Brief for the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law and the American Jewish Committee as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees

    &

1

No.8&196t

ix Tm
$rryrrurr qsfi, uf thr lflntPil &trtes

Ocltnnn TERM, 1986

Iacv E. Taonxaunc, etaL,
, y. Appcllants,

Rar.rg Gnrcres, et al.,
Appellaes.

On Appcal from the United States Dirstrict Court
for thc Eastcmr District of North Carolina

BRIEF FOB TEE LAWYERSI'COMMTrIEE
FOB CTIrIL BIGIITS UNDEB I"AW A}tD
TEE A]}IERICAN JEWISH COMMTTTEE

AS AilIq CABIAE SI'PPORTING APPEI.I.NES

Jrxrs BosEBf,sox
EAToLDB. Tnae,Jr.

Co-Cbeirmen
Noa,uen R@LrcE

TlustsG
Wu.r.rru L RoB[NgoN
FBA.NE B. PABrrr! *
Seacrnr. Issncg.lropr
Prtnrcu M. E^NB^EIN

Ltwrns, Couurttrm roe
Crro Rrcgrs Urom Lrr.

1400'Eye' Strect, N.W.
Suite 400
Washipgtou, D.C. Z000E
(202) 371-1212

SAUUEI, BegtNo\rE
Btcanno T. Folror

TruAuurcrx JEwurE
Couur:=rs

166 East E6 Sheet
New York, New york 10022
(212) 761-4000

Attorneys lor Amici Curiac
r.esrrnssl of Becord

wll..ora. E tr PR!..rtr.C Co.. lnc. .789.OO9G . WrHtxo?or.. D.C. eOOOt



TABI,E OF CONTDNTS

STATEMENT OE INTEITDST

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OE ARGU-
MENT

ANGUMDNT

I. TIIE DISTRICT COURT PROPERLY CON-
CLUDED THAT TIIE TOTALITY OI' CIR-
CUMSTANCES DEMONSTRATED AN IM-
PENMISSIBLE DILUTION OF MINORITY
VOTING STRENGTH, AND ITS ANAI,YSIS
OF EACH OF TIIE RELEVANT FACTORS
WAS CONSISTDNT WTTII THE VOI'ING
NIG}ITS ACT AMENDMENTS OII 1982 ...

A. Section 2
"Totality

Violntions Are Established By the
of the Circumstances"

R. The District Court's Ultimate Conclusion of
Discrlminatory Result was Fully Supportetl
by the Totality of Circumstances .-..._--

TITE DISTRICT COURT DID NOT ERR IN
CONCLUDING TIIAT THE ELECTION OII
SOME MINORITY CANIDATES DID NOT
ALTER TITE IIISTORIC PATTERN OF LACI(
OT OPPORTUNITY FOR MINORITY VOT-
ERS, NOR DID IT ADOPT A PROPORTIONAI,
REPRESENTATION STAN DARI)

A. The Election of Some Black Oflicials Did
Not Disprove Lack of Equal Opportunity to
Elect Minority Oflicials

B. Appellants' Claim that the District Court
Imposed a Proportional Representation
Standard Ilarkens Back to the Rejected Ar_
guments Made by Opponents of the lgg2
Amendment to the Voting lttghts Act-.- --.-

I'oge

I

2

4

II.

ll

l2

t7



lr

TABLE OF CONTENTS-Continued

APPELLANTS SEET( TO NULLITY TIIE
1982 AII{ENDMENT TO TIIE VOTING
RIGHTS ACT BY FORECLOSING fTIE JU.
DICIAI, INQUIRY INTO THE TOTALITY Or
TTIE CTRCUMSTANCES WHICH GIVE RISE
TO CLAIMS OF VOTD DILUTION

A. The Use of Statistical Analysis and Lay
Witnesses to Establish Racially Polarized
Voting Without Any Inquiry Into Voter
Motivation Is Fully Supported by the Case
Law and the Legielative Ilistory of Secflon
I

B. Appellants and the Solicitor General Seek
to Reimpose an Intent Standard Onto Sec-
tion 2 Claims by Requiring Proof of Motiva-
tion of Voters

CLAIMS OF VOTE DILUTION, LII(E ALL
CLAIMS OF AN ABRIDGMENT OF TTID
ITRANCHISE, ARE ENTITLED TO SPECIAI,
JUDICIAL SOLICITUDE

CONCLUSTON

['age

III.

l9

l9

24

IV.

27

30

iri

TARI,E OF AUTHORITIDS
Cases: Page

Beer a. United States,374 F. Supp. 363 (D.D.C.
1974), uac'cl 426 U.S. f30 (1976) t4

Bolden a. CitU of llobile,423 F. Supp. 884 (S.D.
Ala. 1976), afr'd 671 F.zd 238 (5th Cir. lg?8),
reo'd 44G U.S. 65 (1980) ..--.-._----._1, passint

Boykitts a. Ha.ttiesburg, Civll No. II??-0062(C)
(S.D. Miss., March 2, 1984) ZB

Burns a. Richardson, SS4 U.S. ?S (f966)...-......-...-. Z,B
Chapman a. Meier,420 U.S. f (19?S) g

Chtyder Corp. o. Btoutn,44f U.S. Z8t (19?9).... 6
City of Pofi Arth.u.r a. United States,6t? F. Supp.

98? (D.D.C. l98l), af iL,46D U.S. 160 (1982).... Zg
City ol Rome a. United States, 472 F. Supp. 221

(D.D.C. 1979), aff'd, 446 U.S. 166 (t980)........ 16,20
Connor a.,Iohnson,402 U.S. 690 (fg?O). g
Cross a. Barter,604 F.zd 8?E (Eth Cir. lg?9)..... . t4
Duplex Printing Press Co. o. Deeting, Zb4 U.S.

443 (1e20)
Ernst & Drnst a. Ilochfelder, 425 U.S. lg6

(r9?6) 6

26
2,8

22

l4

28

23,27

Ferguson a. Winn Patish Policy Jtu'g, 62g lt.Zd
692 (5th Cir. 1976)

Fortson a. l)orseg, S79 U.S. 4BB (196b)
Graaes a. Barnes (Graoes I),849 F. Supp. ?04

(W.D. Tex. 1972) , aff'd attb nom. White a. Reges-
ter (White I),412 U.S. ?EE (fgZS)

Graues a. Barnes (Graaes .II), g7B F. Supp. 040
(W.D. Tex. 1974) , tsac'd sub rlom. White a. Reg_
ester (White II), 422 U.S. 936 (f926)

Harpu a. Vitginia State Bd. of Elections, BgB
u.s. 663 (1966)

Jones a.
l9g4),
(1e84)

City ol Lubboclc, 727 F.Zd 864 (bth Cir.
relfg en banc d.enied, 7gO li'.2d 2BB

Jot'dan a. Winter, 60,1 F.
1984), afr'd sub nont.
Ilneattiue C ommittee o.
83 L.Ed.zd 343 (t984)

Supp. 807 (N.D. Miss.
Mississippi Republican

':'::''- 
u_* 

- 23,26



iv

TABLE Of AUTXIOIUTIES-Continued

Itutchurn a. Byt'ne,740 F.zd f398 (?th Cir. 1084),
cert. d.eni.etl, 86 L.Ed.2d 692 (f985)

Ifit'ksett a. Board ol Su.peruisors ol Hinds Cotutty,
402 F. Supp. 668 (S.D. Miss. 1975), all'd,654
F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 19771 (en bancl, cert. dcnied,
434 U.S. 877 (1077)*

Liytscotnb a. lVise, 399 Ir. Supp. 782 (N.D. Tex.
19761 reu'tl. 661 F.zd 1043 (6th Cir. lg77t,
rei)'d, 437 U.S. 635 (f978)

llajot' u. I'reen,574 F. Supp. 321-r (E.D. La. f 983)..
llandel o. Bradley,432 U.S. f73 (1977)
llcDaniel a. Sanchez,452 U.S. 130 (1981)
tlcttillan u. Escambia Cou.nty (McMillan I), 638

F.zd 1239 (5th Cir. 1981), aff'd, on reh,earing,
688 F.zd 960 (5th Cir. f982) , rel)'d, Esca'mbio
County u. l[cMillant 

- 
U.S. 

-, 
80 L.Ed.zd

3G (1984) ----.-:.-.--.--.-..-.l,passim
tlctlillan a. Dscambia County (McMillan II),7A8

lloore a. Leflot'e County Boaiil bf Dlecti,on Com-
ntissiotters,602 f.2d 621 (6th Cir. 1974),-.-..--. 26

NAACP o. Gadstlen Couttty School Board, Egl
F.2d 9?8 (llth Cir. 1982)...,..... ...-.:. 14,23

N.L.R.B. o. Fruit & Vegetable Packers,377 U.S.
68 (1964) 6

National l'Voodworlc Mfrs. Assoc. o. N.L.P.B., 386
u.s. 612 (196?) 6

Neoett a. Sides, 671 F.2d 209 (5th Cir. lg78),
cert. clenied, 446 U.S. 951 (1980)

Niron a. Condon, 286 U.S. 73 (1931) ---.-------.:-.-- ---

Niron a. Hentdon,273 U.S. 636 (192?)
Parnell u. Rapicles I'arish, Scltool Boan'd, 426 Ii'.

Srrpp. 399 (W.D. La. 1976) , &fr'd,663 li'.zd 180
(6th Cir. 79771, cert. denied, 438 U.S. t,l6
(1078) 22

Perki'tts u. City of West Helena,676 Ii'.2d 201 (Bth
Cir. f082), aff'd. ntem.,450 U.S. 801 (1982) ... 23

I'erkins a. llluttheus, 400 U.S. 379 (1971) 0
Political Ciail Votet's Organization o. Ten'ell, lt66

F. Srrpp. 338 (N.D. Tex. 1983) -.....-.. 14,23

Prge

14

t4

23
14,28

2T
I

20
28
28

v

TARLE Or AUTIIORITIES-Continued
Page

Prilll,man-Stanilartl a. Suint,466 U.S. 273 (19821.. 17

Reynolcls u. Sims, S77 U.S. 533 (1964) 28

Robinson o. Com.ntissioners Cotu't, 505 F.2d 674
(6th Cir. 1974) --------. 26

Rogers u. Lodge, 458 U.S. 613 (f982) .----.-.---.--..-1, passfun

Sietra a. El Paso Ind. Scltool Dist., 691 F. Supp.
802 (W.D. Tex. 1984) .- 14

Tunter a. lfcl{eithen, 490 F.Zd l9l (5th Cir.
1973)....-.-..- 26

United Jeutish Organizations o. Carey, 430 U.S.
r44 (le??) . 17,20

United Stotes u. Board of Superaisot's of Forrest
Cottttty,E7f F.zd 951 (6th Cir. 1978) 14

Uniteil States t. Calumaro, 364 U.S. 351 (f967)- -- 6
llni.ted. States a. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S.

