Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

Richmond Division

DONALD MOON 
and ROBERT SMITH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

M. BRUCE MEADOWS,

No. 3:95 CV 942

Defendant,

and

CURTIS W. HARRIS; JAYNE W. BARNARD;
JEAN PATTERSON BOONE; RAYMOND H. BOONE; 
WILLIE J. DELL; HENRY C. GARRARD, SR.; 
WALTER T. KENNEY, SR.; MELVIN R. SIMPSON; 
and GERALD T. ZERKIN,

Defendant-Intervenors.

ATTACHMENTS TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ 
BRIEF IN OPPOSITION 

TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

STEPHEN B. PERSHING 
Virginia Bar No. 31012
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Virginia, Inc. 
6 North Sixth Street, Suite 400 
Richmond, Virginia 23219 
(804) 644-8080

MARY WYCKOFF
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 
132 West 43d Street 
New York, NY 10036 
(212) 944-9800

Other counsel for defendant-intervenors listed on inside front cover



M. LAUGHLIN McDONALD 
NEIL BRADLEY 
MAHA S. ZAKI 
American Civil Liberties 

Union Foundation, Inc.
44 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Suite 202
Atlanta, GA 30303 
(404) 523-2721

J. GERALD HEBERT 
Virginia Bar No. 38432 
800 Parkway Terrace 
Alexandria, Virginia 22302 
(703) 684-3585

ELAINE R. JONES 
Director-Counsel 
THEODORE M. SHAW 
NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund, Inc.
99 Hudson Street 
Suite 1600
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900

PENDA HAIR 
CASSANDRA BUTTS 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Educational Fund, Inc.
1275 K Street, N.W., Suite 301 
Washington, DC 20005 
(202) 682-1300

PAMELA S. KARLAN 
580 Massie Road 
Charlottesville, VA 22903 
(804) 924-7810



TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 Consent judgment and decree, 
United States v. City o f Newport News, 

No. 4:94 CV 155 (E.D. Va. Nov. 4, 1994) 
(Newport News City Council)

Attachment 2 Consent judgment, 
Harris v. City o f Hopewell, 

No. 82-0036-R (E.D. Va. Jan. 5, 1983) 
(Hopewell City Council)

Attachment 3 Consent decree and consent agreement, 
Watkins v. Thomas, 

No. 87-0709-R (E.D. Va. May 20, 1988) 
(Lunenburg County Board of Supervisors)

Attachment 4 Consent decree and consent agreement,
Person v. Ligon, 

No. 84-0270-R (E.D. Va. Jan. 12, 1988) 
(Emporia City Council)

Attachment 5 Consent decree, 
Feggins v. Horne, 

No. 88-0865-R (E.D. Va. Jan. 16, 1989) 
(South Hill Town Council)

Attachment 6 Consent decree, 
Brunswick County League fo r  Progress v.

Town Council o f  Lawrenceville, 
No. 3:91 CV 0091 (E.D. Va. Nov. 5, 1991) 

(Lawrenceville Town Council)

Attachment 7 Consent decree, 
King v. Blalock, 

No. 88-0811-R (E.D. Va. June 6, 1989) 
(Mecklenburg County Board of Supervisors)

Attachment 8 1996 Virginia Legislative Guide



Attachment 9

Attachment 10

Attachment 11

Attachment 12

Attachment 13

Attachment 14

Attachment 15

Attachment 16

U.S. Bureau of the Census, P.L. 94-171 data, 
adjustments to Virginia House of Delegates districts,

effective Jan. 1, 1995 
U.S. Bureau of the Census, P.L. 94-171 data, 

adjustments to Virginia Senate districts, 
effective Jan. 1, 1995

U.S. Bureau of the Census, P.L. 94-171 data, 
adjustments to Virginia Congressional districts,

effective July 1, 1993

Virginia Department of Health, 
1994 Annual Report of Vital Statistics, 

December 1995 (excerpts)

Interim consent decree, 
Taylor v. Forrester, 

No. 89-0777-R (E.D. Va. May 17, 1990) 
(Lancaster County Board of Supervisors)

Transcript of proceedings, 
Virginia House and Senate Committees 

on Privileges and Elections, 
Public hearing on Congressional redistricting, 

Richmond, October 11, 1991 (excerpts)

Transcript of proceedings, 
Virginia House and Senate Committees 

on Privileges and Elections, 
Public hearing on Congressional redistricting, 

Annandale, November 7, 1991 (excerpts)

Transcript of proceedings, 
Virginia House and Senate Committees 

on Privileges and Elections, 
Public hearing on Congressional redistricting, 

Norfolk, November 8, 1991 (excerpts)

2



Attachment 17 Transcript of proceedings, 
Virginia House and Senate Committees 

on Privileges and Elections, 
Public hearing on Congressional redistricting, 

Richmond, November 13, 1991 (excerpts)

Attachment 18 Transcript of deposition 
of plaintiff Donald Moon, Moon v. Beyer, 

No. 3:95 CV 942 (E.D. Va., April 18, 1996)
(excerpts)

Attachment 19 Transcript of deposition 
of plaintiff Robert A. Smith, Moon v. Beyer, 

No. 3:95 CV 942 (E.D. Va., April 19, 1996)
(excerpts)

Attachment 20 "Legislative History of 1991 Virginia 
Congressional Redistricting," 

Attachment 15 to Virginia’s 1991 Section 5 Submission
to U.S. Department of Justice

Attachment 21 Letter from Dennis Dimsey, Esq., to 
J. Gerald Hebert, Esq., April 3, 1996

Attachment 22 Declaration of William S. Cooper,
May 6, 1996

Attachment 23 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, 
The Voting Rights Act: Unfulfilled Goals 

(September 1981) (excerpt)

Attachment 24 Center for Public Service, 
University of Virginia, 

Virginia Statistical Abstract, 1994-95 Edition
(1994) (excerpt)

3



! NOV - 41994
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 
NEWPORT NEWS DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff,

v . CIVIL NO. f T w c v z / c r c
CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; ) 
NEWPORT NEWS CITY COUNCIL; ) 
BARRY E. DUVAL, Mayor and ) 
Member of the City Council; ) 
CHARLES C. ALLEN, AUBREY H. ) 
FITZGERALD, JOE S. FRANK, ) 
VINCENT T. JOSEPH, TERRENCE K. ) 
MARTIN, and MARTIN E. ) 
WILLIAMS, Members; ) 
NEWPORT NEWS ELECTORAL BOARD; ) 
INETTIE EDWARDS, MARY P. DOXIE, ) 
and C.E. BARNHART, Members; ) 
VICKY V. LEWIS, Newport ) 
News General Registrar, )

ANDREA D. PEGRAM, ELDER SIMON E.

Defendants.

RICHARDSON, LINDA E. BATCHILLER, 
and DAVID REDDEN,

Plaintiffs,

v . CIVIL NO. 4:94000 79

CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA; 
CITY COUNCIL OF NEWPORT NEWS; 
BARRY E. DUVAL, Mayor of the 
City of Newport News; CHARLES 
C. ALLEN, AUBREY FITZGERALD,
JOE S. FRANK, VINCENT T. JOSEPH, 
TERRENCE K. MARTIN, and MARTIN 
E. WILLIAMS, members of the City 
Council of Newport News; CITY OF 
NEWPORT NEWS ELECTORAL BOARD;
C.E. BARNHART, MARY P. DOXIE, 
INETTIE EDWARDS, members of the 
City of Newport News Electoral 
Board, and VICKY V. LEWIS, City 
of Newport News Voting Registrar,

Defendants.



CONSENT JUDGMENT AND DECREE

Plaintiffs Andrea D. Pegram, Elder Simon E. Richardson,

Linda E. Batchiller and David Redden (collectively the "private 

plaintiffs") commenced this action on July 12, 1994, pursuant to

Sections 2 and 12(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as 

amended, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1973 and 1973j(d), and 28 U.S.C. § 2201, to 

enforce rights guaranteed by the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and 

Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. The 

private plaintiffs are black citizens and registered voters in 

Newport News, Virginia, and allege that the at-large method of 

electing the City Council of Newport News denies or abridges 

their right to vote on account of race or color, in violation of 

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, and the ■ 

United States Constitution.

Plaintiff, the United States, has filed a separate action 

similarly alleging that the at-large method of electing the City 

Council of Newport News denies or abridges the rights of 

minorities in Newport News to vote on account of race or color, 

in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1973, and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United 

States Constitution. (The United States and the private 

plaintiffs will hereinafter be referred to collectively as 

"plaintiffs.")

The parties, through counsel, have conferred and agree that 

these actions should be settled without protracted, costly and 

potentially divisive litigation. Accordingly, the parties have

- 2 -



entered into the following agreement as an appropriate resolution 

of these actions.

Factual Stipulation of the Parties

The parties stipulate as follows:

1. Defendant City of Newport News is a political

subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, chartered in 1896 by 

an Act of the Virginia General Assembly, Act No. 64 (1896).

2. Defendant City Council of Newport News is the governing 

body of the City of Newport News, established pursuant to the 

laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

3. Defendant Barry E. DuVal is the Mayor of the City of 

Newport News, Virginia, and a member of the City Council. 

Defendants Charles C. Allen, Aubrey H. Fitzgerald, Joe S. Frank, 

Vincent T. Joseph, Terrence K. Martin and Martin E. Williams are 

members of the City Council.

4 . Defendant City of Newport News Electoral Board is 

responsible for exercising certain powers and duties associated 

with the conduct and administration of elections for the City of 

Newport News, including elections for the City Council of Newport 

News. Defendants C. E. Barnhart, Mary P. Doxie, and Inettie 

Edwards are the members of the Newport News Electoral Board.

5. Defendant Vicky V. Lewis is the Newport News General 

Registrar and is responsible for exercising certain duties and 

powers associated with the conduct and administration of 

elections in the City of Newport News, including elections for 
the City Council.

- 3 -



*5. According to the 1990 Census, the City of Newport News 

has a total population of 170,045, of whom 57,077 (or 34 percent) 

are black. The voting age population of the city is 123,379, of 

whom 38,146 (or 31 percent) are black.

7. The City Council of Newport News is comprised of seven 

members, elected at large to four-year, staggered terms in non­

partisan elections.

8. Plaintiffs could present evidence sufficient to 

establish a prima facie showing that the black population of the 

City of Newport News is sufficiently large and geographically 

compact to constitute a substantial majority in a single-member 
district or districts.

9. Plaintiffs could present evidence sufficient to 

establish a prima facie showing that black voters in Newport News 

are politically cohesive, and that racially polarized voting 

patterns prevail in elections for City Council.

10. Plaintiffs could present evidence sufficient to 

establish a prima facie showing that white voters in Newport News 

vote sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat the candidate of 

choice of black voters in elections for the Newport News City 
Council.

11. Plaintiffs could present evidence sufficient to 

establish a prima facie showing that black citizens in the 

Commonwealth of Virginia and in Newport News have suffered from a 

history of official racial discrimination in voting and other 

areas, such as education, employment, and housing, adversely

- 4 -



affecting their ability to vote and to participate equally with 

white citizens in the political process.

12. Notwithstanding the foregoing, defendants could present 

evidence that they have, over the course of the past several 

years, taken remedial and corrective actions designed to 

counteract the present effects of any past official racial 

discrimination. These actions include, but are not limited to, 

the adoption of a new electoral scheme for the election of the 

City's School Board which fairly reflects minority voting 

strength, and certain actions specifically targeted to the 

predominately African American portion of the City, which 

includes funding of a new recreational facility, a new high 

school and various street improvements, new homeownership and 

housing rehabilitation programs, an anti-crime initiative 

designed to provide added police protection, and development of 

an interdisciplinary program designed to address youth related 

problems.

13. The Commonwealth of Virginia and its subdivisions, 

including Newport News, are subject to the preclearance 

requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C.

§ 1973c ("Section 5”). Section 5 requires that any "voting 

qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, 

or procedure with respect to voting" different from that in force 

or effect in Newport News on November 1, 1964, may not be 

lawfully implemented unless Newport News obtains a declaratory 

judgment from the United States District Court for the District

- 5 -



of Columbia that the change does not have the purpose and will 

not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on 

account of race or color, except that such change may be 

implemented without such judgment if it has been submitted to the 

United States Attorney General, and the Attorney General has not 

interposed an objection within sixty days. 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

14. In 1989, a timely objection was interposed by the 

Attorney General pursuant to Section 5 to proposed changes in the 

method of electing the Mayor and City Council of Newport News.

The objection letter stated that city council elections were 

characterized by a pattern of racially polarized voting and that 

black voters have had only limited success in electing candidates 

of their choice to office under the at-large method of election.

15. In 1992, the City Council proposed to adopt an at-

large method of electing the Newport News School Board. On 

February 16, 1993, on behalf of the Attorney General, the Acting

Assistant Attorney General interposed a Section 5 objection to 

the proposed adoption of an at-large method of electing the 

Newport News School Board. The objection letter stated that 

racially polarized voting in Newport News had intensified, and 

again noted that black voters largely have been unsuccessful in 

electing candidates of choice to the City Council under the at- 

large system.
16. On November 23, 1993, the City Council enacted a new

gystgpn for election of the School Board, which consists of three 

two-member districts and one at-large seat, and a districting

- 6 -



plan. Newport News Ordinance No. 4541-93. One of the districts 

(Ward 3) is 58 percent black in voting age population, and 

another district (Ward 1) is 28 percent black in voting age 

population. The at-large seat is elected from the city as a 

whole in which blacks constitute 31 percent of the voting age 

population. This election system was precleared under Section 5 

on February 22, 1994. Attachment A to this Consent Judgment and 

Decree is a map of the districting plan for the School Board. 

Attachment B provides demographic information for each district 

and the city as a whole.

17. Based on the foregoing, the parties agree that wliile 

the plaintiffs could present sufficient evidence to establish a 

prima facie case under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and 

defendants could present evidence towards establishing a 

meritorious defense, the interests of the parties and of the 

citizens of Newport News are best served by entering into this 

Consent Judgment and Decree and thus avoiding protracted, costly 

and potentially divisive litigation.

18. The parties further agree that the action filed by the 

private plaintiffs and the action filed by the United States 

should be consolidated pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED

that :

1. This Court has jurisdiction over these actions pursuant

7



to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(3) and (4), and 1345, and 42 U.S.C.

§ 1973] (f) .

2. The above-captioned actions filed by the private 

plaintiffs (Pegram v. City of Newport News) and the United States 

(United States v. City of Newport News) are hereby consolidated 

pursuant to Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

3. The at-large method of electing the City Council of 

Newport News, operating in the totality of circumstances, 

violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, 

and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the United States 
Constitution.

4. The defendants, their agents, successors in office, and 

all persons acting in concert with them, are permanently enjoined 

from administering, implementing or conducting future elections 

for City Council under the present at-large method.

5. The defendants shall implement, pursuant to the

schedule set forth below (also set forth in Attachment C), the 

same districting plan that was adopted by the City Council for 

use in Newport News School Board elections. See Paragraph 16 of 

the Factual Stipulation. Defendants shall implement the plan 

under the following election schedule: In May 1996, the

defendant city authorities shall hold a special election for two 

council seats in Ward 3, the majority minority district, to be 

designated Seat A and Seat B, as well as an at-large election for 

Mayor. One of the members elected to the City Council from

Ward 3 in the May 1996 election shall serve a two year term

- 8 -



(Seat B), and the other shall serve a four year term (Seat A).

The Mayor, elected at-large, shall serve a two year term. In May 

1998, the city shall hold elections for five council seats and 

for Mayor. The council seats open for election in May 1998 shall 

be a four-year seat in Ward 3 (Seat B), a four-year seat in Ward 

2 (Seat B), a two-year seat in Ward 2 (Seat A), a four-year seat 

in Ward 1 (Seat B), and a two-year seat in Ward 1 (Seat A). The 

at-large mayoral election in May 1998 shall be for a four-year 

team. Beginning in May 2000, the councilmanic elections shall be 

held on the same schedule as elections for the School Board, all 

terms being for four years.

6. The defendants shall, within twenty (20) days after 

entry of this Consent Judgment and Decree, submit to the Attorney 

General for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights 

Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c, the voting changes occasioned by this 

Consent Judgment and Decree.

7. Within twenty (20) days of the Section 5 determination 

of the Attorney General of the United States, the defendants 

shall file with the court, with copies to counsel for plaintiffs, 

a copy of the Attorney General's determination.

8. The defendants shall take all steps necessary to 

implement the terms of this Consent Judgment and Decree.

9. The defendants shall pay unto private plaintiffs, as 

prevailing parties, reasonable costs and attorneys' fees pursuant 

to 42 U.S.C. § 1973.1(e) and 42 U.S.C. § 1988, in the amount of 

$44,561.84 .

- 9 -



10. The court shall retain jurisdiction over this matter 
until December 31, 1998, to ensure full compliance with the terms 
of this Consent Judgment and Decree. *

Entered this __  day of^&efcofaer, 1994.

Approved as to form and content: U.
ATTORNEYS FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

JOHN K. TANNER 
REBECCA J. WERTZ 
MATTHEW G. OLSEN 
Civil Rights Division 
Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 66128
Washington, D.C. 20035-6128 
(202) 514-4838

MICHAEL A. RHINE 
Virginia Bar No. 1266 
Assistant U.S. Attorneys 
101 W. Main Street 
Suite 8000
Norfolk, Virginia 23510 
(804) 441-6331

ATTORNEYS FOR PEGRAM, et al.:
LAUGHLIN MCDONALD 
NEIL BRADLEY 
MARY WYCKOFF 
Southern Regional Office 
American Civil Liberties Union 
Foundation, Inc.

Suite 202
44 Forsyth Street, NW 
Atlanta, Georgia 30303 
(404) 523-2721

-10-



STEPHEN B. PERSHING 
American Civil Liberties Union 
of Virginia 

6 North Sixth Street 
Richmond, Virginia 23219 
(804) 644-8080

(703) 684-3585

Virginia Bar No. 17062 /
Attorney at Law 
Harbour Centre 
2 Eaton Street, Suite 708 
Hampton, Virginia 23669 
(804) 722-4068

EWS, et al.:

JAMES B. COMEY 
Virginia Bar No. 36713 
THERENCE 0. PICKETT 
DANA J. FINBERG
McGuire, Woods, Battle & Boothe 
901 East Cary Street 
Richmond, Virginia 23219 
(804) 775-1000

OSCAR H. BLAYTON

-11-



CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS 

SCHOOL BOARD ELECTION DISTRICTS



ATTACHMENT B

NEWPORT NEWS SCHOOL BOARD DISTRICTS

TOTAL POP. BLACK POP. % BLACK VAP

DISTRICT 1 57,195 30.2 28.2
DISTRICT 2 58,747 10.1 9.2
DISTRICT 3 54,103 61.5 57.8
CITY-WIDE 170,045 33.6 30.9



ATTACHMENT C

ELECTION SCHEDULE FOR NEWPORT NEWS CITY COUNCIL

1996 city council election

1998 city council election

2000 city council election

2002 city council election

District 3 (the majority black 
district)

Seat A (four-year term) 
Seat B (two-year term)

At-large seat (two-year term) 
District 1

Seat A (two-year term) 
Seat B (four-year term)

District 2
Seat A (two-year term) 
Seat B (four-year term)

District 3
Seat B (four-year term)

At-large seat (four-year term) 
District 1

Seat A (four-year term)
District 2 

Seat A (four-year term)
District 3 

Seat A (four-year term)
District 1 

Seat B (four-year term)
District 2 

Seat B (four-year term)
District 3 

Seat B (four-year term)
At-large seat (four-year term)



•VI/

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

RICHMOND DIVISION

THE REV. CURTIS R. HARRIS, et al. , ___.....
1 \ i J

Plaintiffs,
v.
CITY OF HOPEWELL, VIRGINIA, et al. ,

Defendant.

Civil Action 
No. 82-0036-R

CONSENT JUDGMENT
Plaintiffs having filed this action challenging at-large 

municipal elections for the Hopewell City Council for unlawful 
dilution of black voting strength, and defendants having filed 
their answer denying the material allegations of the complaint, 
and the parties having reached a settlement of the issues 
presented and having consented to the entry of this judgment, 
but not having admitted fault or liability, it is, with the 
consent of the parties hereto,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
1. Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, 

successors in office, and all persons in active concert 
and participation with them, are hereby permanently re­
strained and enjoined from conducting or holding any further 
municipal elections for members of the City Council for 
the City of Hopewell under which all seven members of the 
City Council are elected on an at-large basis, and shall 
henceforth provide for the election of the seven members



of the Hopewell City Council on the basis of a city council 
redistricting plan under which five members of the Hopewell 
City Council shall be elected from single-member districts, 
or wards, and two members shall be elected at-large.

2. Defendants shall adopt and put into effect the 
attached redistricting plan, Exhibit A attached, providing 
for five single-member districts, or wards, for the election 
of five members of the Hopewell City Council by wards. This 
plan shall remain in effect unless and until the results of 
the 1990 Census or any subsequent Census show that the five 
wards are unconstitutionally malapportioned.

3. All seven incumbent city council members will be 
permitted to serve out their present terms of office.

4. Three city council members shall be elected in 
the 1984 city council elections. One of these three 
members shall be elected on an at-large basis for a term 
of four years; one of these three members shall be elected 
from ward 3 for a term of two years; and one of these 
three members shall be elected from ward 5 for a term of 
two years.

5. Six city council members shall be elected in the 
1986 city council elections. One of these six members shall 
be elected on an at-large basis for a term of two years.
Five of these six members shall be elected in 1986, and every 
four years thereafter, from each of the five wards for a term 
of four years.

- 2 -



6. Two members shall be elected on an at-large basis for a 
term of four years in the 1988 city council election and every 
four years thereafter.

7. Defendants shall pay to counsel for the plaintiffs 
the sum of $15,000 in full settlement of all of plaintiffs' 
claims for reasonable attorneys’ fees, necessary expenses
of the litigation, and taxable court costs of the litigation.

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED on this the £'" day of
January, 1983.

Agreed to and approved by:

Frank R. Parker 
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Stephen W. Bricker 
Attorney for Plaintiffs

- 3 -



WARD 1

Beginning at Randolph Road (State Route 10) and the 
northern Hopewell City Limits south to Riverside Avenue, 
then west along the center line of Riverside Avenue to North 
21st Avenue, then south along the center line of North 21st 
Avenue to West Broadway, then east along the center line of 
West Broadway to North 16th Avenue, then south along the 
center line of North 16th Avenue to Atlantic Street, then 
west along the center line of Atlantic Street to South 17th 
Avenue, then southeast along the center line of South 17th 
Avenue to the Norfolk & Western Rail Road, then southwest 
along the Norfolk & Western Rail Road to the Seaboard Air­
line Rail Road, then southeast along the Seaboard Airline 
Rail Road to Winston Churchill Drive, then east along the 
center line of Winston Churchill Drive to LaPrade Avenue, 
then north and east along the center line of LaPrade Avenue 
to Main Street, then north along the center line of Main 
Street to the Norfolk & Western Rail Road, then east along 
the Norfolk & Western Rail Road to Randolph Road (State 
Route 10), then southeast along the center line of Randolph 
Road to the City Limits, then east and north and west along 
the City Limits around City Point to the point of beginning.

The voting place for Ward 1 is Patrick Copeland School.

EXHIBIT A

-4-



WARD 2

Beginning at Spring Road and the Hopewell City Limits 
east along the center line of Spring Road to Davis Lane, 
then north along the center line of Davis Lane to Court 
House Road, then east along the center line of Court House 
Road to Berry Street, then east along the center line of 
Berry Street to Sunnyside Avenue, then north along the 
center line of Sunnyside Avenue to Boston Street, then east 
along the center line of Boston Street to High Avenue, then 
north along the center line of High Avenue to Winston Churchill 
Drive, then east along the center line of Winston Churchill 
Drive to LaPrade Avenue, then north and east along the 
center line of LaPrade Avenue to Main Street, then along the 
center line of Main Street to the Norfolk & Western Rail 
Road to Randolph Road (State Route 10), then southeast along 
the center line of Randolph Road (State Route 10) to the 
City Limits, then follow City Limits west to the point of 
beginning.

The voting place for Ward 2 is Carter Woodson School.

-5-



WARD 3

Beginning at Randolph Road (State Route 10) and the 
northern Hopewell City Limits south to Riverside Avenue, 
then west along the center line of Riverside Avenue to North 
21st Avenue, then south along the center line of North 21st 
Avenue to West Broadway, then east along the center line of 
West Broadway to North 16th Avenue, then south along the 
center line of North 16th Avenue to Atlantic Street, then 
west along the center line of Atlantic Street to South 17th 
Avenue, then southeast along the center line of South 17th 
Avenue to the Norfolk & Western Rail Road, then southwest 
along the Norfolk & Western Rail Road to the Seaboard Air­
line Rail Road, then west along the Seaboard Airline Rail 
Road to Mesa Drive, then north along the center line of Mesa 
Drive to River Road, then west along the center line of 
River Road to the Seaboard Airline Rail Road, then north 
along the Seaboard Airline Rail Road to the City Limits at 
the Appomattox River, then east along the City Limits to the 
point of beginning.

The voting place for Ward 3 is Dupont School.

