Crrr.trt's ult imat.e findings woultl reqtlire

t.tris Court to find (1) that- the Districl

Co'urt's essessment of pre-1982 electoral

aueeessi was c'l ear l y er roneotrs ; (2) t hat t.he

District Court.'s nssessment that the 1982

e lect ions were at ypical was clearl y erro-

n(rorrs; anrl (l) that, in weiqtrinq the

totality of the circtlmstatrces, the relative

wciqht tliven by the Court to ulre ptrst

litigalirr,l electiolr yeer was t:learly

rr r r t,lre(, Usi .

A
I -t!

ff



ff
-22

2.' Ihe Dlstrlct Court's Finding

ffious.

Appe I lants assert thet the elect'orel

srrceess o f sone blacks in 1987' precludes

the Distr ict- Court f rom Finding severe

rac iat I y polarized voting. Ihis is t.he

only subs idiary finding appellants chal-
7

lenge.

finding voting to be reciallY

polarizecl, the District Court enqeged ln a

detai led enelysis of eleet ion returns from

eech oF the challengerl rlistriets extending

over several eleetions, supported by the

test imon y of numetous lay ritnesses and

, Alt.hough appellant-s challenqe tlris
'f intling as en error of law, the f inding of
. recialiy polarized voting ls bne of faet

covered by Rule 52( a). Jones v. Lubbock,
727 F.2d at ,80. APPeffi
I im it t his chel Lenge to thoee ereas not
covered by $5. Ihey do not d iseuss f aet's
from either llouse tlistrict No. S (ililson,
Edgeeomhe, and Nash CounLies) or Senate
District No. 2.

(}

-2'

extrert t.est. imony regardilrg every r:Ie<:t ion

for the [ieneral Assembly irr whieh l here hacl

heen a lllaek earrrJitlale in the ehallcnt;erl

rnuIt i-memlrer distrit--Ls frrr llte three

elei:tion years l)reeertirrq the tr.iat. .1 .S.

l{la-)9a. 0ased on ils exlraustive arralysis

of the ev irl ence, the Disl rict (lorrrl fourrrl

l lrat rac ial t y polarize<l vot inq wall lteverr)

alrd persistent..

Appellents erroneously clsim llral Ure

Distriet Court determined racial polari-

zal ion try labeling every elr:ct.ion irr whir:tr

less tharr 5Og of the whites vote<l for the

hleck earrtlidate as racially ;rolarized. J.S.

et 17. Altlrough it is true that no blaek

t:arrdidate ever marraqecl ttr qet votes frrrm

more than 50.% of while vol.ers, lhis is rrot

llre slarrrlarrJ tlre Distrit:l Corrrl userf.

Instead, t-he Dislrict Corlrl. erarnirrerJ

llre ncflsrtrftrne,rt of racially polarizetl

vol inr; I tr rlelr:rmilre ttre extent to whiclr

A
itL



-?4

black end white voters vote differently

from each other in relatlon to the race of

Lhe eandidat.es. J'S' at )9a' n'29' The

Distriet- Courtis assessnent can be gttn-

marizecl irt tlrree firrdinqs:.'

a. The ev iclence shows paLterns of

racial potsrization' The CotrrL found:

r'$,
\J

-25

.1 . :; . rr I 1tl'la -

b. Ilrc (:()rrelal ion htllwctrtt tlre l'il(:t!

of the vol er and the raee of l he

catrtlirlate voterl [or was slal istically

siqlri f ieant al tl-re '00001 level in evel'y

elect ion atratyze<l' Al thotrqlr correl at ion

coef-f icient s atrove atl ntrsolrlt'e value oI

.5 are relatively rBre sncl tlrose above

.9 eIe e.xtremely rsret all (]olrelal irtrt

eoefficients irr this (-'ase wel'e hetweelr

.7 srrd .98 wiih most above '')' J'S' al

1$a-J9a and n' l0'

c. In alt btlt two elections' the

hlaek canrlidate losl arrorrq wlrile voters

--that is the result's of lhe eleetiorr

wottlcl have beell different. il" held only

in the white comrntlrrity than if held orrly

irr I he htaek r:ommtlnit y ' 'l' 5' at )9a-40a

nrtrl rr.fl. lhe Distritl tlorlrl tlsed llre

l rrrrn ',sulrslant ively !iit1 lri l-icarrl" irt

I lrese t-'i rt:ttrnttl arrt'es ' ApPe I I atrl s Prls i I erl

&r'l
'1rf

0n the nveraqet 81'7%'of white voters

d id not vote'''rtt" "tty 
black cendldate

in the Pr im"tr 
- 

"r9l.1 
iof i; I^ the

qeneral electioi" ' white voters elmost

always rank"a"i'il"rt eendidates either
last or next it'- i'"t ln the mult i-ean-
rJidate rietJ 

- 
t'""Pt heavilY

Democratic Jt"n"; 
- i;- - 

these letter'
white voter" "t"JLtently 

ranked black

eandidate" r'li-.",o'.q Dem.ocrets tf not

last o. ',uii 
"'io - t""t. among all

candidates. In Faet, approxlmately
t,wo-thirds of 'f it" -voters did rrot

voLe for hI;;t'""Jiaates in generaI

eleet itrns t'"i""ittr the- candidate had

won the otru"ttii; prlmary end.!l'te

. only ehoice ;;;'["-'oi" f-or a Republ i-

calr or ^o'""""-' 
Rlack lncumbency

alleviated t;;'- gen.eral Ievel oI

rrolerization'tt'"'ili'-u't 
it tJid not'

el iminate i;""-St'tt t'l"k incumbents

were reelutila, but. "ott: 
received a

maJrrrity t'f-'fit" votea even when the

elect ion *""";;;;nt ielly Urrcorrtested'