144 (1938) ... 28,29
United States a. Dallas County Commission, 719

F.2d 1629 (llth Cir. 1984) .--...-.. 6
United. States a. Illarengo County Comntission,

. .?31 F.zd 1646 (llth Cir. 1084), cert. denied,,
106 S.Ct. 375 (1984) ...6,passim

lVallace u. House,377 tr. Supp. ll92 (W.D. La.
1974), aff'd. in, part and, rea'd, in patt, 516 F.Zd
6f g (5th Cir. 1975) , uac'd 425 U.S. 947 (1976).. 9, 14

, White a. Regester, 412 U.S. 765 (1973) ......---..--3, passitrt
' l'ehterton a- Dfiggers, 370 F. Supp. 6f 2 (S.D. Ala.

19?4) .. ..-.. 14
l'ick Wo a. Hopkins,ll8 U.S. 366 (1886) ZB
Zimmer a. Mcl{eitlten, 485 F.zd lZgT (6th Cir.

1973) (en, bancl, alf'd sub nom. East Carroll
Parish School Board u. llarshall. 424 U.S. 686
(1976) --- 

.,---.-.- 
.- -.-...-S,passitn

STATUTES:

Voting Rights Act of 1966, 42 U.S.C. g l97S .... . 2, passhn

RULES:

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 62(a) t7



vl

TABLE OF AUTIIORITIES-Continued

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY: ['age

S. Rep. No. 4l?, 9?th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982)'
repfi.rfieil in \982 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News
177 ..----..-..-- 6,7tassim

Voting Rights Act: Hearittgs on S. 53 et al. Be-

fore tlrc Su.bcomm. on the Constittttion of the
Senate Cornnt.. on th.e Ju.tliciaty, 97th Cong.,

2d Sms. (1982)

MISCELI,ANEOUS:

E. Banfield & J. Wilson, Cita Poli'tics (1963) -----.---
II. Blalock, Social Statistics (2d Ed' 1970).--.- -. ,---

J. Ely, Democracy and Distt'use (1980)
A. I(arnig & S. Welch, Black Rcprcsentation and

Urban Policy (1980)
J. I(ent, Contmentaries on American Ldus, (lZLh

ed. 1873)
Ackerman, Beyond Carolene Prodttcts, 98 Ifarv.

L.ltev. 713 (1985)
Berry and Dye, The Discriminatory Efiects of

At-Large Elections, 7 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 85
(1s?e)

Davidson and l(orbel, At-Larye Dlections anil
Mino't'ity Grorcp Representation, 43 J. Politics
982 (re8r)

Engstrom, The Reincarnation of the Intent Stand-
at'tl: Federal Jtod.ges and. At-Large Election
Cases,28 lloward L.J. No. 2 (1985) (forthcom-
ins)

Engstrom aud McDonald, The Election of Blacles
to CitU Councils, 76 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 344
(198r ) o, lo

Grofman, Misalski, Noviello, Th,e'Totalitu of Cir-
aurr.stances' Test in Section 2 ol the 1082 Daten'
sion of the Votittg Righte Act: A Social Science
Perspecthte,T l-aw and Policy f99 (1986) .-...... . 22,23

l8

I
22
29

l0

29

26

vii

. TABLItr OIi AUTIIORITIES-Continued

Ilartman, Racial Vote Dihttion and Separation of
I'ouers: An.Erploration of th.e Conflict Be-
tueen the Juilicial "Intent' and. the Legislatiue
"Results" Standards,60 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 689
(1e82)

Jones, Tlrc Impact ol Locol Dlection Systems on.

Black Politi.cal Representation, 11 Urb. Af. Q.
346 (1076)

I(arnig, Black Representation on City Councils, 12
Urb. Aff. q.223 (1976)

I(ramer, The Elcction of Blacks to City Councils,
l97t J. of Blaek Studles 449 (197f)

Latimer, Black Political Representation in Soutlt-
ernCities,lS Urb. Atr. Q. 66 (1979)

Parker, Racial Gerrym.ancleting and Lagislntiue
Reapltortionment in C. Davidson, Minority Vote
Dihttion ( 1.984 ) -.. ......-.".....-........-

Parker, The "Results" Test ol Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act: Abandoning the Intent
Standarcl,69 Va.L. Rev. 166 (f083)

Powell, J., Curolene Products Reuisited, 32 Col.L.
Rev. 1087 (1982)-.....--.

Robinson and Dye, Reformism and Blacla Repre-
sentation on Cit11 Councils, 69 Soc. Sci. Q. 133
(r078)

Sloan, "Good Goaerntnent" and,
Roce, lT Soc. Probs. f6f (f969)

the Politics of

I'age

l2

l0

10

l0

10

l0

t2

28

l0

l0



IINIEF TON TIIE I,AWYENS' (]OMMITTEE
FOTI CIVIL nI(;TIl'S UNDDR I,AW ANI)
TIIE AMITRICAN JEWISII COIVIMII'TI'E

AS AMICI CUNAD SUI'PONTING AI'I'DI,I,EES

STATEM!]NT OF INTI'REST
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

is a nonprolit organization established in 1963 at the re-
quest of the President of the United States to involve
leading members of the bar throughout the country in
the national effort to assut'e civil rights to all Amet'icans.
Protection of the equal voting rights of all citizens has
bedn an important component of the Committee's work,
anrl it has submitted anicus curiae briefs in a number
of vol,ing rights cases decided by this Coult, including
Dscambia County a. McMillan, 

- 
U.S. 

-, 
80 L.ltrd.

2d 36 (1984) ; Rogers u. Lodge, 458 U.S. 6fB (1982);
McDaniel u. Sanchez. 462 U.S. 130 (f981); and City ol
Mobile a. Boklen,, 446 U.S. 66 (f980). The Lawyers'
Committee has more than eighteen years' experience liti-
gating voting rights cases, including several appearances
before this Court.

The American Jewish Committee is a national organi-
zation of approximately 60,000 members which was
founded in 1906 for the purpose of protecting the civil
and religious rights of Jewish Americans. It has always
been the conviction of this organization that the security
and the consti[utional rights of Jewish Americans can
best be protected by helping to preserve the security and
constitutional rights of all Amerieans, irrespeetive of race,
religion, sex or national origin.

The American Jewish Committee and the Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights Under Law stlongly sup-
ported enactment of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. lVe
continue to believe that this landmark statute, as
amended, must be enforced vigorously to fulfill its ob-
jectives and therefore ul'ge affir'mance of the decision be-
low.



INTNODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF AITGUMENT

This appeal challenges a determination by a three-

:uOee aisiri.t court tlit a legislative. redistricting plan

l""it.a by the General Assem-bly of Nor[h Carolina had

tf," 
"f""t-of 

diluting black voting strength in-six mu.l!i-

."rrrtr., state HousJ of Representatives and Senate dis-

tricts and in one racially gerrymandeled state Senate

tlistrict:
Al'though this appeal presents this Courb with its firsb

pil;;t ,I.uiu* of a case-involving Section 2 of the Voting

iiigt it" Act, 42 U.S.C. S 19?3, since its amendment by

colr-gr"r, in 1gg2, the issues presenterl nonetheless fall

with"in the well-developed jurisprudence of this Court con-

"'u*ing 
uote dilution. Ai staire in this litigation is the

abilit/of the federal judiciary under the mandate of the

Voiing Rights Act t'o void rliscriminatory redistricting

plans"and bo ,".ur. for black citizens the full opport'unity

[o 
"qu"f 

fV participate in the political process and to. elett

itr. tupt"t.ntatives of their choice' Appellants,--with !|re
b";ki"; of the solicitoi Gener.al, seeh to debilitate the

"-"nOIa 
Votihg Rights Act by assetting that the-trial

court's careful examination of the cont'ext in which a

vote dilution claim arises necessarily leads to a "pt'opor-

;i"^"i ircpresentation" standard of review' In addition'

;;p;11".6 would reinfuse an intent stantlard into the

ect, despite its express repudiation by Congress in l9B2'

by requir.ing prooi of the electorate,s racial rnotivation

Ulfo"e 
"a"ia1ly 

polarized voting may be weighed as an

evidentiary faetor in a vote dilution claim'

It is instructive that the attempt to secure such an

eviseeration of the amended Voting Rights Act occurs in

thecontextofat.lar.geelections.BeginningwiLhtr,ot,tson
i. Dorr"y,8?9 U.S. age (fgOf) and Brans a' Richatdson'

384 U.S: ?3 (f966), and eontinuing l'hrough Rogers a'

Lodge, this Court has repeatedly viewed with shepticism

tt 
" 
"u.u of multimembei districts in communities evi-

dencing a history of sharp raeial polarizati6n and dis-

crinrinibory practices. Although the use of atJarge sys-

3

tems in itself violates neither the Voting Rights Ac[ nor

the Constitution, it is long settled that these systems sin-

gularly lend themselves to an impermissible diminut'ion
of tt u value of the franchise of minolity populations. In
amending tlre Voting Rights Act in 1982, Congress drew

upon two challenges to at-large eleetions to frarne the

"totality of the circumstances" s[anclard embtldied in Sec-

tion 2 of the Act. See White u. Regester. 412 U.S. 765
(f973) and Zim'met u. McKeithen,485 F.zd 1297 (6th

Cir. 19?3) (en banc\, afr'd sub nom. Dast Camoll Parish
Sclrcol Board. a. Illarshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976).

Under the statutory '(totality of tlie cit'cumstatrces" test
derived f.rom White and Zimmer, vote dilution claims are
of necessity fact specific and must correspond to the local
context. North Carolina is a state with a long history of
official discrimination against blacks in all aspects of
civil life, including the iron-clad preclusion of any role in
political life. From the conclusion of Reconstruction un-
til 1969, no black had ever been elected to the Sta[e House
of Rqlresentativesl not until f976 did any blacks num-
ber among the state's Senators. Against lhis bacl<ground,
the claims of "pt'opot'tional representation" can be laid to
rest with the most rudimentat'y examination of North
Carolina political life. Although blacks constitute 22.4%
of the state's population, between 1971 and 1982 (the
year this lawsuit was filed), the number of blacks in the
state l{ouse was between two and four out of a total of
120; between 1976 and 1983, there were one or two black
members of the state Senate out of a total of 60. Only
five llouse districts and two Senate distric[s are involved
in this litigation and, as a simple arithmetical matter,
the outcome would not and could not guarantee propol'-
tionality.