- 6 -



WARD 4

Beginning at the intersection of the Norfolk & Western 
Rail Road and the western City Limits, then north along the 
Norfolk & Western Rail Road to Miles Avenue, then northwest 
along the center line of Miles Avenue to Oak Lane, then 
northeast along the center line of Oak Lane to Richmond 
Street, then northeast along the center line of Richmond 
Street to the Seaboard Airline Rail Road, then west along 
the Seaboard Airline Rail Road to South Mesa Drive, then 
north along the center line of South Mesa Drive to River 
Road, then west along the center line of River Road to the 
Seaboard Airline Rail Road, then north along the Seaboard 
Airline Rail Road to the City Limits at the Appomattox 
River, then west and south along the City Limits to the 
point of beginning.

The voting place for Ward 4 is Hopewell High School.

-7-



WARD 5

Beginning at the intersection of the Norfolk & Western 
Rail Road and the western City Limits, then north along the 
Norfolk & Western Rail Road to Miles Avenue, then northwest 
along the center line of Miles Avenue to Oak Lane, then 
northeast along the center line of Oak Lane to Richmond 
Street, then northeast along the center line of Richmond 
Street to the Seaboard Airline Rail Road, then east along 
the Seaboard Airline Rail Road to Winston Churchill Drive, 
then west along the center line of Winston Churchill Drive 
to High Avenue, then south along the center line of High 
Avenue to Boston Street, then west along the center line of 
Boston Street to Sunnyside Avenue, then south along the 
center line of Sunnyside Avenue to Berry Street, then west 
along the center line of Berry Street to Court House Road, 
then west along the center line of Court House Road to Davis 
Lane, then south along the center line of Davis lane to 
Spring Road, then west along the center line of Spring Road 
to the City Limits, then west along the City Limits to the 
point of beginning.

The voting place for Ward 5 is Woodlawn School.



"b l\ K  0MAY 2 ; ]38l

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION
REVEREND H.R. WATKINS et al. 

Plaintiffs, 
v.

RICHARD W. THOMAS, et al.. 
Defendants.

) F I

MAY 2 0 1288

C U K A , U.S. DiSrRJC? COUft' 
RKMMQNQ, VJI

CA. NO. 87-0709-R

CONSENT DECREE

Plaintiffs initiated this action under the First, 
Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the 
Constitution of the United States and Section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973, as 
amended, and prayed for declaratory and injunctive relief 
concerning the method of electing the members of the Board 
of Supervisors of Lunenburg County, Virginia.

The plaintiffs and defendants are desirous of resolving 
this action and have agreed to a method to be used in future 
elections for the members of the Board of Supervisors. This 
Court has jurisdiction, of the parties and subject matter of 
this action, and the parties have agreed to the entry of 
this Consent Decree. Based upon the inherent equitable 
powers of this Court, the consent of the parties hereto, and 
the agreement entered into by the parties on file with the 
Court, the future members of the Board of Supervisors of 
Lunenburg County, Virginia, shall be elected in accordance 
with the provisions of this Consent Decree.



Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, and without 
admitting any liability under the claims of the complaint, 
the defendants have adopted a plan for the election of 
members of the Board of Supervisors of Lunenburg County, 
Virginia, which provides plaintiffs, as black residents of 
Lunenburg County, and all the black voters of Lunenburg 
County, a greater opportunity than previously existed to 
elect candidates of their choice through the creation of 
seven single-member districts. This replaces the current 
system under which four members are elected from single 
member districts and one member is elected at-large from the 
entirety of the County.

The plan includes the following aspects:
(a) All candidates are required to reside in and be 

elected by the voters residing in a particular district.
(b) The plan will be implemented immediately.
(c) Because the implementation of this plan is 

dependent upon preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973c, the parties 
have agreed to cooperate in seeking expeditious 
preclearance. The parties have jointly requested the 
issuance of this consent decree. Therefore,

2



IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:

- 1 -

That the terms of the consent agreement on file with 
the Court are due to be implemented.

- 2-

The positions on the Board of Supervisors shall be 
filled as follows:

(a) A special election shall be held on November 
8, 1988 to fill Board of Supervisors positions in Districts 
5 and 6. One supervisor shall be elected from each district 
to serve a three year term commencing on January 1, 1989 and 
ending December 31, 1991. The deadline for filing 
declarations of candidacy shall be 5:00 p.m. on August 26, 
1988 ;

(b) An election shall be held in November, 1989 
to fill Board of Supervisors positions in Districts 1, 3, 
and 7. One supervisor shall be elected from each district 
to serve a four year term ending December 31, 1993;

(c) An election shall be held in November, 1991, 
to fill Board of Supervisors positions in Districts 2, 4, 5, 
and 6 for terms ending December 31, 1995.

(d) Each Supervisor now in office shall complete 
the term to which he/she was elected, even though this will 
result in an eight member Board for a short period of time.

3



-3-
That the terms of this Consent Decree shall be binding 

upon defendants, their successors, officers, agents and 
servants.

-4-
That the defendants shall submit the relevant terms of 

this Consent Decree for preclearance under Section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973c, as 
amended, as expeditiously as possible.

-5-
The defendants agree to pay plaintiffs' costs and 

attorney's fees.
2 0 M AY 1983

SO ORDERED, this the _______  day of __________ , 19__.

Agreed and Consented to by:.

Counsel for Plaintiffs 
Susan L. Quig-Terry 
Gerald T. Zerkin

Counsel for Defendapt^ 
Russell Slayton- 
Carter Glass, IV

© ( f O W i f :
• i\'t •5 .[3

CLERK. U.S. DISTRICT COuHT 
RICHMOND. VA

4



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION
REVEREND H.R. WATKINS et al. , )

)Plaintiffs, )
)

V. ) CA. NO. 87-0709-R
)RICHARD W . THOMAS, et a l . , )
)Defendants. )

CONSENT AGREEMENT

Plaintiffs initiated this action under the First,
Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the 
Constitution of the United States and Section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1S73, as 
amended, and prayed for declaratory and injunctive relief 
concerning the method of electing the members of the Board 
of Supervisors of Lunenburg County, Virginia. By agreeing 
to the terms herein, defendants do not admit liability in 
the suit, but rather seek to resolve the dispute without 
further expensive litigation.

The plaintiffs and defendants being desirous of 
implementing a solution to the. subject matter of this action 
for purposes of resolving this dispute and establishing a 
method to be used in the future elections for the members of 
the Board of Supervisors of Lunenburg County, have entered 
into the following agreement.

- 1 -

ACLU 8046448080 04/12/96 4:36PM Job 13 Page 11/16

F  L _ l  r 

I | MAY 2 01988

CLERK, U S. DISTRICT 1-. RICHMOND. VA

The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject 
matter of this action, and the parties shall jointly pray



Sent by: ACLU 8046448080 04/12/96 4:37PM Job 13 Page 12/16

that this agreement be implemented by Consent Decree entered 
by the United States District court for the Eastern District 
of Virginia.

—2 —
The Board of Supervisors of Lunenburg County shall be 

increased in size from five (5) members to seven (7).
-3-

Mexnbers of the Board of Supervisors shall be elected 
from single member districts. All candidates shall be a 
residents of the district from which they run, and shall be 
elected solely by the voters of that district. Each such 
district is particularly described and shall be as set forth 
in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, and 
each such district shall be as drawn in Exhibit B attached 
hereto and made a part hereof. In the event of any 
inconsistencies between Exhibit A and Exhibit B, Exhibit A 
shall govern.

-4-
The pertinent demographic information for the Board of 

Supervisors/ districts contained in Exhibits A and B is as 
follows:

2



Sent by: ACLU 8046448080 04/12/96 4:37PM Job 13 Page 13/16

DISTRICT TOTAL
POP. WHITE

POP. [%) BLACK
POP.

[%] DEVIATION

ONE 1733 1690 97.52 40 2.31 + 1
TWO 1784 1390 77.91 386 21.64 + 52
THREE 1672 721 43.12 949 56.76 -60
FOUR 1738 1192 68.58 542 31.19 + 6
FIVE 1721 633 36.78 1086 63.10 -11
SIX 1717 556 32.38 1160 67.56 -15
SEVEN 1759 1147 65.21 601 34.17 + 27

TOTAL 12124 7329 60.45 4764 39.29
IDEAL DISTRICT SIZE= 1732

-5-
The positions on the Board of Supervisors shall be 

filled as follows:
(a) A special election shall be held on November 

8, 1988 in Districts 5 and 6. One Supervisor shall be 
elected from each district for a three year term commencing 
on January 1, 1989 and ending December 31, 1991. The 
deadline for filing declarations of candidacy shall be 5:00 
p.m. on August 26, 1988;

(b) An election shall be held in November, 1989 
in Districts 1, 3, and 7. One Supervisor shall be elected 
from each district for a four year term ending December 3 1 , 
1993 ;

(c) An election shall be held in November, 1991 

in Districts 2, 4, 5, and 6. One Supervisor shall be

3



Sent D y : ACLU 8046448080 04/12/96 4:38PM Joo 13 Page 14/1

elected from each district for a term ending December 31, 
1995.

(d) Each Supervisor now in office shall complete 
the term to which he/she was elected, even though this will 
result in an eight member Board for a short period of time.

- 6 -

The polling place for District 1 shall be located at 
the Victoria fire and rescue squad building.

The polling place for District 2 shall be located at 
the rescue squad building in Kenbridge.

The polling places for District 3 shall be located at 
Parham's store and McCoy Ghee's store.

The polling places for District 4 shall be located at 
Haag's Electric store located at the intersection of Routes 
40 and 626, and the Arrowhead Gun Club.

The polling places for District 5 shall be located at 
the Peoples Community Center on Mecklenburg Avenue in 
Victoria and the Lunenburg County Landfill.

The polling place for District 6 shall be located at 
the Kenbridge Primary School.

The polling places for District 7 shall be located at 
the Meherrin Fire Department and the building which was 
formerly Allen's Store and is located on Route 49, just 
north of the corporate limits of Victoria.

-7-
Any vacancy on the Board of Supervisors shall be filled 

under the appropriate provisions of state law; any persons

4



Sent by: AC LI1 8046448080 04/12/96 4:39PM Job 13 Page 15/16

seeking to fill a vacancy on the Board shall reside within 
the district in which the vacancy exists. If, however, at 
any time between January 1, 1990 and December 31, 1991, a 
vacancy occurs in the seat on the Board elected at large at 
the 1987 general election, such vacancy shall not be filled.

- 8 -

Except as they conflict with provisions of this Consent 
Agreement, the laws of the State of Virginia shall continue 
to govern elections for the Board of Supervisors of 
Lunenburg County and the laws of the State shall continue to 
govern and prescribe the powers and duties of said 
officials.

— 9 —
It is understood between the parties that a different 

apportionment of the County may become necessary or 
desirable in the future because of the one person-one vote 
requirement and/or demographic changes within the county as 
indicated by the latest decennial census, and/or other 
reasons. Such apportionment is contemplated by this 
agreement, and it shall not be necessary for the defendants 
to seek modification of this agreement or of the consent 
decree, but rather it may be accomplished pursuant to 
applicable state and federal law.

- 1 0 -

The terms of this consent Agreement shall be binding 
upon defendants, their successors, officers, agents and 
servants.



Sent by: ACLU 8046448080 04/12/96 4:39PM Job 13 Page 16/16

- 1 1 -

The defendants shall submit the relevant terms of this 
Consent Agreement to the Attorney General of the United 
States for federal preclearance under Section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973c, as 
amended. The plaintiffs agree to support the submission for 
preclearance by the Attorney General.

- 1 2 -

Defendants agree to pay plaintiffs' costs and 
attorneys' fees in the amount of $5,428.16.

Agreed and Consented to by:

Counsel for Plaintiffs 
Susan L. Quig-Terry 
Gerald T. Zeirkin

Russell Slayton 
Carter Glass, IV

6



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION

THOMAS M. PERSON, et al.,

Plaintiffs
vs ) Civil Action No. 84-0270-R
WILLIAM H. LIGON, etc., et al

Defendants

|  JAN I 2 1988
CONSENT DECREE CLERK, U.S. OiSIRILl CuliKf RICHMOND. VA

i
4

Plaintiffs initiated this action under the First,

Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the 
Constitution of the United States and §2 of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §1973, as amended, and prayed for declaratory 
and injunctive relief concerning the method of electing the 
members of the City Council of Emporia, Virginia.

The plaintiffs and defendants are desirous of resolving this 
action and have agreed to a method to be used in future elections 
for the members of the city council. This Court has jurisdiction 
of the parties and subject matter of this action, and the parties 
have agreed to the entry of this Consent Decree. Based upon the 
inherent equitable powers of this Court, the consent of the 
parties hereto, and the agreement entered into by the parties on 
file with the Court, the future members of the City Council of 
Emporia, Virginia; shall be elected on the basis of and in 
accordance with the provisions of this Consent Decree.



Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, and without 
admitting any liability under the claims of the complaint, the 
defendants have adopted a plan for the election of members of the 
City Council of Emporia, Virginia, which provides plaintiffs, as 
black residents of the City of Emporia, and all the black voters 
of the City of Emporia, a greater opportunity than previously 
existed to elect candidates of their choice through the creation 
of three single-member districts and two multi-member districts, 
and the reduction in the size of the city council from nine to 
eight members. This replaces the current system under which all 
nine council positions are elected at-large from the entirety of 
the city.

The plan includes the following aspects:
(a) All candidates are required to reside in and be elected 

by the voters residing in a particular district.
(b) The districting plan is for the entirety of the City of 

Emporia, including the area approved for annexation by a state 
court order of December 4, 1987, said annexation became effective 
under Virginia law on January 1, 1988.

(c) The plan will 'be implemented by the May, 1988, 
elections at which time all eight council positions will be up 
for election.

(d) Because the implementation of this plan is dependent 
upon the preclearance of the annexation itself by the Attorney 
General of the United States pursuant to his authority under 
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. §1973c, as 
well as the preclearance, of this agreement, the parties have

-2-



agreed to cooperate in seeking expeditious preclearance of the 
annexation and of this agreement. The parties have further 
agreed upon procedures to be followed in the event that the 
Voting Rights Act procedures prevent the districting plan from 
being implemented as contemplated in the May, 1988 election.

The defendants intend to request that the local legislative 
delegation obtain an amendment to the charter of the City of 
Emporia at the 1988 legislative session of the General Assembly 
to authorize a reduction in the size of the city council from 
nine to eight members and to authorize election of council 
members from districts. Because the parties desire the agreement 
to be implemented in the May, 1988 election and because a change 
in the method of election of a municipal government in Virginia 
is not ripe for submission to the Attorney General until adopted 
by the legislature or embodied in a consent decree, the parties 
have jointly requested the issuance of this consent decree. 
Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:

- 1 -

That the terms of the consent agreement on file with the 
Court are due to be implemented.

- 2 -

The elections for the City Council of Emporia currently 
scheduled for May 10, 1988, shall not be held under the at-large 
format.

-3-



- 3 -

That the terms of this Consent Decree shall be binding upon 
defendants, their successors, officers, agents and servants.

-4-
That the defendants shall submit the relevant terms of this 

Consent Decree to the Attorney General of the United States for 
preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 
U.S.C. §1973c, as amended, as expeditiously as possible.

-5-
That the matter of plaintiffs' costs and attorney’s fees is 

expressly reserved.

SO ORDERED, this the

Agreed and Consented to by:

Counsel for Plaintiffs j  

Thomas M. Person, Elmo/Roberts, 
Barbara G. Mason, Daniel- D. Smith, 
Steve J. Eason and James Edwards

Counsel for Defendants
William H. Ligon, J. Henry Evans,
F.T. Lee, II, George B. Ligon, Jr., 
Nancy B. Squire, Samuel W. Adams, III, 
Stuart G. Keedwell, H. Lee Townsend, 
Julian P. Mitchell, Julia L. Jones, 
Stanford L. Vassar, Frances L. Grizzard, 
Norris M. Dickerson and Sarah B. Harris

- 4 -



A P R .  - I i’ 56 ;THli 12:33 T E L :523 ’21 P C O

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION

THOMAS M. PERSON, at al.f )
)Plaintiffs, }
)

va* ) Civil Action No. 34-0270-R
WILLIAM H. LIGON, etc., et al, )

)Defendants. )

CONSENT AGREEMENT

Plaintiffs initiated this action under the First, Thir­
teenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Constitution 
of the United States and §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 
U.S.C. §1973, as amended, and prayed for declaratory and injunc­
tive relief concerning the method of electing the members of the 
City Council of Emporia, Virginia. By agreeing to the terms 
herein, defendants do not admit liability in the suit, but rather 
seek tc resolve the dispute without further expensive litigation.

The plaintiffs and defendants being desirous of implementing 
a solution to the subject matter of this action for purposes of 
resolving this dispute and establishing a method to be used in 
the future elections for the members of the City Council of the 
City of Emporia, have entered into the following agreement.



APR. - I T  96 :THl; 12: A C 1 U F T E L : 52 32^21 P. CO*

The Court has jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter 
of this action, and the parties shall jointly pray that this 
agreement be implemented by Consent Decree entered by the United 
States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

- 2 -

The City Council of Emporia shall be decreased in size from 
nine (9) members to eight (8).

- 1 -

-3-
Future elections for the City Council shall be conducted on 

the basis of districts. Candidates for city council member shall 
be residents of the district for which they qualify to run, and 
shall be elected solely by the voters of that district. Each 
such district is particularly described and shall be as set forth 
in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part hereof, and each 
such district shall be as drawn in Exhibit 3 attached hereto and 
made a part hereof. In the event of any inconsistencies between 
Exhibit A and Exhibit B, Exhibit a shall govern. The mayor of 
the City of Emporia shall continue to be elected at-large from 
the entirety of the city.

- 2 -



A P R . - I T  9 5 ( T H U I  12  3 3 A  C L  L F T E L : 5 2 3  2 " 2 1 P. 094

“4-
The pert inent demographic information for the city council

districts contained in Exhibits A and S is as follows:

District Total Deviation White White % Minority Minority'
1 718 -2.0 156 21.7 562 78.3
2 73 8 +0.7 35 4.7 703 95.3
3 1,523 + 3.9 1,284 84.3 239 15.7
4 2,135 -2.7 1,048 86.6 287 13.4
5 748 +2.0 79 10.6 669 89.4

Totals! 5,862 6.6 2,402 58.0 2,460 42.0

-5-
One council member shall be elected from each of Districts 

1, 2 and 5. Three council members shall be elected from District 
4 and two council members shall be elected from District 3.

- 6-

All eight council positions shall be filled at the next 
regularly scheduled municipal election in May, 1988. To the 
extent possible consistent with this agreement, this and future 
elections shall be held in accordance with Virginia law. 
Specifically, election shall be by plurality and the terms of 
council members shall be staggered.

-3 -



F TEL:5232"21 ? 005

At the May, 1988 election, four council members shall be 
elected to two year terras and four council members shall be 
elected to four year terms. Such terras of office shall begin on 
July 1, 198Q. At the municipal election next preceding the 
expiration of the two year terms, the persons elected to fill the 
expiring terms shall be elected to four year terms. Thereafter, 
all council members for all positions shall be elected to four 
year terms.

A P R .  - 1 1 '  9 6 ( T H U S  1 2 : 3 4  A  0 L  U

-7-

- 8 -

At the May 1968 election, the person elected from District 
2, the two persons receiving the two highest vote totals in 
District 4, and the person receiving the highest vote total in 
District 3 shall be elected to serve terms ending June 30,
1992. The persons elected in Districts 1 and 5, the person 
receiving the third highest vote total in District 4 and the 
person receiving the second highest vote total in District 3 
sharl be elected to terns ending June 30, 1990. The position of 
mayor shall also be elected at the May, 1988 election.

—9—
The boundaries of the election districts shall also 

constitute the boundaries of the voting precincts for the City of 
Emporia.

The polling place for Precinct l shall be located at the 
Greensville Rescue Squad Building.

-4-



? 0 0 6A P R .  - ! ! '  9 5 ; T H i ;  1 2 : 3 4  A T E L :

The polling place for Precinct 2 shall be located at the 
Training School.

The polling place for Precinct 3 shall be located at the 
Municipal Building.

The polling place for Precinct 4 shall be located at the 
Emporia Elementary School.

The polling place for Precinct 5 shall be lgcated at the 
building behind the Chesapeake Auto Supply Company.

- 1 0 -

Because the above described apportionment plan includes area 
recently annexed to the city, and said annexation is currently 
under submission to the Attorney General of the United States for 
preclearance under Section Five of the Voting Rights Act, the 
parties recognize that it is possible that the annexation may not 
be precleared sufficiently in advance to prepare for the election 
called for hereunder.

In the event that the preclearance process for either the 
annexation or this agreement would interfere with allowing 
residents of the annexed area to vote in the municipal election 
scheduled for May 10, 1988, the parties agree that the following 
schedule should control.

A. If the annexation and this agreement are precleared by 
and including April 8, 1988, this agreement shall be 
implemented in the May 10, 198Q election, and the 
apportionment plan contained in Exhibits A and B shall

-5-



A P R .  - I T  96 i THU! 1 2 35 A C L l1 F T E L : 5 2 3 2 " 2 1 F. 30 '

\
become effective.

B. If either the annexation or this agreement is not 
precleared by and including April 8, 1988, the regularly 
scheduled municipal election shall not be held on May 
10, 1988.

C. (1) If the annexation is not precleared by and 
including June 1, 1988, but Exhibit C to this agreement 
has been precleared by that date, then the apportionment 
plan attached hereto as Exhibit c for the city 
boundaries as they existed prior to annexation shall be 
implemented in a special election held July 19, 1980.
To the extent possible, this election shall be held 
utilizing the structure outlined in Paragraphs 2, 3, and 
6 above. The deadline for filing notices of candidacy 
shall be 5s00 p.m. on June 20, 1988. Candidates shall 
be residents of their districts and shall be elected 
solely by the voters of their districts. The candidates 
receiving the largest number of votes in each of 
Districts 1, 3 and 4 shall be declared elected, and the 
five candidates receiving the largest number of votes in 
District 2 shall be declared elected. The position of 
mayor shall also be elected at large at the special 
election. The terms of office of all candidates elected 
at the election held pursuant to this paragraph shall 
commence on August 18, 1988 and shall expire upon the

- 6 -



A P R ,  - ! ! '  9 6 ! T H U 5 1 2 3 5  A C  L  U F TIT! ■ JlU-l:U L ' » • P.  9 0 8

D.

election of their successors in the special election 
called for below.
(2) The boundaries of the election districts shall also 
constitute the boundaries of the voting precincts. The 
polling places for this special election shall be 
located as follows;
Polling place for Precinct It Municipal Building;
Polling place for Precinct 2; Emporia Elementary School; 
Polling place for Precinct 3t Training School;
Polling place for Precinct 4: Department of Social 
Services Building.
(3) It is the intent of the parties that Exhibit C shall 
be a contingent, interim plan, to be utilized only for 
one special election if necessary.
If at any time between April 9, 1988 and June 1, 1988, 
inclusive, the annexation and this agreement become 
precleared, then the special election called to be held 
on July 19, 1988 shall implement the apportionment plan 
for the entirety of the city including the annexed area 
as outlined in Paragraphs 2 through 9 above. The 
position of mayor shall also be elected at large at the 
special election. The terms of office of all candidates 
elected at such election shall begin on August 18, 1988. 
If at any time between June 2, 1988 and July IQ, 1988, 
inclusive, the annexation becomes precleared, the special 
election called for in Paragraphs C and D above shall not 
be held. Instead, a special election implementing the

-7-



T E L 15 2 3 2 " ’2: P.  0 0 9

apportionment plan for the entirety of the city, 
including the annexed area, shall be held on August 30, 
1988, as outlined in Paragraphs 2 through 9 above. The 
position of mayor shall also be elected at large at the 
special election. The deadline for the filing of 
declarations of candidacy shall be 5;DO p.m. on August 1, 
1988. The terms of office of all candidates elected at 
such election shall begin on September 29, 1988.

F. If the annexation is precleared between July 19, 1988 and 
September 22, 1988, inclusive, then the special election 
shall be held on July 19, 1988, as provided for in 
Paragraph C above using the apportionment plan for the

Xcity boundaries as they existed prior to annexation. 
Thereafter, however, a special election shall be held on 
November 8, 1988, to implement the apportionment plan for 
the entirety of the city including the annexed areas, as 
outlined in Paragraphs 2  through 9 above. The position 
of mayor shall also be elected at large at the special 
election. The deadline for filing declarations of 
candidacy shall be 5:00 p.m. on August 26, 1988. The 
terms of office of all candidates elected, at such 
election shall begin on December 8, 1988.

G. The terms of office of the mayor and councilmembers 
elected at a special election using the apportionment 
plan attached hereto as Exhibit C for the city boundaries 
as they existed prior to the annexation shall expire at 
the first Emporia City Council meeting held subsequent to

A P R .  - 1 r  9 6 ; T H U )  1 2 : 3 6  A C L  L  F

- 8 -



APR.-i] 96 i THU I i 2 36 L U F ,'5233 P. 010

\px
a special election implementing the apportionment plan 
for the entirety of the city including the annexed 
area- The terms of councilmenbers elected at a special 
election implementing the apportionment plan for the 
entirety of the city shall expire as called for in 
Paragraphs 7 and S above as if they had been elected at 
the regularly scheduled election in May, 1988, and the 
term of the mayor so elected shall expire June 30, 1992.

