Memorandum from Suitts to North Carolina Reapportionment Group

    *,.--.
. TONY HAFnISON. Pr.Bidrnt

MARY FBANCES DERFNER. viclProsidonl .

. JULIUSL CHAMBEBS.PrsIPrssic,snI

STEVE SUITTS. Errculivr Dirictor a JqSEPH HAAS, Counsrl

75 UARIETTA STREET, N.IY. ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 (40.) 522-8764

MEMOM}IDI'},I-

T0: North Carolina Reapportionment Working Group

FROM: Steve Suitts

RE: A Review of Our Status

DATE: October 5, 1981

I thought it would be helpful for each of us to have a common
docurnent which reviews the status of our challenge of the North
Carolina legislative reapportionment before the Justice Department
and Federal District Court.

At the rneeting on Wednesday, September 23, in New York at the
offices of the NMCP Legal Defense Fund, w€ reviewed the events to
date and attempted to project a budget and a schedule now that the
complaint in federal court has been filed. At that meeting we
set the following timetable: .

EGIONAL

October 9: Suitts circulates a draft of the analysis to be
subnitted to the Justice Department urging disap-
proval of the reapportionment plan under Section 5;

October L6-20: Filing of the letter urging the Justice Depart-
ment to disapprove the reapportionment plan;

a

0ctober 16: Completion of
concerning the
As s embly;

0ctober 15

November 6:

- November 15:

the review of newspaper clippings
1981 reapportionment in the General

Depositions for the federal action;
Cornpletion of historian's work on the history of

the state constitutional provisions.
Since our meeting, we have begun to redirect sone of our

discussions about a computer analyiis of the present reapportionment
plans and a new plan which would best avoid the dilution of black
voting strength. Leslie Winner has had discussions with a professor
at the University of Washington and Raymond Wheeler has had further
discussions with folks at Chapel Hi11. By last word, no firm arrange-
ments had been made.



'?. a-.

Also, s ince Septernber 23, the state of North Carolina has
submitted the 1976 Lmendments to the state constitution which we

aifegea in our federal complaint had not been subnitted as required
by liw under Section 5. fhis action by North Carolina requires us
tt, expedite the historical research on these provisions in the
iiate'constitution. Since securing arrangments fol work on historical
i"t"arch has fallen in Juliusr bailiwick, I trust he has read thi-s
sentence carefullY.

Although it now appears that the issue will not be raised in
court, I an putting un'dbr cover for Napoleon and Leslie copies of
briefi which-were fifea in the case surrounding Edgefield County,
South Carolina, on the issue of whether a filing under Section 5

which impliet i preceding change which has not been filed does in
fact conititute ; filing"of bolh changes. While North Carolina has
io*p1ie<i and apparentLy"rn,ill not raise this issue, rve should remember
tfrat it is within the range of possible for the Justice Department
to declare that the issue-has already been subnitted.

For Raymond, I am including here a copy of !h9 cgmplaint-which
was filed i; federal court. I hope he doesn't nind the circuitous
route of Charlotte to Atlanta to Charlotte.

We set no future date for a meeting although when Leslie
returns frorn Raleigh, I expect that wet11 want to have a meeting
in late October.

I think this brings us uP to date.

t