This appeal permits this Court to affirm l,he districb
court's propel' application of the congressionally-specified
evidentiary factors of illegal vote dilution. Beyond re-
affirming the application of amended Section 2, however,
this appeal allows for a renewed declar"ation of the piv-



4

otal role of the voting rights of America's minority citi-

zens. If the politicai 
'pt*"t*tut ary t9 be utilized to eradi-

cate the vestiges "t'tiitttitination 
from our society' full

,""a -qr"f par"ticipation in the political process' including

ifr" "riiriv 
io el""l representatives' must be guaranteed to

;;;iti.; under the careful an6 exacting judicial scru-

tiny mandated bY Congress'

As amici, the Lawyers' Committge lor Civil Rights Un-

d.;;;; ;nA tn" A*ttiturr Jewish Committee appeal to

this Court not to waver from this task'

ANCUMENT

I. TIIE DISTNICT COUNT I'ROI'TqNLY CONCLUDEI)

TIIAT l'}IE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCDS

DEMONSTRAI'ED AN IMPERMISSIBLE DII'U'
,fTON OII MINOITITY VOTING STRI'NG'III' AND,

I1'S ANALYSTS OT EACII OF TIIE NELDVANT

itrrcrons was coNsIsrENT WITII TIIE vorING
NIG}ITS ACT AMENDMENTS OF IO82'

A. Sectlon 2 Violatlons Are Estabtished lly the "Total'
ItY of the Clreumstances'"

In 1982, Congress enacted a series of ametrdments to

the Voting Rights AcL, 42 U'S'C' $ l9?3, to secure for vic-

iim of d'iscriminatory vote dilution a strong and work-

able statutory remedy.' Congress devoted particular at-

tention to the standarcls forl proving abridgment of the

il;t, a" vote under Section 2 of the amendetl Act as a

".'tuft 
of this Court's ruling that' claims of unconstitu-

tional vote clilution can be premised only upon-a thowilg
of rliscriminatory intent. Citg o1 Mobile a' Bol'den' 44G

U.S. Of (1980).' The legistative history of the. 1982

a-ena*"nts makes:unmistikably clear that the principal

objective was to provide a remedy for electoral schemes

[f,iiJ.nv ,inori[ies an equal opportunity to participate

in the potiticat pr.ocess and .lec[ r.epresentatives of their

I The Cdfy ol Mobile plurality extenrled the same stundard to

voto dilution ctalms un.ler the pre-1982 version of Section 2' 4AB

U.S. at 01.

6

choice without requiring proof of rliscriminatory intent'

S. Rep. No. 41?, g?th Cong', 2d Sess' at 15-16' reprin'ted'

in rsbz U.S. Code Cong. b ao. News I'?? fhereinafter
cited as S. ReP.l.'

r The sollcitor Gencrul arglles ln hig brief that the sennte Repor[

"cannot be taken ns determlnative on atl counla"' and that the

statements of Senttor f)ole must lnstenrl "be given partlctrlor

welght,,, Rrlef for the Unitetl Statr:s ns Amicus curiae supporting

Applltants at 8 n.12, 24 n.49 [hereinafter cited as Br' for U'S'l

Ilowever, senator Dole fully endorsed the comnrittee Report, ns is

clear from the first sentence of his Addltlonal Views: "The Com-

mittce Report is an nccttrate stntement of tlre intent of S' 1902' as

'reportetl by the Commlttee." S. Rep' at 1$3 (Addltlonal Views of

Senator Dole). See nlso S' Rlrp' at l'9C (Strpplemental Views of

Senator Grnsstey, eo-aponsor of Dole compromise nmcndment) ("I
am wholly satlslled.rlih th" blll as reporterl by the Committee-anrl

I concrrr with the irlterpretntlon of this nction itr the Commlttee

Report").
Contrary to the Solicitor Gcneral's contention, the Senal'e R-eqyt

mustberegardetlasanauthot.itativepronouncementrlflegislative
lntcnt, slnce lt was endorsed by the supporters of the originnl bill'

., ,r"il as by the proponents of the compromise tmendmcnt' Sce

ChrUsler Coip. r. Broum,44l U'S' 281, 8I 1 (1$?9) 1 Du1tle:c Ptint-

ing-Pr"r, Cti. u- Deet'ing,264 U'S' 448,474 (1920)' The Solicitor

GJneral,s extenslve relinnce on the atltements of witnesses before

the Senatc Commlttee on the Jurliciary ls unsttpportnble: "llemarks

. . . marte ir the coursc of tegielatlve riebate or heorings othcr than

by p.rrnrt, renponsible for the prepnration or tlre drnfting of a

tritt,'"r" entltled to llttle welght ' ' '" Ernst & Drnst a' llochlt:1ler'

426 IJ.S. 186,203 n.24 (10?6) ' sce also Notioruil Wuttltootk lllfrs'

Assoc. tt. N.L.R.B-, S85 U'S' 612,639-40 (106?); N'L'R'B' a' Fruit

i Vege.toltte Pockets, S?? U.S' 68, 66 (1964); Ilttited States o'

Colamaro,364 U.S. 861, 36? n'9 (1S6?) '

TheSollcltorGenernl'spositlonisaradiealrlepnrturefromthe
pr"viou,reliancebytheJrrstlceDepnrtmcntontheSeuateRep<rrt
asthenuthoritatlvevehicleforinterpretingSection2.Referenr:es
to the Report are found throughout the government nrgtrment op-

po*lng the atlnrge electlon system ln Dallas Cotrnty' Alabamn

inrfJf for Appellnnt at 20, 26,26,27, 36,38, 4l' United Stntes u'

Du.llas Coanl'y (omntission,739 F'zd 1629 (llth Cir' l$84)' and

a.e cttea as nuthorlty in more than ten pages of lts twenty-ffve

;;;;;.;"-"nt ln (Jniteil Stntes rt' Matcnllo (iount11 Commiasiott'

ilJ"t f* Appeltant at 16, 18, lC, 20, 2l' 22' 23' 26' 26' 27' 36' 80'

unitcil statii o. Marengo coantg comtnission, ?31 F.zd 1646 (1rth

Cir.1984), cett.ilenieil, fOS S'Ct' 876 (f984)'



6

The intent of Congress as revealed by the st'atutory

f"ngrug" antl the legislative history qf the 1982 amend-

-"It to Section 2 makes five things clear'

First, in enacting a Section 2 result's test, Congt'ess jn-

tended to eliminati ttre necessity of demonstiating dis-

criminatory intent to prove a violatron' S' Rep' tt 2'l;-

McMillan, a. Dscambia County (Mt:Millan II)' ?48 F'zd

103?, l04l-42 $Lh Cir. 1984)'

Second, the results test expressly "restore[d'l the pre-

UiUlte legal stantlard which governed eases challenging

election systbms or praetiees at an illegal dilution of the

i"inotit, 
-vote," 

S. Iiep. al 27, which Congt'ess understood

not to i'equire prnof Lf discriminatory inten[' This "re-

sults" test was a statutory codification of the test used

tV ttit Court in White tt. Regester. S' Rell' at2]' and the

pie-City of Mobite case law, most notably, Zitn'tner tt'
'fu1cKei{heti. Accordingly, the pre-City ol Mobile ctses

provitle a guide as to how the st'atute is to be interpreted'

b. n"p. ^izl; see also \Jnited. States a' Maren'g1o Contt'ty

Corrrii$ion, iet n.za 1646, 1665-66 (llth cir' 1984),

cert. d.enied., 105 S.Ct. 376 (1984)'

Third, Congress intencled that proof of a Section 2

violatiori should be "based on the totality of the circum-

Stanees." 42 U.S.C. S 19?3(b)' Under this standatd'

plaintifrs are held to a showing tha[ tlre "political proc-

Lsses leading to nomination and election were not equally

opu" to par"ticipation by the group in question-that its
mumbe,, had less opportuni[y than did otlrer residents in

the distlict to participate in the political pr.ocess,es an{_!o

elect legislators of their choice." White,4fZ U'S' at ?66'

The ty-pical evidentiary factors which may be userl to

prove iirat minorities have less opportunity to participate

in tlre potitieal process are spelled out in the senate Re-

port.t

r The senate Report spcclfied the following constellation of

factors: i

l.theextentofanyhlstory'ofofilclaldiscrlmintrtioninthe
gtate or politlcal subdivlslon that touched the right of the

7

Fourth, the evidentiary factors derived from these

.r.b, ,..'relevant in any judicial inquiry into claims of

vote diltrtion. However, tire legislative history is clear

that Congress intencletl that no one factor should pre-

rlominate] and "thet'e is no requirement that any par-

ti*to. number of faetors be proved, or that a majority

;ith.. point one way or the bther'" S' Rep' at 29' In-

;a;; S..tion 2 "requires the court's overall judgment'

for"O on the totality of the elrcumstances antl guided

;t those relevani iactors in the particrtlar case' of

members of the mlnorlty group to register, hr vote, or ot,her-

wlse to particlpate ln the democratlc process;

2. the extent to'which voting in the r:lections of the state or

polltical aubttlvlsion is raclatty polarized ;

3. the extent to which the state or politicnt subtlivislon has

used unusttally large electlon distrlcts, majority vote retluire-

ments, anti-single sho[ provlslon, or other voting plactices or

procedures ttrat may enfrance the opportunity forr discriminn-

tlon against the minoritY group;

4. lf there is n candldate slatlng procr:ss' lvhether the mem-

bers of the mlnority group havc been tlenled uccess to tlrlt
process;

6. the extent to which members of the minority group in the

state or polltlcnl subdivlsion bear the effects of discrimination

lneuchareasrlseducatlon,employmentandhtrnlth,whlch
hlnder their abllity to pnrticipate effectively iu the politlcnl

process;

6. whether political campnigns ltave been chnrncterizt:d by

overt or subtle racial appealg;

?. the extent to which menrbers of the minority group lrave

been elected to public otfice in the Jurisdiction'

Two arldltlonal factors of lesser evidentiary signilicance are

mentloned:

whether there is a slgnlficant tack of responsiveness on the

purtofelectedofficlntstotheparticularlzerlneedgofthemem.
Lers of the minority group; [andl

whether the pollcy unrlerlylng the state or political subdlvl-

slon'suseofsuchvotingqualiffcatlon,prerequlsitetovoting'
or stantlard, practice or procetlure ls tenuous'

S. Rep. at 28-29 [footnotes omltted]



8

whether the voting strength of the- minority voters 
- 
is

. 'minimized or cancelel out'"' S' Rep' at 29 n'118'

quoting Fot'tson a,n<l Burns'

