Appellants' Response to Appellee's Motion to Dismiss Appeal

    ,,,/
"-/)

\

Oo l,t.S. I )cp:rrtrrrrrrt r$rstice

(livil l{itllrt s l)i vision

€/,/,/.t I
ltbthint:ron, l, C. 205r0

Olliu ol thc Attirtont Attorncy 6211irc1

? nEe lgEl

I.tr. Al.ex i(. Brock
Execu-, ive Secretary-tlirec Lo r
Stntc lloar<1 of ElecLions
Suire 80I Raleigh Builciinq
5 Wcs: tlargett Street
R.rleicrh, North Carol.irra 276OL

Dear l1r. tsrock; I

This is in reference to Chapter A94 (s'B' No' 87,
I98I) anrl Chapter B2I (S.8. No. 313, lgBl), 1:roviding
for tlre rcapPortionrnent of Unitcrl Statos Cr)ttrlFCSsionaI
districts an<l for Lhe reapportionmetrC of the l'lorth
CarOl i nlr Senat-e. Yc>ur sul'rmissiOnr t)tlrsut;r nt to SeCtion 5

of rhe Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. I973c, was initially
receive<l on July 16, IgBL, ancl was supplctncnted with
rcgtresterl adriitional information ott Ocl-ol>cl: 6, 19BI.

tjr:cier Section 5, the State t>e'.rrs tl'rc burden of
provi ng the absence of both cii scr irnina Lo ry PurPose and
irr.ct in proposed redistrict'ing plans. $Jf-":-Rome v'
Unitcrl states, 446 U.S. 156, f 83 n.I I (1980) ; Beer v'
Diite.T-St,rtes, 425 u.s. I3o, 140-41 (tc)76)' In order
to-6)"-irire iUsence of a raciaI l.y r'li r;<-'rirnina tory ef fect,
tlre SLilt.e of North Carol i nar tnttsL 1'tr';111 ttl:it-t:at-e, 3t a nrinilttttnt,
th.:rt t)r,: propos ecl reclistricting pIu rrs r+il I not Ie:rd to
"a retrogression ip tlre Position of racial lrrinorities
wi.th rc-sf>ect to their eJ: fective (::xcl:ci:i,: of the electoral

d States, !;ut)r.r, 4?5 U.S. at J'4I'
'r',o- 

o-ri t i.iat iiiii t-o rnaxirnize nrit'roritf r-attch i. se . " tleer v . tlnitnd Stat es , t; !1l]r
wi.,i io ill,. stata-'is uuJ,-;i 'rro- o-riri.latiiiii t-o rnaxirnize nrinority
vo:inrl s trength, the state must ilL'ln!)rlr:Lr;lLe that the plan
;;;t;iv-rLri6".= the strength of Imitrority] voting power"faif ly fefIeCtS the Strengtn oI .LlItIlrt-lrrLyJ vrru^"Y ri
as i*- exisrs. " Mississipli v. !lgi!e-{-s-tates, -49-? I' supP'

. c;tii:z g l, .ft i n e-Ee'r-1-" ;T[EEqi--9!g:-.'

r l/lI ii

O-i;'it"a States , 422 U.S. 358, 362 (1975) '



/
1 I

I o
.2

Wehavegivencarefulconsiclerationtoallofthe
forwar<lea materiil=, as well as Past legislative reaPPor-
tionment pf.r"r-."i*""a= from interested citizens, and

other information available to us' l'lith regard to the
Senate plan, ;;-rrot" at the outset that tl're proposed

redistricting pfun *ot rSevelol>ecl by -the North CaroLina
Lecislature pursuant' to a 196-8 amen'lmetrt to the North
carolina constitution which provicles that no county shalI
be divide4 i"-ttt. formation Lf a Senate or Representative
district. As you know, oD November 30, I9BI, the Attorney
General interplr="a an objection to that alncn(ltnent under

Section 5 of ttu Voging itigtts AcL of 1.965, 42 U.S.C' 1973c,

becatrse ,,[o]ui ana]ysi! sfrJwieal !h"!- the prohibitio-n against
tiivicting the 40 covlrecl "ouniiui 

in the formation of Senate

anrl llottse rii stricts prcclictably requires' arl<l has led to the
use of , large multi-rnenrber 

