Ruling May Boost Black Role in Legislature News Clipping

Press
December 1, 1981

Ruling May Boost Black Role in Legislature News Clipping preview

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Ruling May Boost Black Role in Legislature News Clipping, 1981. 5f5561ae-e092-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/3a60e863-d085-44e4-967e-ff35612fdc7e/ruling-may-boost-black-role-in-legislature-news-clipping. Accessed May 22, 2025.

    Copied!

    -lBreezy
I tow 40 - Hish 60!

Drloils, Poge 7B

.'i

iirl

i,,;J

25( vot.93 o No. 307 o .26 Pogct o (C) lgBl The Chorlone Newi Chorlolte, North Corolino, Tuesdoy, D.i. I; lgSl *A

lCIy
By DAN FESPERMAN
OF THE NEWS STAFF

RALEIGH - In a ruling that
could bolster black representation
in the state legislature, and espe-
cially in the Mecklenburg County
delegation, the U.S. Justice De-
partment has rejected a state con-
stitutional amendment that for-
bids splitting counties for
legislative districts.

Leslie Winner, a Charlotte at-
torney involved in a lawsuit
against the state's political redis-
tricting plans, said she was in-
formed of the ruling Monday. She
expected to receive written con-

firmation In this afternoon's mail.
Unless the ruling is overturned

by an appeal to federal court in
Washington, the statels recently
redrawn legislative districts will
probably also be turned down by
the Justice Department. That's be-
cause the rejected provision
greatly affected the shapes and
boundaries of those districts.

In Mecklenburg, the provision
has meant the county has been an.
eight-member, at-large district in
the state House. In the state Sen- 

-

ate, Mecklenburg has been
lumped together with adjoining
Cabarrus County, as a four-mem-

ber district.
But such large districts smother

the state's urban pockets of black.
voting strength, critics say.

A Justice Department official
said the action is officially termed
an objection to the amendment be-
cause it is not enforceable under
the voting Rights Act of 1965.
The official said he wap not sure
what effect the ruling will have
on district maps.

In a lawsuit filed against the
reqently redrawn plans, the
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
voiced complaints about the
amendment. ..'

, ,,t

t blqct'iiole
" lrn.tJ"ii, 

saio Ms. winner, an

iqlegislqture
district into four pieces.

' And, just as single-member dis-
tricts increased black representa-
tion on the Charlotte City Council,
single-member House districts
would likely increase black repre-
sentation in Mecklenburg's legis-
lative delegation.

All of the county's eight rePre-
sentatives and four senators are
white.

With single-member districts,
at least two of the House mem-
bers would be black, according to
research by two Greensboro soci-
q.logists.'

.-i'

Pat Feeney and Paul Luebke,
f rom UNC-Grgensboro's depart.
ment of sociology, came up wiih
the figures in a study of voting
trends in five metropolitan coun-
ties.

In the last state legislative elec-
tion, for instance, black Demo-
cratic House candidate Bertha
Maxwell would likely have been
elected by a predominantly black
district. As it was, however, she
narrowly lost her bid, finishing
ninth in the race for eight seats
despite a strong showing in black
precincts.

attorney for plaintiffS, contends
."that the plans should be rejected

because the state never bothered
to clear the constitutional provi-
sion with Justice officials when it

.was first drawn up in 1967.j' When the suit was filed, the
state responded by finally sending: the provision to Washington for
clearance. But Monday's ruling
struck it down.

Without the provision, the state
would presumably have to split
Mecklenburg into eight separate
House districts, and split the
Mecklenburg-Cabarrus Senate

rl

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

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.

Return to top