Fifth, Congress intended Section 2 to reach practiees

tnar eilner tmpletely negate or minimize the voting

;;;rgth of minoriti... th" eleetoral suceesses of minor-

iiv ..?r,fiart.t is one of a nttmber of circumstances
ilrf,i.tt nray be consirlered'" 42 U'S'C' f973(b)' Conse-

q;;;;iy, "tile election of a few minority candirlates rloes

,nt 'n..ur.arily foreclose the possibility of dilution of

ihe black votei in violation of this section'" S' Ilep' at

io n.rtf, qu,ot,ino Zimmer,485 tr'zd at 1307'

Of necessity, the qttestion of the existenee of vote dilu-

tion entails an intensely factual inquiry' The standald

a.u"top.O by the pr"-iity ol 
-Mobite- 

ease law and in-

"l'porlt"a 
Uy Cong.uss int-o-.the 1982 amendments pro-

;ft; ; frameworklh*t t,iglrtights the featur.es that have

*u.ut""a through the varinus factual settings where vote

dilution has been fottnd' These faetors coruespond to

,-frruaig.atic setting in which a-claim of vote rlilution

ineorporates some cJmbination of the following: ( 1)

;;;;i.;t;l obstacles to the electoral success of minor-

ities, su.h as multimember districts, (2) a history .of
discrimination andTor absence of or minimal minority

political success' and (3) eertain behavioral pal'terns that

lccenttrate the raciul axis of the vote tlilution' sueh as

r".i^fiv polarized voting antl racial appeals in electoral

;;;;;idt. The juxtap"osition of -the 
particular Jacttral

ilfi;;rinst the paradigm motlel of how an electoral

systetn ean operatu io "u""1 
out ol diltrte the exereise

oi ttt" franchise by racial minorities yielrls the concltr-

sion whether a violation of Section 2 of the Voting

Rights Act exists.

ll. The Distrlct Court's Ultlmate Concluslon of Dls-

ctlminatoryResultsrvasFullySrrlrportedbythe
TotnlltY of Clrcumstanees'

Twenty years of voting rights litigation has imparted

the clear lesson that cer[ain eleetoral systems' foremost

I
among them multimember districts or atJarge electiotrs'

have-shownthemselvestohaveresultedintheillegal
clilution of minority voting strength with such regu-

inrtty that, while nor. per se violative of the Voting

nighi. Act, these systems must elicit from reviewing

.orrt. a serious presumption of statutory infirmity under

amencled Section 2. In its last full treatment of a con-

s[itutional voting rights claim, this Court ernphasized

"the tendency o1 rnulti-member districts to minitnize

the voting sttength of racial minorities'" Ilogers a'

Lod,ge,456 U.S. it szl. This'Court has repeaterlly luled

ln"f 
"t-turge 

elections violate the statutory or constitu-

tional righ[s of minority votel's,' and has directed courts

fashionin'g remedial rlecrees to avoid the implementation

of such electoral sYstems.o

A wealth of social scientific literature confirms the

"eonventional hypothesis" that atJatge elections c9n-

stitute a signilicant politlcal disadvantage for minority

candirlates and votens. see Davitlson and Korbel, At-
Large Elections and" Minority Group Representation, 43

.1. flotitics 982, 994-95 (Table l) (1981) (listing empir-

ical studies).u Dissenting from the application of the

constitutional intent standard in Rogers a' Lodge, Justice

I See Rogers, suwai White, suptai Peilcins a' llottlrcws' 400

U.S. 3?C, S89 (fg?f) (at-large elections described as method for
whites to retoln electoral control after black voter registration

increase in wake of Voting Rlghts Act) ' In addition, eixteen of

the 23 appeltate court cases cited in the Senate Report involved

challenges to atlarge elections, of which ten were successful' S'

Rep. at 23 n.?8.
6 Connor tt. ,loltnson, 402 U'S. 690, 692 (f$?0) ("when district

courtg are forced to fashlon apportionment ptatrs, single-member

tlistricts are preferable to large mutti-member districts aa a gcneral

nratter.") i eee olso tVotlace o. Ilouse,426 U'S' $47 (1976); East

Carroll Parish Board a. llorsholl, 424 U'S' 636' 639 (f0?6);

Chopman a.Il[eiet,420 U.S. l, l8 (19?6) '
t See olso E. Banfield & J' Wtlson, Cita Politics 9l-06, 303-808

(f9$); A. Iturnlg & S. W'elch, Blnclc Reprcaentation anil Urban

io6ci bC trcso); Berry antl Dye, The Discriminatory Dfrects ol
At-Liroc Dlectiow, ? Fla. St. U. L. Rev' 86, $3 (1979); Ensstrom



tr0

Stevens focused on the inherent tendeney of at-large sys-

tems to maximize rnajority political power and re-

ernphasized this Court's skeptieal view of multimember
rlisiricting. 458 U.S. aL 632,637-38 &'n.16 (Stevens, J',
dissenting) (quoting I J. Kent, Commen'tatizs on' Amer'
ican Lau 230-31 (12th ed. 18?3) ).

The facts in this case present a elear example of the

interaction between the atJarge structural irnpediment

and the history and behavioral patterns of discrimina-
tion in North Carolina.' The district eourt's findings of
fact are replete with documentation of the discrimina-
tion against blachs in North Carolina, not only with
respeet to the right to vote, but also in housing, eduea-

tion, employment, health, and other public and private
facilities. 590 f. Supp. at 359-64. The court noted past

use of literacy tests, poll taxes, anti-single shoi voting
laws, numbered seat requirements, and other means to

deny blacks the opportunity to register and vote, includ-
ing the continued use of a majority vote requirement.

and McDonuld, The Dlectiott ol Blaaks to CitU Cowcils, 76 Am'
Pol. Sci. Rev. 344 (lg8l); Jones, The Im'poct ol Local Election
Systente on Black Political Representation, ll Urb. Alt. Q. 346

(f9?6); Karnig, Blaclc llepresentotion on City Councils, 12 Urb'
Afi. Q. 228-242 (fg?6) ; Kramer, The Dlection of Blncka to City
Cou.ncils, lg?f J. of Black Studles 448-49 (19?f ); Latimer, Btaclc

Politie,al Representotiom in Southern Cities, 16 Urb' Afi. Q. 66'

?1-82 (f 9?0) ; Robinson and Dye, Relortrtistn and Blaclc Repre'
sentotion on City Councila,69 Soc. Sci. Q. 133-14f (1078); Sloan,

"Gooil Goaernment" antl the Politics ol Roce, l? Soclal Problems

t61, l?0-78 (1969).

In addltion, sturlics have documented the lmpediments ngalnst

bltck representation in southern legislatures created by atJarge
etecttons, und the amelioratlon of the discrlminatory ellects follorv-

lng the ellminatlon of multimembcr districts. See, e'9., Patker,
Rociril Gerrynanttlering and. Legislatiue Rea'ppottionnt'ent ln C,

Davidson, Minority Vote Diltttiort SS (1984).

I Amici emphasize thnt gix of the seven challenged dlstrlcts use

at-targe elections. The remnlnlng district, Senate District No. 2'

was created by extenslve reallgnment and resulted in the divislon
of a btack population concentratlon, thereby precltrdlng'an effective

votlng majorlty. 690 F. Supp. at 868.

ll
The court found that black Voter registration rates re-
mained depressed relative to whites "because of the long
peliod of official state denial and chilling of black cit,i-
zens' r'egistration efforts." Id. at [161. Also as a con-

sequence of the history of cliscrimination, blacks con-

tinue to sufrer ft'om a lower Socioeconomic status which,
the court found, eontinues to impair their ability to par-
ticipate on an equal basis in the political process. Id. at
361-63. The historic use of racial appeals in political
eampaigns was found to persist in North Carolina, trnd

to continue to affect the capability of blacks to elect can-
didates of their choice. Id. at 364. Finally, voting was
found to be severely racially polarized in the challenged
distric[s, id. at 367-72, and blach cantlitlates to remain
at a tlisadvantage in terms of relative probability of
suecess in lunning for ofHce. Id,. aL367.

In sum, with the single exception of denial of aceess

to a candidate slating plocess, the district cout't founrl
that all of the factors specified in the Senate lteport
existed or werc present in the recent past in the chal-
lenged districts. More important, the persistent effect
of each factor, even in isolation, was found to have a
direct and appreciable impaet on present minority poli[-
ical participation which continued to disadvantage blacks
relative to whites. In light of [hese findings of fact,
the distriet eourt properly concluded that the signposts
fot vote dilution drawn from the ease law and legisla-
tive history of Section 2 all pointed to the dilution of
minority voting streng[h ln the multimember districts
and the single-member Senate district.

II. THD DISI'RICT COURT DID NOT ENN IN CON.
CI,UDING TIIAT T'ITE ELECTION OF SOME MI.
NONITY CANDIDATES DID NOT ALTEIT TIIE
IIISTORIC I'ATTDRN OIT I,ACI( OII OPPORTU.
NITY TON MINOUTY VOTERS, NOII DID I1'
ADOPT A PNOPORTIONAL NEI'NESEN'T'ATION
STANI)AND.

Congress drew upon White and Zimmer as model judi-
cial interventions to remove structural barriers that im-



12

peded minority'aceess to the political procoss' -It -b-ears
emphasis that many of tlre factors focused upon in White

und it. pl'ogeny at'e not in thernselves either illegtll or

unconstifutionai Uut may nonetheless, in their aggregate,

trigget the need fot' remedial intervention'8

Appellants' arguments before this Court would tlefeat

the ovetall inquiry into the structures, practices and 
-be-

haviors affecting minority politieal opportunity in ty-o

critical ways: first, appellants would have the multi-

factored Wir'ite/Zim,mei-analysis negated by the episodic

election of black candiclates,.and second, appellants seeh

io introduce an intent standard into the well-clevelopecl

concept of racially polarized voting'

A. The Etectlon of Some Black Olliclals Dld Nol' Dls-

prove Lack of Equnl Opportunlty to Elect' Mlnorlty
OIRclals.

Appellants contend that "the degree of suecess at the

polls enjoyed by blnek North Carolinians" distinguishes

it,i. suil ironr prior vote tlilution eases antl is sufficient
,,to entirely cliscredit the plaintifrs' theory that the pres-

ent legislaiive districts tleny blacks equal access to the

politieil proeess." Br. of Appellants aL 24' Similarly, the
'solicitor General asserts that the challenged multimem-

ber tlistriets have ,,apparently enhaneed-not diluted-
rninority.voting strength." Ir. for. U'S' at 23' Both

eppelta-rrts *n.l th. solicitor General cite the extent of

claimed minor.ity suceess as a principal reason for over-

turning the tlistrict cout't. This argument is wl'ong as

a mattet'of law and fact.