H. Petitions of qualified voters filed by candidates for the 
May 10, 1988 election implementing the apportionment plan 
for the entirety of the city, including the annexed area, 
shall be valid for any future election held in 1988 
implementing such plan, in the event the May 10, 1988 or 
other special election ordered hereunder are cancelled as 
provided above. Nothing herein shall preclude additional 
candidates from filing declarations of candidacy and 
petitions of qualified voters in the event the May 10,
1988 or latar special elections are cancelled as long as 
they are filed by the dates specified in Paragraphs C, E 
and F above for the filing of declarations of 
candidacy.

X. It is the intent of the parties that this agreement shall 
control the setting of the date of the implementing 
election, leaving no further discretion in the setting of 
the date, such that the submission of this agreement 
includes the setting of any special election.



A P R .  - 1 1 '  9 6 !  T H U  I 1 2  3 ' A C L  U F T E L :  5 2 3 2  " 2 1

\

P. 0

- l l -

Pursuant to the requirements of state law, the secretary of 
the electoral board of the City of Emporia shall cause public 
notice to be given of the special election(a) ordered hereunder to 
be held May 10, 1988 or a later date. A copy of this court order 
shall not be published, but rather the notice shall identify the 
date of the election to be held and the deadlines for filing 
declarations of candidacy.

- 12-

Any vacancy on the City Council shall be filled under the 
appropriate provisons of state law; however, any persons seeking 
tc fill a vacancy on the council shall reside within the district 
in which the vacancy exists.

-13-
Except as they conflict with provisions of this Consent 

Agreement, the laws of the State of Virginia shall continue to 
govern elections for the City Council of Emporia, and the laws of 
the State shall continue to govern and prescribe the powers and 
duties of said officials.

. »-14-
It is understood between the parties that a different 

apportionment of the City Council may become necessary or 
desirable in the future because of the one person-one vote 
requirement and/or demographic changes within the city as

10 -



APR. - i l '  96(THU) 12 37 A C L l: F TEL:5232'2l P. 0

indicated by the latest decennial census, and/or other reasons. 
Such apportionment is contemplated by this agreement, and it shall 
not be necessary for the defendants to seek modification of this 
agreement or of the consent decree, but rather it may be 
accomplished pursuant to applicable state and federal law*

-15-
The terms of this Consent Agreement shall be binding upon 

defendants, their successors, officers, agents and servants.

-16-
The defendants shall submit the relevant terms of this 

Consent Agreement to the Attorney General of the United States for 
federal preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965, 42 U.S.C. §1973c, as amended. The plaintiffs agree to 
support this agreement and the submission of the annexation for 
preclearance by the Attorney General.

- 11 -



- 1 7 -

The matters of plaintiffs1 costs and attorney's fees are 
expressly reserved.

Agreed and Consented to by:

i

Counsel for Plaintiffs 
Thomas M. Person, Elmo Roberts, 
Barbara G. Mason, Daniel D ,  Smith, 
Steve J. Eason and James Edwards

H Z '

Counsel for Defendants 
William H. Ligon, J. Henry Evans, 
F.T. Lee, II, George B. Ligon, Jr., 
Nancy B. Squire, Samuel W. Adams, 
III, Stuart G. Keedwell, H. Lee 
Townsend, Julian P. Mitchell,
Julia L. Jones, Stanford L. Vassar, 
Frances L. Grizzard, Norris M. 
Dickerson and Sarah B. Harris

y

- 1 2 -



Z'

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

v .
EARL HORNE, et als.,

Defendants.

CONSENT DECREE

CA-88-0865-R

SL AYTO N ,  B A I N  & C L A R Y

p O BOX 580
LAWPENCCVILLE. VA 22068

Plaintiffs initiated this action under the First, 

Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the 

Constitution of the United States and Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965, 42 U-S.C. Section 1973, as amended, and 

prayed for declaratory and injunctive relief concerning the 

method of electing the members of the Town Council of South 

Hill , Virginia.

The plaintiffs and defendants are desirous of resolving 

this action and have agreed to a method to be used m  future 

elections for the members of the Town Council. This Court has 

jurisdiction of the parties and subject matter of this action, 

and the parties have agreed to the entry of this Consent Decree. 

Based upon the inherent equitable powers of this Court, the 

consent of the parties hereto, and the agreement entered into by 

the parties on file with the Court, the future members of the

- 1 ■i I 6



( (

11
jj
:Town Council of South Hill/ Virginia, shall be elected in 

;i accordance with the provisions of this Consent Decree.
(j
;| Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, and without

/admitting any liability under the claims of the complaint, the 

11 defendants have adopted a plan for the election of members of 

1 the Town Council of South Hill, Virginia, which provides 

plaintiffs, as black residents of South Hill, and all the black 

/voters of South Hill, a greater opportunity than previously 

, existed to elect candidates of their choice through the creation 

of one two-member ward and two three-member wards. This 

replaces the current system under which there are six Town 

Council members who are elected at-large without any 

geographical residency requirement.

The plan includes the following aspects:

(a) All candidates are required to reside in and be 

. elected by the voters residing in a particular ward.

(b) The first election which will be conducted under the 

new plan will be the general election scheduled for November 7, 

1989, and the Defendants shall forthwith commence to take all 

action necessary to insure that the general election on November 

7, 1989, shall be conducted under the new plan. Any election 

held prior to the general election on November 7, 1989, whether 

for local, state or federal office, shall be conducted under the

SLAYTON, B A I N  a  C L A R Y  

p O BOX 580
2



(
k

plan in effect immediately prior to the implementation of the 

plan hereby ordered.

(c) Because the implementation of this plan is dependent 

upon preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 

1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973c, the parties have agreed to 

cooperate in seeking expeditious preclearance. The parties have 

jointly requested the issuance of this consent decree.

Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:

(1 )

That the terms of the consent agreement on file with the 

Court are due to be implemented.

( 2 )

The positions on the Town Council shall be filled as 

follows:

(a) The first election under the new plan will be held in 

May of 1990. At that time two Town Councilmen will be elected 

from Ward I. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes 

will serve a four year term of office, commencing on September 

1, 1990. The candidate receiving the second highest number of 

votes will serve a two year term of office also commencing 
September 1, 1990. Three Town Councilmen will be elected from

S L A Y T O N .  B A I N  a  C L A R Y 3 -
P O BOX 500LAwnCN-r. VILLE. VA



»

( V

Ward II, each to serve a four year term of office commencing

■ September 1, 1990.. 1
p (b) In May of 1992, the Mayor will be elected by at-large!j
i; vote to serve a four year term of office commencing September 1,
I :I:
p 1992. One Town Councilman will be elected from Ward I, to

I succeed the Councilman elected in 1990 to a two year term of 

office. The candidate receiving the highest vote total in Ward 

I will serve a four year term commencing September 1, 1992. Also

: in May of 1992, three Town Councilmen will be elected from Ward 

III, each to serve a four year term of office commencing

: September 1, 1992.

(3)

That the Court and the parties to this litigation 

recognize that redistrictings and reapportionments will become 

necessary in the future on account of numerous reasons, 

including, although not limited to, any future decennial 

census. Such future reapportionments and redistrictings have 

been contemplated by all parties, and it shall not be necessary 

for this Court, as a part of this litigation, to approve any 
future reapportionments or redistrictings, or any other changes 

affecting voting rights of the citizens of the Town of South 

Hill. Instead, such reapportionments, redistrictings and other 
changes must be accomplished in compliance with applicable state 

and federal law.

SLAYTON.  B A I N  & C L A R Y  

p o  BOX 5 8 0
4 -

\>~r-



(l

That the terms of this Consent Decree shall be binding 

upon defendants, their successors, officers, agents and 
|servants.
j

(5)

That the defendants shall submit the relevant terms of 
this Consent Decree for preclearance under Section 5 of the 

'Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973c, as amended, 
as expeditiously as possible.

(6 )

; (4)

The defendants agree to pay plaintiffs' costs and 
attorneys' fees.

1 9 JUN 1989SO ORDERED, this the _____ day of __________ , 1989.

Sl a y t o n , b a i n  a  c l a r y

p O BOX 580
La w r e n c e v !l Le . v a 23868

5 -



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [$5 j i r“
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA) | .-- '---

Richmond Division | l”3 1
1 NOV-51991

BRUNSWICK COUNTY LEAGUE 
FOR PROGRESS, et al., CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT RICHMOND, n

Plaintiffs,
v. Civil Action No. 

3:91CV00091

0-
f f

TOWN COUNCIL OF LAWRENCEVILLE, )
et al., )

)Defendants. )
CONSENT DECREE

This action was initiated as a challenge to the at large 
method of electing the members of the Town Council of the Town of 
Lawrenceville, Virginia, under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, and the United States 
Constitution. The Town Council, without admitting liability, 
voluntarily rescinded the at large election method and announced 
its intention to implement a district-based election system by a 
resolution unanimously adopted on April 23, 1991.

The parties have advised the Court that they have now 
reached agreement on a new method of election, more fully 
described in Exhibit 1 to this Decree, which creates two 
multimember election districts. District 1, from which three 
members are to be elected, consists of a 65 percent black 
population. District 2, from which four members are to be 
elected, is composed of a majority white population.

Upon joint motion of the parties, and for good cause shown, 
it is hereby DECREED that:

lfc(j OCT 2 5 1991
util_________

CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT C o .  
RICHMOND. VA



(1) Elections for members of the Town Council of the Town 
of Lawrenceville are to be conducted in accordance with the 
provisions of the proposed Charter amendment recited in the 
Resolution attached as Exhibit 1.

(2) Counsel for the Town is to take the steps necessary to 
obtain preclearance of the new election system from the United 
States Department of Justice in accordance with Section 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. The 
preclearance submission is to include a copy of this Decree.

(3) Once the preclearance process is completed, the Town is 
to take the steps necessary pursuant to Va. Code §§ 15.1-833—  

15.1-835 to have the General Assembly enact an amendment to the 
Town's Charter implementing the new election system.

(4) Any future change in the method of electing 
Lawrenceville Town Council members, including changes in 
boundaries, shall be accomplished in accordance with applicable 
federal and state law. It shall not be necessary for this Court 
to approve any future reapportionment, redistricting, or other 
change in voting plans or practices of the Town as part of this 
case, provided that nothing in this Decree shall preclude the 
initiation of a separate civil action against any change from the 
plans and practices to be effectuated hereunder.

(5) If for some reason not now anticipated the Town is 
unable to implement the voting plan described in Exhibit 1, the 
plaintiffs may petition this Court for such additional relief as 
may be appropriate.

2



(6) The payment of attorney fees and costs in this action 
will be governed by a separate order of the Court addressed to
that issue. This Decree does not embody the consent of the 
parties with respect to the content of such order.

(7) Except as noted in paragraph 6, this Decree fully 
resolves all of the issues raised in this civil action.

Let the clerk send a copy of this Decree to all counsel of 
record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: N O V  - 5  1991

Consented to by:

Counsel for Plaintiffs

Counsel for Defendants

3



RESOLUTION
The purpose of this Resolution is to adopt a new method of 

electing the members of the Town Council of Lawrenceville. The 
new method of election will replace the at large election system 
which was rescinded by a resolution unanimously adopted by the 
Town Council on April 23, 1991.

The Mayor and Town Council, after consultation with counsel, 
have determined that the interests of the citizens of 
Lawrenceville as a whole are best served by an election system 
which is district-based, which enhances the opportunity of 
minority residents to elect representatives of their choice, and 
which can be implemented in the next regular scheduled 
councilmanic elections, to be conducted on the first Tuesday in 
May, 1992. The Mayor and Town Council have concluded that the 
election system described in this Resolution satisfies those 
criteria and, in addition, that it complies with the requirements 
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1971.

The implementation of the new election system in May, 1992 
is made possible by the gracious agreement of three incumbent 
members of the Town Council to resign effective August 31, 1992, 
even though, the terms of office to which they were elected do not 
expire until August 31, 1994. The voluntary resignations of
these three council members make it possible to fill all seven 
council seats established by the new system in the May, 1992 
election.

In order to implement the new election system, it is 
necessary to amend Section 5 of the Charter of the Town of



Lawrenceville by following the procedures set forth in Va. Code 
§ 15.1-833 - § 15.1-835. In compliance with these requirements, 
notice of the proposed charter amendment has been published in 
newspapers of general circulation in the area, and a public 
hearing has been conducted at which citizens had an opportunity 
to be heard on the proposal.

Now therefore, having fully complied with all applicable 
legal requirements, the Mayor and Council of the Town of 
Lawrenceville hereby resolve and direct as follows:

1. That Section 5, "Elections," of the Charter of the Town 
of Lawrenceville shall be amended by deleting the existing text 
and by substituting in its place the following language:

5. Elections.
At the regular municipal election to be held on the 

first Tuesday in May, nineteen hundred ninety-two, a 
treasurer and seven council members shall be elected in 
the following manner. The treasurer shall be elected for 
a term of four years. The seven council members shall be 
elected from two election districts, known as Election 
District 1 and Election District 2. The boundaries of 
the two election districts shall be as enacted by the 
Town Council. Residents may cast votes only for council 
seats for the Election District in which they reside. 
Candidates may seek election only to council seats for 
the Election District in which they reside.

Three members of council shall be elected from 
Election District 1 and four members of council shall be 
elected from Election District 2. The two candidates 
receiving the greatest number of votes in Election 
District 1 shall be elected to four year terms of office 
and the candidate receiving the third highest number of 
votes in Election District 1 shall be elected to a two 
year term of office. The two candidates receiving the 
greatest number of votes in Election District 2 shall be 
elected to four year terms of office and the candidates 
receiving the third and fourth highest number of votes in 
Election District 2 shall be elected to two year terms of 
office.

2



At the regular municipal election to be held on the 
first Tuesday in May, nineteen hundred ninety-four, and 
every four years thereafter, the mayor, one council 
member from District 1 and two council members from 
District 2 shall be elected for a term of four years 
each. At the regular municipal election to be held on 
the first Tuesday in May, nineteen hundred ninety-six, 
and every four years thereafter, the treasurer, two 
council members from District 1 and two council members 
from District 2 shall be elected for a term of four years 
each.

The mayor, treasurer, and council members elected 
under this section shall enter upon the duties of their 
respective offices the first day of September succeeding 
their election.

2. That the boundary lines of the two election districts
created by the charter amendment shall be as follows:

Election District 1 shall consist of the territory 
bounded as follows: From the point where the northern 
Lawrenceville Town Limit meets Windsor Avenue, the line 
proceeds southeast along Windsor Avenue to Belt street; 
then southwest on Belt Street to Maple Street; then 
southeast and south on Maple Street to 1st Avenue; then 
west on 1st Avenue to Belt Street; then southwest on Belt 
Street to 2nd Avenue; then east on 2nd Avenue to Maple 
Street; then south-southwest on Maple Street to 3rd 
Avenue; then west on 3rd Avenue to Belt Street; then 
southwest on Belt Street across the railroad tracks to 
4th Avenue, then east-southeast on 4th Avenue to Walnut 
Street; then south-southwest along Walnut Street to 5th 
Avenue; then west-northwest on 5th Avenue to an alley 
between Beach Street and Walnut Street; then south- 
southwest on said alley to Belt Street; then along Belt 
Street to Hicks Street (business Route 58); then 
northeast along Hicks Street to 5th Avenue; then 
northwest on 5th Avenue to South Street; then north- 
northeast on South Street to the railroad tracks; then 
west along the tracks to an alley between Park and High 
Streets if that alley intersected the tracks; then north 
along said alley to New Street; then west on New Street 
to Park Street; then north on Park Street to 3rd Avenue; 
then east on 3rd Avenue to the alley between Park Street 
and High Street; then north on said alley to 2nd Avenue; 
then east on 2nd Avenue to High Street; and north on High 
Street to Windsor Avenue.

3



From there the line continues southeast on Windsor Avenue 
to Church Street; then east on Church Street to Sharp 
Street; then south on Sharp Street to New Hicks Street; 
then east on New Hicks Street and Hicks Street to Main 
Street; then south on Main Street to Railroad Street, 
just south of the tracks; then east and east-northeast 
along Railroad Street to Minola Street; then south and 
east on Minola Street to Walker Street; then north on 
Walker Street to Railroad Street; then east on Railroad 
Street to its intersection with the eastern boundary of 
the Town of Lawrenceville; then north and west along the 
Town Boundary to the point of beginning.

Election District 2 shall consist of the remaining 
territory within the corporate limits of the Town of 
Lawrenceville.

3. That the Town Manager and the Town Attorney, or their 
designated representatives, shall take all steps necessary to 
obtain preclearance of the new method of election pursuant to 
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

4. That the Town Manager and the Town Attorney, or their 
designated representatives, in compliance with Va. Code § 15.1- 
833 - § 15.1-835, shall take all steps necessary to arrange for 
passage of legislation by the General Assembly of Virginia to 
amend the Charter of the Town of Lawrenceville in the manner 
provided in this Resolution.

5. That the Town Manager and the Town Attorney, or their 
designative representatives, shall serve as liaisons with the 
Registrar and Electoral Board of Brunswick County and the State 
Board of Elections to insure that the new method of election is 
implemented in full compliance with state election laws.

6. That the map attached to this Resolution labeled "Map 
of Election Districts," which reflects the boundaries of Election

4



District 1 and Election District 2 as created by the charter 
amendment and as described in paragraph 2 above, shall be deemed 
to be an integral part of this Resolution.

Unanimously adopted this 15th day of October,

A Certified True Copy:

Mabel if; Brewer, Clerk

1991.

5



i

Plaintiffs initiated this action under the First/

|j Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the

| Constitution of the United States and Section 2 of the11
jj Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973, as
j i
'! amended, and prayed for declaratory and injunctive relief
ji
I concerning the method of electing the members of the Board 

! of Supervisors of Mecklenburg County, Virginia.

p O BOX 500
l a w b e n c e v i l l e . va

\ \ o

The plaintiffs and defendants are desirous of 

resolving this action and have agreed to a method to be 

used in future elections for the members of the Board of 

Supervisors. This Court has jurisdiction of the parties and 

subject matter of this action, and the parties have agreed 

to the entry of this Consent Decree. Based upon the 

inherent equitable powers of this Court, the consent of the

- 1 -



j parties hereto, and the agreement entered into by the 

| parties on file with the Court, the future members of the 
!! Board of Supervisors of Mecklenburg County, Virginia, shall 

|! be elected in accordance with the provisions of this
ii
j Consent Decree.

| Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, and
i
| without admitting any liability under the claims of the
I
I complaint, the defendants have adopted a plan for the 

| election of members of the Board of Supervisors of 

! Mecklenburg County, Virginia, which provides plaintiffs, as 

j black residents of Mecklenburg County, and all the black 

i voters of Mecklenburg County, a greater opportunity than 

previously existed to elect candidates of their choice 

through the creation of nine single-member districts. This 

i replaces the current system under which six members are 

|j elected from three separate two-member districts, and three

ij members are elected from single-member election districts.
j!
!j The plan includes the following aspects.

;| (a ) All candidates are required to reside in and be
l|
ji elected by the voters residing in a particular district.
ji
j! (b) The first election which will be conducted

j j  under the new plan will be the general election scheduled 

|| for November 7, 1989, and the Defendants shall forthwith
!  i  

:iii
ji - 2 -

>L A Y T O N , B A I N  a  C L A R Y  !

p O BOX 580  . J

LAWRENCEVILLE. VA. 238 6 8  !'



I
:
||
■ i < j il' IiI!
;i
i
j
i

commence to take all action necessary to insure that the 

general election on November 7, 1989, shall be conducted 

under the new plan. Any election held prior to the general 

election on November 7, 1989, whether for local, state or 

federal office, shall be conducted under the plan in effect 

immediately prior to the implementation of the plan hereby 

ordered.

11 11

|l

(c) Because the implementation of this plan is 

dependent upon preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973c, the parties 

have agreed to cooperate in seeking expeditious 

preclearance. The parties have jointly requested the 

issuance of this consent decree. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED:

!!
il (i)

■ i ■i
That the terms of the consent agreement on file 

with the Court are due to be implemented.

il
(2)

Ij : i •I
That the positions on the Board of Supervisors 

shall be filled as follows:

(a) A special election shall be held on November 7,



' I
i;!
J
j| 1989, to fill the Board of Supervisors position in Elections ij| District Four (4) of the new plan. The candidate receiving 

the highest number of votes cast in that special election 

| shall serve for a term commencing upon his or her 

;j qualification, and continuing thence to and including
;li| December 31, 1991. The deadline for filing declarations of
I j
|j candidacy shall be 5:00 p.m. on August 25, 1989;j
iJ (b) Each Supervisor now in office shall complete

:| the term to which he or she was elected, even though this 

will result in a ten-member Board of Supervisors until

| January 1 , 1992.
i
i (c) An election shall be held in November of 1991
ji to fill the Board of Supervisors positions m  Election
ji
| Districts One, Two, Three, Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight
!
■| and Nine, which terms of office shall commence on January
j i|j 1, 1992, and extend to and including December 31, 1995.

!{
! (d) The boundaries of the nine election districtsi
j|
j i  shall be those described in Exhibit A, attached hereto.
|
! (e) The voting precincts for the nine election
i>• I
i j  districts in Mecklenburg County, and the polling places for
! | • •Ij each precinct, shall be those identified on Exhibit B,

j attached hereto.
j!ii
;
jl

SL AYTON.  B A I N  a  CLARY 'i
p O BOX 580 I

LAW n E N C E V | L L E _ VA 23869 .

4



( 3 )

That the Court and the parties to this litigation 

recognize that redistrictings and reapportionments will 

become necessary in the future on account of numerous 

reasons, including, although not limited to, any future 

decennial census. Such future reapportionments and 

redistrictings have been contemplated by all parties, and 

it shall not be necessary for this Court, as a part of this 

litigation, to approve any future reapportionments or 

redistrictings, or any other changes affecting voting 

rights of the citizens of Mecklenburg County. Instead, such 

reapportionments, redistrictings and other changes must be 

accomplished in compliance with applicable state and 

federal law.

(4)

That the terms of this Consent Decree shall be 

binding upon defendants, their successors, officers, agents 

and servants.

(5)

That the defendants shall submit the relevant terms 

of this Consent Decree for preclearance under Section 5 of 

the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. Section 1973c, as

SLAYTON,  B A I N  8r C L A R Y  1

p O BOX 560
L A W R E N C E V I L L E .  VA.  2 3 0 6 0  ;



!j amended, as expeditiously as possible.
ij
' ( 6 )

That the defendants shall pay plaintiffs1 costs 

expended and attorney's fees incurred, in the total amount

of $6,750.00.