:ililf+f,-' r+J.+rr.4

( A!J( /-\
\-r

-21

and that whet,her it will be repeated is

sheer speeulat. ion. Amontl the atrert'a-

t itrrral f actors rtras the perrdency of this

lawsuit atttl the one I ime lrelp of hlack

carrdidates by white Dctntrcrat sl wlro wantprl

lo del'eat sinqle memher rlislriets. J.S.

at )7a. Ilris skepticaI view of post-

litiqation electoral rirrccess is srrJ)-

ported by the legislstive ltistory rrt the

Voting Riqhts Act arrd the case law.

Senate Re;rort at 29, n.l l5; Zimmer v.

McKeithen, 405 F.Ztl 12g7, 1r01 ( Sttr Cir.

-26

no al ternative deflnition supported

ei ther by ease law or pol it ieal selenee

literature. J.S. at 4Oa, n.)?.

Appeltants offered no statist icel

arralysis whieh contradicted the eonelu-

sions ol'the District Court. they did

not quest,ion the aecuraey of the dat'e or

assert that the methods of enelysis used

by appellees' expert were not st.enderd

in t he l i terature, J. S. at lBe n -29 . ln

f act , appel lants eonceded thet t.he

polarizat-ion of the voting lras statls-

tieally significant for eech of the

elections analyzed.

Nonetheless r sPPel I snts. eontest the

Distr iet Court's finding of racially

polarized voting citing examples from

onl y one post -l it-iqation electlon yeer,

1982. Ihis is particulat'lY lnePPro-

pr iete, as the District Court eoneluded

thet 1982 rras "obviotlsly aberrat.ional"

teTt) (

sutr nom

en Panc) aff 'd olr uther grountJs

East Carroll Par.ish Scltoot 0oard

v. Marshall | 424 t,.5. 6t6 (1976); NAACP

v. Gadstten Co. Sclrool Board, 691 f .2d

'at 98,.



/-1.Ut\iIf(

-28

In add it ion to being drewn onl Y

from post-Iitigetion eleet'ions, the

examples given bY aPPellents 8re

misleading and are taken btrt' of context'

For example:

( a) Appellant-s point out thet in the

1g82 Meeklenburg House primary, blaek

eandidate Berry reeelved 5O?. of the

white vote. The District Court' noted

t-his but stated thet. it "does not slter

the conelusion that there is subst'antiel

racially polarized votlng in Hecklenburg

Count y in prinreries. Ihere were only

seven white candidetes for eight

pos i t I ons in the pr inrer y aria one h I ack

eand idat e had to be etect'ecl' Berry, t'he

lncumben't ehairman of the [loerd of

Edrrcat ion, ranked f irst among black

votets but seventh emong wh'ites.'' J'S'

at. 42a.

-29

The other blaek canrlidate, Richard-

son, was ranked last hy white vot.ers ilr

the pr imary but seeond, af ter [lerry, by

hlaeks. In the general elect iont

Riehardson was the only Demoerat whtr

lost.

Similarly, in the l9B? Mer:klenburrl

Cortnt. y Serrat e ra(te r lhe lr lar:k t:antl i.rl;rl.t:

wlro was strccessfttl in the ;rr imary vras

the only Dernocrat wlro lost. in the

gerrerel eleetion, rankirrg tirst- arnong

b I ask voters but sixth out of seven by

wtrite vot.ers for Four seats.

b. Appellants point out that black

carr<lidate Sp,auldinq receivetl votes frorn

47y, o f wtr i t. e vot.ers in the 1gi2 t;eneral

elect itrrt irr Drlrhsm Corrrtt.y. They neqleet

l.tt poilrt oul ttrere was llo ReJrrlhIir-'nrr

(r[)l)osit ion in ttrat elect irttr, enrl thal a

mn.ir.rrity of wlrite volers therefure



( A
it!f z'\

L,
_, ,o

FeiIed to vote for the blaek ineumbent

ev en when they had no other choice.
J..S. at 4ta.

Appellants also failed to point out
t.hat in the Durham County primery for
19BZ t he re were onl y two whi te candi _

dates for three seats so et leaet one

black'had to win. As il.re District Court
noted, "Even in this situatlon, 6rZ of
whj te voters did not vote t:. ilre black
ineumbent, the eleer choice of the black
voters .', J. S. et 44a.

(e) Appellsnts point out thet ln
Forsyth County two blaek eendldetes in
19gZ we re sueeessful but fei I t p note,
as the District. Court did, thet white
voters renked the two bleck eandidetes
sevent h and eighth out of eight erindi_
detes for five seats in the qenerel
eleet lon while blaek vot.ers ranked then
firsl and seeond. .1.S. at LJe.

- JI

(d) As enother example, while noting
that hleck elected incumberrts have been

re-eleetedr appellants fail lo nrrte that
wlri t.e voters almost always cont inrre trr
ral'rk I hern I ast anrl ilret hlack appoinle<l
irrr:umbents heve uniformly beerr rlefeatecl ..