As previously stated, the legislative history is clear

that Cilngress intendecl that a Section 2 violation should

s"lTlhe facts ln Wlfite set the contout's for the puzzle, but the

t trnt .p"."t could be lilletl in with difierent pioces ' ' .'' Ilartman'

Rocial Vote Dihttiott anil Seporation of Ptnlers: An Explot'otion

ol the Conflict Behoeen the Judicial "Intent" ond the Legislatiae

"Resulls" Stonilords,60 Geo. Wash' L' Rev' 689, 600 (1082)' See

clsoParker,The"Results"Testolsection2olth'eVotingRights
Act: Abaniloni'ng tltc Intenl Stundoril,6g Va'L'Rev' 166 (f983)'

IB

depend upon "the totality of the circumstances," and the.

election of rninor.ity 
"nn.li.lotes 

in challenged tlistricts'
rloes not, in itself, foreclose a llnding of vote dilution'
S. Rep. at 29 n.115. Thus, the degree of minority elec-

toral success is "om.e circumstance which may be con'

sidered . . ." 42 U.S.C- l9?3 (emphasis added) ' See

also S. Rep. at 29 ("there is no requirenlent that any

partieular number of factors be provecl, or that a majo-r-

ity of thcm point one way or the other.")' Indeed the

pioviso in Section 2 " wtls enacted in response to con-

cerns thtrt a results test would devolve into a standard

focused solely on the extent of minority electoral suceess.

The two principal cases cited by the Senate Report,

White anJ Zimmer, both provide direct precetlent for the

district eourt's ruling that the election of minority can-

rlidates tloes not neeessarily fot'eelose a finding of vote

tlilution. lnWhite, this Court determined on facts almost

identical to the present case that multimember legisla-

tive districtd in Dallas and Bexar Counties, Texas, denietl

nrinority voters equal opportunities to elect candidates

of theirl choice notwithstanding that two blachs and live
Mexican-Anrericans had been elected to the Texas legis-

lature from those districts. 412 U.S. at 766, 768-69'

Similarly, in Zimmer, the Fifth Circuit found vote dilu-
tion in at-large, county-wide voting despite the election

of three blnck candidates after the case was tried''o

o "Providetl, that nothirrg in this section establishes a right to
have members of a protected clase etected in numbers equal ttt
thelr proportlon ln the populatlott." 42 U.S.C. $ f 9?3'

ro"[Wle cannot endorse the view that the success of black candi-

dates at the polls necessnrity forecloses tlre possibility of dilution
of the bldck vote. Strch Buccess might, on occosion, be attributable
to the work of politicinns, who, upprehending that the srrpport of a
black candirlatc woukl be lxrlitically expedicnt, car4paign to insure

hig election. or such success might be. attributable to political

eupport motivnted by ditferent considerations-namely that elec-

tion of a btack candidate tvlll thwart successful challenges to elec-

toral schemes on dilutlon grounds. In either situation, a canditlate

could be elected despite the relative politicnl backwardness of black

resldents in the electoral district. Yl/ere we to hold that a minority



1,[

Numerous pre-City ol Mobite cases, which Congress in-

;.;,1; to govern 
-Section 2, establish the proper legal

ri"rarta tf,at, where other evidence of minority vote

,lilrtion is present, the election of minority candidates

does not forlelose a frnding of a voting rights violation.rr

Corrt. construing Section 2, as amended, have reached

the same conelusion.r'

The reasoning of these cases should be apparent: U-n-

der atJarg. ,o[irg, the election pl'ocesses can easily be

manipulatid by the white voting majority to achieve- any

,i..iria result, and the election of minority candidates

alone is not rleterminative of whether minority voters

"njoyed 
a genuine opportunity to elect cttnditlates "of

it.i. 
"t 

oi""],, Untler certain circumstances, n,tably the

pendency of a challenge to atJarge elections, the election

candidote's Buccess at the polls ls conctuslve proof of a minorlty

group's access to the political process, we would merely be invitlng

ittempts to circumvent the Constitution' This we choose not to do'

ir.t"r,f, we shall continue to requlre an independent considerntlon

of the record." 486 F.2d at 130?'

rrCross tt. Bouter,604 F.2d 8?6, 886 (5th Clr' 10?0) ("dlstrict

cottrterroneoustyhetdthattheelectlonofnslngleblackolflclal
ior""to*a any possible dilution claims") ; uniteil states o' Boot,rl

o1- Suprrriroi's of Forrest Count1, 6?l F'zd 951' 966 (6th Clr'

ibZali Kirksey a. Bootil ol Super'uiaots of Hinils Countv' 664 F'zd

isir,'rao n.2l (6th Cir. 19??), cert. tlen' 434 U'S' 877 (1977);

Cror", rt. Barnes (Gt'aaes tI),878 F' Supp' 640, 648' 669 (W'D'

iex. f9?4), rtac'd on other grou'ntls eu'b ttott'" White o' Regestet

linii, tt), qzz U.S.986 (19?6); Wolloce o' House' 377 F' Supp'

itoi, rtoz (w.D. La. 1974). afi'tl in part antl rea'd in part on olhcr

grouarls,616 F.2d 619 (6th Cir' 19?6), uoc'tl on othgr grounda'

aZf U.S. 94? (10?6) 3 Beer tt..Unitcil S|ates, B?4 F' Supp' 363' 3C8

n.296 (D.D.C. l$?4), oac'd on otlrer grounds, 426 U'S' fSO (f0?6);

Yehterton'u. I)liggeru,3?0 F. SuDp' 612, 6fG (S'D' Aln' l$?4)'

trSeel(etcltuttto.Bytne,T40Ir'zd1398,1406(?thCir'1984)'
t:ert. denicil, 36 L.Ed.zd 692 (f986) i ilIorungo County' 731 F'zd
'at 

tal2i lVittct, u. Gadsden cormly school Bd., 691 F.zd 078 (rrth

Cir. 1082) ; Sit:t't'tr. D. El I'aso Intl' School Dist" 691 F' Supp' 802'

iio tW.O. Tex' l$84) ; lloiot o' Tteen, 6?4 F' Supp' 326' 361

ii.o. r.". 1083); politicat ciuil voters orsanization o. Tettell,61i5

Ir. Supp. 838, 342 (N'D' Tex' 1983)'

16

,,t n'.n,|-picketl minority canrlidates might be "politieally
expetlienl,, to the white majority or entrenehed political

forlces. Zimmu',485 F.zd at 130?. Similarly, such elec-

tion of minority cantlitlates might well he pal't of an

effort to moot claims of minolity vote dilution and to
,,thwart challenges to election schemes on diltrtion

grounds." /d.

In rushing to herald the elcctoral success of North

carolina blacks, appellants and the solicitor General

overlook the critical findings of fact of the district court.

The statewide figures reveal that there were never more

than four blacks in North carolina's l20-member llottse

of Representatives between l9?l and 1982, and never

,no." ih"n two blacks in the 50-member State Senate

from 19?6 to 1983. 690 F. Supp. at 365' In the period

from 19?0 to 1982, black Democrats in general elections

within the challenged districts lost at three times the

rate of white Democrats. Tr. l14.

The district eourt's findings with respect to the 1982

eleetions showed that there were "enough obviously aber-

rational aspects in the most recen[ eleetions," 690 F'
Supp. at 36?, to disprove the contention that blacks were

nof still disadvantaged in the multi-membet' districts
at issue. Although black Democratic candidates did en-

joy some degree of success, it did not nearly rival the

ru-.""tt of white Democratic candidates, not a single one

of whom lost in the general elections. Tr' 114, 115' In
Ilouse District 36, a trlack Democrat won one of the B

seats in the tlistrict, in 1982. Since there were only seven

white candidates for the 8 seats in the pritnary, it was

a matltematical certainty that a black would win' Id'
at 369. In Hottse District 23, there were only 2 white
canrtitlates for 3 seats in the 1982 primary, and the

black canrlirlate ran unopposed in the general election,

but still receiverl only 43/' of the white vote. Id. at 370.

In three other elections prior to 1982, the same black

canditlate won in unopposed raees, yet failed to receive

a majolity of white votes in eaeh contest. Id.



l6

The rlistrict court matle two critical findings of fact

eoneerning the purported electoral .successes 
of blacks in

i.i;;;h C";olina. First, even in elections where black can-

didates were victoriou*, witnesses for the plaintiffs a.d

defenrlants alike agreeO tt'ut the victories' were largely

,i," i" 
".tensive 

silngle-shot voting by blacks''3 Tr' 85'

iii, rs2,184, 1099. 
"Er"n 

the defendants' expert witness

conce.led'that, "as a general rule"' black voters had to

ri"gl*-h"t voie in thi multimember districts at issue

;;;td;" to elect black candidates' Tr' 143?' Thus the

Jirt.i.t court determined, "[o]tte revealed consequence

of this tlisadvantage is that to have a chance of suceess

i, 
"1".tirg 

candidites of their choice in these districts'

black voters must rely extensively on single-shot Jgting'
tf,"t.fy forfeiting by practical n.ecessity their right 

-to
,ot" fo, a full state of tandirlates'" 690 F' Supp' at 369'

Secontt, the district court also conelutted that the evi-

,lur"" at trial showetl that in several of the 1982 elec-

ii"^ ;;th. p.r,l.ncy of this very titigation worked as a

one-time atlvantagJ for blach candidates in the form of

"*.r"f 
political 

"support by white. leaders coneerned to

forestall single-mern[er districting." 590 F. Supp. at 367

nl27. This is exactly the concern whieh led the Zimmet

eourt to reject orr"rltion' identical to those advaneed by

the appellants het'e.

In *i *, the evidence amply suppolted the district

cout't's conclusion that :

tTlhe success that has been aehieved b.V.black- candi-

dates to aut" i., tt nding alone, too minimal in total

Iffitu..hot voting o""ui. when mirority voters concentrate

their voting strength-on one or u fcrv preferrerl candidates and

dellberntely fail to exercise tlreir right to cast bullots for other

candidates in the race' The purpose of single-shot voting is 
'to

enhance the likelihood of a minority candidnte's election by depriv-

ing nonmiuority candidutes of the mlnority votel however' it also

hastheolfectofcomptetetyellminrrtlnganylnfluenceminority
voters mlght have on"t tt'e choicc of the elected nonmlnorlty

canrlklates. See City ol Rone u' t/'S'' 446 U'S' 166' 184 n'1!)