LAYTON,  B A I N  a  C L A R Y

p o  B O X  5 0 0

- A W n E N C E V i L L E ,  VA 2 3 8 6 8





Virginia Senate

Marty E. W illiams 
(R) Senate District 1

r

Stanley C. Walker 
(D) Senate District 6

Stephen H. Martin 
(R) Senate District 11

Henry L. Marsh, III 
(D) Senate District 16

W. Henry Maxwell 
(R) Senate District 2

Thomas K Sorment, Jr. 
(R) Senate District 3

William T. Bolling 
(R) Senate District 4

Edward L Schrock 
(R) Senate District 7

Kenneth W. Stolle 
(R) Senate District 8

Benjamin J. Lambert. Ill 
(D) Senate District 9

Walter A. Stosch 
(R) Senate District 12

Frederick M. Quayle 
(R) Senate District 13

Mark L Early 
(R) Senate District 14

L. Louise Lucas 
(D) Senate District 18

R. Edward Houck 
(D) Senate District 17

1 9 9 6  L e g is la t i v e  G u id e  / P a g e  2

Charles R. Hawkins 
(R) Senate District 19

Yvonne B. Miller
(D) Senate District 5

Joseph B. Benedetti 
<R) Senate District 10

Richard J. Holland 
(D) Senate District 15

Virgil H. Goode. Jr. 
(D) Senate District 20



Virginia Senate

John S. Kdwards 
11)) Senate District 21

ke\in  (i. Miller 
iRl Senate District 26

Man Margaret W hipple 
11)) Senate District 31

Joseph V. ( iartlan 
1 D) Senate District 36

Malf'ourd W. Trumho 
(R) Senate District 22

H. Russell Potts, Jr. 
(R) Senate District 27

Janet 1). Howell 
ID) Senate District 32

Warren K. B arn 
i R) Senate District 37

Stephen D. Newman 
(Ri Senate District 23

John H. Chichester 
iR) Senate District 28

Charles L. Waddell 
<1)1 Senate District 33

Jackson K. Reasor. Jr. 
11)1 Senate District 38

Emmett W. Hanger Emily Couric
(R) Senate District 24 (D) Senate District 25

Charles J. Colgan Patsy Ticer
(D) Senate District 29 (D) Senate District 30

Madison E. Marve William C. W ampler. Jr. 
(D) Senate District 39 (RI Senate District 40

/ W O  I ( I I I  l i l t '  P(ll!C a’

Jane H. Woods 
(R) Senate District 34

Richard L. Saslaw 
(D) Senate District 35



Thomas W. Moss, Jr. 
(D) House Disirict 88

John H. Tate 
(D) House District 5

W. Roscoe Reynolds 
(D) House District 10

Raymond R. Guest, Jr. 
<R) House District 15

Whittington VV. Clement 
(D) House District 20

Virginia Hoi sk of Delegates

Terry G. Kilgore 
(R) House District 1

Thomas M. Jackson, Jr. 
(Dl House District 6

Ward L. Armstrong 
(D) House District 11

Clifton A. Woodrum 
(D) House District 16

Frank W. Wagner
(R) House District 21

Clarence K. Phillips 
(Di House District 2

Thomas G, Baker. Jr. 
(R ) House District 7

James M. Shuler 
(D) House District 12

A. Victor Thomas 
(D) House District 17

A. Victor Thomas 
(D) House District 17

Joyce K. Crouch 
(R) House District 22

Jackie T. Slump 
(Dl House District 3

H. Morgan Griffith 
(R) House District 8

Robert G. Marshall 
(R i House District 13

R. Creigh Deeds 
(D) House District 18

L. Preston Bryant, Jr. 
(R) House District 23

Joseph P. Johnson 
(Dl House District 4

Allen W. Dudley 
(Rl House District 9

C. Richard Cranwell 
(Dl House District 14

Lacey F„ Putney 
(1) House District 19

a
S. Vance Wilkins, Jr. 
(R) House District 24

1 9 9 6  L e g is la t i v e  G u id e  ! P a g e  6



Virginia House of Delegates

R. Steven Landes 
(R) House District 25

(ilenn M. Weatherholtz 
(R) House District 26

Samuel A. Nixon, Jr. 
(R) House District 27

William J. Howell 
(R) House District 28

John J. Dav ies 
(D) House District 30

Jay Kat/.en 
(R) House District 31

W illiam C. Mims 
(R) House District 32

Joe T. May 
(R) House District 33

Richard L. Fisher 
(R) House District 35

Kenneth R. Plum 
(D) House District 36

Robert K. Harris 
(R ) House District 37

James K. O'Brien 
(R) House District 40

James H. Dillard. H 
(R) House District 41

Da\ id B. Albo 
(R i House District 42

Robert D. Hull 
(D) House District 38

Gladys B. Keating 
(D) House District 43

Julia A. Connallv 
(D) House District 48

Beverly J. Sherwood 
(R) House District 29

Vincent F. Callahan. Jr. 
(R) House District 34

Vivian E. Watts 
(D) House District 39

Linda T. Puller 
(D) House District 44

L. Karne Darner 
(D) House District 49

/owo /.c'c/s/wtnv (iuitlc Pdi>c 7



Virginia House of Delegates

Frank D. Hargrove 
(R) House District 55

W. W. Bennett. Jr. 
(D) House District 60

John C. Watkins 
(R) House District 65

Dwight Clinton Jones 
CD) House District 70

David G. Brickley 
(D) House District 51

V. Earl Dickinson 
(D) House District 56

Frank M. Ruff 
(R) House District 61

M. Kirkland Cox 
(R) House District 66

Jean W. Cunningham
(D) House District 71

John A. Rollison 
(R ) House District 52

Mitchell Van Yahres 
(D) House District 57

Riley E. Ingram 
(R) House District 62

Roger J. McClure 
(R) House District 67

John S. Reid 
(R) House District 72

James M. Scott 
(D) House District 53

Peter T. Way 
< R ) House District 58

Anne G. Rhodes 
(R) House District 68

Eric I. Cantor 
(R) House District 73

Robert D. Orrock 
(R ) House District 54

Watkins M. Abbitt. Jr. 
(D) House District 59

William K. Barlow 
(D) House District 64

Franklin P. Hall 
{DI House District 69

Donald McEachin 
(D) House District 74

1 9 9 6  L e g is la t i v e  G u id e  i P a g e  8



Virginia House of Delegates

J. Paul Council!. Jr. Robert E. Nelms
(Dl House District 75 (R) House District 76

Kenneth R Melvin Glenn R. Croshaw
(D) House District 80 (D) House District 81

Robert Tata 
(R) House District 85

George H. Heilig 
(D) House District 86

I. Vincent Behm. ,Ir. Vlary T. Christian 
(D) House District 91 (Dl House District 92

Shirley F. Cooper George \V. Grayson 
(Dl House District 96 (Dl House District 97

Lionel! Spruill 
(D) House District 77

Harry R. Purkey 
(R) House District 82

Thelma Sawyers Drake 
(Rl House District 87

Phillip A. Hamilton 
(Rl House District 93

Harvey B. Morgan 
(Rl House District 98

J. Randy Forbes 
(Ri House District 78

Leo C. Waldrup 
(R) House District 83

Jerrauld C. Jones 
(D) House District 89

Alan A. Diamonstein 
(D) House District 94

W. Tayloe Murphy, Jr.
(D) House District 99

William S. Moore, Jr. 
(D) House District 79

Robert F. McDonnell 
(R) House District 84

William P. Robinson. Jr. 
(D) House District 90

Flora D. Crittenden 
(D) House District 95

Robert S. Bloxom 
(R) House District 100

199ft Lc^i\him i (iitnlc A /ge  9



OeC 5 09.33124/1994,

TOTAL RELATIVE ABSOLUTSDISTRICT POf 17LAT 108OBVIATION* Deviation
1 42 331 0 74 460I 44 3 H 1 II 24G93 4414ft 3 64 22(6
i 44 113 3-41 24395 43413 2.49 15416 41 996 0- 20 1227 4120* -1.08 -6(08 40039 -2.97 -19359 41894 0.01 2210 40787 -1.76 -1087It 43837 3 20 19*912 41233 -1 04 -641U 43213 2.1* 1139II 59392 -3.69 -229213 44951 4.97 307716 41592 -0.47 -29217 42149 0.48 29518 42631 1,22 13719 42626 122 75220 43132 2.07 1278n 44444 1.16 237222 44583 4.38 270923 61378 -0.80 -4962* *4110 4.10 251623 61384 -O 47 -29026 63969 3.22 194327 44 430 4.16 257*28 *12 34 -1.03 -63829 44 699 4.57 282530 44 3 79 4.05 250531 42910 1.67 103432 41162 -0-03 -51233 $9*42 -3.20 -203231 (1214 -1.07 -660J3 *1272 -0.97 -6023* 64582 4.30 2104

3 7 63394 2.46 152038 *2tSZ 1.40 91039 60901 -1.57 -97 J40 60632 -2-01 -124241 S108J -1.20 -79142 42646 1.25 77243 62790 1.44 92444 *1632 -0.39 -24243 59444 -3.93 -24304 $ 40002 -1.73 -107247 61807 -0.11 -67

STRICT POtUI-ATIOfl M IA 19S IS  f o r  f l a n  IIOSBI 750
r o t io g  m e  m id  i o t a i . p o p u l a t io n  by  tm e t

•niTE * SLACK 6 OTHSF. 9
61548 9* . 74 609 0.99 Ill 0.286)186 98.22 927 1.44 771 0.34(1643 94.2) t45 0.2) 351 0.5567321 96.90 174 3 I. 71 747 0.18(11)5 94.40 2008 3 17 712 0 4339801 96.44 ion? 3.07 7*0 0.113759* 94.11 3101 5.07 SOI 0.8337*59 9 6.31 1672 2.7fl 100 0.8333428 84.33 8233 13.33 713 0.3551196 84.71 933* 15.3- 263 0.13499*2 7* .0# 1497* 23.46 297 0.4755**1 90,90 7543 4.15 3029 4.9356(78 99.(4 4235 6. 73 2200 3.6137*93 97.15 1593 2.34 301 0.319)271 97.41 1289 1.98 m 0.6045*27 14.40 14963 24.30 800 3.30521)6 81 8( 9331 15.04 602 1.1050126 92.91 1129 *.39 376 0 - 60541(6 90.20 5839 9.32 301 0.184093* 64.87 21778 34.49 436 0*9487*3 75.11 10322 18.02 9331 0.2754523 04-42 *537 14.T7 «?7 o.ai42761 *9.47 18070 29.44 547 0.0956679 89 DO 7247 11.23 484 0.7558309 94.68 2813 4.51 462 0.75COMO 95.01 2238 3.50 *31 1.4951469 19.86 10002 1*. 76 2174 3.3855546 90.71 4301 7.03 1306 2.2661111 94.46 2*48 4.36 634 0.0833431 83.17 *799 13.2? 449 1.01S5443 81.43 *235 *.94 112 1.1353422 *7.88 4337 7-113 1083 5 0254231) 90.42 4033 6. 74 1577 2 . €*52 JOS 83.45 2811 4.59 6095 9.9633708 87.6* 2033 3.32 3529 9.02344(2 84.33 3765 0-93 4)55 6.7153274 84 -04 2017 4 .44 7 303 11.5247341 75.48 3 776 6.01 11(23 18.5148960 80.39 394 4 *. 40 7997 13.1353253 87 83 2 337 4.22 4420 7 .9331516 84.34 2710 4.44 6937 11.2345403 72.48 10467 16 71 6774 10.814 9021 78.C* 1121 11.34 6656 10.60440*’ 71 49 12039 14.31 3310 8.9441532 69.81 13*88 23.53 3*24 6 *04 3061 70. *2 11210 18-41 *932 10.714*209 74.76 5289 8.56 10 309 16.<8

SOURCE* 0  * DEPAPrMKKT O r catW KOCE, BUREAU OR THE CSMS'JS P .L .  9 4 - J 7 1  DATA

CHAPTER 4, 1994 ACTS OF ASSEMBLY, SPECIAL SESSION II 
HOUSE DISTRICTS -  ADJUSTMENTS 

PLAN NO. H0881750 -  EFFECTIVE 1/1/95

X POP WRITE 6 BLACK % Of HR* 5
41017 <6101 90 8 7 426 0.91 107 0 2 147142 4 6670 »e 29 fch5 1.40 147 Oil46933 4 6)03 »« 17 8 3 0.10 1*7 0 3680109 48(11 97.05 129 > 2.54 1*1 0.3640436 458(2 16.65 1440 2.9/ 184 0.3448023 46191 4*. 6(1 142 5 2.97 20? 0.434*273 4 64 35 94 3 7 2146 4 )7 424 0.8«4*71* 4 3034 46.45 1316 2 32 343 0.734)336 4 1456 0 7.21 5134 12.18 146 0.314(612 3974C *3.30 (672 14.31 ieo 0.394919B 38341 •'7.81 10759 21 . ) 4 1*6 0.4031034 4*3)1 90 8* 2C39 4.30 7621 5. 1444122 3971) 90 06 7*59 ( (8 1520 3.4443(4* 41406 4) 28 1040 7.30 1*7 0 4349(05 49184 47.54 958 1 .13 263 0.5348189 37272 ) 6.39 109*8 27.(9 344 1.1 318019 41460 «( .14 *134 17.7) 425 C-8949334 45704 42.64 3355 * .60 273 0.564*703 43(61 40.39 4 334 8.99 202 0 421*474 33238 68.58 14947 30.*3 2*4 03943*09 34123 ) 7.71 6302 14.33 3184 7.9349823 42745 43.79 *70) 13.16 372 0.7547242 34202 72.57 17304 26.5* 3*6 0.0449344 41400 *9 .41 5104 10.73 363 0.7147130 447*3 45.02 2042 4.33 305 0.6550069 40398 95.14 1701 3.51 684 1 3446370 30200 *2.03 4975 14.9* 13*5 3.0043093 39135 40 82 3043 7.07 913 2.124R571 46012 44.83 704)4 4.30 423 0.B747053 40481 84.60 (910 14.44 458 0.9646372 41273 *4.00 4621 4.91 4 78 1.0343581 3030* 8*. 36 2*74 6.*2 2101 4.024 3*21 3*782 90.38 3000 1.01 1059 2.4141785 38(00 86.21 1914 4.27 42(3 9.3241532 42122 8*. 62 150* 3-17 3901 8.2 i47*27 40911 *5.70 J811 R .00 2999 6.3049 350 41*30 *4.9* 2185 4.13 3233 10. f%19920 30804 77.73 2153 5.31 8.363 i t . ' * S49484 39714 81.90 2*03 5-94 3872 42-i.i4 3004 30009 88.38 1715 3.99 3280 7.6342334 339*7 84.76 1796 4.24 4633 ii.oo47*17 34200 71.82 *63* 18-14 4791 10.0449478 39134 80.31 4895 9.** 4849 9.8046045 34940 14.39 9102 17.30 3003 8.1219*01 3*103 72.93 10434 21.04 2984 (.0252010 30)03 7 3 64 0691 16.71 5017 9.6330640 3*075 77. 1« 3902 7.71 766.1 15.13

r»« l



48 «1M< 0 14 no 51971 6 J 60 38 78 *26 6383 10 14 53369 4S090 84.42 3310 9 20 SCO 9 4 . 3849■ f. 60*99 -1.34 -975 42270 69. 33 9*76 16.22 8803 14.4* 52010 37451 72.01 77 50 14 90 9€C' 13.09“U 514H 2.55 1575 54933 64.4: 3458 6.60 3136 4.97 4 541* 39604 fl 1 20 3679 7 - 94 ?l£3 4 ■ 0151 Hill -0.39 ■24 J 40511 78. 71 9112 15.27 3708 t. 07 41547 13081 79 *2 5981 14 10 2409 5.905? *3 08 4 0 .34 210 48458 78.6* 9112 15.03 3794 6.11 4 3359 J46 70 79 .4* 6120 11.11 2564 3 9253 434 16 2.49 154Z 31742 81.39 2991 4.72 8683 13.69 51264 4277 ) 83.14 2198 4-21 934 7 12.3754 4C04C -2.96 -1834 51076 83.07 7783 12.96 1182 1 .97 44039 37714 93.64 I486 12 16 0 39 1-9155 €3304 7.31 1432 56440 89.15 4405 10.12 461 0.73 47499 42522 89.52 4644 9.19 329 0.9959 43 JOT 2.32 1433 49009 73.92 14794 23.38 106 0.80 47072 35740 75 93 109 )) 23 31 359 0,57 *3394) 2.77 1716 502 79 79.07 10826 17.02 2485 3.91 52313 42336 90.97 1859 15. C? 2C99 4.0158 4 3799 1.11 1925 5774* 90.55 3396 • - 46 632 0.99 47 737 43306 90.72 4012 9.40 419 0.8839 61072 -1 - J« -852 42036 *9.89 1*630 W 53 35* 0.58 46782 330*9 70.99 13499 29. 19 243 0.32feQ 6 2139 0.33 241 3*524 <3.*3 22333 33.9* 25* 0.41 46916 30954 65.98 13179 33.6) 103 0.19Cl 6)0.18 -1.38 -856 37055 60.73 21704 36.85 253 0.42 46456 29242 62 95 17031 39. 69 103 0.3492 63344 7 .38 1472 42310 *«. 79 1*887 31.39 1149 1.81 47059 3195* *7.91 14181 30.59 722 1 -53Cl 59910 '3.1? -1964 2333T 38.95 35870 59.87 703 1.17 4 5769 18903 41. JO 29351 53.51 515 1.1384 S373J J-00 1839 43007 <7.48 11859 39.59 1807 2.93 46454 31B69 68.60 13347 29  13 1230 2.9785 *4364 4.03 2492 58103 90.27 4 956 7.70 1307 2.03 44500 40383 90.73 3275 7.39 •42 1 .1968 *4**1 4.34 2807 384 *4 90. 39 4857 7.51 1360 2.10 47005 43931 91.33 3157 € 12 916 1 956? 5**20 '3.64 -2254 31900 87.03 2844 4.77 4876 8.18 43122 37840 87.75 1913 1.14 3369 7.0188 <4*16 4.43 7742 sno* 89. 38 *033 9.34 1475 2.28 548*5 49103 89.50 4*7* 9.52 1086 19869 *2603 1.1* 729 2 3389 37.3* 37994 *0.69 1220 1.95 48014 20 709 43.13 26427 55.04 • 78 1.05*10 590 39 -4-58 -2835 22819 38.63 33(3* *0.3* 595 0.99 4 2953 1863) 4 3.38 23998 55.94 421 13 99H *0034 -3.02 -1870 23550 39.25 354*9 39.16 935 1.59 50275 21623 43.01 27*3* 35.37 • 16 1 9272 *3645 2 .86 1771 59466 93.43 7572 *04 1607 2.52 46231 43760 93.79 1889 1 . 41 1004 7 3073 6483J 4.71 2939 57937 69.21 46*2 > 32 7314 3.57 50950 4394 1 90.17 3648 1.17 1593 1.0?74 63741 2.29 1419 24195 38.23 37814 59.84 1224 1.93 47308 19811 41.9* 2*5)3 54.04 474 1 4573 54974 -4 .69 - 2 9 no 2493 J 42.2* 33*21 57.35 220 8,37 4424* 19181 4 4 25 24508 55.79 151 0.3516 546 39 -3.61 -2236 44666 74.90 14333 24.02 *49 1.09 4 3815 3 3206 73.7» lot* J 23.20 44* 3 .0?77 63561 2.73 1661 25632 40.33 37141 58.43 7*8 : .24 44 | 71 19023 4 3.07 14 600 55.9? 5 4 B 1.2478 54374 -4 .04 -2500 50999 85.*9 72*6 12.24 1109 1.87 42859 36967 • (.01 S2JO 1 2 . 7 0 141 l . 7979 54708 -4 31 •7464 41290 69.72 16330 27.92 1)48 2 36 4 3212 31600 71.13 10952 2 4 . 4 3 460 2 .2160 99024 -4 .41 -2910 21663 37.04 3*321 «i as 636 1.08 42881 U2S4 40.24 25171 59.71 448 1 .0491 59127 -4 .44 -2747 49143 81 76 9931 15.10 1853 3.13 42702 353 6 9 92.93 <829 14.12 1304 3-0592 *0094 -2.88 -1760 35932 93.0’ 28H 4.79 1291 211 465*1 43593 93.59 2018 4 49 910 l 9593 <4535 4.30 2461 4 9400 7*. 35 12124 19.10 2811 4.3* 48136 1767) 79 26 • 688 17 9) 197$ 4.1394 54*93 -3.20 -1979 4*335 17. TO 95*3 13.9? 3 766 6.34 41493 328 1 3 79.09 61917 H .09 75C0 9-0395 *3134 2.77 1684 313*2 61.13 6091 9 58 1905 1 29 44622 367 31 82.32 481* 9 00 3871 8.9966 59173 -4.3* -2654 42247 71.39 13313 22.5C 3*15 6.11 4 95*2 35804 72.24 10959 21.91 2899 3.8597 54*51 -4.89 -3023 44323 73.65 11143 18.93 3185 5.41 44123 3442* 78 03 7347 16.75 ?M) 5.2299 54434 -4 .01 -3036 42703 72.39 13017 23.48 2310 3.93 4 73*1 35435 74.82 10131 21.34 1795 3.7999 *0014 -3 00 -1638 20037 33.42 38233 *3.74 1706 2.8* 42*11 13634 16.51 26021 SC 99 HOC 2.0090 5*934 -4.75 -2936 23840 40.45 33*11 57.1C 1445 2.45 42979 184 93 43.03 23661 54.90 1021 2 3991 39449 -3.92 -2423 41235 7 9.45 10338 17.39 1816 1.1* 44181 3 5584 80.54 7)03 19.37 1292 2 4292 3*009 -4.63 -2663 19891 3 3.71 3781* 61 09 1302 2 21 4 4154 15889 35.86 27749 4 2 . 2 9 417 2.0993 60309 -2.21 -1363 9*7 74 77.31 11053 16.27 2617 6.42 441(30 31010 79.24 7290 14.50 1080 4.2094 59150 -4.40 -2724 43461 76.86 11219 18.97 2410 4 . 19 44094 31099 79.*0 7791 16.54 1704 3 0693 5994* -J 08 -1893 23*73 39.48 313 Jl 58.92 963 1.61 433)1 18520 42. 73 24155 35.71 96? 1.3396 62816 1.52 942 11742 76.00 134 1 3 21.1! 1661 7 <4 4 4503 34146 76.13 928S 20.06 10 11 2 4197 63142 2-76 1706 51*51 81.24 10*2* 1* .72 1300 2.04 4 9817 41021 82.34 7912 15 99 494 1.9699 62442 0.95 596 46493 77.64 13254 21 -23 715 1 .14 47122 36781 78.06 912* 20.0* 511 1 C999 59871 -1 11 -2049 41803 69.88 17537 29.31 493 0.91 4 5880 3304 7 72 03 12485 27 21 340 0.76
1 0 0 59813 -4 - 95 -3061 31334 66.91 18953 37.2! 506 O S * 4 4*67 3)201 *9 81 13119 79.31 318 0 79
D t 6147338 4791739 7 7.11 11*2994 I t  -HC 732625 3 .7* 46*2*20 3*93417 18 07 873290 11.58 195430 3.54
DURCC. U S .  D FrA RTM W T OT CO f«1S*C B , DOPOW O f ? 8 E  CENSUS P . L .  44  l ^ j  DATA M'/f ?



T h u  O ut: « 1 2 : 3 0 : 2 4  1 9 9 4 M STRICT POPULATION AMAL3S13 for H asVOTTNrt Riff; AND TOTAL t>Ot*7l,ATIO*l 87
TOTAL RELATIVE ABSOLUTEDISTRICT pomlattop 0CVIATI01I* DEVIATION

1 15(280 1 .03 159*
2 147583 -4.59 -7101J 151413 2.41 37294 159406 3.05 47325 148570 -3.93 “(1146 154738 0.03 547 154(57 -0.02 -278 157394 1.75 27109 147609 -4 57 -707510 15094* - 2 . *2 -37 3*11 152271 -1.56 -241112 151227 -2.23 -343713 147387 -4.59 -709714 154452 3.0* 47(815 13071( -2.57 -3968l« 148027 -4.30 - 6 6 3 ?1 7 152374 -1 49 -231018 1(12*6 4.27 6*0219 152157 -t (3 -25272C 154904 0 14 2 2 021 15*075 0 <70 1391

2 2 15(44? t .14 175821 150482 -2.72 - 4 2 0 224 15649< I . 1? 181525 15084! -2.4* -18 3924 157376 1.73 2692
2 7 1 3 7 * 2 5 1 <)0 294128 K07IC 3,90 <02*29 157203 1 .63 251930 155393 U.4( 709
U 155313 0 41 (2912 193380 1 74 269611 15(89* 1.41 221234 15(529 1.14 184535 154927 0.1* 24336 159091 2.85 4107T7 155749 3.(9 106538 151770 -1.88 -291439 155933 3.71 114740 159(23 3 .19 4939

otal (187358

WHITE % BLACK A OTHBR

12*146 82.01 2JJ4.0 14.91 474460093 40.72 82015 56.18 4575118704 74.43 35704 22.54 4005124917 78.36 32850 70.61 1*3952806 35.54 92752 62.16 3412113393 73.28 32755 21.17 839012*464 81.77 20052 12.97 9141131523 81.56 302*9 12.8* 380251380 31.81 9408? 61.34 2147133137 88.20 14952 9.91 283S12**42 84.48 20104 13.20 3525131613 87.03 14934 9.88 46*0106928 72.45 37647 25.51 301212685* 79.56 23336 14.64 92(097746 64.85 523 58 34.(1 91235825 37.71 89552 60. 50 2(50118512 77.78 32042 21.03 182063311 39.25 969*1 60.12 101411023? 72.45 41144 27 .04 781129295 83.47 24913 16.08 693129318 82.86 244(2 15.99 1795147998 94 . tO 7394 4.7 3 10301209>9 80.34 28735 18.7* 126*146459 93.5* 9121 5.83 914126424 87.81 21091 13 98 m e143297 91.05 1 202 3 7 (4 2036148700 94 OB 7*37 4.97 liesJ 2 900 3 80 32 2(45! 16 4* 5172173014 84 .61 15811 10.70 7372110769 71.0! 3 >« ic 19.07 15384118971 76.(0 15141 10.39 2133 01138901 88.26 32(1 3 . 36 HIM134809 85-92 122(9 7.83 9799130257 76.83 1037 3 6.(3 25899130953 84 5) 6515 4.71 17459115010 72.29 27578 17 3 3 16501136435 87 (0 *250 5.30 1-0(4148084 97 37 3000 1.98 (9614717* 94-45 5200 3.34 344715612* 9 7 94 271 J 1.10 382
4791771 77-44 11(2994 18.80 232625

SOOPC*i u s . P E P A T tM C N T  or COMMENCE, 6 U RPAO O f  THE CCH3US F.l 9 4-l?l CAtA