- 
ei;tricf s . " our review of the 1968

amen,.irnent also showed "tllat-tt," use of such rnulti-membet'
6istricts necessarily uurr,.Jtguo cogniza'l>l'e nrinority PoPulation
concentrations into Iarge wtrite eLectorates'" Accordingly' w€

have reviewed the senate pran noL only to rletermine w'hether

the prol>osed plan woulri l.r:ad to a " retrc)r,re:;s icn in the lnsitiOn
of racial minorities wittr tu"po"t to their effective exercise
of the electoral franchise," -ry-"f ' s!!1fa 425 U'S' at 14I' but
also to see whether it fairlyFef Iect: -,ninority votirrg strength
as it exists today. gtsle--gf t'lississippi v ' United States '
49O l:. Supp. 569 (D.D;e . I979).

ouranalysisoithcscnateplirr:sltowst]ratinsr:veral
cot:n.-ies covered by the Voting Rigirt.s r\cL's special provisicns'
suelr irs in _G_uiIfori, 1{iIsorr, frastr, lJr.rLi,:, Erlgccornb an<l }1artin,
tl:ere 1re cognizaU'ie concctttrrrtions r-rf rnirtority PerSons v"irosg

politic.rl stiengitr is 6ilutect as il rt"sttlt of tle use of multi-
rncrn'l>er riistricts in the proposecl rerlisLricLing plan' In
Guilfor<l,forexample,the-Sttt"]'tn=pro1>oseclthecreationof
a t.hree-'lL>mber.listrict with a bracL lropirlation 1>ercentage of'

only 25 percent. Yct, ut:<]er a fairlyl.1ttt*t' s'ystem.of aingle- 't (

rnc*ri:er ,listricts in that area r onr: oi,.rt.. <listrict IlkeIy would I

be rns jority utacr an<l, therefore, wottlrl bctter recognize the :

l.rotenti;rI of blacks to elect represL-nl-ation of their choice '

Likewise,inl.Iilsoll,Nash,llrlqer:ornt:,t'lartinandseveral
of Lhe counties in p'opoooa District I vfiich are covered

iurisrl icL ions, the State proPoses to create multi-member

.-ii.tricts in wlrich blac)< 
-totlr= sc(lrrl to'havc no oPfror:tunity

to elect "unaiJ"t", 
of their ciroice. ltere again , fairly-

crawn singre-mLmuer oistrill"-r",lr.1 l.ikcty resurt in senate

di str icts that woulri not ' as the i>ro1>oscd Senate plan does '

rni.nir*iz.e thc votinq poLentiaf ,:f il-rtalf:-votcrs in Lhose covcred

c,)unLies.



, ,T ,

,- t,' t
.l
iI

I

I

(

3-

Unclerstandably, these ef fects of the proposed Senate
ieapportionment plan w_ell_may have been the result of the
State,s adherencl to the 1968 constitutional amendment which,
as we have already found, necessarily rcquires a submerging-

"f 
sizeable black communities into large multi-member 'districts'

In view Of the concerns discussecl above, howcver, I am unable
to conclude, is I must under the Voting Rights Actr that the
proposed Senate reclistricting plan is free of a racially
lfi"irininatory purpose or efiect. Aecor<lingIy, on behalf of
the Attorney 

-C"n.rLI, I must intcrposic an objection to the
senare plan under Scction 5 of thc voting Rights Act of 1965
as it rLlates to the covered countics'

I,lith respect to the Congressional redistricting, we

have also colnpllted review of that sul^rrnission' During the
course of our review, we were prescttterl with allegations that
the decision to exelucle Durham County from Congressional
District irto. 2 had lthe ef fect of minimizing minority voting
strengLh ancl in acl<lition was motivaLetl lly racial considerations,
i.e., the desire to greclude frorn thaE dist'rict the voting
mruence of t'he po ritically-active 'braek cornmunity in Durham-
on t'!re ba.sis of tie irrfor.ation tlrat h;rs bectr made availablc
to us, we renrain unable tO Conclue'lc Lhat tllc State's <lecision
to Craw District No. 2 was wholIy free from discriminatory
purpose and ef fect. In this conllection we f in<1 particularly
trotrblesorne the " strangel y irrcAuIAr" sltape of Congressi'OnaI
l>ir;trict I'lo. 2 (see coini-I1ion v' I:iqhtfoot' 364 U 'S' 339' 34I
( I 9C,0 ) ), wbr ich appe aFs-,f e-s fgnea t6-e-x C itl.le i)urlatn County frorn

tSaL,jistrict coirtrary to the llouse Congressional Redistrict'in9
Co:nnri.'-tec' s recommentla tion.