(1e80).

t7

numbers anrl too recent in relation to the long his-

tot'y of complete" ti*ioi "i any elective opport-unities

to compel o. "*n 
-otgually 

.[o supporl' an ultimate

h.,ii"g that a Liaclt i"naidate's race is no longer a

;ts;ifi?r;t uauJ'tl-i".t"t i" the political proeesses of

the sbate-eitfr""-g"nerally or specifically in the areas

of the challenged districts'

690 tr. Strpp. nt 36?. In t'eviewing this issue' l'his Cou-rt

should tlefer to the i'intensely tocal appraisal "i !h: ,d";
sign antl impact of the multimember cltstrtc[s'

White,412 U.S' oi OzO, which the three-jurlge distric.t

courl, gave the facis of 
'this 

case. On this isstte, appel-

lants' contentions are wrong as a matter of law' antl

ifr" ai*tri.t eourt's factual linclings are stlpported by

sirSstantial evidenee and are not clca'ly el't'oneotls'"

R. Appellants' Clalm that l'he Dlstrlct Court Imposed

a iroportlonal Representntlon Standard Ilarkens

Ilack to the Rejecierl Arguments Made by Oppo-

nents of tfte fg8i Atnendmenl' to the Votlng Rlshts

Act.

Withouttloubtthemostinflammatoryclaimthat,can
be raised in a vote rlilution case is the charge of pro-

portional "upr.r.rt"tion' 
Cl' Uniteit Jeuislt' Organiza-

'tionr r. Caiey,430 U'S. 144,'166-16? (197?)' Appel-

ir"G ,..r, to 
-obscur.e 

the district court,s careful exam-

inrtion of all lhe w1.ite/zimm.er factors by 
'aising 

the

Li;;i;; eharge that the district cottrt "fltrtlv" sttrted a

stantlatd of "gttaranteed proportional representation'"

Br. fo. Appellants at 19' In appellants' eyes' any-ref-

elence to the actual propottions of blacks in North Caro-

ti-n" o, comptrred to Utacf eleetoral sueeess reveals the

entire factual inquiry to have been a subterfuge designed

io "or.u"l 
an imposition of proportional representation'

The district couri opinion, however', expressly disavows

ory .ort.rtion that a violation of Section 2 ean be estab-

It;;",I by "the fact that blacks have not been elected

uncler a challenged district'ing plan in numbers propor-

-;;; Pullman'standotd rs' Su'int, 466 U'S' 278' 287 (1982);

Fed. Rule Clv. Pro. 62(a) '



tion"f to their percentage 

lof 
t,n. population'" 590 F'

Supp. at 365.

Consitleration of minority electoral stlccess is one of

many evitlentiary factors which the case law and legis-

lative history of the Voting Rights Act specify as proper

grounds for 3udicial examination. The leap from .the
fvidentiary *.ighing of the rate of success to an ipso

lacto creation of an entitlement to proportional .repre-
sentation is derived from the arguments made by op-

ponents of the 1982 Amendments to the Voting Rights

Act, namely that there is no intelligible distinction be-

tween a results test and proportional representation'tG

The argument that consideration of the rate of eleetoral

sueeess as one evidentiary factor inevitably yields pro-

portionnl representation was firmly rejected both by

ih" *pon.orJ of the original amentlment and the pro-

pon.nit of the Dole eompromise. See, e.g', S' Rep' at 33

i"[T]h" Section ereates no right to proportional repre-

sentation for any group") ; id. at 194 (Additional Views
of Senator Dole) ("I um confident that the 'results''test
will not be construed to require proportional representa-

tion"). Since the clistrict court properly consldered the

totality of circumstanees under the mandated legal

standards, the efforts to persuade this Court that it in
fact reqtrired proportional representation can only be

understood as an invitation to embrace the views of

opponents of the 1982 amendments and should categor-

ically be declinerl.

ri See e.g., I Voting Rights Act: Heorings on S' 53 et al' Befora

lhe Stbcom;m. on the Constitution of the Senale Comttt' on the

Ju.d.iciary,9?th Cong', 2d Sess. I (1982) (Opening Statement of

senator orrln Hatch) ("In short, what the 'resttlts' test would do is

to establlsh the concept of'proportlonat representation' by race as

the atandard by whtch courts evaluate electoral and votlng decl-

eions"). A full dlscueslon of the proportional representatlon objcc-

tions of the leglslatlon's opponents can be found ln the senate

Subcommittee's Report. See S. Ilep. at 130-14? (Votlng Rlghts

Act.: Rcport of the Subcomm. on the Constitul'lon); see olso id' at

186-8? iAttachment B of Subcommittee Report: Selected Quotes

on Section 2 and Proportional Representation)'

l9

III. APPELT,AN'TS SEEI{ TO NUI,I'ITi'Y I'TID I$82

AIIIENDMDNT'TO TIID VOTING NIGIITS ACT I}Y
PONECLOSING TIIE JUI)ICIAI, INQUINY INTO
TIIE TOTAI,ITY OF THE CIRCI.IMSTANCES
W}TICH GIVE NISII TO CLAIMS OF VOTE DII'U'
TION.

A. The Use of Statistlcol Analysls and Lay Wltnesses

to Eetalrllsh Raclally Polnrlzed Votlng Wlthout
Any Inqulry Into Voter Motlvntlon Is Fully Sup-

porle,l by the Case Law and the I'eglslal'lve llistory
of ,Sectlon 2.

Appellants argue that the district eourt employed an

"r"on'*,r, 
legal standard in concluding t'hat the -facts 

of

this case showed a high degree of racially polarized vot-

ing. They contend that the district court arlopted 'd per

se rule tliat racial bloc voting occurs whenever less than

60 percent of the white voters cast ballots for black can-

didates. Br. for Appellants at 36.r"

Racially polarizerl voting is a key eomponent of a- vote

clilution .lai., as emphasized both by Congress and this

Court. "In the context of such raeial bloc vot'ing, and

other factors, a particular election method can deny

minority voters equal opportunity to purticipate mean-

ingfully in elections-" S. Rep. at 33' As this Court

wrote in Rogers,

Voting along racial lines allows those elected to ig-
nore 6lack interests without fear of political conse-

lu"n.ur, and without bloc voting the minority candi-
riates woultt not lose elections solely because of their
race.

468 U.S. at 623. Racially polarized voting, when proven,

provides a eout't with tr critieal evidentiary piece show-

t0 The Solicitor Genoral conceded in hls brief in support of

the Jurisdictional statement that "[a]ppellants' restatcment of

the dlstrlct court,s etandard for raelal bloc votlng is imprecise,"

slnce ..the district court dld not state that polarization exlsts un-

less white voters support btack candldates in numbers at or exceed-

lng 6O/o." Br. for the U.S' as Amicus Curioe at 13 n'10'



20

ing the political ostraeism of a racial minority' City ol

ii*, a. United St'ates, 472 tt' SuPP: 221' 226 (!'D:9'

igzttl , afr"(1,446 U.S. iro t1980)' 
-Wh"n 

combinetl with

.itt,.r'utiorge elections or a suspected gerrymandet'' bloc

,"iirg-p.oria.t important confirtnation that the poten-

ii"t ,-ttr.trral impediments to minority political oP!:?:-

irtity will in fact bar equal opportunity and the ability

io 
"fect 

representatives ferferred b-y the minority com-

rnu,ri|,1,. dee Marengo'Cou'nty, 111 F'zd at 1666-6?

irr.i"ffy polarizerl u"oting ortlinalily -the "keystone"-of

" ,titrtion'claim) ; Neaelt a' Sides, 5?1 F'zd 209' 223

,.fO tStf, Cir. 19?8) , cert. den'ied,446 U'S' 951 (1980)'

At bottom, raciatly polarizetl voting is that which

"tottrwt.t racial lines . . ." Unitetl Jeuish Ot'ganiaztions-'

430 U.S. at 166 n.24. Courts construing the 1982- amend-

ment to section 2 have founrl racially-polarizetl voting

wh.n tftu facts show a eonsistent pattern of a majority

of one race voting opposite to the majority of the other

raee. Mclvliltan il,7qa F.2tl at 1043' Whether or not

, s..tirn 2 violation has been provetl depends upon.the

,f.gt." ,t racially polarizerl v-oti-ng, .i'e'' "the ertent to

",iii "iti"g 
in tire'elections of the state or political-sub-

Jiri.ion is iacially polarized'" S' Rep' at 20 (emphasis

added)

In the presenb ease, based on evidence presented hy ex-

p".l *itn.sses anil corroboratecl by the direct testimony

Iil"y *itnesses, the districb court concluded that "within

"if 
iir" chaltenged districts racially polarized-voting ex-

ittt in a persistent and severe degree'" 690 F' Supp' at

36?. In rlirect relianee on the language of the Senate

n"pott, the district court framerl the inqtriry in terms of
;a-Jt""rnintingt the extent to which blachs and whites

,ot.,litr...ntly f.orn each other in relation to the raee of

the candidate.n 690 F. Supp. at 36?-68 n.29. The distliCt

court relied in part on tesfimony by plaintiffs' expert ivit-

ness, Dr. Rerttard Grofman, whose comprehensive- study

of racial voting patterns in 63 elections in the challenged

2t

clistricts revealed consistently high correlations betweetr

the number of voters of a spe"ifitl"tt and the number of

,ot , fo" candidates of thaL race' 'Ihese correlations were

r" ttieh in each of the elections studied that the prob-

ability of occurrence by chance was less than one in

100,000. 690 tr. SuPP. at 368'

The district eourb analyzerl elections in each of the

"f,atienge,l 
rlistricts to conclude that' itr each district'

,""irf "polarization 
"operates- to minimize the voting

ri,-rgtli of black voters'" ld' at 372' This conclusion

was i'uttressetl by the observations of numerous lay wit-

;;* involved in North carolina electoral politics. The

u*ontrou..t.O evirlence showed that rlo black candi-

date received a majot'ity of white votes cast in any of the

fg 
"f""tions, 

including those which were essentially un-

.ont"rt"a. ia. whit; consistently ranked blach candi-

dates at the bottom of the field of candidates' even whefe

those candidates ranhed at the top of black vote[s' prefer-

ences. Iit, Given the overwhelming and unconl'radicted

facts of this case, there is no question but that racial

poi*irution in each district was' as the district court

;iop*ly found, "substantial or severe'" 690 F' Supp' at

372.