CHAPTER 4,1994 ACTS OF ASSEMBLY, SPECIAL SESSION II 
SENATE DISTRICTS -  ADJUSTMENTS 

PLAN NO. S0882750 -  EFFECTIVE 171/9527S41

VOTTtro4 AOP! TOP WHITE * BLACK * OTHER %
; . 74 116113 96783 83.35 16092 13-86 32 38 2 .791.13 107527 4645* 43.2C 57916 53.86 3155 2.933-53 119217 91721 76.52 24759 20.16 2151 2 . 3 1..03 119564 942 54 78 83 24124 20.18 1 186 0 . 9 9;.jo 108734 42619 39.21 *3590 58.40 2505 2.305.55 122178 93 706 75.0* 239*3 19.(1 6939 5.335.26 114103 95025 83 28 134 72 11.81 5606 4.913.36 114*93 97575 84 .85 13488 11.13 3930 3.421.45 1137(1 44*63 39.08 (7676 59.49 1622 1 .431.89 117841 104865 89.99 10928 9.27 2048 1.142.31 109139 93475 85.65 13417 12.24 2247 2 .06
3 .09 117*70 303211 87 .86 11074 9.43 3185 2.112 .04 109953 81939 ? 1 52 23873 23.53 2139 1.955.81 110558 89014 80.51 15642 14.21 3902 5.340.54 11435* 76390 66.68 3TS93 32.82 513 0.501 .79 109928 44435 40.42 (3589 37.85 3904 1.731.19 112(97 88125 18.20 23290 20.67 1282 1.1*0.63 117499 49 364 42.01 (7418 57.19 117 0. 610.51 116035 8(76? 14.78 28 ISO 2418 518 0.450.45 119516 201271 84.73 177*4 14 88 4(3 0.391.15 121729 102*99 84-61 17 5*7 14.43 117 3 0.960.67 123191 16714 94 - 74 5700 4.(3 777 0.630.84 115781 94895 81 .46 19951 11.23 935 0.810.59 120921 113395 43 . ?8 6874 3.68 (52 0.5*7.21 117141 99722 84.70 15 3*3 13.05 2(58 2.261 .31 119913 1045*4 91.34 *404 1.41 1425 1 . 190.94 11*018 112271 94.33 57 37 4.82 1010 0.853.22 11*253 94415 *1 24 18 JOB 15.74 3510 3.024 . 69 1097 77 91 774 05.42 109(1 9.19 50 39 4.59* 90 1108*2 *66(4 13.87 22432 11.16 11146 *.9813.31 111525 103254 7*.51 121 I I 9 11 15494 11.78(.38 121061 107947 09.17 38*2 3.14 9252 7.64(.25 1133*9 9*383 86.53 8306 7.44 <700 (.01If . 55 125930 99271 78.8 1 7723 4.13 18936 15.0411.2 7 111158 96516 85.35 4390 1 88 1219? 10.771C.37 122991 91051 74 03 20233 16.45 11701 9.527.10 131237 *81(0 BB .24 5581 4.95 7 5(( ( .80C. 45 11388? 111290 91 12 2197 l 93 400 0.352 21 124204 111250 94.40 4042 3.25 2912 2-3411.36 120(08 1182(9 98.0* 1949 1.62 390 0.32
3-76 4*62620 3693412 78.87 *23250 17 58 1*5958 3.34

IAUC 1



C H A P T E R  983 O F  T H E  1993 A C T S  O F  A S S E M B L Y  
C O N G R E S S I O N A L  D I S T RI C TS  - 1993 A D J U S T M E N T S

W e d  M a r  1 0  0 7 : 2 3 : 5 1  1 9 9 3  D I S T R I C T  P O P U L A T I O N  A N A L Y S I S  f o r  P l a n  C 0 8 3 0 4 5 2  P L A N  N O .  C0830452 E F F E C T I V E  7/1/93
V O T I N G  A G E  A N D  T O T A L  P O P U L A T I O N  B Y  R A C E

T O T A L  R E L A T I V E  A B S O L U T E  V O T I N G
D I S T R I C T P O P U L A T I O N D E V I A T I O N % D E V I A T I O N W H I T E t B L A C K % O T H E R % A G E  P O P W H I T E % B L A C K % O T H E R 3

1 5 6 2 7 5 7 0 . 0 5 2 7 0 4 5 2 3 7 8 8 0 . 3 9 9 9 2 0 8 1 7 . 6 3 1 1 1 7 1 1 . 9 9 4 2 0 2 1 8 3 4 2 4 6 6 8 1 . 5 0 6 9 9 6 1 1 6 . 6 5 7 7  9 1 1  . 8 5
2 5 6 2 2 7 6 - 0 . 0 4 - 2 1 1 4 3 9 2 8 2 7 8 . 1 3 9 3 4 5 4 1 6 . 6 2 2 9 5 4 0 5 . 2 5 4 1 9 2 3 1 3 3 3 5 2 7 7 9 . 5 6 6 4 9 4 5 1 5 . 4 9 2 0 7 5 9 4  . 9 5
3 5 6 2 3 5 1 - 0 . 0 2 - 1 3 6 1 8 8 2 3 0 3 3 . 4 7 3 6 1 9 9 4 6 4 . 3 7 1 2 1 2 7 2  .  1 6 4 1 2 9 1 7 1 5 0 0 2 8 3 6 . 3 3 2  5 4  3 4  5 6 1 . 6 0 8 5 4 4 2 . 0 7
4 5 6 2 4 6 6 0 . 0 0 - 2 1 3 7 2 2 6 3 6 6 . 1 8 1 8 0 4 7 9 3 2 . 0 9 9 7 2 4 1 . 7 3 4 1 5 0 0 2 2 8 1 1 4 1 6 7 . 7 4 1 2 7 2 4 3 3 0 . 6 6 6 6 1 8 1  .  5 9
5 5 6 2 2 6 8 - 0 . 0 4 - 2 1 9 4 1 8 1 7 1 7 4  .  3 7 1 3 9 3 4 4 2 4 . 7 8 4 7 5 3 0 . 8 5 4 3 3 1 9 2 3 3 0 4 0 2 7 6 . 2 7 9 9 1 7 0 2 2 . 8 9 3 6 2 0 0 . 8 4
6 5 6 2 5 7 2 0 . 0 2 8 5 4 9 2 5 9 4 8 7 . 5 6 6 4 6 4 3 1 1 . 4 9 5 3 3 5 0 . 9 5 4 3 7 9 2 0 3 8 7 7 1 3 8 8 . 5 4 4 6 5 0 1 1 0 . 6 2 3 7 0 6 0 . 8 5
7 5 6 2 6 4 3 0 . 0 3 1 5 6 4 9 4 0 4 7 8 7 . 8 1 5 6 2 8 3 1 0 . 0 0 1 2 3 1 3 2 . 1 9 4 2 4 8 8 2 3 7 6 7 3 6 8 8 . 6 7 3 9 7 6 0 9 . 3 6 8 3 8 6 1  .  9 7
8 5 6 2 4 8 4 0 . 0 0 - 3 4 2 7 3 0 8 7 5 . 9 7 7 5 1 2 8 1 3 . 3 6 6 0 0 4 8 1 0 . 6 8 4 5 3 5 3 3 3 5 2 5 9 2 7 7 . 7 4 5 6 5 6 1 1 2 . 4 7 4  4  3 8 0 9 . 7 9
9 5 6 2 3 8 0 - 0 . 0 2 - 1 0 7 5 4 3 1 0 3 9 6 . 5 7 1 3 9 4 8 2 . 4 8 5 3 2 9 0 . 9 5 4 3 3 9 7 0 4 1 9 2 8 6 9 6 . 6 2 1 0 4 8 3 2 . 4 2 4 2 0 1 0 . 9 7

1 0 5 6 2 6 6 4 0 . 0 3 1 7 7 5 1 0 2 9 6 9 0 . 6 9 3 2 4 7 6 5 . 7 7 1 9 8 9 2 3 . 5 4 4 1 1 8 2 2 3 7 5 2 1 4 9 1 . 1 1 2 2 9 3 0 5 . 5 7 1  3 6 7 8 3 .  3 2
1 1 5 6 2 4 9 7 0 . 0 0 1 0 4 5 4 0 6 7 8 0 . 7 2 4 6 0 3 7 8 . 1 8 6 2 3 9 3 1 1 . 0 9 4 1 9 9 3 3 3 4 4 3 0 7 8 1 . 9 9 3 1 3 5 1 7 . 4 7 4 4 2 7 5 1 0 . 5 4

Total 6 1 8 7 3 5 8 4 7 9 1 7 3 9 7 7 . 4 4 1 1 6 2 9 9 4 1 8 . 8 0 2 3 2 6 2 5 3 . 7 6 4 6 8 2 6 2 0 3 6 9 3 4 x 2 7 8 . 8 7 8 2 3 2 5 0 1 7 . 5 8 1 6 5 9 5 8 3 . 5 4

I

S O U R C E :  U . S .  D E P A R T M E N T  O F  C O M M E R C E ,  B U R E A U  O F  ' J H E  C E N S U S  P . L .  9 4 - 1 7 1  D A T A PAGE 1





Virginia

1994
Vital Statistics 
Annual Report

Center For Health Statistics

Virginia Department Of Health 
Richmond, Virginia 
December, 1995



Attendant at Birth. The percentage of resident births occurring in hospitals in 1994 was 
99.4, as was true for 1993. In 1994, for white births, the percentage in hospitals was 99.3; 
for black births, the percentage was 99.5, while it was 99.7 for births to other races. An 
additional 164 births were attended by physicians out of the hospital. For white, black, and 
other races births, the numbers attended by midwives or others were 382, 22, and 2.

Low Weight Births. During 1994, low weight births (weighed 2,500 grams or less at birth 
regardless of gestation) accounted for 7,131, or 7.6 percent, of total live births. Blacks 
exhibited a much higher percentage of low weight births, 12.6 percent, than whites (6.0 
percent) and other races (6.9 percent).

PERCENT LOW WEIGHT OF RESIDENT BIRTHS BY RACE 
VIRGINIA, 1990-1994

Low Weight Births Percent of Resident Births
Year Total White Black Other Total White Black Other
1990 72241 4,076 2,988 177 7.3 5.7 12.5 5.7
1991 7,098 3,973 2,957 168 7.3 5.7 12.5 5.3
1992 7.224 3,987 3,028 209 7.5 5.7 12.8 6.2
1993 6,957 3,826 2,8% 235 7.4 5.7 12.6 6.9
1994 7,131 4,106 2,780 245 7.6 6.0 12.6 6.9

NUMBER AND PERCENT OF BIRTHS ACCORDING TO 
WEIGHT GROUP BY RACE, VIRGINIA, 1994

Total White Black Other
Birth Weight Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
Total 94,355 100.0 68,678 100.0 22,103 100.0 3374 100.0
Low Weight 7.131 7.6 4,106 6.0 2,780 12.6 245 6.9

< 501 grams 190 0.2 79 0.1 110 0.5 1 0.0
501-1500 grams 12256 1.3 660 1.0 567 2.6 29 0.8

1501-2500 grams 5,685 6.0 3,367 4.9 2,103 9.5 215 6.0

Full Weight 87,104 92.3 64,500 93.9 19,284 87.2 3320 92.9
2501-3500 grams 49371 52.3 33,846 49.3 13362 60.5 2,163 60.5
3501-4500 grams 36,119 38.3 29347 42.6 5,749 26.0 1,123 31.4

> 4500 grams 1,614 1.7 1,407 2.0 173 0.8 34 1.0

Unknown 120 0.1 72 0.1 39 0.2 9 0.3

The percentage of total births that were low weight was highest at birth order 7+. Birth order 
7+ had the highest percentage of low weight deliveries for white and black mothers; for other 
races mothers, the percentage was the highest for birth order 4. At all birth orders, the 
reladve frequency of low weight births was significantly higher among black than among white 
and other races mothers.

PERCENT LOW WEIGHT OF TOTAL BIRTHS BY BIRTH ORDER 
BY RACE, VIRGINIA, 1994

Birth Order
Race Total 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 +
Total 7.6 7.9 6.4 7.3 10.4 12.6 11.0 15.4
White 6.0 6.5 5.1 5.7 7.7 8.8 5.5 10.3
Black 12.6 12.6 11.2 11.7 16.1 19.2 18.9 20.8
Other 6.9 8.2 5.0 6.4 10.2 7.3 7.1

1 6



Race. White infant deaths decreased from 447 in 1993 to 436 in 1994, while black infant 
deaths decreased from 339 to 333 and other races infant deaths decreased from 24 to 9. The 
1994 rates of infant deaths per 1,000 live births were 6.3, 15.1, and 2.5 for whites, blacks, and 
other races, respectively.

RESIDENT INFANT DEATHS BY RACE
WITH RATES PER 1,000 LIVE BIRTHS

VIRGINIA, 1990-1994
Total White Black Other

Year Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate Number Rate
1990 1,005 10.2 532 7.4 461 19.3 12 3.9
1991 963 10.0 516 7.4 433 18.3 14 4.4
1992 903 9.3 482 6.9 407 17.2 14 4.1
1993 810 8.6 447 6.6 339 14.7 24 7.0
1994 778 8.2 436 6.3 333 15.1 9 2.5

Cause of Death. Among the 778 infant deaths for Virginia residents. 161, or 20.7 percent,
were attributed to congenital anomalies; 169, or 21.7 percent, to disorders relating to short
gestation and low birth weight; 26, or 3.3 percent, to respiratory distress syndrome; and 79, 
or 10.2 percent, to sudden infant death syndrome. The remainder of the group of causes for 
conditions originating in the perinatal period (ICD Codes 760-779) accounted for 201 infant
deaths, while certain gastrointestinal diseases, pneumonia and influenza, and all other causes
(including external causes) accounted for the remaining 142 deaths.

RESIDENT INFANT DEATHS BY CAUSE WITH RATES PER 100,000 LIVE BIRTHS
VIRGINIA AND UNITED STATES, 1994

United
Cause of Infant Death Vug inia States*

Number Rate Rate
Total Infant Deaths 778 824.5 791.7
Certain gastrointestinal diseases (008-009,

535, 555-558) 9 9.5 6.6
Pneumonia and influenza (480-487) 9 9.5 11.3
Congenital anomalies (740-759)
Disorders relating to short gestation and low

161 170.6 171.0

birth weight (765) 169 179.1 97.6
Birth trauma (767) 10 10.6 5.5
Intrauterine hypoxia and birth asphyxia (768) 12 12.7 13.9
Respiratory distress syndrome (769)
Other conditions originating in the perinatal

26 27.6 39.6

period (760-764,766,770-779) 179 189.7 194.5
Sudden infant death syndrome (7980) 79 83.7 105.4
All other causes 124 131.4 146.0
* Provisional

2 8



Age at Death. In 1994, there were 362 infants who failed to survive one day and 469 who 
died within their first week of life. Infants who died before the age of 28 days (553) 
accounted for 71.1 percent of the total infant deaths.

PERCENT OF TOTAL INFANT DEATHS IN EACH AGE GROUP BY RACE
VIRGINIA, 1994

Total Age at Death
Race Infant

Deaths
Under 
1 day

1-6
days

Under 
1 week

7-27
days

Under
28 days

1-5
Mos

6-11
Mos

Total 100.0 46.5 13.8 60.3 10.8 71,1 22.5 6.4
White 100.0 42.7 16.5 59.2 10.8 70.0 24.5 5.5
Black 100.0 51.7 9.9 61.6 11.1 72.7 19.5 7.8
Other 100.0 44.4 22 2 66.7 66.7 33.3

Data Tables. Detailed data for infant deaths are in Data Tables 34-38.

MATERNAL DEATHS:

In 1994, the deaths of six Virginia women were caused by maternal conditions, giving a rate 
of 6.4 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Both the number and rate of maternal deaths 
increased from the 1993 figure of 4 deaths, or 4.3 per 100,000 live births.

MATERNAL DEATHS BY CAUSE AND BY RACE
VIRGLNiA, 1994

Cause of Death Total White Black Other
Total (ICD 630-676) 6 2 4
Hypertension Complicating Pregnancy (642)
Other Complicauons of Labor and Delivery (669)

1
1 1

1

Obstetrical Pulmonary Embolism (673) 2 2
Unspecified Complicauons of Puerpcnum (674) 2 1 1

Data Tables. Data for maternal deaths are under ICD codes 630-676. They are found in 
Data Tables 40-41 and 45-46.

2 9



Median Age at Death. For all Virginia residents, the median age at death was 74.7, higher 
than the 1993 value of 74.4. The white median age at death increased from 75.7 to 76.1; the 
black median age at death decreased from 70.1 in 1993 to 69.9 in 1994, and the statistic 
decreased from 66.2 to 65.3 for other races. The median age for Virginia males increased 
from 71.1 in 1993 to 71.3 in 1994; for Virginia females it increased from 78.5 to 78.7.

MEDIAN AGE AT DEATH BY RACE BY SEX 
_________ VIRGINIA, 1993 AND 1994_______ _____________

Total White Black Other
Sex 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994 1993 1994

Total 74.4 74.7 75.7 76.1 70.1 69.9 66.2 65.3
Male 71.1 71.3 72.3 72.4 67,0 66.9 65.2 64.9
Female 78.5 78.7 79.7 80.0 73.8 73.4 68.3 66.0

('ban H below shows the cumulative percentages of deaths by selected age groups for the 
period 1964-1994. The percentages of total deaths accounted for by the younger age groups 
-how a distinctly downward trend.

Chart H
P E R C E N T  O F  R E S I D E N T  D E A T H S  B Y  A G E  G R O U P  

V I R G I N I A ,  1 6 6 4 - 1 9 9 4
CUMULATIVE PE R C E N T CUMULATIVE P E R C E N T

U N D E R  16

1 8 7 9

YEAR

Month of Death. January had the greatest frequency of deaths (5,224), and the largest daily 
average (169). The lowest number of deaths occurred in June (3,957), with the second lowest 
daily "average (132). July with 4,019 deaths had the lowest daily average of 130.

31



Firearms and explosives were the implements used in 406, or 72.2 percent, of the homicides 
in 1994. Assault by cutting and piercing instruments, with 61, was the second most frequently 
used method. Eight deaths were the result of injuries inflicted through legal intervention.

RESIDENT HOMICIDE DEATHS BY RACE BY METHOD 
VIRGINIA, 1994

Method Total White Black Other
Total (E960-E978) 562 221 336 5

Assault by:
Firearms and Explosives (E965) 406 132 271 3
Cutting and Piercing Instruments (E966) 61 33 27 1
Hanging and Strangulation (E963) 24 17 7
Submersion (Drowning) (E964) 5 3 2
Fight Brawl, Rape (E960) 1 1
Corrosive or Caustic Substance

and Poisoning (E961-E962) 1 1
Other and Unspecified Means (E968) 50 23 26 1

Injury Due to Legal Intervention (E970-E978) 8 6 2
Child Battering and Other Maltreatment (E967) 4 3 1
Late Effects of Injury Purposely Inflicted (E969) 2 2
Numbers in parentheses are from Iniemauonal Classificauon of Diseases, 9th Revision.

Data Tables. Detailed data for resident deaths are given in Data Tables 39-46. Table 45 
gives deaths by cause of death by race by occurrence in Virginia as well as residence in 
Virginia. Table 46 gives deaths by cause of death by race for all cities, counties, and 
planning districts in the State.

RESIDENT DEATH RATES PER 1,000 POPULATION 
BY PLANNING DISTRICTS 

VIRGINIA, 1994
4.5 to 6.9

3 8



ent by: ACLU 80^6448090 04/12/96 4:33PM Job 13 Page 7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION f  i___L _  F

VIOLA W. TAYLOR, et al.,
Plaintiffs, 

v .
CAMERON L. FORRESTER, et al.

Defendants.

> 3 ! MAY I T '990
! I______
) J r - ' - ' -) Civil Action 
) No. 89-00777-R
)
)
)

INTERIM CONSENT DECREE

This proceeding involves a claim that the current method 
of electing the three members of the Board of Supervisors of 
Lancaster County, Virginia violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights 
Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973, the First, Thirteenth, Fourteenth, 
and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, 
and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .

The defendants have stipulated that the use of the 
County's current single-member districts, with boundaries as 
designated by County ordinance adopted in 1981, has the effect of 
violating Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

This action is now before the Court on (a) the 
defendants' Offer of Judgment pursuant to Rule 68 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure, which offer has been accepted by the 
plaintiffs, and <b) the defendants' Motion To Deny Request For 
Special Election And To Request That Redistricting Occur After The 
1990 Census. Based upon the consent of the parties as evidenced 
by the Offer of Judgment and the acceptance thereof, ar.d based



Sent by: ACLu 80464A808C Page 8/1604/12/96 4:34PM Job 13

upon the inherent equitable powers of this Court, it is hereby 
ORDERED as follows:

1. The Court hereby finds that the use of the current 
single-member election districts, having boundaries as designated 
by County ordinance adopted in 1981, has the effect of diluting 
the vexing strength cf the County's black voters in violation of 
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. § 1973. 
Accordingly, judgment is hereby entered in favor of the plaintiffs 
as to the first cause of action asserted in their complaint.

2. As an interim remedy, the defendant Board of 
Supervisors shall expand its membership from three to five members 
in the following manner:

(a) The Board shall create a two-member County­
wide election district tc be in effect from July 10,
1990 until a 1991 decennial redistricting plan is 
adopted and implemented;

(b) Pursuant to Virginia Cede § 24.1-76.1, the 
Board shall appoint two black residents of the Ccur.ty to 
fill the vacancies on the Board from the County-wide 
election district:. Such individuals shall be, in the 
opinion of the Board, representative of the interests of 
the County as a whole and especially of the interests of 
black residents of the County;

(c) The plaintiffs may submit to the Beard the 
names of two County residents whom the plaintiffs desire 
the Board to consider as appointees to such vacant 
positions; and

2



Sent by: AClL 8046448080 04/12/96 4:35PM Job 13 Page 9 H 6

(d) The terras cf the appointed members cf the
Board shall expire at the same time as the terms of the
current .incumbent members of the Board,
3. The defendant Board of Supervisors shall also 

expand from seven to nine the membership of the Committee for 
Redistricting Lancaster County, which is an advisory body created 
by the Board of Supervisors in 1988 to recommend a redistricting 
plan for the County, The plaintiffs may select the two additional 
members of the Committee.

4. It further appearing to the Court that there is 
insufficient time prior to July 10, 1990 for the Board of 
Supervisors to aaopt an ordinance expanding its membership from 
three to five and to have the ordinance precleared by the United 
States Justice Department under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965, it is further ORDERED that it shall not be necessary for 
Lancaster County to obtain preclearance of these interim remedial 
arrangements under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

5. The Court finds that the granting of this interim 
relief renders moot the defendants' Motion To Deny Request For 
Special Election And To Request Thar Redistricting Occur After The 
1990 Census, and accordingly that motion need not be considered.

6- This action shall not be dismissed and the Court 
hereby retains jurisdiction to ensure, if necessary, that the 1991 
redistricting plan adopted by Lancaster County provides the 
plaintiffs with an appropriate remedy for the violation of Section 
2 cf the Voting Rights Act, All rights of the parties with regard

3



sent by: ACLb 80464^8080 0 4 / ' 2 ' 9 6  4:35PM Job 13 Page 10/16

to the ISSl redistricting process shall be preserved and are net 
changed by this consent decree.

7. The plaintiffs may apply to the Court, pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. § 19731(e), for an award of costs incurred through May 
4, 1990, including a reasonable attorney's fee, and the defendants 
may file any objections to the requested award within eleven days 
after service of the application.

The Clerk is directed to send copies of this decree to 
all counsel cf record.

United States District Judge

Date: ! -? a ( ri <j o

Agreed and Consented to:

Coynsel for Plaintiffs

4



1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9
10

11
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19
20

2 1
22

23

24

2 5

1

PUBLIC HEARING IN RE:

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING IN VIRGINIA 
SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES 
ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS

General Assembly Building 
House Room D 

Richmond, Virginia

October 11, 1991
10:00 a.m.

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.
P.O. Box 959

Mechan l csvi 11 e , Virginia 23111 
Tel. No. (804) 788-4917



1
2

3
4
5

6
7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

2 2

2 ̂
24

25

7
those witnesses, we will hear a brief 

presentation from our staff counsel, Mary -- Mary 

Spain on some of the, just t o  refresh the J o i n t  

Committee's recollections as to some of the legal 

parameters we must take into account as we move  

toward the adoption of legislation to redistrict 

Virginia's congressional district.

Ms . Spain.

MS. SPAIN: I'll be brief. Just to

highlight some of the differences between the 

congressional redistricting scene and the state 

legislative redistricting process that you have 

just completed, of course the first is that we 

have gained a congressional seat. You are adding 

a district because of Virginia's population 

growth, so we'll be dealing with 11 congressional 

seats, an ideal population of 562,487, not as 

substantial a difference from our prior ideal as 

it would be if we hadn't gained that seat.

The first major difference between 

congressional and state legislative- redistricting 

is the variation that's allowed by the courts in  

reviewing plans, and under the 1983 Karcher 

decision, the Supreme Court invalidated and 

upheld the invalidation of a New Jersey

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11
12

13

14

15

16
17

18
19

2 0

2 1
22
23

24

25

congressional plan with the deviation of .6984 

percent or 3,674 people.

The court in its opinion compared that 

to alternatives of a .49 range and its own 

redrawing or adjustments of the lines that would 

have allowed a reduction by one tenth of a 

percent in that population deviation.

The end result is that most states view 

congressional redistricting as requiring a very 

low deviation, and I thought you might be 

interested in our deviation in 1981 was 1.81 

percent, lower than the state legislative plans 

then, but other states as they have drawn 

congressional districts for the eleven states 

that have completed district plans, six have 

drawn plans with zero deviation. That's a 

deviation of one or two people that does not 

report on a printout on the plan.

Iowa has .05 percent, five 100ths of a 

percent deviation. Nebraska seventeen 100ths 

percent deviation. Arkansas .73 percent 

deviation, and that plan is being challenged in 

court now on both Voting Rights Act issues and on 

the deviation. And we have Missouri with .198 

percent, Georgia with 1.85 percent.

8

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9
Several of those plans are at the 

Justice Department now, but the majority of the 

states that have completed plans have been at the 

zero deviation level.

This is possible because of the computer

technology, the breakdown of census data into

small units at the block level, and the court did

not rule out that there could not be a

justification for a variation, but the burden is
f

heavy to show that your variations justify by a 

rational consistently applied state policy.