Ihe illree jurltles who hearcl ilre evi_
tJenee eonsidered eaclr of t he faet s whieh
apJrellantg point out, together wittr the
su r r o und i nq c i ccums t. ances , arrtl e(rf't -
eluded that these pieees do r.rot alter
the conelusion of severe and persistent
raeielly polarized voting.

APPellants also assert thsl ra_
cially polarized v,t-i.g is Jrr,'ative
of vote <lilrrtiorr only if it nlways
eetlltes blaeks to lose. Irr l.act., i^ Z1

rr f l he )Z e I ect ion eont est s arra I yzerl in
which the hlack t:arrtlidate reeeivet_f
srthstential blaek support, t.he hlack



f A
!!l

f ,.\
L'-rz

eendidete dld lose beeause of
polarizetion in votlng. Thst

lost even though he was the to.p

of bl ack voters beeause of the

of support among white voters.

_ It

Ihe instant ease was decided under
the Votinq Rights Aet, antl ttre statulory
langusge of seetitln 2 specifies ilrat e

violat..ion exists if black eitizerrs have
"le$s otrporl,,ity', lo elect relrreserrta-
I ives of t.heir choice; it is not limitetl
to sitrrat ions in which lrlack earrditf at.es
have ahsolutely no chance of lreing
eteet.ed. 4z t,. s.c. g 1g7)(b). Racially
Jrolarizerl voting can give rise to this
trlle(fual op;rortrlnity, even i f it drres not
cAuse b I aek earrdidates to lose every
single election.

APPeIlantst 
".gyme,t is, in es_

!re'ce' that any [rraek erecrorar srrc-
cess neeessar i I y dt f eat s a Seet ion Z

r:laimr An arqrrnent wrricrr rrefies ilre
irrlent rrf Conqress. lgg S. Ilep. at 29,
tt.l15r nrt(l discrrssion at p. 7j, irrfra.

raciel

is, he

choiee

paucity

Appellants assert that rhites must

uniforml,y win for racially polerlzed
vot, ing to be probative. Ihey support

this argument by eiting Rogers v. Lodqe,

supra, a cese decided under the purpose

standard of the Fourteenth Amendment of
the United States Constitutlon.
Appellees do not belleve thet Roqers v.

!_g-g$ stands for the proposition boldly
asserted by appellants, but the Court

need no t consider , in the contex t o f
this ease, whether the complete "L".r,""
of trlack electorel success is neeessery

to rai se an inferenee thet an at large
system is treing nairrtained for a

diser iminatory purpose.



,,.11.)r jah. -i t,taa" 13e* .*+

{ (\\};
-t4

As the Court not_ed in .HaJor v.

Tr-een, 574 F.Supp. ,25, ,t9 (f ,O. La.

19Sl) ( three judge eourt ):

Nor does the faet ttrat severel
b taeks have qained elective
office in Orleans Parish detract
from plalnt iffs' showing of sn
overall pat.tern of polariza-
Iion... Racial bloc voting, in
the context of en eleetoral
s t r uet. ure xhere in the number o f
votes needed For election exceeds
the number of black voters, sub-
st.antially dininishes the
opportunity for black voters to
eleet the eandidate of their
eho i ce

Ihe District Court eonsidered all
of the evidenee, including the faets to

which the appellsnts allude, end determined

thet rec Ially polerized voting is aevere

and persistent in the rlistricts in ques-

t ion. Ihis finding is not clearly erro-
neous.

.Ihe task of Ure ilrrt:e Dislricl Crrrrrl

.i ,d11 .s was t, examirre histor ie and r:rrrre,t

racial ar.rd potitical realities irr Nort.tr

Carolilra, to determirre if the r:hallenqed

leqislet ive districl s operat_e to clerry hlack
eitizens en equal opportunity to elr:cl
repre!ie,ltat ives lo the Gerreral Asr;emhly.

Ihe jrldqer; heIow errtlat;erl in an inlerrsely
loc6l .aprrririsal trf lhr:se far:l.or.:; alr,l

al),)ellants ask t.his Corrrl to rule ilral
their deterrnjrration was clearly erro,rr!(rus.

Appe I I anl s do rrot chal lenqe the I ower

r:orrrtts fintlings ()n sjr of srlven Stretiorr Z

far:lorn, and, as discussed ilr part IB(Z),
s'!t,pro, the sevent.h subsirliary f indinr;, ltrat
votinq irr Norilr Cartrlirra is raeially

;rol;rritrd, i:; not. r-learIy (]rr(rrreotrs. ilrus,
I lrr q*e!il irr. is wheilr.r rrre Dislricl r,rlrt

,.

r ronuolrs

lhe District Court's Ultimal.e
nolno o ser,m

esult is



f(

- t(t

properly essessed the totality oF ei.rcum-

s t anees . In the St atement o f the Csse

appel.lants reeite random black etectoral

successes and then imply, without. saying,

that under the eireumstances r .3 finding of

discriminatory result is erroneous because

i t. i s t- sn t amount to a requ i rement o f

propor t ional represent at ion.

