Correspondence from Bradford Reynolds to Brock

This item is featured in:

Thornburg v. Gingles: The Redistricting Case that Gave Black Voters a Say in Elections

    J.5. lrsprr'lrttur' Jsstlce

Civil Rights Division

Otticc ol thc Atsistant Attorncy Gcncrcl WothinSton, D.C. 20530

? DEC I9UI

DEc ;; rnnr

[UftlBmS; m![g[il, fi,lTT, ffiU,ffi]
fiDilllts I ruluB, lJl

Mr. AIex K. Brock
Execut ive Secretary-Director
State Board of Electione
suite gOI Ra!.eigh Building
5 West Hargett'Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 276OL

Deirr Mr. tlrock:

This ie in reference to Chrapter 894 (S-8. No- 87.
l()BL) :rrrrl ChapEor 82I (S.8. No. 3I3, IgBI), provlding
tcsc Lhe reapportiorunent of United States Congreseional
districts and for the reaPPortionment of the North
C;r rql i n;r SonaEe. Your sublulsglonr puEauant to Scction 5

t.lf ulrc vot ing Righte Act,- 42 U. S-C. I973c, wae lnitiallv
receivecl on JuIy 16, 1981, and was supplementd with
requeseed addltional information on October 6, 198I

Uncler Section 5, the State beare the burden of
proving the abeence of both digcriminatory PurPoBe and
effect in propoeed redigtrLctlng plana. City of Rome v.
United States, 446 U.S. 156, I83 n.18 (fgBO); Bqgr v.
ffi, 42s u.s. r3o, r4o-4r (1926). l6-Eder
ffisence of a racialry diecrimlnatory effect,
the State of Norttr Carollna muat demonetrate, dt a rninimum,

WEB

ttrat the proposed redlstricting plana wil.l not lead to
"a retrogreeeion ln the poeition of raciai miaorities
with respect to thelr effective exerclee of the electoral
franchige," Beer v. Unlted Statee, supra, 425 U.S. at I4I.
vJtrile the stEE6'-tB u@atj3tiTo maxlmize minority
voting atrength, the State must demonatrate that ttre plan
"fairly reflecte the atrength of [minority] voting trrcwer
as ic exists." Misaiealppl v. United Statesr 49O F. SuPP.
569, 58I (D.D.C]fm'f-ftingffiea States,
suDra , 4ZS U.S. at. I39 n.II ana-ffi; anffii-iEffiilEtrnrond v.
Uni-tca statee, 422 U.s. 358, 362 (1975).

fficmr



qr

'-ll
2

We have given careful conaideration to all of the
forwarcled materials, as welI as past legislat.ive reappor-
cionment plans, commente 'frorn interested citizens, and
other information available to us. With regard to t'tre
SenaLe planr w€ note at the outeeL that the propoee(l
rcrlisLricLing plan ware dovcloped !.ry Lhe Nortlr Carolin.r
Legislature pursuant to a 1968 amendment, to the North
Carolina Constitution which provides that no counLy shall
be rllvidr:cl in t,he Eormat,ion of a Senate or RepreeenLaLive
disLrict. As you knowr on Novourbr.:r 30, I98Ir the Attorney
General interpoeed an objection'to Lhat amendment under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c,
because "folur analysis show[ed] that the protribition against
dividing the 4O.covered countiee in the formation of Senate
and House districte predictably reguirea, and has led to the
uae of, large multi-member dielricts." Our review of the 1968
arnerrdrnent aLso ehowod "that the uac of euctr multl-meimber
dietricts neccsaarily oubmergee cognizable minority population
concentratione lnto large white electorates.x Accordinglyr w€
hirve reviewcd the Senate plan not. only to determine whethcr
t-lre lrr.4)()st:rl plun woulrl Loard Lo d " rcur<lgroguion Io Llrc 1o:riLiurt
of racierl minorltiee with reopect. to thelr effective exercise
of Lhe electoral franchis€," Beer, gl11Ig 425 U.S. at I4I, but
al so Lo trcr: whot.hor lt falrly rof locte rninority votintl rlLrcngLlr
ir:J iU rgy.iuLs Loday. V. @,

Our irnalyale of the Scnate plan ehowe that in eeverirl
countiee covered by the Votlng Righte Actrg apecial provisions,
such aa in Guilford, Wileon, Nash, Bertie, Edgecomb and Martin,
Lhere irre cognlzable congentratlone of mLnority pereons whose
lrcIitical strengttr le dlluted as a reeult of ,the use of rnulti-
rnernber discricte in ttre propoeed redletrlcting plan. In
Guilford, for example, the State has propoeed ttre'creation of
a three-member dletrlct wlth a black population percentage of
only 25 percents. Yet, under a falrly-drawn aystem of single-
rnernlcer districts ln ttrat'arear orr€ Euctr d.ietrict likely would
be majority black andr thereforer would better recognlze the
potential of blacka to elect representation of thelr choice.

Likewise, in Wileon, Nash, Edgecomb, Martin and several
of the countiee Ln propooed District I whlch are covered
juriadlctiona, the State proposes to create multi-member
dietrict,s in urtrich black votera aeem to have no op1>ortunity
Lo elect candidates of their choice. Here again, fairly-
drawn single-member dietrlcts would likely result in Senatt:
districts that. would not, as the proposed Senate plan does,
minirnize the voting potential of black voEers in ttrose covered
counties.