I,Je noLe also t-hat, over t'hr: p.tst several rerlistrj.ctings,
the hlai:)'. PcPulation p.-rcetltage i,] l)i::Lrict 2 has been rlecreased'
Prior i-o the State's fqZf redistrictirrn l)i:;trict No' ?' was

a,proxim.rtely 43 percent black. llttrl':t: Llre 197.1 rcaPPortionment
pi";, Oi.strilt Z.lecreased to 40.2 perccnt bl'ack PoPul-ation'
,i'6e IqsI submitted plan rvoul<! rerltrcc ll,.rrther the blacll poPLllation
in the tlistrict to 1er-l percenE' Tl'ris rerluction in black
populirtion percentdge, occurring rlespi.te a sLatewide increase in
tle irlack populatioi, is cspecial ly ,-'rucial in District 2,
hecause .it occurs in the only rlisLr lct v.'here black voters could
have tlre potential for electing a crtrrlidate of their choice.



I

I,.

t
4

Wc recognize that the State lrray want to reslnnd

furtSer to the-cIaims that i iaciatIy discriminaeory
purpose and "if"tt 'ot" in-volvetl in the LegisLature's
decision to "i;;;;";;l 

Durham' tlowcver' because of the

t'me constraints imposerl on Lho Attorncy Ge'eral by

Sect ion 5, and the uDclnsweF€d qucst i'ons stil I -remalnlng '
I canrrot Conciuae that the bur.ien irnp.lscrl otr the state by

section 5 hastu"""-sustained. Accordingry, r Tu:l interpose
an objec,-ion also to the corgr"="ional. ie-aistricting insofar
as it af fects the coverecl corinties . llowevc'r, should the

state clesire to present to us inforrnation relating to the

conf i3uration-of 'District 2 which would a'Jdress the 'aIlega-

tiorrs mentioned above, w€ "tttta 
ready Lo reconsi<]er this

clcterrni rration as Provided in the Sect ion 5 guidelines '

Of cours€r BS 1>rovided by Sectiorr 5 of the Voting
Rights nct, yo, tt"" tttt riqht to.scc'k a declaratory judg-

ment frorn the united statei District court for the Distiict
ofcolum):iathattl'recongressionalrerlistrictingPlanhas
neithr:r ttre purposc nor wlll have ti're ef fecc of denying or

abriogirrg the rigl'rt to vote on account of race' color or

rnc,rnlr.-,r::irip in a Iangttrr<-;e rninority grotlp' Itow':ver' until
.;hr) ob jecL ion is wi [.t-rarorr, "r tr'tl jrrclgine nt from the Di sLr ict
of colurrr.oi.a ioii. i= ol.ui";;, 

-tlre-ef iect of the objection
,t)y rhe o..orII;-;.1r:r;t i= to make thc Cr)ngtreSsional reclis-

trictirl(i plan 1e9a1Iy t'""t'foi""abl'e itr ttre covered counties'

i: you have ally qtrestions coneer:rring this matter'
p1oas,: f eeI irou ro "if i iart Vl. Gal'r,:l ( ?O ?-/724-74391 '
l)j.r,.ctor ,rf ai',o Sccti'>n 5 Unit of tlt': \")t-inq liecLiotr' As

(-lIwa\,'s, \"'e statrd readv t() assist yc)tl itr l:ly \{ay Poss ible
i tt )',)ttt' l'r:iU)Pr)rt-iontnr-'ttt ':I fo rL '

i'Im. Bratlford iiel'noIds
Assistant Att:orl'ley General'

CiviI Rig'hts; l)ivision

qi.netlr,:l Y r