As was d iseussed in pert IB( | ) , lgpgr
the Dist r ict Court did not ignore the

elect-ion of blacks in its weiqhing of the

fects. Rather, efter examining the extertt

of minority election, the DistrIct Court

found, in eddi tion to minlmal eleetion of

bl acks to the General Assembly before this

titigation was initiat.ed, that in the six

multi-memher districts in questlon, bleck

candldates who won Demoeretic primaries

lretween lglA and lgBZ were three tlmes as

,,\.
Lr

)7

likcly t-o losrr irr r;eneral eter:titrnrr ns were

Iheir whiIe Democral ic e()rrnlerparts. .1.S.

at J)n-\4a.

Irr additiorr, the Distriet Courl flourrrl

lhat blaeks hold orrly go,( of city r:orlrrcil

sr:rrlr; (many Irorn majrrrity black eler:tion
riistricts); 7.r% of the courrty comrnissiorr

seirlsl 4Z of sheriff 's offiees; ancl 1% of
the otf ices of the Clerk of Super ior Court.,

No blaek han bnen eleeted t.o statr:wirle

ol'Iiee except three.irldges who riltl un(rf)-

lrosed as ap[)o ilrt etl inerrmtrerrt s. No b lack

Itos beerr eleeted to the Co.rrqress oI lhe

llnited St.ates a!t s represerrtat ive of Uris
0state. .1.S. at ))a.

0n a county by courrty basis appellants
a l so paint a lopsided pict.ure. In f orsyt h

Crrurrty appellants speeify isolated irr-
starrces :tf eleetoral sue(:ess brrt igrrore

Nrrrllt Carol ina is ZZ.qoi hlac.k in polr-
ttlet ion.

A\ il,

8



, "!.

Ut4\ ,1,
f(

,

-tB

€lectoral failures sueh as3 (l) the defeat
of appointed bleck ineuilbente rhich
resul tecl in no blacks being elect.ed to tt_re

llorrse of Representetives. fron Forsyth
County in 19lB and 1980, years in rhich all
whi te Demoerats were sueeessful; (Zl the
defest in l9g0 of ilre black rho had been
eleeted to the County Commission ln 1976
which resrrlted in a return to an all white
County Commissionl anrl (r) the.defeet in
1978 and l9B0 of the black who hed been
eleeted to the Board of Edueat.lon in Ig76
returning the 0oard of Edueat ion to its
previous aIl rhite st_atus

In eaeh of these Instences the
denee showed that_ black Demoersts

defeated rhen white Reputrlicbns did
btrt white Democrets won consistently,
in goorl Republ lcan years

evi-

we rd

rdll,

ev en

_t9

In addition, a;lptrllarrts do not nrention

that House Dist riet No. B, wh jch is jg.6

hlaek in population and hes frrur rel)re_
sentat ives, ha.q never elecled a blaek
represent et ive, J.:;. at )6a r' or Lhat

Hbckl enburg Count y, whir:lr, w i tfr e irlhl llousc

seats and four Senate seats, is the larqesl
distriet in the General Assemtrly anrl whir:lr

i.s.over 25?- hlaek in population, has this
eehtury eleeted only one black senator
( f rorn 1915-1glg) arr<J one blaek re,rrese,r_

tst.ive (in 1982, after this lawsuit was;

filed). J.S. at JLa.

In llecklenhurrl County, as in Fnrsyttr
County, hlack Demoeral.s whrr were srrccessful
in Democrat ie primaries, in the llouse irr

l9B0 antJ 19BZ and irr ilre Senale in 19Bz

wet'e the only Demor:r.ats to lose lo wltite
lleprrblicans. No while Demoerat. lost lrr a

Ilegrrrtrliean in ilrose r:lecl in,.,*.9

Ilttrs, this cstr;c is irr rro wav sirnil;rr



^
\Jyf(

-40

Rether than requliing gueranteed

eleetion, and rether than slmplieticelly

consideri.ng erratie exemples of eleetoral

suece$s, the Distriet Court fol lowed the

statutory mandete by eonsldering black

e I ec tor a I sueeese and fei lure aa one

faet.or in the totallty of eireumstBncea

leading t o iLs conelusion of discrirEinatory

result. tt| U.S.C. $ 197rft1 .

Ot he r cour ts have not 'requi red the

eomplete absence of black electoral sueeosa

in order to find a violatlon of Seetlon ?.

Unl ted States- v. Harenqo gounty Commlssion.

771 f .Zd et 1572i Msior v. freen, 574

F.Supp. at t51-152; Rybieki'v-. State Bd. of

Elections, 574 F.Supp. at 1191 and n.5,

Ihis interpretation of the amended $Z is

consist.enL with pre-amendment case law

to l{h iteomb v. Chav is, [Ot U. S. 124,
150-152 (1971), ln
eausetl by Demoerat
race.

tFiah black defeet was

whlch treld

strccess tloes

dilution. 5ee

al 76(ti NAACP

.a.
U

_41

that some black eleetoral

not preclude a findi.nq of

Hlr i te v. Regest gr , t!12 t,. S.

v . Gadsden Co. Schoo l lloard

691 f .2d at 9tl t; Kirksey v. Board of
Srrp.erv_isors, 't',4 f.Zd l)9, lqt (5llr Cir..

te77).

Ihe (--ollclusion of llre t)istricl Corlrt

t.frat the election of some minor.ily (:an-

rlideles does rrot nerlate a firrrlilrg of

tl'iscriminatory result, is consistent wiilr

ttre elear intent trf Conqress as stalecl in

the Senate Report: "II]tte r:leet-iorr of a few

minorlty candidates does not 'necessarily
foreelose the possibility of dilution of

t.he black vole', in violation r.rf llris

seetion." S. Rep. at. rr.115.