Appell ants challen ge the methodology util ized..by.- plain-

tiffs; 
"*p"r't 

witnessls being "severely flawed'" Br" for

eppai"irt at 41. As the tlittti"t court opinion makes

"fli", 
that methodology tlepended upon two distinct types

oi statistical analysis, ecological regt'ession and homoge-

lteouspreeinctanalyses.Thesestatisticalstudieswere
furtheri'cort'oborated by the lay testimony of direct par-

li.ipu"tt in North Carolina politics' 590 F' Supp' at 367-

68 n.29.

Appellants contentions run directly contrary to the pre-

pundulun.. of cases decided prior to City ol Mobile' which
'Clng..tt intended 'the courts to follow, as well as those

"f,piyirg 
Section 2 after its f982 amendment' In the

iil_bui ol Mobite cases, courts relied on statistical or



22

non-statistical evidence to establish lacially polarized vot-

iil;t a showing of a high clegree of association between

itZ ri.iuf .ornpoiition of the voting precinc[s and the 
'ace

oi tf," candidate for whom votes were cast' See' e'g''

Graues rt. Bannes, 343 F'. Supp' 704, 7'Jl' (W'D'- Tex'

tgiZt- (lhree-juclge court) , afr'd sub norn' White a' Reges'

trr:lpoirtir.d ui'tiog established by Mexican-Americans

,rtirg bverwhelminfly for cantlidates of own national

rrr.-Lg"roona and whites voting over.whelmingly for white

candidates). In conformity with this appt'oach, ,t!e e1o-

b&i or Livariate regression analysis perfolmed- Uv D.t"

ciotln"n compared the votes for minority candiclates. in

tlifferent precincts with the racial compositi.u of that

nrecinct in Uottr racially segregated and racially mixed
'iir..ir.t . As the district court observed, the result of

such a comparison is consider.e<l statisticolly significant

it ttr" relationship beiween the variables is sufflciently

consisbent, anrl snbstontiaetg significant' if it is of a suffi-

cientmagnitudetoaffecttheoutcomeofanelection.690
F. Supp. at 36?-369- See McMitlan a' Dscambin County

(tWctriittan, I), 638 F.zd 1239, l24l-42 n'6 (6th Cir'

f981) , afr'd on relwaring, 688 Ir.zd 960, 966 n'12 (6th

Cir. f'gSfl , teu'tl ut, otlrcr grounds, Escombia County tt'

McMiuan, 

- 
U.S. 

-, 
80 L.Ed.zd 36 (1084) i Mc-

Milta.n 11,748 F.2d at 1043 n.lz (atfirming the definition

crf bloc voting and r.elated findings made in McMillan Il.
The use of regression analysis to demonstrate the associa-

tion between the r.acial composition of precincts ancl vot-

ing patterns is supported by both the pre-City ol Mobile

case- law t? and cases apptying Sect'ion 2 after its 1982

rt See Purnell a. Rapides Parish Scltool Board,426 F' Supp' il$9,

406 (W.D. La. 19?6), af iI,663 tr-.zd 180 (6th Cir' le'18), cett' dc-

nied, 438 U.S. 916 (f0?8) (regression analysis demonstrated high

prolrability of polarizal.ion); Boliteno.CitU ol Mobile,423 F' Supp'

isl, see-ds (s.D. Ala. 1976), ofr'd,6?l r'.zd 238 (6[h cir' 1978),

i"airl on other gtountls, 446 u.s. 66 (r$90) (regresslon analysis

arrpported finding of raclal potarizatlon) . Accu'cl lI. Blalock, socdol

Stoiistlcs, ch. 1? (2tI ed. 19?9) ; Glofman, Mlgalski, Noviello' ?[e
,Ttttality ol cit.crttilstoncea Test' in section 2 ol th.e 1982 Dstension

- rtt'.nttrrt_rl'tl'i-tF-lr rilt 
'tFtr-

2'J

amentlmenb.!8

Theaddil,ionalstatisticalstudyperformedbyDr.
Gt'ofman, hotnogeneous llrecinct analysis (also known as

""*t...tcase" inalysis), is an accepted statistical method

.;;;;;i;s the voting patterns in precincts with heavv

con..nt."-tions of on" .o." and other precincts with ctrm-

;;;i; con.enttations of another tace' See City ol Pott
'iitln* a. Untteit States,6l? F. Supp' 98?, 1007 n'136

(D.D.C. l981) , aff't\,459 U.S' 169 (1982) '!t'

In adclition, ample precedent supports the d-istrict

court's relianee or, ,or-tt"tistical evidenee to supplement

the testimonY of exPerts.zo

of th.c Yoting Rigltts At:t: A Sociul Scient,e Petspectirte' 7 Lav'

and Pollcy 199 (1986)

rsSeelorilottrt.Winter,604tr.Supp'80?,812-813(N'D'Miss'
1981), of it sub. notn. Itlississi'lryti Repttblicoo Etecutioe Com'mittee

r,. Btlook[,- U.S. 

-, 
83 L.Ed.zd S43 (f984) (bivariate regres-

ei* "r"lyrl, 
indicated high levet of racial polarlzation); Illarengo

County, i8f f.za nt 166? n.36 (aflrming distrlct court's acceptance

oi ."ii"rrion enalysis to show polorlzation) i Jones o' City -of
Laltbick,'127 F-2d 364, 880 (6th Cir' lg84) (bivariate regrcsaion

analyslo provided strong basls for court'g linding of polarization)-;

U:niCp'r. Gailsilen Cointv School Boaril,69l tr'2d 9?8' 983 (llth
Cir'1082)(sameregressionteehnlqueusedlnMctlillnttldemon.
strated polarization).

toSee,e.g.,Tertell,suptu,666F'Supp'atB48;PorlArthur'
supt'a,617 i'. Supp. at fodZ n.136' See also Perkins a'Citv of West

Hit"na,6?6 F.zd 201,213 (8th Cir' 1982), of il mem' 459 U'S' 801

(f S82) ; Lipscontb tt- lYise, 3$$ F' Supp' ?82, ?86-?86 (N'D' Tex-'

iSZOl, ,"o'i on otltet srounis, 561 F'2d 1043 (6th Cir' 197'l)' tea'd'

,13? U.S. 686 (r9?8)

20 See lllaior o. Tteen, 6?4 F. Srrpp' 326, S38 (E'D'La' 1083)

(testlmonyoftralnerlpolitlcalobserversconsidercdprobatlveof
Uto" uotlng) ; Terrell, sipro, 666 F' Supp' at 348; Rone' aupra' 472

f'. Srpp. ii zz}-zzl (nnding testlmonv of btack deponents highlv

p-f"iir" of bloc voting) ; Boylcins a' Ilottiesburg' No' [I?7-

booz(Cl, elip op. at 16 (S.D. Miss', March 2, 1084) ("lav witnesses

from the YYhlte comn'rtrnity . confirmed that members of the

White community continue to oppose and fear tlre election of

Blacks to oflice.")



24

ll. Appellnnts nnrl the Sollcitor General Seek to Re'

lmpose an Intent Standnrd Onto Section 2 Cltrims

by Reqrrlring Proof of Motlvatlon of Voters'

Despite the distlict court's use of statistieal and lay

witness evidenee "to determine the ex[ent tir which blaeks

antl whites vote differ.ently from each other in relation to

the race of eandiclates," 590 F. Supp' at 367-68 n'29, a1l-

pellants persist in charging that iL per se rule was im-

posed. to ttr" contrary, only alter concluding that sub-

stantively significant racial polarization existed in all but

two of tie elections analyzed did the disbrict eout'[ note

that no black candirlate had receivetl a majority of the

wlrite votes cast. The eourt speeifically referred to this

fintling as one of a number of "loldd,itionnl facts" which
,,srrypirt the ultimate finding that severe (substantively

significant) raeial polarization existed in the multi-mem-

be"r' district elections considered as a whole." Id' at 368

(emphasis supplied).

The principal method for measut'ement of lacial po-

larization relied on 5y the cour.L below was the statisti-
catly ngniiicant eon'elation between the number of voters

of a specifie raee and the number of votes for candidates

of that raee. 690 F. Supp. at 36?, 368. The Solicitor
General's charge that, under the lower cotlrt's method-

ology, a "minor degree of racial bloc voting would be sttf-
ncient to make out a violation," Br. for U.S. at 29, is
gravely misleading since it confuses the lower eout't's

rtefinition of substantiue signiflcance with the cout't's ini-
tial definition of racial polarization as also l'equiring
statistical signifieance. Contraly to the Solicitor Gen-

eral's conclusion that a "minor degree of racizrl bloc vot-

ing rvould be suflicient to make out a violation," Br. for
U.S. at 29, a low eorrelation would result in a finding of
n low extent of polarization and would weigh against an

ultirnate conclusion of impelmissible vote dilution."

:r Thus, the hypotheticat sitrrntlon iD whlclr u rvhlte canditlate
ret:eives 6l/o ttt the white vote antl 49')/o ttf tlro black vute nntl nn

26

Both the solieitor General and appellants propose me[lr-

ods to tliscount the importanee of racial bloc voting by

r.qritirg proof that racial motivation unrlerlies the dis-

prrrt" u"otins patterns. Appellants would hold plaintiffs

[o a nightma'rish standar, "i eonclusively esta'lishing.the

intent 
-of tn" electorate by disproving possible-motivation

by "any other factor [besides racel that could have tn-

nr"n""a the election." Br' for Appellants a[ 42' The

6ofi.itot General similarly advocates a standard requir-

ing plaintiffs to show that "'minority aandjdates '--'^'
loJe elections solely beeause of their race'"' Rr' for U'S'

,i ei (quoting liog"rr a. Lod'gel' lhis standard' it is

orsu",l, woutA ""r,i.t racial bloc voting "largely irt'ele-

,""nt," itl.; if a losing black candidate receives some un-

,p".ifi.,I amount of white suppot't, this woulcl rlemon-

sirate that motivational factors other than race play a

role in the election.