The effect of this type of deviation 

requirement or absolute quality requirement will 

push towards more split localities. I think as 

we look through the plans we will probably not 

find many districts consisting of all whole 

localities, and in 1981 four of the districts 

were comprised of entire localities.

The Voting Rights Act is as applicable 

to congressional redistricting as it was to the 

state legislative redistricting. You will have 

before you today proposals for majority black 

congressional districts. The size of the 

majority will be a matter for your consideration 

and deliberation in creating the 17 black

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11
12
13

14

1 5

1G

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

for the sake of political gain or favorable 

voting patterns.

These challenges propose a tall order to 

you. I hope you will take my comments as they 

were intended, as an expression of support for 

your undertaking, a plea for fairness of the 

citizens of Virginia, and a challenge to rise 

above partisan needs to provide representative 

government for all of us.

Yours is a difficult burden and an 

important undertaking, and I thank you for 

hearing from me this morning and appreciate this 

opportunity to testify.

MR. GARTLAN: Thank you very much,

Congressman, for traveling the long distance 

which I traveled as well this morning. Glad to 

have you here and hear your views.

Any questions of Congressman Wolf?

Thank you, sir.

MR. WOLF: Thank you.

MR. GARTLAN: The next witness is the

Honorable Thomas J. Bliley, Jr. member of 

Congress from the Third District, Richmond.

MR. BLILEY: Good morning, Ladies and

Gentlemen. It's a pleasure to be here and to

19

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

20
have a chance to speak to you this morning.

I have no prepared remarks. I don't 

envy you your job. You have the Supreme Court's 

decision of one man one vote, that you can't have 

but a very miniscule deviation between your 

largest population and your smallest population 

of the districts.

And you have now the Voting Rights Act 

which of course was changed in 1982 from 

plaintiffs having to show intention to merely 

having to show the effects, and within those 

parameters you are going to have to do your work.

We are more fortunate than most states 

in that because of the growth we gained a seat, 

which helps.

I would only ask that in your 

deliberations as you meet those parameters that 

you try to keep the districts as contiguous and 

compact as you possibly can. More than that I 

don't think anybody can ask, and if anybody has a 

question, I'll be happy to try to answer it.

MR. GARTLAN: Does anyone have any

questions of Congressman Bliley?

Thank you very much, sir.

MR. BLILEY: You are sure welcome.

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
/
8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 5
16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

copies of a plan which I have developed and I 

believe you all may have some copies of a map 

that I had drawn up, and there are some copies 

available I believe.

MR. GARTLAN: Is that the one attached

to this document?

MR. RAWLINGS: That's the one attached

to the copy. I don't have enough copies for 

everybody but I think there are enough maps for 

everybody.

MS. SPAIN: Is this the same?

MR. RAWLINGS: Yes.

MS. SPAIN: So we have extra copies.

MR. RAWLINGS: Let me start off by

laying a little, I don't know whether you want to 

call it ground rules or letting you know where I 

come from, unless some of you may not know. I 

can't believe there are that many of you who have 

not realized I am a Democrat. I come before you 

as a Democrat, and so many of the things I say 

are sort of tempered by the fact, that fact.

And I have been a Democrat for a long 

time. I cast my first vote, believe it or not, 

for Franklin D. Roosevelt, and I have been voting 

Democratic ever since. I have never voted for a

31

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

Republican in my life, so I guess I'm considered 

prejudiced.

But the main thing that brings me here 

is because, in addition to being Chairman of the 

8th Congressional Democratic Committee, I have 

served in this state in various capacities. I 

have served six years in the General Assembly and 

the House of Delegates. I have been a nominee 

for Congress and for the United States Senate, I 

have served on the Democratic National Committee 

for eight years, and I am here as Chairman of the 

8th District Democratic Committee.

And I have traveled all over this state 

in my times as a politician and a candidate, and 

I think I know most of t h e  areas of the state 

reasonably well, although as time goes by they 

change, and it's been some time since I have been 

to many areas of the state.

But I feel that this congressional 

redistricting is most important to the state, and 

that's why I have taken an interest and tried to 

develop a plan.

I'm not a computer operator, I don't 

have access to a computer, and I just used my pen 

and pencil and adding machine to come up with the

32

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20
2 1
22
23

24

25

33
figures that I have.

But I wanted to say this and with all 

respect to my Republican friends, I think that a 

congressional redistricting plan should be fair 

to all as possible. Naturally I would like to 

see the interests of Democrats protected as best 

can be done, and I have heard those persons who 

have been speaking up to now, but it's nothing 

new to have strange congressional districts.

It's something new that we have now that we have 

computers to divide up counties and cities like 

we have been doing.

But when I ran for Congress, my 8th 

District that I was running in started on the 

Potomac in Loudoun County, took in Fauquier 

County, Louisa County, Caroline, a third of 

Fairfax, all of Prince William, all the Northern 

Neck, and all the way down Hanover County, 

Goochland County, and all the way down to include 

Charles City County on the James River, and that 

was some district, but it was represented for ten 

years by a congressman, and it wasn't the best 

district in the world, but that was the district.

I also remember that I voted in Hanover 

when I lived there when Hanover was part of the

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



44
Scott's district is where that is. It would be 

like eastern Newport News and maybe like 

southeastern part of Hampton also, and also is 

the western part of Norfolk.

MR . JOANNOU: Okay. And you have the

western part of Norfolk in here also?

MR . MOORE: That's right. If you like,

I can read off the whole list.

MR. JOANNOU: Mr. Chairman, further

question.

So you have got the Naval Base, the 

Newport News Shipyard, and the Portsmouth 

Shipyard is going to be represented by one

Congressman, is that what you have done? That's

what you are advocating?

MR . MOORE: I'm not sure about that.

The lines, I haven't really drawn. What you have

got to do is to pick where you are going to draw

the lines and pass them through which, you know,

areas of the county and pick them up.

MR . JOANNOU: I don't know. I'm asking

is that what you have done?

MR . MOORE: I'm not sure that's what I

have done, no, sir.

MR. GARTLAN: Further questions?

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24

25

46
I will say it's not that critical, but 

just like the previous, the reason we put that in 

there is we noted the fact that there's a large 

minority grouping in Northampton County but it 

wouldn't change the district that much if you 

wanted not to include that. We are simply 

showing you a way to do that, but that's the only 

reason, you know, that that was done was to 

recognize the fact that there is a way to 

equitably accomplish, you know, a minority based 

district.

MR. GARTLAN: All right, further

questions? All right, sir, thank you. Oh, I'm 

sorry, were you concluded, Mr. Moore?

MR. MOORE: Yes, ir.

MR. GARTLAN: All right, thank you.

MR. MOORE: Thank you.

MR. GARTLAN: The next speaker on our

list is Grace Keen of Smithfield.

MS. KEEN: Good morning. Mr. Chairman

and Members of the Committee, my name is Grace J. 

Keen. I come here today with my husband, Carol, 

from our home in Isle of Wight County. I'm the 

mother of four children and the grandmother of 

three.

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



47

2
3
4

5

6
7

8 !i9

10 I
11 
12

|
13 iI
14

1 5 

16

17 !
18

19

20
2 1

i22
23

24 

2 5

1 Mr. Chairman, I'm also a Virginia 

citizen who has been involved in a number of 

community activities. I'm president of the Isle 

of Wight Citizens Association, past president of 

the Isle of Wight Commission on Aging, and 

present active appointed member, and a member of 

the Southeastern Virginia Area Model Program 

Board of Directors for the past twelve years. I 

also serve on several other community advisory 

boards and committees.

Of course I'm not expert on 

redistricting like those of you on this 

committee. But as someone who has been active in 

my community for many years, I think I know a 

little something about what works in general. So 

I'm grateful to the committee for giving me this 

opportunity to share some of my thoughts on the 

redistricting effort.

I'm very proud of Isle of Wight County 

and the people who call it their home. We have 

had our ups and downs like other places, but we 

always seem to pull together when it counts.

It's a special place for many reasons. It's a 

beautiful place, but I think its diversity of 

people and industry makes it a particularly

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20
2 1
22
23

2 4

2 5

wonderful place to live, a lot like the 4th 

District as a whole.

4 8

In Isle of Wight we have a combination 

of rural and urban areas linked b y  growing 

suburbs. We have farmers, defense contractors, 

and federal workers. That description could just 

as easily be applied to the entire 4th District.

The economy of the 4th District as with 

Isle of Wight relies heavily on farming and the 

military. And as you know, in the 4th District 

there are military facilities in Fort Lee and 

Petersburg and Fort Pickett in Blackstone.

There also is the Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

in Portsmouth, and not too far away you'll find 

the Norfolk Naval Base and the Newport News Ship 

Building.
We are fortunate in the 4th District to 

have a seasoned Congressman, Norman Sisisky, who 

has worked very hard to keep these facilities 

thriving even as military spending has been 

shrinking. He has been effective in balancing 

the national interests with our local interests.

As a member of Congress he has sought 

positions on important committees in order to 

enable him to better represent us, his

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

49

constituents here in home.

For instance, Congressman Sisisky is a 

member of the House Armed Services Committee and 

is the only member of Congress to serve on four 

of that committee's subcommittees.

He also is chairman of the House Small 

Business Subcommittee on Exports, Tax Policies, 

and Special Problems, and in addition he serves 

on the House Select Committee on Aging.

Obviously we are very impressed with 

Norman Sisisky, but the point I'm really making 

here today is I like the 4th Congressional 

District as it exists today. Why? Because it 

works.

I believe Congressman Sisisky has 

represented this diverse district well with his 

blend of old and young, employers, laborers, 

farmers, teachers, men, women, blacks and whites. 

His three constituent service offices in Emporia, 

Petersburg, and Portsmouth is just one way he's 

reached out to all segments of the district.

He also conducts mobile office hours to 

serve our other localities. The citizens of the 

4th District, despite professional and cultural 

differences, share common goals and values. Vie

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

IS
19

20
2 1
22
23

24

2 5

all want solutions to the problems facing our 

communities and we all want our representatives 

to be responsive to our concerns. I believe we 

have that today, and I would like for it to 

remain that way as much as possible.

I again thank you for allowing me this 

time to add my voice to the course of comments 

I'm sure you'll receive during this redistricting 

process. I know you have an important job to do 

and I know you will do it well.

Thank you.

MR. GARTLAN: Thank you so much, Ms.

Keen. Are there questions of Ms. Keen? Senator 

Holland I'm sure has a gracious comment.

MR. HOLLAND: Mr. Chairman, I don't have

any questions to ask. I concur with the comments 

she made, and on behalf of this committee we are 

happy to have you with us.
MS. KEEN: Thank you, Senator Holland.

MR. JOANNOU: Mr. Chairman, I'd also

like to echo his remarks since she is now my 

constituent.
MR. GARTLAN: Anyone else in the

immediate area who is represented by Mrs. Keen?

All right, next witness is Mr. Kent

50

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

S
7

8
9
10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22
23

24

25

51
Willis, American Civil Liberties Union.

You have on your desks, ladies and 

gentlemen, a map of a proposal and a statistical 

report proposed by the ACLU in this document in 

case you haven’t picked it up.

Mr. Willis, we are pleased to hear you.

MR. WILLIS: Good morning, I'm Kent

Willis, the Director of the American Civil 

Liberties Union of Virginia.

Earlier today I distributed a copy of a 

black majority congressional district drawn by 

our office. As in the past, we are only 

proposing the one single district, the black 

majority district. We feel like what happens in 

the rest of the state is really your job, and all 

we did was test this to make sure that in drawing 

this district we didn't land lock some area or 

make it impossible to draw other districts 

meeting the one person, one vote concept.

I'd like to briefly go through this 

plan. It contains a 62 -- 66.2 percent black 

population of 63.1 percent voting age population. 

It contains all of the jurisdiction of 

Petersburg, Charles City and Surry, and part of 

13 jurisdictions. They are Sussex, Prince

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13

14
1 c
16

17

18

19

20
21
2 2
23

24

25

George, Chesterfield, Henrico, Hopewell,

Richmond, Isle of Wight, Suffolk, Newport News, 

Chesapeake, Portsmouth, Norfolk, and Hampton.

The deviation is essentially zero. We 

came within 12 of the ideal number of 562,487 by 

reaching the number of 562,475. I understand 

from Mary Spain that our numbers differ by three 

with the state's number because of three people 

that live in Prince George somehwere that somehow 

we didn't account for, so we are actually within 

nine of the exact ideal deviation.

We have built this at the precinct 

level. We made a decision to try to do it that 

way without going down to the block level simply 

because it's a simple, logical, rational building 

block. However, if someone wanted to build a 

stronger district by going to the tract or block 

level, that would certainly be possible.

The overall configurations in many ways 

should not be new to many of you here who have 

recently gone through the re districting process 

for the State General Assembly.

The western most portions of the 

district in Richmond and Petersburg and Hopewell 

have essentially the same contours as the

52

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

58

believe it runs south of that but I'm not 

absolutely sure, and I believe that both Newport 

News and Portsmouth are in the district.

MR. JOANNOU: So it would be your

recommendation that Virginia loses its influence 

of three Congressmen representing those defense 

facilities in exchange for one, is that what your 

recommendation is?

MR. WILLIS: Our goal in drawing this

map was to comply with the Voting Rights Act in 

the best way we knew how. We drew it basically 

in the abstract, and that is avoiding issues of 

incumbency and avoiding issues such as those you 

just mentioned.

One of the good things about this map is 

that 66 percent black, it can withstand a little, 

an adjustment here and there, and still be a 

black majority district.

Someone who's in it and doesn't want to 

be in it might want to move out. Someone who's 

not in it might move in. The precinct can be 

moved here and there and you are still looking at 

a substantial black majority district. These are 

questions I put to you.

MR. JOANNOU: My question to you is you

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4
5

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22

23

24

25

99
HR. GARTLAN.- Questions of Senator 

Scott? Mr. Quillen.

HR. QUILLEN: If I nad to make a

judgment today, I'm more cautious if I have a 60 

or 60 plus minority, I mean majority seat, black 

majority seat, because I think historically in 

Virginia has never elected a black Congressman, 

and I think there's threshold, you know, we have 

elected black legislators and senators, so forth, 

but we don't have historical perspective.

I think if you would err, I would err on 

that caution to try to make sure the seat we do 

create would meet muster instead of trying to 

divide them so thin that they don't, and I just 

bring that viewpoint out because I think we are 

down to these two issues seem to be something 

that trouble the committee as well as the 

different groups that are interested in this, and 

I would just, my viewpoint would be that way

would be my viewpoint.

MR WATKINS: Mr. Chai rman?

MR GARTLAN: Mr. Watkins.

MR WATKINS: Just for clarification

purposes, you used that 55, 45 number, are you 

talking about voting age population or pure

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



A W I N G  t h e  L I N E

9 9 0  P o p u l a t i o n

District Total Black

1st
Counties:
Accomack 31,703 10,933
Ca/oSne 19,217 7,244
Charles City 6,282 3,969
Essex 8,689 3.270
Gloucester 30,131 3,354
James City 34,859 6.460
King & Queen 6,289 2,633
King George 13,527 2,734
King William 10.913 3,310
Lancaster 10,896 3,289
Mathews 8,348 1,175
Middlesex 8,653 2,131
New Ken! 10,445 2,151
Northampicn 13,061 6.035
Northumberland 10,524 3,098
Richmond 7,273 2.194
Westmoreiand 15,480 5,104
York 42,422 6613

Cities:
Hampton 133.793 51,981
Newport News 170,045 57,077
Poguoson 11,005 84
William scurg 11 530 1 7^4

615.C85 186.598

Deviation v 9 35%
5woc 3 0 34%

2 n d
Cities:
Norfolk 26J.229 rC7,912
V irg in ia  Beach L53.K9 67’

654,293 186 653

Deviation■ * 16 32*0
Black: 23.95%

3rd
Cities:
~erfcc 217 881 43,827
-r.'rS-.c'T r-d 201.124 24,365

1C ! ]
P c.n me no ??? Cc5 1 <2 <22

622,061 180.314

Devtaiicn - 10 59%
ciacK 23 99%

o n g r e s s i o n a l [ D i s t r i c t s

IDEAL DISTRICT;-11 SEA TS'- 56 Z ,W  |

District Total Black District Total Black

d t h 5 t h

Counties: Counties:
Amelia 8.787 2.822 Appomattox 12,298 2,816
Brunswck 15,987 9,349 Bedford 45,656 3,612
Chesierfietd (part) 8,150 2,831 Buckingham 12,873 5,259
Dinwiddie 20,960 7,471 Campbell 47,572 6,876
Greensville 8,853 4,916 Carroll 26.594 109
Isle o( Wight 25,053 7,925 Charlotte 11,688 4,263
Nottoway 14,993 6,155 Cumberland 7,825 3,027
Powhatan 15,328 3,290 Fluvanna 12.429 2,846
Prince George 27,394 7,972 Franklin 39.549 4,231
Southampton 17,550 7,868 Halifax 29.033 11,393
Surry 6,145 3,411 Henry 56,942 13,155
Sussex 10,248 5,955 Lunenburg 11,419 4,292

Mecklenburg 29.241 11,226Cities: Nelson 12.778 2,406
Chesapeake 151,976 41,662 Patnck 17,473 1,263
Colonial Heights 16,064 129 Pittsylvania 55,655 14,919
Emporia 5,306 2,420 Prince Edward ■ 17,320 6,265
Frankiin 7.864 4,199
Hoceweil 23.101 5,910 Cities.
Petersburg 38.385 27,688 Bedford City 6,073 1,338
Portsmouth 103,907 49,180 Danville 53,056 19.431
Suffolk 5? 14 1 ?3 245 Martinsville 16.162 5,954

South Boston 6,997 2.569
578,193 224,398 Lynchburg (part) 15 '18

Deviation :♦ 2.79% 543,751 129,748
Black, 38,81%

Deviation: • 3 33%

1

Black- 23.86%
|



January l 99 I / Pace 3 DRAWING the LINE

Present Virginia Congressional Districts
1 1990 Populat ion ,  con t i nued

6 t h __
Counties:
Alleghany
Amhersi
Augusta
Bath
Bctetoun
Highland
Roancxe
Rockbridge
Rockingham

Cities:
Buena Vista
Clilton Forge
Covington
Hamsonourg
Lexington
Lynchburg (pan)
Roanoke City
Salem
Staunton
Waynestocro

7th Qth

Counties:
W 11 1

Counties:
13,176 329 Abemarle 68,040 6,824 Bland 6,514 230
28,578 5,758 Clarke 12,101 1,054 Buchanan 31,333 63
54,677 2,006 Culpeper 27,791 4,783 Craig 4,372 8
4,799 251 Fauquier 48,741 5,462 Dickenson 17,620 68

24.992 1,121 Frederick 45,723 832 Floyd 12,005 292
2,635 3 Goochland 14,163 4,210 Giles 16,366 284

79.332 2,021 Greene 10,297 564 Grayson 16,278 486
18,350 574 Hanover 63,306 6,405 Lee 24.496 91
57,432 869 Louisa 20,325 5,233 Montgomery 73.913 2.841

Madison 11,949 1,697 Puiaskj 34,496 2,004
Orange 21,421 3,079 Russell 28,667 315

6,405 232 Page 21,690 442 Scon 23.204 143
4,679 695 Prince William 45,343 3,974 Smyth 32,370 660
6,991 969 (part) Tazewell 45,960 1,196

30,707 2,018 Rappahannock 6,622 491 Washington 45.887 682
6,959 811 Shenandoah 31,636 359 Wise 39,573 713

50,931 14,947 Spotsylvania 57,403 6,178 Wylhe 25,466 880
96,397 23,395 Stafiord (pari) 24,692 1,233 Cities:23,756 1,065 Warren 26,142 1,292
24,461 3,081 Cities: Bristol 18,426 1,063
18.549 1 749 Galax 5,670 387

Charlottesville 40,341 8,561 Norton 4,247 269
553.857 61,944 Fredericksburg 19,027 4,115 Radford -LL212

Manassas 27,957 2,889
Dev-soon - 1 53% Manassas Park 6,734 490 523,803 13,632
Elack: 11.18% Winchester 21.947 2.199

673,296 72,466 Deviation: • 6.68%
Black: 2.60%

Deviation * 19.72%
Black: 10.76%

8 t h

Counties:
Pnnce William 170.333 21,104

(part)
Staftora (part) 36,544 3,071
Fairfax (part) 

Cities:
^28,647 40,227

Alexanona 111 183 2 ± m

746.712 83,741

Deviation - 32.75%
Black. 11 83%

1  n t h

Counties:
Arlington 170,936 17,940
Loudoun 86,129 6,168
Fairlax (pan) 359,937 23,058

Cities:
Fairfax City 19,622 566
Falls Church 29g.

676,202 48.470

Deviation * 20 22%
Black 7 177.



T h u  O c t  1 0  1 7  :  1 9 : 3 9  1 9 9 1 P L A N  C 0 5 6 4 7 5 0

/ )  C _  L  U  P u  A ^

p r z t J i ^  / 0/ / 0 / 9 /

D I S T R I C T  P O P U L A T I O N  B R E A K D O W N  B Y  L O C A L I T Y  
( V O T I N G  A G E  A N D  T O T A L  P O P U L A T I O N  B Y  R A C E )

D I S T R I C T  1
L O C A L I T Y  P R E C I N C T  C E N S U S  T O T A L  V O T I N G
N A M E N A M E B L O C K P O P U L A T I O N W H I T E % B L A C K % O T H E R % A G E  P O P W H I T E * 5 B L A C K A O T H E R A

S u r r y A L L A L L 6 1 4 5 2 7 2 2 4 4 . 3 0 3 - 1 1 1 5 5 . 5 1 1 2 0 . 2 0 4 5 2 4 2 1 2  9 4 7 . 0 6 2 3 9 6 5 2 . 7 4 9 0 . 2 0

C h a r l e s  C i t y A L L A L L 6 2 8 2 1 8 0 0 2 8 . 6 5 3 9 6 9 6 3 . 1 8 5 1 3 8 . 1 7 4 7  7  5 1 4  1 4 2 9 . 6 1 2 9 6 0 6 1 . 9 9 4 0 1 S  .  4 0

P e t e r s b u r g A L L A L L 3 8 3 8 6 1 0 1 9 4 2 6 . 5 6 2 7 6 8 8 7 2 . 1 3 5 0 4 1 . 3 1 2 9 3 9 2 8 9 4  1 3 0 . 4 2 2 0 0 6 4 6 8 . 2 6 3 8 7 1  .  3 2

S u s s e x P A R T 3 8 6 7 1 7 3 1 4 4 . 7 6 2 1 1 4 5 4 . 6 7 n n 0 . 5 7 2 8 3 7 1 3 5 5 4 7 . 7 6 1 4 6 6 5 1  . 6 7 1 6 0 . 5 6

F r i n c e  G e o r g e P A R T 2 1 0 5 4 1 3 7 3 2 6 5 . 2 2 6 3 0 5 2 9 . 9 5 1 0 1 7 4  . 8 3 1 5  3 6 2 1 0 2 0 6 6  6 . 4  4 4  4  7 2 2 9 . 1 1 6 8  4 4 . 4 5

C h e s t e r f i e l d P A R T 1 0 9 3 0 5 0 9 4 4 6 . 6 1 5 7  3 4 5 2  . 4 6 1 0 2 0 . 9 3 8  3 5 2 3 8 1 1 4 5 . 6 3 4  4  7  4 5 3 . 5 7 6 7 0 . 3 0

11  e  n  r  i  c  o P A R T 3 8 5 1 7 1 4  8 2 8 3 8 . 5 0 2 3 2 3 5 6 0 . 3 2 4 5 4 1  .  1 8 2 9  3  7 0 1 1 9 0 3 4 1 . 9 6 1 6 1 3 9 5 6 . 8 9 3 2 8 1 . 1 6

H o p e w e l l P A R T 8 9 7 2 4 6 3 4 5 1 . 6 5 4 1 4 4 4 6 . 1 9 1 9 4 2 . 1 6 6  3 9  1 3 5 4  3 5 5 . 4 4 2  7 2 2 4 2 . 5 9 1 :5 1  P I

F i c h m o n d  C i t y P A R T 1 3 9 9 4 3 3 3 1 5 5 2 3 . 6 9 1 0 4 9 2 3 7 4 . 9 8 1 8 6 5 1  .  3 3 1 0 5 4 2 4 2 9 2 4 9 2 7 . 7 4 7 4  7  6 3 7 0 . 9 2 1 4 1 2 1 . 3 4

1 3 l e  o f  W i g h t P A P T 1 6 4 2 4 1 0 5 7 9 6 4 . 4 1 5 7 4 7 3 4  .  9 9 9 8 0 . 6 0 1 2 1 6 2 7 9 5 6 6 5 . 4 2 4  1 4 0 3 4 . 0 4 6  6 0 . 5 4

S u f f o l k P A R T 7 1 7 9 4 6 9 6 6 5 . 4 1 2 3 5 5 3 2 . 8 0 1 2 8 1 . 7 8 5 1 6 7 3 4 9 4 6 7 . 6 2 1 5 8 8 3 0 . 7  3 8  5 1  . 6 5

N e w p o r t  N e w s P A R T 3 6 9 5 6 6 8 1 5 1 8 . 4 4 2 9 8 2 2 8 0 . 7 0 3 1 9 0 . 8 6 2 6 0 2 3 5 5 7 6 2 1 . 4 3 2 0 2 3 6 7 7 . 7 6 2  1  1 0 . 8 1

C h e s a p e a k e P A R T 2 9 6 6 9 7 9 9 0 2 6 . 9 3 2 1 2 7 4 7 1  . 7 0 4 0 5 1 .  3 7 2 0 4 8 9 6 0 6 4 2 9 . 6 0 1 4 1 3 7 6 9 . 0 0 2  8 8 1 . 4 1

P o r t s m o u t h P A P T 6 5 7 0 2 2 1 8 6 5 3 3 . 2 8 4  3 0 6 2 6 5 . 5 4 7 7 5 1 . 1 8 4 6 8 0 0 1 7 0 1 0 3 6 . 3 5 2 9 2 4 2 6 2 . 4  8 5 4  8 1 . 1 7

N o r f o l k P A P T 7 2 9 0 4 1 9 1 4  9 2 6 . 2 7 5 2  6 2  3 7 2  .  1 8 1 1  3 2 1  . 5 5 5 4 0 9 2 1 6 4  5 2 3 0 . 4 1 3  6  7  5 0 6  7  .  o . i 8  9 0 1 . 6 5

H a m p t o n P A R T 5 9 5 4 2 2 2 4  5 4 3 7 . 7 1 3 6 0 4 1 6 0 . 5 3 1 0 4 7 1  .  7 6 4 5 1 0 3 1 7  7  5 4 3 9 . 3 6 2 6 6 2  3 5  9 . 0 3 7  2  6 1 . 6 1

D i s t r i c t  1 T o t a l s 5 6 2 4 7 2 1 8 1 4 3 8 3 2 . 2 6 3 7 2 4 - 1 7 6 6 . 2 2 8 5 8 7 1  . 5 3 4 1 5 2 6 3 1 4 6 8 5 7 3 5 . 3 6 2 6 2 1 6 2 6 3 . 1 3 6 2  4  4 1  .  5 0

SOURCE: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, BUREAU OF THE CENSUS P-L. 94-171 DATA RAGE I



ORIGINAL i

PUBLIC HEARING ON CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING
HELD BY THE

VIRGINIA STATE SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES 
ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS 

AT
NOVA COMMUNITY COLLEGE ANNANDALE CAMPUS 

8333 LITTLE RIVER TURNPIKE 
FORUM - COMMUNITY CULTURAL CENTER 

ANNANDALE, VIRGINIA

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 7, 1991 
7:30 p.m. - 8:30 p.m.

