Correspondence from Quigley to Schwartz (Judge)

Public Court Documents
November 14, 1988

Cite this item

Correspondence from Quigley to Schwartz (Judge) preview

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

LDF Attorneys
Organization
- NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.
Matter
- Chishom v. Edwards (Chisom v. Roemer) (Perschall v. State of Louisiana)
Case
- Chisom v. Roemer
U.S. state
- Louisiana
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- e5f1b7fc-f211-ef11-9f89-6045bda844fd

Cite this item

Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Correspondence from Chambers to Dole, 1985. c96a3dd5-dd92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0f75e2c9-bf58-4416-819a-0473b2a9eec5/correspondence-from-chambers-to-dole. Accessed April 06, 2025.

Copied!

?t(

Lesar E&rense Ht Uli:H'""ffii:,iH';il:

NA
.i/I ius t

Contriburiont art dcditctibit.fr,' I .S. tttc.t'ttii to.t lrt'it(ts( |

Tne NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATICNAL FUND rs noi part of the Natronal Assocratror' iof the Aovancement ol Colored Peoore although rl
was lounoed by tt ano shares rrs commrlmen! lo equal rrghts. LDF has had lor over 25 vea,s a separate Board. program. statl. oflice and budget

N.Y. 10013o (212) 219'1900

July 29, 1985

The Honorable Robert Dole
United States SenaEe
Office of the Majority Leader
U.S. Capitol Building, S-230
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Dole:

1 appreciate your arranging the tqnchegl_recenEly w_ith Vernon
.lordan, John Jacob, Ben Hooks, Eddie Williams, Joe L,owery and
myself'and with several Repup1l""l senators. I think the
luncheon and Ehe discussion helped tremendously in bridging
some gaps and in allaying some justifiable apprehensions.

1 also appreciate the cotrmenEs you made at the National Urban
League Convention on JulY 22.

I hope that we will be able !o follow-up on some of the topics
disclssed at the luncheon and some of the suggestions you made
to Ehe ParEiciPants at the Urban League.

A major issue of concern to us norll is the pending JhPr9burg
v. Glngles case in the Supreme Court. The- positi* !9-ing
aAvanda-5y the Department of Justice in Ehat case will strip
Ehe Lg82 Airendmenti to the Voting Rights Act of al1 meaning
and will return us to the pre-I4obile v. Bolden decision.
i ri"".rely hope that you i,riffffi witt-r other
principal ipotriot" of the L982 Amendments in an amicus brief .

S incerely

"-?_

\3u-
EDUoAT|oNeu ruruo. rNc.

ambers
plrector -Counsel

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Correspondence from Quigley to Schwartz (Judge)

LDF Attorneys

Organization

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in