Congress has made it plain that Section 2 plaintiffs are

no lorlger required to ascribe nefat'ious motives to the

individuals or community responsible for discriminatory

election resul[s; thus, it is immaterial whether white

voters refuse to vote for black candidates "solely because

of race" or beeause of some other factor closely associated

with race. The impact of racial bloc voting on minority
political participation is the same reg'ardless of the ex-

opposing btack carrrlidate gets the reverse would cleurly not con-

,iitutu ""u"r" 
potarlzntion, as the Solicitor General contends' Sec

Br. for U.S. at 29. In fact, elnce such a disparit'y would not be

statistlcally eigniffcant, lt woulrt not constitute racial polarizatlon

at alt. The suggestion that the distrlct court's deftnition of raclal

polarization would invalidate numer<lus etectoral schemes across thc

country, ectt iil. at 30, conveniently ignores the fuct that the court's

correlation annlysis correctly focused on "the extent to rvhich

voting. . . ls raciatly polarizetl." S' Rep' at 29 (emphasis supplied)'

Racial polarization is properly evaluated as a question of degree'

and not as a dichotomous characteristic rvhich is lcgnlly conclusive

lf present and irretevant ln all other cages'



26

planation or motivation for that phenomenon'z2 In the

;;;;;r.; of other White/Zintmet facLors, if white voters

Ion*i"t"ntfy shun black candidates for reasons other than

rr.", *," result is still that the black community is effec-

iir"fy shut out of the political ltrocess'2' In delineating

tlre iactors relevant to a showing of unequal opportunity

to participate in the politieal process, Congt'ess- relied

ir.ruity on federal Corri'ts of Alipeals' inte.pretations of

ivnui, none of which adopted a definition of racial polari-

zation that suppolts ths standald urged here-in fact'

most of them 
-requit'ed 

no formal proof of polarization

whatsoevet.e{ Moi'eovet', last Term, this Cou't 
'ejected

the argument that racial motivation of voters casting bal-

lots for candidates of their own raee musi be established

to prove racially polatized voting. Mississippi Rerytblican

Diecutiae Committee a. Broolcs, 

- 
U'S' 

-, 
83 L'Dd'

2'See Engslrom, The Reincontation ol the Intent Staulatil:
Feileral Juilgcs onil At-Latge Election Cases,28 lloward L'J' No' 2

(fS86) (forthcoming).

rs Thle point ls atso responslve to nppeltants' objections to tlre

statisticotmethodologyrelieduponbytherligtrictcottt.t,whiclr
was characterized by appellants'own expert wittress as a standnrd

methodotogy for rneasuring raclal voting potnrizatlon' Tr' at 1446'

It simply tloes not motter whether "rnce ls the only explnnnlion

for the correspondence between variables"' Appellants' Rrlcf ot 42'

Where dlfferentlal votlng atring racial llnes exlats' for whatever

comblnatlon of reaeons, the resutt in the context of structural lm-

pedlmentssuchasat-largeormultimemberdiutrlctelectlonecnn
ile a 6ilutlon of the mlnority vote which ren4ers mlnorltles unnble

io et"ct representatives of thelr choice. Thls result ie a violatlon

of the voting Rishts Act reSardless of the exlstence or nonexlstence

"i p*.f ,rf raciat anlmus on the part of whltes who fall to vote

for blacks.

2lsee,e.g.,Fergttsono.llinnPorisltPolicltlurll'628F'2d602
(6th Ct;. ICZO); Robinson o. Commissioners Court' 605 tr'2d 674

irtt Cl". l9?{) ; Moore rt. Leflore County Bcl' of Election Comm'a'

ioz r.za 621 (6th clr. lg?4) ; Turnet o' ItlcKeithcn' 490 F'2(l l{ll
(6th Clr. l0?3). The orlglnal Zimmet factors themselves did not

even inclutle raeiatly polarized votlng' See Zimnt'ct" 485 F'2d at

1806.

27

I.t shoukl likewise reject tlte argurnent in this
2d 343.',n

case.

IV. CI,AIMS OF VOTE DILUTION, LIIID AI'I' (I['AIMS

OF AN AI}NIDGMTINT OF TTIE I"RANCIIISE' ATTI}

EN'IITI,DD TO SPECIAI, JUDICIAI' SOLICITUI)E'

Basetl upon an exhaus[ive review of the totality of cir-

"urnrtorr..u 
involved in the North Carolina legislative

.i..tionr, the district court unanimously concludetl'.1n:l:'

if* tirirt"ry results test, that the legislative retlistrict-

ing abridgi tnu voting .igtttt of blacks' Of particular

ffiiR"r,ni", tlte cour[ Jetailerl the continued taint of dis-

criminationuponallwalksofNorthCarolina,scivillife.
A.-;il voting Rights Act anrl other pieces of civil rights

legislation make cleat', the political proeesses may pm-

vi-rle critieal relief for the victims of past and continuing

tliscrimination-providing that those channels are open to

victimized minorities.

The Voting Rights Ac[ sets out to remove structural

barriers to ri'inoJty access to poli[ical processes in ortler

to facilitate the removal of the vestiges of tlisclimination'

The Act corresponds to a helghtened standarrl of judicial

scrutiny set <lown by this Cont'b nearly half a centut'y ago:

IP]r'ejutlice against discrete and insular minorities

in"V fi. a spec'ial condition ' ' ' curtailing the opera-

tion of thoie trolitical processes ordinarily to b-e re-

lied upon to pr:otect minorities, and [sol may eall for

"-.o"tu.pontlingly 
more searching judicial inquiry'

2r Defendants, represented by the Bame counsel as at present'

argued thnt, "'ihe use of u regresslon analysis which correlates

orily raclal make-up of the preclnct wlth race of the canditlnte

ignotu" the reallty tlrat raec moy mask t host of other ex-

;i;;;a;.t variables. IJonea u' Citv of Lubbock' ?30 F'zd 233' 236

lott cii. lgg4) (Hicsinbotham, J., concurring).1" Jurisrlictional

Statement, Alloin tt. Brooks, No' 83-2053' at 12-13' This Court

.u*m".itynflirmedthetlistrictcourt'sdecisioninthatcnseantl'
ttt"i"t".u, "reiect[ed] the speciflc challenges presented in the state-

rn"nt "t ltrrsi.iictinn," Manitil u' Bradle1,4S2 U'S' 173' l?6 ( 10?7) '



28

Uniteit Statas a. Carolene Prod'ucts Co', 304 U'S' 144' 152

n.4 (1938). Foremost among the rights specified b-y what

Justice Powetl has termed nthe most celebrated footnote

in constitutional law,"'n is the right to vote' ltl'' cititr'g

nio" o. Hentdon 273 U.S. 536 ,1927\ and Niron a'

Condon,286 U.S. ?3 (193f ). This Court has repeatedly

*ti.*r.,i the need for judicial vigilance in claims of vote

tlilution or abritlgment, as eet forth in the Carolene Ptod'

tcts footnote:

Undoubtedly, the right of su{frage is a fundamental

ilt." in i'free 
"n]d 

,lemo"ratic society. Especially

since tt e right to exetrise the franchise itr a free anrl

irni*pri.ua'rnrnn., is preservative of other basic

"irif ""a 
political rightsi any allegcd infringmelt of

the right to vote must be carefully eonsitlered antl

metictrlouslY scmtinized.

Reynolils a. Sims, S?? U.S. 633, 661-662 (1964) 1 see also

iirpn a. Virginia State BiI- ol Dlections, 383 U'S' 663

(1966) ; Yick lVo ,. Hopkins, r18 U.S. 366 (1886)'

Therighttovoteislistedfirs[inLheCaroleneProd-
ucts footnote among those rights that may warra-n[
,,. mol.e exacting judicial scrutiny . . .r" since in-

fringementsonthisrightrestrict..thosepoliticalproc.
esses which can ordinarily be expected to bring abou[

repeal of undesirable legislation ' '" 304 U'S' at 152

n.a. Similarly, Congress has reeognized that the right to
vote ,.inetuaes'the right to have the vote counted at full
uulu" without dilution ot' diseount ' ' '" S' Rep' at 19

(citing Reynolcls, S?? U.S. at 565 n'29)' As this Court

conclulled {n Wnlte o. Regester, where the totality of cir-

cumstances indicate that minority citizens have not been

"ut" 
t, ,,enter into the political process ln a reliable and

meaningful manner," eourt remedies are indispensable to

trtns tle minority eommunity into "the full stream of

20 Powell, J., Corolene P."lrtdttcts Reuisiteil, 82 Col' f'' Ilev'

(r082).

1087

29

pofitical life . . ." 412 U.S. at 767,769- In incorporating
iynlt" and its progeny into the statutory results test, Con-

gl'ess repeatedly emphasized the importance of keeping

[olitical processes equally open to minori[ies:

Section 2 protects the right of minority voters to be

free from election praetices, procalut'es, or methods

that tleny them the same opportunity to participate

. in the political process as other citizens enjoy' ' ' '

The requirement that the political p-rocesses leading
to nomination and election be 'equally open to par-
ticipation hy the group in question' extends beyond

formal or oflicial bars to registering and voting or
maintaining a candidacY.

S. Rep. at 28, 30.

So long as the paths to political success t'emain closecl,

blacks remain the "discrete and insular" lninorities of the

Carolene Protlucts footnote to whom a special measure of
juclicial solicitude is owetl. See Ackerman, Beyond Caro'-

iene Proilucts, 98 Harv. L. Rev. ?13, ?33-3? (1985) (need

for political suecess for minorities to transeend "parialt"
role in political process). Conversely, "t'epresentation-
reinforcing" 2? iudieial intervention is the most efficaciotts

manner by which this Court may insure that the goals of
two decades of statutory civil rights litigation may one

rlay be met.

2?J. Ely, I)entocracy artil l)isttttst, 101-103, 117 (1980) ' See also

id. at 103:

Matfunctlon occurs when the process is undeserving of trust,
when (1) the ins nre choking ott the clrannels of political
changc to ensure that they will stay in and the outs will stay
out, or (2) though no one is actually denied a volce or a vote,

representatlves beholden to an effective majority are syB-

tematically tlisndvantaging Eome mlnority out of simple hos-

tility or n prejudicctl refusal to recognize commonalitles of
interest, anrt thereby denying that minorlty the protection

afforded other groups by a rcpresentative eystem.



For the foregoing
ment of the district

r* The ettorneys for omici gratefully

of Martln Buchnnan and lloger Moore'

School, on the brief.

30

CONCLUSION

reasons, amici urge that the judg-

court be affirmed. 
,

RespectfullY submitted,

Jrur:s RoDERTSoN
Ilrnouo It. TYLEI, JR.

Co-Choirmen
Nonnlx REDLICH

Trustee
Wrt,t,nx L. RoBtNEoN
FnANK R. Penrpn *
SAMUEL IssAClIARot'F
Prrntcn M. IIaHneurN

LtwlEns'Conxtrtpn ron
Ctvtt RtcHrs Uxosn Lrw

1400'EYe' Street, N.W'
Sulte 400
Ytlashlngton, D.C. 20006

<202) 871-t2r2

SAHUEL RABTNOVE

RICIIAf,D T. FOUUN
THn AurntcaN JEwISH

COHXITTEE
166 East 66 Street
New York, New Yotk 1fi)22
(212) 761-4000

Attorneys for Amici Cutioc r*

r Counset of Record

acknowlcdge the assistance

students at llarvard Law