Ihe cleterminat ion of wtreilrer alr

electoral syslem has an illeqal rliscrlrni-

rratory rer;r.rlt rerlrrires firrdirrqs of f'acl

wlrieh lllelrtl "history anrl an intenselt, locnlie Party defeet, not bY



ff ,t,
tu

-42

6ppreisal of the design end impect of the

mul t i-member district in the light of
pasL and present reality, poI itical and

otherw.ise.r' @, hlT U.S.

at 769-77O. The District Court in ilris
ac t ion engaged in Just this "intensel y

local appcaiBal." Ih: District Court's

findings are Bo met Iculously supported by

the record as to warrent sumnery affirmance

by this Court.

T I. IHt DISTRICT COURI PROPTRTY CON-
SIDERET' ALT THT SIAIE ' S f VIDENCE

Appellants dispute the weight the

District Court gave to evldence -that 
e

handful of black voters and a few blaek and

white potitleiarrs disagreed nith the single
member district remedies proposed by

plaintitfs.

- 4'

ln llreir .hlri:;rlir:l irrrral lil irlr.nrtrrl

a[)l)ellants allrrde t.o lhe leslirnorry o( (,n(,

black legislalor arrd some wtrite prrtit ieiarrs

who supprlrted retention of the mult i-menrtrt:r

redistr ict ing plans under which they were

eleet-ed arrd to the Lest imorry of three trlack

wItnesses who testified in oppositiorr to

single member districts.

Appel l ant s charact er i ze this ev irlence

as subst anl i al , J.5. at 21, and llrqe lhat

the Court below erroneously dIsreqarrletl il_.

Irr faet the DislrieI Corrrt carotully

evaluated tlre test imony of all the Sl ale's

wit.nesse$ as a factor bearinq rrp()r'l the

cisim of racial vote dilution. .1.S. at

47e-48a. Ihe Court forrnd that the hlack

w i t nesses who test i fied for t he Stat e were

a "dist irrct rninority" whose views "wont

al.rnost exclrlr;ively to lhe desirttrilily of
lhe remedy sorlr;ht by plailrtiffs, arrd rrol to



/.+.\e{I
I

the present

vote dilut ion.

a eondition oF

finding ie amply

"atU

supported by the record.

The appel Iants erroneously eontend thet-

in ev al uat ing a cl aim o f raeial vot.e

di lut 1on, t-he District Court should have

found that ev idenee that the plaintiffs'

proposed remedy was not unenimousl y

endorsed by every member of the blaek or

wh i te community outweighed al I other

ev idence of the obJeetive factors identi-

fied os relevent by Congress. Ihis is

fundamentally inconsistent with the

Congressionel mandete in amending Seetion 2

to el iminete raelel vot-e dilution. It does

not ralse e substantiel question. Compsre

Swann v. Char lotte-ilecklenburq Board of

fducat ion , ,06 F. Supp. 1291, l29t (W.O.

- 4"t

Cooper v. Aaron, 558 U. S. 1 , 16 (1e5S);

Honroe v. Bd. of Commissioners, 591 U.S.
'45O, q59 (196$) .

III. PRICLIARANCI I'NDIR I;tCrtI)N
5 OF THE VOIING RIGIITS
ACT DOIS NOT NAR A"PII L[,ES'
CI,AIH UNDER SICIION 2

Appellants rely on tlre decisitrn hy the

. Assistant At torney General of the llniterl

States to preclear the llouse and Senat.e

respport ionments purauant to Sect ion 5 ol-

t-he Vot ing Rights AeI to conterrd that

eppel lees (plaint iffs below) were estopped

or preclucled from pursrring their Seetion 2

claims in those districts eom;rosed ot

-44

ex istence o f

" Id. Ihis

N.C. 1969 ) aIf ,d, 4OZ tr.S. 1 (1971). C[.



a

{r
,i

1

I a. q\

cr
z

.<
o o

D
3

_o j-t ?-
r '= o o o o

@

!o I€ nO t: 6 o

a^ .\y ;j ^.
ou

r;
t,3

6 
t 

i 
nl

s 
: 

z 
r 

r 
! 

E
 

; 
E

 i
b.

-6
=

.<
,r

=
O

<
iO

-'
?+

 
S

;lg
 

i;;
 

d:
1v

::;
=

?-
l=

\-
'o

eo
q-

.
o 

€ 
vr

 i
,f 

; 
l; 

Q
 f

 
' 

- 
3;

'o
-a

E
'r-

'w
ro

-"
:' -:

./,
,<

:u
;!

o 
i 

e 
o 

3 
? 

i 
w

t 
i: 

.i-
3:

 
i

;; 
-r

r 
-;

 
t 

o 
-.

 i
 

r-
1"

. 
i 

E
 ;

oE
".

,.:
r,

i:.
,a

!;;
; 

r 
r 

g 
3 

s 
i 

i 
a 

il;
 i

 _
 i 

r
a@

-=
-l<

:o
; 

- 
e:

 
o.

 
T

 l
l"-

:;.
. 

E
S

 "
 

e=
 ?