- t' i
t> .-

3

Understandably, these effects of the proposed Senate
reaplDrtionment plan well may have been the reeult of the
SLaLe's adherence to the '1968 conatitut.j.onal arnendment brlrich,
ds we have already found, necessarily reguires a submerging
of sizeable black communities into Iarge multi-member dietiicts.
ln viow of Llre concerna diccutrgod arbovo, however, I anr un;rbleto collcluder be I must undor tho VoLing Right.s Act, that the
proposed Senate redlstricting plan is free of a racially
discrirninatory purpose or ef fect. Accordingly, on behaf f of
Lhe ALLc)rney Goneral, I must Lntcrpose an objectlon to t.hs
Surt.rLe plrrn under Section 5 of tlrr: Voting Rights Act of 1965
as it relates to the covered counties.

With respect to ttre Congressional reclieLricLing, we
irave also completed review of that eubmission. During the
course of our reviewr w€ hrere presented with allegations that
thr: clecision to exclude Durham County from Congreeeional
l)i,rLrlr.:L No. 2 had tho effece of urlnlrnlzlng rnlnority voLing
strength and io-addltion wae motivated by iacial considerat.ions,
t.e., the desire to preclude from that diatrict ttre voting
Fnftu(!nq'e of the potltlcally-acLive black cornmrxrlty in Drrrharn.
Qn Lht: l>.ruiu of the lnformation t.hat has been nrade avarilable
to us, we remain unablo to conclude that the State'e decieion
to dr;rw Dist.rlct No. 2 wae wholly free frorn discriminatory
l)ut'l).)s., ilrrrl of foct. Irl tshls connoct lon wo flnd particu IarIy
DistricL No. 2 (see Gomillion V. Lightf.oot, 364 U.S. 339, 341
( t96o) ), utrrich appeaEE:Gffiea c6GEie- Durham County frorn
Lhat. tlisLrict contrary to the Houae Congresslonal Redistricting
Comrnittee . s recommendation.

We noLe aleo thaL, over the paat soveral reclisLricLings,
the bLtrck populatlon percentage 1n Dietrlct 2 hae been decreised.
Prior to the statere r97r rediatricting Dletrict No. 2 wae
approxirnately 43 percent black. Under the f971 reapEDrtionmentpran, District 2 decreaeed to 40.2 percent black 5npuration.Tkre I98I eubmitted plan would reduce furttrer ttre lrllck population
in the dietrlct to 36.7 porcent,. Thie reductl,on in brack-population percentngc, occurrlng deaplte a atatewide Lncrease inthe brack Snpulation, J.a eapeclarly cnrclar Ln Dietrict z,
becauae it occurs ln the only dlstrlct w?rere black votera coulcl
have the Srctential for electing a candidate of ttreir choice.



4

we recognize that the state may want to restrDnd.i further to Lhe claims that a racialry discrfuninatory,' purpose and effect tdere lnrrolved in Ltre Legisrair:re,edecision to circumvent Durham. However, because of the. ci.me constraints- impoaed'on the Attorney Generar bysect ion 5, ancr the unanewered queetions'etiii-."*"ining,I con't.rL concrude thaL tho burien irnpoeerl on the state bysectlon 5 has been sustalned. eccoriingry,--r-must interposean objection areo to the-congressionar ieiistricting insofaras ic af fect.s the covered corintiee. However, elrould therrL(rt:., rlcgire t,o lrreuonL to urJ tnformucion roiaeing to Llrcconf igurat'ion of Dietrlct 2 which-woulrt address Lhe arlega-tions mentioned above, hre .stand ready to reconsider thisdeterminarion aB provided in rhe seclion s-;;il;rines.

|j*"".::l"l_-11 p:?y19".d. by secrion 5 of rhe votins
:::I'?,li^';*I")r^l::: ir- :lrlt-L . ;;;!-; ;.;i";L;';ijHr-
:: ":.. f::i:. :h :_ Tr ::g state e 

- 
Dl e t ri ca 

-4";;- ;;; - ;#-,oi j IIi ".::.. ::l:''1,11 :l1l !!re cons:::+o;;i-;Ji".'iili"i' ir.Ii";;:
l: ::::I..1n,"_1.:f:_.: r,o r ilr I have tr," - 

"r 
e" "i 

-ii, aI;;idT,abridginq the right to rrot,e on acco,rrrt-oi-;;.;; ;;i;;":,
::,:litr:::t.1p, l" ? tarns_uaso mlnortry er;"p.- il;;;";I-il.ii
l,j"^ll,L:::i":_ ro. r*inaiawn or tr,L j;Jil;"."ri"*-ii";i;iricry4E Ll l

:.: ::1,T:t:-::.:':_i: "p.?ined, rhe-"iEL"t of rhe objecrion
Lricuirr,3 Plon loqa!!y un

- lf you have any quest,ionaplcase fcel free to clf f CarI W.Director of the Section 5 Unit ofalwaysr w€ stand ready to aaelst
i n you r reappo rtlonme-nt ef fo rt .

concerning this matter,
Gabel (Zo2/72b7439) ,the Voting Section. Asyou in any way poseible

t^)..t

AsaLetant Attorney GeneralC-iVll Righre Oiirteion

Slncerely,