Sauny Ikenberry, CVR 
Court Reporter 

13811 Leighfield Street 
Chantilly, VA 22021-2504 

Phone: 703-803-8577



17

r
1 There isn't any guarantee in any State of the

2 Union that guarantees somebody that they are going to get

3 elected. Whether or not you live in Harlem, New York,

4 whether you live in Indian Island in Maine, or whether you

5 live in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the only guarantee

6 is that if you're a pretty good salesman, and if we like

7 what you have to sell, we'll buy it. If we don't, we

8 reject it.

9 You and I both know that, Senator.

10 SENATOR GARTLAN: Any other questions?

11 Thank you, Ms. Jordan.

C 12 MS. JORDAN: You're welcome.

13 SENATOR GARTLAN: The next witness is Gloria

14 T. Fisher of the Mount Vernon District in Fairfax County.

15 MS. GLORIA T. FISHER: Good evening. My name

16 is Gloria Fisher, and I'm a resident of Belle Haven

17 Precinct, Fairfax County, and I testified before you in

18 March on behalf of our Citizens' Association.

19 I am also privileged to have been elected in

20 the General Elections of 1984, '87, and '90, to three

21 terns on the Northern Virginia Soil and Water Conservation

22 District Board. Last year, I won every precinct in

» 23 Fairfax County, receiving over 130,000 votes. I mention

Sauny Ikenberry, Court Reporter
703-803-8577



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23

18

this only to point out my experiences in the electoral 
process.

I should also mention that I serve as the 
First Vice-Chairman of the Eighth Congressional District 
of Virginia Republican Committee, so you can understand my 
obvious joy today when I read FAIRFAX JOURNAL'S blast of 
this year's redistricting process. If you haven't seen 
it, I'll leave this copy for you (indicating).

To guote this editorial entitled A GOP LAUGH, 
"We, the Journal, got a chuckle watching the returns pour 
in from the Northern Virginia legislative races Tuesday 
night, and we're sure Republicans laughed harder.
Democrats in Richmond tried to redistrict the GOP out of 
existence last spring, but 'voters came back and gave the 
Democrats the thumping they richly deserved. After their 
redistricting shenanigans, Democrats deserve every 
agonizing moment to come." The words of the FAIRFAX 
JOURNAL.

Well, you should realize that what happened on 
Tuesday is not just a laughing matter to Republicans.
Look at Wednesday's WASHINGTON POST headline, "Redrawn 
boundaries confuse the voters in Fairfax and Loudoun 
Counties." The article goes on to describe how this

Sauny Ikenberry, Court Reporter
703-803-8577



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

23

25

reaches the dimension of having a potential to control a 
district.

MS. JORDAN: So what you're saying is you're
going to be ghettoing districts, correct?

You're correcting by ghettoing by district, is 
it not? This is what you are going to be doing, by your 
plan, is it not?

MS. SPAIN: The objective of the Voting Rights
Act and the objective of the process is to be sure it's 
open and available to minority groups.

MS. JORDAN: It's open and available —  but
you can't elect them.

SENATOR GARTLAN: All right, if there be no
further questions, the next witness who has signed in is 
Marv Hrubus -- I hope I've pronounced that correctly.

MR. HRUBUS: It's very close. Thank you.
SENATOR GARTLAN: -- from the Democratic Party

of Prince William County.
MARV HRUBUS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members

of the Committee.
I didn't come here tonight with any hardened 

out or announced or proposed boundaries for this, today. 
I've been involved in some reapportionment designs in the

Sauny Ikenberry, Court Reporter
703-803-8577



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

26

past, somewhat, and I know that with the electronic 

databases, voter registrations, population statistics, 

that can be done quite mechanically and usually very 

accurately.

I'm here tonight not just as Chairman of the 

Democratic Party in Prince William County, but I've also 

been asked to speak for two other jurisdictions we have in 

Prince William County, which is Manassas and Manassas 

Park. There are a few very basic things we want to leave 

this Committee with.

For the past ten years we've had a split 

County. It's something we would like to eliminate if at 

all possible.

We know that when you're looking at 

demographics -- and I heard a new definition of the term 

"rural" tonight. I come from Iowa; I do know what rural 

is. Prince William County cannot really be called a rural 

county, but we think we are part of the Northern Virginia 

community and we ask that we be given consideration that 

the Country, either in the whole or in the best parts 

possible, be placed in the Northern Virginia communities.

We know that's difficult. We know it's 

difficult: to make -- anytime you're trying to compose

Sauny Ikenberry, Court Reporter
703-803-8577



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

12

13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

29

Falls Church, Mount Vernon and Lee, promote the new 8th 

District.

SENATOR GARTLAN: Thank you.

Questions by the Committee?

MS. BOREN: I've been reminded that there

would be some additional precincts that would be needed, 

and in Fairfax County we are accustomed to Magisterial 

Districts having to be split, so there would be some 

precincts along the edge there, and then probably the 

Springfield and Annandale areas that would have to be 

included.

SENATOR GARTLAN: Questions?

Thank you very much, ma'am.

The last witness who has signed in —  before I 

introduce her let me ask if there is anybody else who has 

been stimulated to want to address the Committee from the 

remarks you have heard so far. Please give your name to 

Mr. Garrett, who is the Deputy Clerk of the Senate, if you 

desire to do so.

In the meantime, the next witness is Janet 

Carver, 8th District Democratic Committee.

JANET CARVER: George Rollins, the Chairman of

8th District Democratic Committee cannot be here tonight,

Sauny Ikenberry, Court Reporter
703-803-8577



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

1 0
1 1
12

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6
1 7

1 8
1 9

2 0
21

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

E M MU) ( M i l
l

JOINT COMMITTEE REDISTRICTING HEARING

Lake Wright Hotel 

Norfolk, Virginia 

November 8, 1991

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

House Privileges & Elections Committee:
THE HONORABLE FORD C. QUILLEN, Chairman

Senate:
SENATOR JOSEPH V. GARTLAN, JR., Chairman

TAYLOE ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Registered Professional Reporters 

Telephone: (804) 461-1984

Norfolk, Virginia



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

1 0
11

1 2
13

14

1 5

1 6
17

18

19

2 0

21

22

2 3

24

25

6

this process.

So if anybody would like to speak, if 

you would just raise your hand and come to the -- you 

all get the best of every world. You all never 

get —  you ought to take positions on things instead 

of always waiting until we take positions and tell us 

we did wrong. It's much harder to govern than people 

think it is.

Who would like to say something,

please?
All right. Let us go with Mary and let 

Mary go ahead and give some explanations as to her 

situation, and maybe we can lay out a little bit 

later on what our timetables might be and then maybe 

that will spur on some comments from people in the 

audience .

MS. SPAIN: Two committees that are

holding three public hearings to invite public 

comment in advance of the November 18 special session 

and the first hearing was October 11th. We have on 

the table for any members or anyone in the audience 

who hasn't obtained them copies of plans on file with 

the committee to date from the NAACP and the ACLU 

filed by George Rawlings and by the American Party. 

These plans are available and have been circulated to

T A Y T . O F  A T F S  . T N T .



1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0
1 1
12

1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6
1 7

1 8
1 9

2 0
21

2 2

2 3

2 4

2 5

7

date.
Basically the legal requirements for the 

congressional redistricting follow that for the state 

redistr l cting , state legislative redistricting. We 

address first the equal population, the evening of 

the population among the districts. With the 

congressional plans we will be dealing with even 

congressional districts. The Supreme Court cases in 

this area have held to a higher more strict standard 

for equal population among the districts, so we are 

looking at plans that will be with the very low 

deviation among the level districts.

The Karcher versus Daggett case in 1983, 

the Supreme Court there upheld the invalidation of 

the New Jersey congressional plan with a less than 

one percent overall deviation on that ground.

So states as they have been 

redlstric1 1  ng for congress in the 1 99 0's have been 

bringing the deviations to below one percent of the 

11 states. To date six of them have really gone down 

to zero deviation because where any locality is split 

it's possible with the census data at the block level 

to come to a very low deviation.

The focus of the plans filed by the 

N A A C P and ACLU so far bring up the voting acts

TAYT.OF ASSOCIATES, INC.



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
1 0
11

12

13
14
15
16
17
1 8
19
2 0

21

22

23
24
25

8

requirements governing congressional redistricting 

and demonstrate the at least two approaches to 

drawing a black majority district. Those plans both 

are similar and draw on black population from urban 

concentrations from the Richmond area south to the 

Norfolk, Hampton Roads area.

Other factors that will govern will be 

compactness and contiguity. On the compactness issue 

the Circuit Court now has the Senate redistricting 

case before it and the trial has been concluded and a 

Court opinion should be issued sometime in the near 

future which will address the compactness standard 

under the Virginia constitution.

For procedures our staff will be working 

on drafting bills that are in the same format as your 

House and Senate plans, referring to the 1990 census 

precincts where a locality is divided. This i. s the 

information which we have available which gives a 

quick and exact count of the populations involved and 

racial breakdowns for those populations.

Our office is aware that all of the 

counties, most, have redrawn their precinct lines and 

we hope the process will give us some window of 

opportunity to review any split jurisdiction to try 

and honor as much as possible those new precinct

T A V T . O P  A Q q  n  C T A T  P  q t w r  .



1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1 0
11

1 2
1 3

1 4

1 5

1 6
1 7

1 8
1 9

2 0

21

2 2

2 3

2 4

25

9

lines. But that is not going to be easy to do given 

your timetable and it's also not going to be easy to 

do in cities because so many of the cities are now 

looking at their precinct changes.

So that is really all my comments. I 

will be glad to answer any questions.

MR. QUILLEN: We would entertain

questions from any members of our joint subcommittee 

as well as any members from the public.

Now, would anybody like to give us some 

of your thoughts about some of the things that we 

should take into consideration?

This is our third public hearing. We 

have had one in Richmond, we were in Northern 

Virginia last night, and the idea was to come to 

Tidewater. I might say that later today Senator 

Gartlan and I will be working in Richmond. We are 

going to try to come up with a working draft of some 

measure to have before the committees and maybe get 

something either by late this afternoon or maybe by 

tomorrow, and then we would hope the press would 

circulate that if we can come up with a working 

plan. And then the committees, we are hoping, will 

come back on Wednesday of next week and have a 

hearing on this working plan and that will give an

T s v r . n p  a  c  c  n  r  t  a  t  p  c t  m  r



1
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10
11
12

13

14

1 5

1 6
17

18
19

20

21

22

23

24

25

1

PUBLIC HEARING IN RE:

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING IN VIRGINIA 
SENATE AND HOUSE COMMITTEES 
ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS

General Assembly Building 
House Room D 

Richmond, Virginia

November 13, 1991 
1:30 p .m .

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.
P . 0. Box 959

Mechanicsville, Virginia 23111 
Tel. No. (304) 788-4917



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

15

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

population. Any plan that accomplishes this goal 

impacts the present 3rd Congressional District. 

However, there should be no more disruption of 

communites of interest than is the minimum 

required to comply with the law.

The current 3rd District has more of a 

community of interest and compactness than most 

congressional districts. The localities of 

Henrico, Chesterfield, and the City of Richmond 

share most of the same concerns and perspective 

on issues because many residents of each locality 

work, shop, or attend church in one or the 

others.

Regional cooperation between the three 

localities has steadily improved over the years.

The citizens are served by the same radio, 

television, and newspapers. There is a 

commonality between people in each county and the 

city.

It is my strong feeling and hope that 

this community of interest and the compactness be 

preserved in the newly drawn 3rd Congressional 

District. If the boundaries of our district must 

expand, then they should expand to include 

communities which border the district and which

15

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

16

also share common interests.

It is clear that the interest of the 

voters in an area are best served when they are 

represented by a single Congressman. While some 

areas must be split into two districts, it is 

very detrimental to effective representation when 

they are split into three.

I wish to thank you for the opportunity 

to submit this statement and hope you will 

consider substantial changes in the draft plan to 

more effectively preserve communities of 

interest.

HR. GARTLAN: Congressman, do you have

any, I don't know if the committee has any, but 

do you have any time f c r  questions?

HR. BATEMAN: I'll be glad to.

MR. GARTLAN: Are there questions of

members of the joint committee of Congressman 

Bateman? Seemingly not. Thank you.

HR. BATEMAN: Thank you very much.

MR. GARTLAN: The next preregistered

witness is the Honorable Fhilip Hamilton, member 

of the House of Delegates.

HR. HAMILTON: Good afternoon, Hr.

Chairman and other distinguished members of the

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17
Joint Committee. I come before you today to 

express my concerns with proposed plans for 

congressional redistricting.

My concerns are twofold. First, the 

recent General Assembly elections reflected 

heightened voter confusion and apathy. In 

Newport News with the number of split precincts 

created, many people chose not to participate in 

the electoral process.

At a time when public sentiment has 

grown against partisanship of government, we 

should be making every effort to reduce the 

perception of blatant partisanship and improve 

government effectiveness.

While campaigning for reelection this 

fall, I was surprised at the discontent created 

by the legislative redistricing that occurred 

earlier this year. I believe this discontent 

resulted in less voter participation because of 

lack of voter confidence in our ability to carry 

out the process of government.

Secondly I'm concerned with the draft 

proposal because of its impact on Newport News 

and the entire Virginia peninsula region. Under 

the proposal, Newport News would be represented

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

by three congressmen. Some say this will 

increase our political clout in Congress. To 

them I say not likely. More is seldom better.

I believe this proposal so fragments the 

state's forth largest city that Newport News and 

the peninsula become lost in the representative 

shuffle.
Given the possible political scenario of 

this plan, my city could well be represented by a 

congressional representative from Richmond, 

Norfolk, and southside Virginia. How much 

political clout will Newport News and the 

Virginia peninsula have if this occurs?

Redistricting is a political process, 

and political partisanship will always rule the 

day regardless of the political party in power.

In evaluating this plan, the potential 

representative effectiveness for localities and 

communities of interest should be the guiding 

principal of any adopted plan. No plan will be 

perfect or even satisfactory to all parties 

involved.
I would hope that strong consideration 

be given to preserving the continuity, integrity, 

and community of interest in Newport News and the

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

27

congressional districts.

The fractionalization of representation 

within that congressional district would place 

Newport News in far less standing as compared to 

other municipalities.

MR. CROSHAW: Further question. Have

you ever had a problem with, I appreciate your 

answer, but what I want to know is has anyone 

ever called you, one of your citizens, and said 

because there were three state representatives, 

have you ever had a citizen complaint that they 

were confused about who to go to for constituent 

service?

MR. DUVAL: No, I have not had a call

complaining about service received by our 

delegation or any confusion on that matter.

MR. CROSHAW: Thank you.

MR. DUVAL: Any other questions, Mr.

Cha i rman ?

MR. GARTLAN: Mr. Melvin.

MR. MELVIN: Mr. Mayor, one of my

concerns has been that the Norfolk Naval Shipyard 

and Newport News Shipbuilding not be in the same 

congressional district. In looking at the 

working plan, I see that the Norfolk Naval

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

15

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

Shipyard is going to be in the 4th District under 

this plan that's before us today. Where would 

Newport News Shipbuilding be, which congressional 

district?

MR. DUVAL: Under the proposed plan?

MR. MELVIN: Yes,

MR. DUVAL: Be under the 1st and perhaps

part of the 3rd. I don't have the breakdown of 

the streets, and it ranges five miles of _our city 

along the coast line.

MR. MELVIN: Thank you.

MR. DUVAL: But I share your concern

about having a single congressman representing 

both shipyards, and I think you are appropriately 

concerned about that fact.

Any other questions, Mr. Chairman?

MR. GARTLAN: No, that's it. Thank you

very much.
MR. DUVAL: Thank you very much.

MR. GARTLAN: The next witness is the

Honorable Dale W . Dover, mayor of the City of 

Falls Church.

MR. DOVER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman,

Honorable Members of the Joint Committee. On 

behalf of the 9,578 some odd constituents of

28

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

to want to work to help the black community of 

this area can propose a step which in all 

likelihood will have the effects of, one, 

threatening our position in Congress, and two, 

ultimately contributing to putting many minority 

workers on the street without a job.

Thank you for the opportunity to present 

the views of Newport News Shipbuilding. I'll be 

pleased to take any questions.

MR. GARTLAN: Are there questions of Ms.

Cooper?

MS. COOPER; Bob, a couple things I want 

to ask you about. I don't think anyone is more 

keenly interested in keeping people at work and 

making sure that our area gets its fair share.

I would be curious to know how many 

facilities such as yours that abut the Chesapeake 

Bay that are actually clumped into one district 

and the one congressional would be represented by 

one congressman. I think it's crucial that we 

keep that in mind.

I think Mr. Melvin mentioned it a few 

minutes ago. In other words, making sure that we 

have enough congressional voice by, in other 

words, how many shipyards are in the third, how

39

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

1 5

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
2 0
24

25

many shipyard's perhaps, or NASA or whatever, are 

in the 4th. I think that that needs to be a 

driving factor here because we have got to keep 

our people at work.

HR. TERRELL: Well, the answer, if I

understand the question, most of the facilities 

of Newport News Shipbuilding are presently in the 

1st District. The people who work at the 

shipyard would be represented by three 

congressmen in Newport News, two in York County.

Our people come from that area.

As far as the principal office of the 

shipyard, that would be in the 3rd District as 

proposed by this working draft.

MS. COOPER: Well, for instance, what

other Naval yard would reside in the 3rd, what 

other Air Force facility? In other words have we 

pumped noticeably all facilities in one 

particular congressional district? I think that 

needs to be strongly looked at as we go about 

amending this plan, and again it's just a draft, 

and I think there has to be amendments made to it 

because I think a lot of people are dissatisfied 

with it.

MR. TERRELL: I think there's a

40

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

1 6
17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

47
second, I guess, no, It doesn't either, it takes 

a little bit of the 4th, that's right, it doesn't 

take the 2nd.

I just don't know whether that, you 

know, I'm not a legislator and I'm not privy to 

the computer's spinout, but I think what we are 

trying to say is that there are many advantages 

to the strength that we have in terms of 

representation, and hopefully that representation 

will continue.

MR. GARTLAN: All right, thank you, Mr.

Terrell.

Next witness is Daniel A. Carrell or

Carre 11?

MR . CARRELL: Carrell.

HR . GARTLAN: Carrell. Daniel Carrell,

Esquire of the City of Richmond.

MR CARRELL: Thank you very much, Mr.

Chairman, ladies and gentlemen of the Joint 

Committee. My name is Dan Carrell. I live and 

practice law in the City of Richmond, but I am 

not here today in a representative capacity, I'm 

here today solely as a citizen of the 3rd 

District, 3rd Congressional District where I have 

lived for 20 years, 18 of which have been within

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13

14
15

16

17
18
19

20
21
22
23
24
25

48

t h e  C i t y  o f  R i c h m o n d  i t s e l f .

I  o n l y  w a n t  a f e w  m o m e n t s  o f  y o u r  t i m e ,  

a n d  I  t h a n k  y o u  f o r  t h e  o p p o r t u n i t y  t o  s p e a k  a 

f e w  w o r d s  t o  y o u .

H y  c o n s c i e n c e  w o u l d  n o t  p e r m i t  me t o  

e n g a g e  i n  t h e  n o r m a l  f o r m  o f  c i t i z e n  a p a t h y  

t o w a r d  p r o c e e d i n g s  o f  t h i s  k i n d .  I  f e l t  

c o m p e l l e d  t o  s t e p  f o r w a r d  a n d  t o  e x p r e s s  my v i e w s  

a s  a c i t i z e n .  I  m i g h t  s a y  t h a t  t h e s e  v i e w s  a r e  

s h a r e d  b y  t h e  o t h e r s  t h a t  I  h a v e  m a n a g e d  t o  t a l k  

w i t h  a b o u t  t h i s  m a t t e r  i n  t h e  l a s t  f e w  d a y s .

I n  a w o r d  my p o s i t i o n  i s  t h a t  t h e  

w o r k i n g  d r a f t  i s  a n  o u t r a g e .  I t  i s  a p p a l l i n g  t o  

t h e  c e n s u s  o f  a n y  f a i r  m i n d e d  c i t i z e n  a n d  an  

a f f r o n t  t o  s o u n d  g o v e r n ,  men t .

To  t a k e  o n e  e x a m p l e ,  t o  s p l i t  t h e  

m e t r o p o l i t a n  a r e a  o f  t h e  C a p i t o l  o f  t h e  

C o m m o n w e a l t h  a n d  t o  t a k e  p o r t i o n s  o f  t h a t  a r e a  

a n d  c o n n e c t  t h e m  w i t h  c o u n t i e s  f r o m  S h e n a n d o a h  

a n d  A c c o m a c k  i s  p o s i t i v e l y  l u d i c r o u s .  I t  s e r v e s  

n e i t h e r  b l a c k  n o r  w h i t e  n o r  c i t i z e n s  o f  a n y  o t h e r  

c o l o r .

A n d  I  r e m i n d  y o u  t h a t  t h i s  p l a n  w i l l  

u l t i m a t e l y  be r e v i e w e d  b y  t h e  A t t o r n e y  G e n e r a l  o f  

t h e  U n i t e d  S t a t e s ,  a n d  i n c l u d e d  i n  t h e

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
q

10
11
12
13

14

15

1 5

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

49

consideration within that view among other 

criteria is the following:

The extent to which the plan departs 

from objective redistricting criteria set by the 

submitting jurisdiction, ignores other relevant 

factors such as compactness and contiguity, or 

displays a configuration that inexplicably 

disregards available natural or artificial 

boundaries, and that's paragraph eight from 

volume 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

Section 51, 59. Paragraph F, I'm sorry.

The editorial in last night's News 

Leader I think put it best, and I might interject 

in view of the reference to the editorial on Mr. 

3all that I'm not interested in who prepared the 

plan. I'll only interested in its contents.

The editorial said, among other things, 

that the redistricting proposal violates every 

aspect of compactness, contiguity, and community 

of interest. They would sever the ties between 

individual congressmen and their constituents.

The inevitable result of districts 

lacking geographic, ethinic, or historic cohesion 

is apathy. If the General Assembly wants to 

discourage citizens from voting, then it

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4
5

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

50
certainly should approve the map as drawn.

The proposed districts would hurt the 

political enterprise. They treat voters not as 

constituents with concerns, opinions, and needs, 

but as nameless numbers to be exploited for crass 

partisan ends. The roles are reversed. The 

citizens are the servants; the politicians, the 

masters.

Ladies and gentlemen, I find this to be 

an assault on the principles of representative 

democracy, and I would urge that you scrap this 

plan and move on to something that carries us 

toward the role of reason. Thank you.

MR. GARTLAN: Any questions?

MR. QUILLEN: Just one point. If you

look at the NAACP plan, I think, if I understand 

your criticism, whether it would be the 3rd or 

anything, you would be in the black district 

created either by the NAACP plan, or in 

particular I think in the plan here that you have 

before you. I mean I think as I understand it, 

the City of Richmond has in the NAACP plan 

142,000 otal population of which 105,000 is 

black, and the plan that we have before us today

is 142,000 of which 105,000 is black, so I think

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18
19

20
21
22
23

24

25

52

same. I misunderstood. Thank you.