 3
 J

 
i 

i 
S

 :
,0

 
n 

t 
o

l.o
 i;

 
;'3

 
s 

i 
o 

r 
n 

! 
i 

i 
f

E
-*

l_
.r

?4
f-

.
l:l

c;
<

oo
.lo

g
lg

E
oi

:-
c;

.-
;o

gc
o:

r<
 

b'
. 

^ 
ni

 
c 

o 
i 

y 
o 

o
lo

gl
;3

*,
a;

oE
o1

-=
33

i{.
3.

:P
.*

:..
vr

:q
,-

;o
P

;.;
.2

od
:'

':,
-=

n.
::r

r?
F

.O
:-

:q
r;

-.
ri^

O
nO ;3
3p

*l
=

3'
_i

a
o 

l;E
f 

e= -U

€F
 '<

O
+

o:
,

-o f 
+

,

o- oh G
a

o)
 ts

.

J6 oq
5

o:

,D
C oo .rO ob <
o

t; 0v r6 uo ta
., oo

)

,o

O
a

aD !-
r .o .\ or o

o

o
,. q tr o

o o o 0,
 I

o( <
a

;ii
gi

g=
=

-=
--

f
=

r.
o'

u-
.:.

i'j
o

;: 
i-.

E
:i 

*{
=

'a
 

- 
fJ

 
- 

--
. 

_=
I.a

.<
 

-=
 

3;
.. 

-!
 

3
. 

" 
f 

ic
 

=
,i 

>
I

.+
.-

 
? 

''A
 

a 
a 

--
:';

--
;.=

:r
]o

i
I.a

tr
.i=

on
?a

r^
.0

)J
--

+
--

a -<
J'

-
=

-:
r<

{
-r

c 
--

9 
C

 C
 n

 -A
i 

j 
e 

x 
1-

 
--

--
'i 

=
 

o-
io

--
 

- 
a 

-.
 

- 
'

:(
0=

i--
 

'!r
,

";
i;:

iir
=

;I'
- 

s 
r 

'u
 -

ol
r.

.3
-'i

'5
'

-!
a.a
-.

-O
-+

--
!

:=
;-

1-
;c

=
a

.r
r1

- 
- 

-.
 

<
 

r 
_ 

.r
 

=
is

 
E

. 
l 

^.
 

? 
O

-:
':a

 
--

;P
a

v 
r 

.J
 

O
 

v'
- 

j
-t

 
: 

, 
r 

^ 
q 

,-
 

- 
-

-.
l:!

'J
'-.

v
-Q

-<
4 

(' 
E

 
- 

!

c 
-.

 
--

 
j 

o

31
rl=

-i 
i;l

..r
a

*t , ) 
91

 I
ro

:
o O

q

(a
>

-r
o

o r^
=

\)
: @ o q

(/
', 
a

o!
.

i!o

'a o t( (r
, 

(
o n(

o
O

-
o> 11 n,

\)

ro I

'<
.

a/
) j 't q 0 o o o o o'
:

o

I 5 ! I
o

fii
.- ao

 
=

--
t'r

,^
i

ro
of

!f
!:3

 
i.i

\. 
; 

- 
.A

O
 r

.G
 

X
tiC

d 
J 

a
! 

-.
" 

i 
-

.J
- oo

oi
i.

-|
)+

@

C
,



-(
D

g-
f-

-6
3o

e
o;

,2
'lo

3:
r{

F
rv

.X
--

a'
O

.O
O

oN
r:

=
:o

fc
c-

'.^
l;1

n 
si

r
:;'

o;
3c

r
of

o"
oo

c0
p:

'
-=

;.;
-f

:o
i

7€
 

13
; 

{ 
? 

3
'O

O
;F

"O
'i1

o-
i)E

.
-t

;g
:,r

tE
f3

1
P

-.
o-

F
'

+
oo

o*
':o

+
s

tj;
:q

3=
oc

ls
?Z

';l
N

',
ci

 
N

:;;
3'

lc
n'

a

3 
=

lr 
r 

l: 
E

so
-^

3i
o

:=
:-

N
ts

'
t?

:E
:r

oo
:'-

(!
0=

:=
4

:3
-7

$f

o 
ag

 
=

i;;
lo

.3
: 

E
; 

o 
[ 

3
lo

rD
+

a;
'"3

3

0l

@

3o g_ iL ^(
+

F
ro

o J S
O

O
.,

'o -(
0

{o ;O
J

6 O
o

o.
?

!.O €r

o o O
J o o o l= lo lL
.

lo l. l< lF 1o lo .t: lc
o lc fo t1 lo o

I

N
lo lo lr t: l= t: ls l= lo l-, lr. lo l= l- to l= l3 IF l- lo j \o 5 I o. O
\l

-t

1;
 

I::
 

F
 

Y
:'o

ca
d5

\o
ao

3
f.6

qo
.ll

-r
:

0)
O

4r
'O

t7
,\O

!- -r
)F

.!r
O

o'
fc

-o
vr

:3
--

r=
9i

L^
-q

J<
o=

::

: 
E

 1
3 

3P
';'

oo
"a

*;
t

J

*:
'!=

f=
o; G

J

, 
-:

;.i
;J

fo
o:

.lF
;th

=
;t;

nc
+

f:q
Q

-
J€

-*
do

o
Lo

--
er

eF
.:'

i
+

T
:'q

@
54

r-
6

G
:a

co
vt

l
o*

la
f,u

1 
n"

oo
::>

,
o'

-i-
3i

=
?t

--
o-

:o
o

-t
jo

o:
-:

; 
l.;

3 
* 

rg

o € le lr f-
.

lo lo .t1 o o @ o (!

\

c,



/.t)
\,(

?

-50

Comm. orr tlte JudieiarY, 97t.h

Sess. BO (1952) (remarks of Sen.

Cong. Ree. HlS4l (rlaily ed.'June

( remar ks o f Rep . Sensenb renne r t

Rep. Edwards conctlrs ) .

51

trestment of other administrat.

determinat ions where there is a

1)
right to trial de ttovo, stlp;lorts

ive agertcy

statut.ory

ap;rel lant-

Irr strort, oottrirrg in

il.self , in the leqislative

recent amendmerrt of Sectiorr

I aw o f col I ateral est-oPPel t

Corrg. , 2d

Dole) , 128

2J, 198?)

with which

'the stattlt.e

history of the

Z, irr the case
17 or in [he

12 Ihere are four criteria that must be
est.ablished before the ductrine of col-
laterat estoppel earr be invoked. 1 ) The
issue sotlght to be precltlded must be the
same as that involverf in the prlor I it i-
gat ion, 2) the issue must have been
aetualty Iitigated, !) it tnust heve been
determined by a valid and final judgment,
and 4) the determilration must lrave been
essential to the judqment. See qelerally,
Wrioht . Mi I ler and Cooper, Federal Pract ice
attd Procedure:, .ltlrisdiet iorr $ 44t6 et '
ffiCutry, 449 U.S. 90 (let0l:
TIilpffilogrpel lras the hrrrden
of grrttvinq al I elements of tlre doctrinet
especialty the existerrce of a full and fair
o,)portunily to litiqate the issue. lg: "t95. Matter of Herrill | 594 F.Ztl lO('4t 1866
(5thm Klgr"r v. Chemical
Corrst.ruct ion Corporai iffi

.ln of issues is
warrarrterJ i f there is renson to rJorlbI the
tlrrality exlensivt'tress, or l'airness of pro*

cedures fol lowed in pr i or I i t iqat iorr. " Fvett
it atl erit.eria are sat.ist-ied, rel it iqal iorr
may he Efrpropriate hecatrse of the prtt-erlt-ial
import of the tirst tlet.errnirratiorr on t. lre
public irrterest or the interesl oI perso'ls
not parl.ies to t.he orioinsl aclion. ['orLer
errd bietscn, Inc. v. i.I.c., 605 r.2A*I9q

ertierJ, a45 U.S-
95O (ttts! .

This Cotrrt has held tlrat a Title VII
plaintiff's stetr,rtory right Lo a trial de
novo is not forecloserl by lubmi ssion of tii6
ET6'T, trr final arbitral-ion, Alexanc'ler v-
Gardner-Denver companv, 1115 u. S:-JZ-TTfi4 ) ,

inerrt is a JrartY to
t.he edministrat ive Proceeding. Similarly,
a ferlerel employee wltose emplrrymerrt
diserimilral ion claims were re.i ecterl by the
Veterans Aelminist.ral itrrl and the CiviI
Serv ir:e Commission [lonrr'l ttf Appeals antl
Review was nevertheles ent it le<i to a tr ial
de rrovo. Charrdler v. Roudebuslt, 425 1,. S.
TEtiJJTzr, iffiadrn i s s i b I e

as evitlence at t. lre de rrov(, ;rruceedintl , tlre
agency tlecisittrr was intit.teA only to Ihe
weight deemerl eppr(rtrriale lry the cotlrt.
Alexander v. Gardner-Denver, 415 lr. S. st

1J



f) .,.
t

I\J

:o
oc

o
-3

oo
lJ

-
1

,iU
C

-

!a
l);

3

=
1;

-:
r!

3
rc

O
i:

o1
a - 

; 
(,

, 
!,

oo
rC

;=
-l

=
-=

-'
-:

ro
,^

qr
-

.-
v-

w
uG

:o
: ,t)

^4
o-

o-
;a

u1
?;

9:
-.

3i
J 

- 
C

J 
A

 
J 

\J
I-

+
o,

^-
i.

qr
u

o-
:=

.-
ts

:
o.

o
- 

=
 

o'
 

H
'

t+

io
-r

--
'--

€
=

o
3o

=
F

=
tix

n
!-

9i
g

o 
v 

--
 

- 
(J

9:
31

 
;

19
 

er
 

-,
rir

:"
;o

I
-

9c
f.;

flo
oD

O

cr
-

ot
s.

1O O
I

0) J{ -r
a

oa :o aa

IJ o 0, o 6 q) o { 11 ,! c)

i-l
o Jx

o (0
 

l@ l3
{t

o
o qo

o
6

oc
)

s

=
=

aI
'i=

 
a=

 >
i>

-:
 

D
 E

o 
c 

? 
-

ril
 *

iE
 s

i\ 
3 
jl 

3g
li;

 B
;::

; 
j;=

:n
: 

r 
E

 ii 
=

a4
_:

.-
- 

i) 
o 

oc
 -.

: 
o 

- 
T

 -?
 ; 

: 
'a

 =
i 

- 
- 

i
- 

;; 
- 

=
 n 

-;
 

=
.-

 
-<

 =
--

- 
--

. 
=

 f
 

* 
-.

-t
\r

 
o 

g 
co

-.
<

 _
 a

: 
a;

 _5
 ; 

s,
=

 i.
 J

;
'=

-r
^ 

-"
 

3 
F

 
=

 6
' 

' 
o 

i 
r-

 
a,

e.
3 

_:
::>

=
jC

 
E

.o
__

e_
.

l'P
-jo

ji-
=

'!=
l! 

=
o 

o

::3
-:

=
';'

; 
f "

 J
:;.

--
1i

i=
:

ri 
i';

=
.o

3I
l{"

'_
ilg

3
" 

e'
';:

_ 
i5

 [e
 B

:; 
l;i

l. 
l:1

s.
, 

-O
-.

i?
 

(?
- 

_;
.,=

-=
I=

 ?
[ig

1[
;i;

 r
f

lo
 

o 
o 

- 
i 

o 
o 

!

:=
 i 

=
 *:

q:
;ir

1t
;ii

ll9
'i=

i;i
is

-=
i=

97
:t;

:1
'-=

 
;-

a;
3;

''o
n 

,iI
o"

n

1r
;G

: 
ii;

 r
lri

r;
ai

;
: 

- 
- 

_.
--

 
I 

- 
.r

 a
 n

 
-r

l 
a 

O
 "

1?
 

to
=

co
 

on
 

,-
.1

 E
i-c

.
t-

 
o 

.t 
o 

<
,-

 
j 

o 
_f

 
<

;:.
o 

o 
lo

 
o.

, 
-.

o 
tr

o 
5 

=
;.;

.q
; 

Ic
r 

j
'v

vo
 

+
>

- 
t6

: 
O

 O
;O

 
O

 -
4.

1-
._

 
-_

I

to lo la la lo 5 \o ! !

i;i
=

 
i::

.:3
 

!*
=

E
! 

c=
 a

: 
'n

I-
'i?

:!'
*1

11
;-

g-
;;;

;€
r 
li 

l i
 ; 

s 
j 3

 a
 I 

- 
i: 

;' 
3 
i i

:3
;i 

1i
*;

i;l
r 

i =
 I[

:;;
t=

=
*=

* 
ii=

!1
tg

;=
i;:

=
-.

E
 =

 o 
- 

' 
;-

 
-;

c 
^ 

- 
o 

? 
a_

=
 i

:6
5-

=
1.

-3
'-:

--
 

2-
--

-:
';:

';3
3E

 -
i:.

,i 
*:

.,,
 ?

 5
'

=
E

 '' 
5,

 
n 

a;
ii 

=
6-

--
2 

+
I<

,;

=
: 
;'1

i =
1;

, 
=

o 
=

 {.
- 

J 
;'=

 .
c 

j 
r 

r:
 I.

 
,! 

F
o 

1s
a:

;i 
i 

=
=

i
:;l

=
tt=

3;
1.

"' 
;:.

'.;
:

Ifi
::i

;;;
; i

:f 
;ig

i; 
j

l!1
1;

 i;
 B 

i::
:-

:i 
rr

; 
l1

? 
.i 

=
.:'

i 
5 

; 
:=

.=
i.i

 
=

;-
 

: 
i 

o
=

 
: 

: 
-.

o 
=

 :
 

-t
--

-.
'n

 
=

- 
: 

- 
:1

l' 
=

l-"
 1

 _
j 

:,,
.-

l 
=

_i
; 

; 
i3

:, 
-.

- 
-:

3:
- 

:'Z
 

-q
'n

-<
c

.r
, 

=
 

--
 

-.
-;

 
-1

o 
c 

i 
<

 c
__

<
+

E

i:=
:'=

3r
;7

1-
:=

: 
i ^

..'
r 

=
o.

 
=

: 
o.

<
 =

 J
 d

 i 
o:

; 
=

;; 
? 

_.

e



4?

-54

I'lorris v. Greseette aroae in the

eontext- of a elaim thet private pleint if fs

had a r i ght to judic ia I rey iew of the

administ.rat.ive preelearanee process. lrr

holding thet private parties had no sueh

right to inqtrire into the reaaoning behlnd

the Attorney General's deeision, to review

the .process by which he considererl ths

change or to appeal di reet ly his determi-

nation, tlris Court x,as pers.uaded that

Congress had provided, t.hrough ilre statu-
tory qrant of a trial de novo, for tllack

vot.ers wlro disagree with the preelearance

dec is ion end who have no other meaha of
proteetlng their interest.s, llorris v.

Gressette, 412 U.S. at. 506-O7. Indeed.

this is directly stated in the only other

case, Dorrnell v. United Ststes) 682 f .Zd

240,247 (D.C. Cir. 19AZ), which Bppellants

eite to support their eleim oF pre-empt ion.

Ne i lher Dorrnell nor Horris v. Gres-

c'
-55

sette supports the appellant-s' preeluelurr

orgrrments. InrJeed, they affirmatively

recogni ze thet the Attorney General moy

have interests other than the interests of

minority voters end, more import.antly, that

the voters' interests ere explicitly

protected by the statutory rigtrt to a l.rial

de novo.

Ihus, Ihe District- Court properly

found the At torney General I e preclearance

determination frhes no issue Jlreclrrsive
(colleteral estoppel) effect in this

action." (Citetion omittecl) J.S. st 54a.

Ihe dee i s i on below should be e ffi rmed

summarily.