HR. GARTLAN: All right. Mr. Tony

Dominquez, Prince William County.

MR. DOMINQUEZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm here as a common citizen, just a common man 

or woman. I do not represent any special 

interest, I do not represent any party 

specifically, I just came here as an individual 

that have deep concern.

I have a written statement which goes as 

follows-. Honorable Committee Members, I take 

this opportunity to bring to your attention my 

concern with regard your endeavor of remapping 

the congressional political landscape of the 

Commonwealth of Virginia, especially Prince 

William County, my local jurisdiction.

Before going further, I would like to 

say thanks for given us the opportunity to 

address the issues before you. Unlike in the 

budget, the common man and woman have at least, 

excuse me, have at least the opportunity to 

express cur view.

According with the working draft map for 

the plan and the table showing the locality and 

population on each district, the committee placed

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

53
the new 11th Congressional District across five 

county and three cities. One of those counties 

is Prince William.

I came to ask for the opportunity to 

have the local leadership to represent us in 

Congress since Prince William County and the 

cities of Manassas and Manassas Park population 

has increased enough in the past ten years to a 

grand total of 250,377 individuals. Given the 

facts that the ideal population for each 

congressional district is 562,487, the population 

growth means that the whole county could be 

contained in half of the new congressional 

district.

Prince William Icunty during the past 

decade have paid the price of having two 

congressional districts which in combination with 

the local political environment has divided the 

county into what is known as east or west end, 

having created a harmful status quo.

Northern Virginia have enough population 

to accommodate a better congressioniil alignment. 

There is no doubt about the fact that most of you 

still have burning hands from the backfire effect 

of the gerrymandering during the last General

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

54
Assembly redistricting.

The congressional district is, the 

congressional district plan, excuse me, working 

draft released on November 8th is an insult to 

Virginians, it is political retribution, and 

grossly unfair. It divide communities into three 

or more districts, and it was not only an abuse 

of trust, but an insult to the citizen 

intelligence .

Furthermore, it seems to be the priority 

of this committee is to perpetuate incumbency and 

the placement of partisanship over statesmanship. 

It is clear to us that all incumbent will remain 

in the general district area with most of the 

urban area in the heart of the district, and 

they, excuse me, and you are trying to fulfill 

the law by creating a new district in Northern 

Virginia and one with a black majority.

This is nothing but a fake maneuver to 

deprive the common man and woman such as myself 

in Northern Virginia or any minority in the new 

black district to be elected. Due to the 

geographic and to the extent of those districts 

it would be physically and financially impossible 
to win one of them.

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

68

generally discussed.

That is not to say that a district 

something lower than this might not be a viable 

black majority district in this part of Virginia.

HR. GARTLAN: Mr. Quillen.

MR. QUILLEN: I understand what you are

saying is can be analysis made of these plans 

that probably would give you more refined 

evidence as to whether or not they comply, but 

really the district that we had before you, there 

is really considerbly ...inaudible... by the 

Justice Department as the district that you have 

now before us with a 61, which is basically 

higher numbers than what we did in the 

legislative re apportionment, is that correct?

MR. WILLIS: First of all I don't want

to predict what Justice Department would do. If 

you submitted a 62 percent plan and we had a 66, 

we would probably write a letter to the Justice 

Department saying we think you did better, and 

I'd like to think that the Justice Department 

would listen to us, but they didn't before.

MR. QUILLEN: What concerns me about

this plan, if I look at the localities that you 

have gone into which are somewhat different, you

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13

14

15

1 6
17
18

19

20
21
22
2 3

24

25

88

whose names come later, Senator Scott-- Delegate 

Murphy and Senator Bobby Scott. I understand 

Senator Andrews that Mr. Murphy wanted to speak 

after you nave spoken, and it would be my 

intention after we hear Mr. Guest, because he has 

been on this list from the beginning virtually, 

that we then hear the rest of the nonlegislative 

witnesses, then with the exception of Mr. Murphy, 

the legislative members who are not members of 

the committee, and then the committee.

All right, Mr. Guest.

MR. GUEST: Am I suppose to be here or

off to the side?

Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, my late mama always told me you should 

try to start off by saying something nice about 

what's before you, so therefore I will say that 

unlike the House of Delegates plan which cut 

Rockingham County, nice rural community, into 

four pieces, this working paper only cuts them in 

half. Now we have got the nice stuff out of the 

way.

MR. GARTLAN: We are grateful for your

mother's admonition.

HR. GUEST: Yes. Looking at the

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

proposed 10th District and the proposed 7th 

District in particular, I notice that the 

gentleman who will be succeeding your committee 

colleague, Senator Truban, in office, will be 

serving districts that are in two congressional 

districts.

Then I saw much to my chagrin that also 

Delegate Hiller and I have the same problem. We 

would be serving folks either in the 10th and the 

7th or the 7th and the 6th Congressional 

Districts. And we really have enough meetings to 

go to without ...inaudible....

Going down the list of your communities,

I must note that it says part, and part, and 

part, and part in every single district. Now if 

we are looking at community of interest and we 

are looking at contiguity, we need fewer parts 

and more entities, especially in the smaller 

rural districts which do not make up a district 

in and of themselves that become a minor splinter 

of what is a larger congressional district.

I'll have to say that we all had a good 

laugh when the gentleman from Massachusetts whose 

name was put forth, but I would have to say also 

that the thinking of the National Democratic

89

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

Party has to have pervaded this committee because 

this plan has the squiggles and the blips and 

bloops and cutouts that we might expect to see in 

the California plan around the San Francisco Bay 

area, perhaps in New Jersey, perhaps in Chicago 

or elsewhere, but certainly outside thinking did 

pervade this plan.

And the partisan part which says looking 

back over the results in the House of Delegates 

race, and the reaction to that partisan 

gerrymander plan says go ahead and throw me in 

the briar patch, the problem is that the people 

will be stuck with what is finally enacted for 

the next ten years unless the court somehow or 

another decides that perhaps they would want to 

intervene in what is taken to be a partisan 

political game.

The 7th District the way it is proposed 

seems to squeeze through one, two, perhaps three 

small sphincter-1 ike valves to get from one end 

to the other. That's not trying to put together 

compactness or the contiguity or the unity of 

interest in the people.

The 1st District is somewhat 

indescribable. In polite company it's almost to

90

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

94

HR. EPSTEIN: A zero deviation?

HR. CROSHAW: Population deviation.

HR . EPSTEIN: Maybe you could explain

further.

HR. CROSHAW: You don't know what

deviation means?

HR. EPSTEIN: I know what deviation

means, but --

HR. CROSHAW: Federal courts ruled in

congressional redistricting there can't be 

variation in population numbers essentially, and 

at a very very minuscule level there is a 

presumption that the deviation is too wide, so 

therefore when you are doing congressional 

redistricting, even more so than legislative 

redistricting where there are more seats, there 

are bound to be divisions in communities because 

mathematical precision is required, and that's by 

federal courts and the federal Justice 

Department.

HR. EPSTEIN: We don't have any problem

with that, but when you look at the City of 

Newport News when you divide that up into three 

congressional districts, I think that's where we 

seriously have a problem. Hopefully the other

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

make a request, I don't think this was made of 

staff.

MR. GARTLAN: I think the question has

passed you by, Mr. Harris. Thank you very much.

And we appreciate it. Further question. I'm 

sorry, Mr. Croshaw.

MR. CROSHAW: Mr. Chairman, I would

simply like to request that maybe counsel in 

making their analysis that not only the numerical 

analysis be done but some voting history be done 

for minority candidates in those districts, 

because I'm not a believer that numbers alone 

will ever create any kind of minority 

representation, and I think that also is a 

scrutiny of the federal courts, so I think it_ 

ought to be in addition to numerically both past 

voting history in those areas.

MR. GARTLAN: All right. All right, now

along with legislative members of the audience, 

Senator Scott.

MR. SCOTT: Mr. Chairman, I just had a

couple of brief comments. One was to add, to get 

in line behind everybody else on the peninsula 

that had problems with Newport News being split 

two ways, and furthermore the split was frankly

103

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3
4

5

6
7

8
9
10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
2 3

24

25

along an unnatural line, I'm not sure exactly 

where the line was, but Mercury Boulevard, maybe 

Harpersville Road, maybe J. Clyde Morris, maybe 

Oyster Point Road would be clear demarcations 

that people would understand. I'm not sure 

exactly where this line came in.

But people don't see any constructive 

purpose being served with Newport News being 

divided twice into three different parts.

Second is the configuration in the 3rd, 

proposed 3rd Congressional District creates a 

district in terms of compactness that is, I think 

you have heard comments from others in Newport 

News, is unreasonably not compact. Certainly the 

Voting Rights Act doesn't require that land area, 

the ACLU, the NAAC? and others have shown 

configurations that are much more compact.

And finally I'd like to add my voice to 

those made by Delegate Melvin and Curtis Harris 

that a 65 percent, even a 60 percent district is 

more than, way more than enough to create an 

effective majority, minority majority in a 

district, and that we should look if possible to 

see, to look at the possibility of a second 

district being drawn perhaps in the area most of

104

CAPITOL REPORTING, INC.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

1
IN T'Br UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION

DONALD MOON and ROBERT SMITH 
vs.
M. BRUCE MEADOWS, et al.

CA# 3:95 CV942

April 18, 1996
. 7  Richmond, Virginiav ■* )  r \

The deposition of DONALD MOON, taken at the instance of 
the defendants, before Kathleen M. Harrison, a Notary Public 
for the State of Virginia at Large, beginning at 1:15 p.m., at 
the offices of Hirsh, Robinson, Sheiness & Glover, 700 East 
Main Street, Richmond, Virginia; said deposition taken 
pursuant to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

COOK & WILEY, INC. 
Registered Professional Reporters 

Post Office Box 14582 
Richmond, Virginia 23221 

(804) 359-1984



i
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

13
questions and you responded, is that it?

A Yes.
Q Any other radio appearances, TV appearances?
A No.
Q You gave us your address earlier in Hampton. About

how many houses are on your street?
A Probably someplace between 30 and 40.
Q How many black families live in houses on your 

street?
A One for sure I know right on the end of the street. 

If you turn the corner, there is another black family.
Q How long have you lived in Hampton?
A In Hampton itself 35 years.
Q Where did you live before Hampton?
A Newport News.
Q How about before Newport News?
A United States Navy.
Q Based in Newport News?
A Well, based all over the world but principally out 

of Hampton Roads.
Q You were born where?
A Salinas, California.
Q When did you then first move to Virginia?
A 1945.
Q Was that in the military or your family came here?

COOK & WILEY, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20
21
22
23

24

25

1 8

Q Are you a member of a church in Hampton?
A Yes.
Q What church would that be?
A Bethany United Methodist Church.
Q Where is that church located?
A On Todds Lane. That’s the best I can do.
Q How many members —  well, not members. But on an 

average Sunday, how many folks attend your church?
A I'd say several hundred.
Q On an average Sunday, how many black people attend 

church at your church?
A Half a dozen or so including the mixed blood 

pastor's two children.
Q The mixed blood pastor's two children, is that what 

you said?
A He's adopted two children.
Q The pastor is of mixed blood or his children are?
A His children.
Q Do you belong to any social or civic organizations 

at Hampton?
A I belong to the Republican party of Hampton.
Q There is a separate city party?
A It's a city committee. I guess I'm still a member

of Big Brothers, Big Sisters, the Virginia peninsula. You 
want only those in Hampton?

COOK & WILEY, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10
11
12
13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22
23

24

25

3 8

Q

clause?
In what form did you make that plea for poverty

A Voice.
Q I mean in a meeting to the executive board?
A Yes.
Q Is there any such poverty clause for attending

conventions?
A Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
Q What determines whether there is or is not?
A A vote of the unit that's issuing a call for

convention.
Q Have you ever participated in the redistricting

process for any legislative body?
A The 1991. I guess I attended the meetings in '90 as

an interested spectator and as a person who wanted to speak 
but didn't get a chance.

Q You said you attended meetings regarding the 1990. 
What meetings were those?

A The committees from both the senate and house that 
were acting on redistricting.

Q Were these meetings or legislative sessions?
A Both.
Q The sessions here in Richmond?
A Yes.
Q Did you attend any public hearings?

COOK & WILEY, INC.



1
2
3

4

5

6
7

8
9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22
23

24

25

39
A No.
Q Did you present any plans during any part of the 

1990 redistricting process?
A No.
Q Am I correct that during the 1990 redistricting

process, you were the Third Congressional District Committee 
or was that after?

A I was Congressional Committee after the 
redistricting.

Q To your knowledge were there any plans put forth in 
the legislature by Republican members of the General Assembly?

A I have no knowledge of that. I'm sure there were 
but I couldn't quote it.

Q So you had no contact with Republican legislators
during the redistricting process?

A Other than hearing me hollering and screaming.
Q You were hollering and screaming about what?
A That's a phrase. Other than me speaking against it.
Q And what form did you speak against it?
A Just speaking out wherever they'd listen to me and

let me speak, which wasn't too often because the hearings were 
mostly closed.

Q Which hearings are you referring to?
A Legislative hearings on the redistricting.
Q Who was your state senator at the time?

COOK & WILEY, INC.



1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

10

11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22
23
24
25

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA 

RICHMOND DIVISION

DONALD MOON )
and ROBERT SMITH, )

)Plaintiffs, )
)V. ) No. 3:95 CV 942
)M. BRUCE MEADOWS, )
)Defendant, )
)and )
)CURTIS W. HARRIS; et al., )
)Defendant-Intervenors. )

DEPOSITION UPON ORAL EXAMINATION 
OF ROBERT ALEXANDER SMITH,

TAKEN ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS

Norfolk, Virginia 
April 19, 1996

ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN
London, England Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10

11

12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22

23
24
25

16

effect —  in existence.
Q. And what percentage of the students at those

schools that you just named were black?
A. Titustown was mixed, because students from

the military compound known as Benmorell attended there as 
well. Of course, you/re talking about something some 35 
years ago. But it was a mixed class there, but there were 
more blacks than whites; I can state that.

Lindenwood was exclusively black, as was 
Jacox. From a racial standpoint, the first white 
instructor I encountered was at Jacox.

Granby High School was, I would say, was 
predominantly white when we integrated in '70, though there 
had been some minimal integration previously. My aunt 
attended Granby, so that's how I can speak towards that.

Q. And when you were growing up —  you live in
the same neighborhood, you said, where you grew up?

A. Yes.
Q. Yeah.

When you were growing up, how many —  well, 
about how many houses or people live on the street where 
you live or lived as a child? Is it independent houses or 
apartment buildings --

A. Well, no. It's all independent houses.
Q. Okay. I'll ask it in terms of houses.

ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN
London, England Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



1
2
3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11
12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21
22
23

24

25

17

About how many houses on your street?
A. Fifteen.
Q. Okay. And to the best you can recall, when

you were a child of those, how many white families lived in 
those houses?

A. None.
Q . And today, how many white families live in

the houses on your street?
A. No white families, but there is a white

resident who is living with a young man on that street.
Q . Do you have children?
A. Yes. I have a nine-year-old son.
Q . And where does he go to school now?
A. Sherwood Forest Elementary.

Q . And is that in your neighborhood or —
A. No, no. My son -- my son's mother and I are

divorced, and they live maybe five miles from where I live.

Q . Do you belong to a church here in Norfolk?
A. Yes, I'm a —

Q . And what church would that be?
A. Mount Olive Baptist Church.

Q . And where is that church located?
A. In Lindenwood a whole block from where I

live. Real convenient. As a matter of fact, the original 
church was right across the street from where I live.

ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN
London, England Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10

11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22
23
24
25

18

Q. Didn't have to get up too early to get to
service, do you?

A. No, I didn't; no, I don't.
Q. That's good.

On an average Sunday, how many folks attend 
church at Mount Olive Baptist?

A. Oh, between —  I'd say between 125 and 150.
Q. And on an average Sunday, how many white

people attend church at your church?
A. None, on an average.
Q. Are there predominantly white Baptist

churches here in Norfolk?
A. Yes.
Q. What would some of those be?
A. Oh, let's see. There's —  this may sound

bad, because I guess this is kind of the state of religion 
in this country, that I can't, off the top of my head —  I 
mean, there's First Baptist of Norfolk, but —  and that is 
predominantly white. There are black members there. I 
know people who are members there that are black.
Freemason Street Baptist Church in downtown Norfolk.

Q. That's a predominantly white church?
A. Yes. There's Tabernacle Church which is on

Granby Street here in Norfolk. And there's another —  I 
can't think of the name. It's on South Newtown Road here

ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN
London, England Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10

11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22
23
24
25

40

Q. Okay.
A. The third district convention.
Q. Okay. And were you required to pay a

registration fee to attend that convention?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you pay that yourself, or did a

political campaign pay that for you?
A. I paid myself. I wrote my check that day,

as a matter of fact.
Q. Did you attend prior nominating conventions

where a fee was required?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. Has it been required at every convention

you've attended?
A. Yes, ma'am. I think it's as part of the

party bylaws, fees are incumbent.
Q. Have you ever participated in the

redistricting process for a legislative body?
A. No.

Q. Did you participate in the 1980's state
redistricting process?

A. Other than being included in the census, no.

Q. Did you participate in the 1990's
reapportionment process in any way?

A. No.

London,
ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN

England Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10

11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22

23
24
25

41

Q- Did you attend any public hearings about
congressional redistricting?

A. No.
Q. Did you present any plans to the legislature

or to your elected representatives?
A. Nope.
Q. Did you follow the redistricting process?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And how did you follow the redistricting

process?
A. Primarily through the media reports.
Q. Did you attend any legislative sessions in

Richmond?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. To your knowledge, did Republican members of

the General Assembly put forward any congressional 
redistricting proposals?

A. To my knowledge, I would have to say no,
because I —  I mean, just to my knowledge, no. I don't 
recall them putting forth any, in light of the fact that 
they were minority in both houses. It would have been an 
exercise in futility anyway, but that's neither here nor 
there.

Q. So it's your view that a political minority
—  the exercise —  the attempt to participate in the

ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN
London, England Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



1
2
3
4

5
6

7
8

9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22

23
24
25

84

A. Okay. And that is a predominantly white
neighborhood, but there are some blacks. As a matter of 
fact, one of the school board members who's a friend of 
mine lives over there.

Q. And before it was raised, was that a
predominantly black neighborhood?

A. No. It was really —  it was rather equally
mixed at that time.

Q. I believe you indicated that you followed
the 1990s redistricting process primarily through the 
newspapers —

A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. —  is that true?

Do you know to what extent partisan politics 
factored into that process?

A. I don't know the extent to which it factored
into it, but to dismiss partisan politics as part of the ■—  

as having an impact I think would be naive.
Both state houses and the governor's office 

were occupied by Democrats. And if anyone knows anything 
about the inner-workings of the Virginia General Assembly 
under the control of the Democrats, Republicans have been 
treated, to use a phrase like "red-headed stepchildren."
And when it came —  whether you're talking about committee 
assignments or the introduction of legislation, they have

ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN
London, England Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



1
2
3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22

23
24
25

85

been voiceless. Basically, until recently, as Republicans 
have begun to gain more parity in the House of Delegates —  

I mean, well, in the General Assembly. Excuse me.
Q. Would you agree that there are significant

socioeconomic differences between blacks and whites in 
Virginia?

A. No. Because I've had occasion to observe
blacks and whites at both ends of the socioeconomic 
spectrum. I would -—  I would agree that in Norfolk there 
is a great —  as a matter of percentage of population, more 
blacks are at the —  at the lower socioeconomic scale than 
probably whites.

Q. We talked about your public school education
here in Norfolk. From your experience, was race 
segregation in the schools, was that readily embraced in 
the city of Norfolk?

A. I'm familiar with the massive resistance in
the sense that I've read on it. I was too young to go to 
school at the time. As far as the embracing of racial 
segregation, I would say that it was an accepted practice, 
pretty much so like you segregate —  racial segregation in 
churches is an accepted —  it's practiced.

My take on the circumstances of racial 
segregation in any —  and especially if you talk about the 
incorporation of a city, is that the key to it for me is

ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN
London, England Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



1

2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10

11

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21
22

23
24
25

95

that. We are Republicans who are black who feel the need 
to be able to associate freely with others of our ilk.

Q. What does your identity as blacks imply in
terms of the rest of the parties? Is there any implication 
in terms of the rest of the Republican party?

A. I would —  my response to that would be the
same in relation to her question (indicating) about the 
Republican members who belong to the congressional black 
caucus, and that is the attitude is basically: so what.

Q. That's your —
A. No. That's their attitude towards us: so

what. I mean, we are still Republicans, but we don't have 
an agenda that is exclusive to the larger agenda of the —  

of the —  of the Republican Party of Virginia.
Q. In 1989, your election campaign that was

run, you indicated that you won your precinct. I'm curious 
as to what sources did you use to analyze your voting 
results?

A. Well, the Virginian Pilot prints a election
aftermath summary every year, and so basically it's just a 
line item. You look down the precincts and you see how you 
did. And the only one that I won in '89 was Lindenwood.

Q. Okay. Did you have any other political
assistance or analysts working for you at that time?

A. Before or after the election?

ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN
London, England Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



1

2
3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10

11
12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22

23
24
25

96

Q. Before the election and after the election.
A. No. Because I, one, I didn't have the money

to do so and, number two, I think —  I think a lot of the 
hired guns in politics are a waste of money.

Q. Did you consult anyone —
A. No.

Q. -- regardless of payment?
A. No, I didn't. I was working as an

independent. I think that one needs to clarify that. And
when you talk about the political spectrum, most people 
gravitate to one or the other of the two major parties. So 
there really wasn't anyone out there for me to consult.

Now, I will say that some of my Republican 
friends approached me about running as a Republican, and I 
made an attempt to do that, but the then-chairman in the 
city of Norfolk refused to let me apply to be nominated.
So I ran as an independent, and I beat her candidate.

Q. What was the basis of that refusal?

A. Racism.

Q. Within the Republican party?

A. With this person.

Q. With this person?
A. Yes.

Q. And what was the race of that person?

A. White.

London,
ZAHN, HALL & ZAHN

England Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



1
2

3
4
5
6

7
8

9
10

11

12

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

21

22
23
24
25

106

redistricting.
Q. On what do you base —
A. That's the way the districts were drawn,

quite simply. They drew him out. It's —  trust me. That 
is a very old and established political practice. You 
reward your friends; you punish your enemies. And they put 
two Republicans in the same district.

Q. When you say “they," you are referring —
A. The Democratic legislature in Virginia. And

Mr. Allen lost his seat, so he ran for governor instead.
Q* In response to Interrogatory Number 4, you

were asked to identify any lay witnesses that you may call 
at the trial. You indicated yourself and Mr. Moon and no 
other witnesses had been identified at that time. Are you 
personally aware of any other lay witnesses that are 
available for trial?

A. No, ma'am.
Q. Okay. Have you engaged in any efforts
A. —  recruit?
Q. -- recruit any?
A. No, ma'am.
Q. You attended Old Dominion University?
A. Yes, ma'am.
Q. And Norfolk State University?
A. Yes, ma'am.

London,
ZAHN, HALL

England
& ZAHN

Norfolk, Virginia
Tel. (804) 627-6554 Fax (804) 625-7077



ATTACHMENT 15
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF 1991 VIRGINIA CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING

As outlined recently in prior submissions for Virginia's 
state legislative redistricting plans, the advance preparation 
for the decennial congressional and legislative redistricting 
began in 1986 when the General Assembly established a Joint 
Reapportionment Committee to plan for 1991 redistricting. The 
Joint Committee subsequently authorized participation in Phases I 
and II of the U.S. Census Bureau precinct redistricting project, 
space allocation, and acquisition of a computer-assisted mapping 
and redistricting system.

The Constitution of Virginia, in Art. II, § 6, recognizes 
that both state legislative and congressional districts must be 
redrawn in 1991. The election schedule in Virginia required 
elections in 1991 from newly drawn state legislative districts, 
however, while post-redistricting congressional elections will 
not be held until 1992. Because of this election schedule, the 
General Assembly first redistricted the state legislative dis­
tricts and scheduled congressional redistricting to begin in 
November, 1991.

This Attachment provides a chronology that identifies the 
legislative actions and proposals resulting in the enactment of 
the new congressional district boundaries in Chapter 6, 1991 Va. 
Acts (Spec. Sess. II) ("Chapter 6") on December 9, 1991, and 
their final approval by Governor Lawrence Douglas Wilder on 
December 11, 1991.



November 1990 through January 1991
In November 1990, the Virginia Division of Legislative Ser­

vices published and circulated estimated population statistics 
for each congressional district in its redistricting newsletter, 
Drawing the Line (Issue 2).

In January 1991, Virginia received notice that it would gain 
an 11th congressional seat. Official 1990 census statistics for 
the existing congressional districts were published and circu­
lated in January 1991 in Drawing the Line (Issue 3). See Plan 
C0003000. [Each congressional redistricting plan is identified 
by a plan number beginning with the letter "C." The TABLE at the 
end of this chronology lists each plan, its sponsor, the date the 
plan was introduced or made public, its plan number, and the 
black percentage of total population and voting age population 
("VAP") for each majority black district in the plan.]

In House Joint Resolution No. 282, the 1991 Regular Session 
of the Virginia General Assembly established November 18, 1991, 
as the date to reconvene in special session to redraw congres­
sional district boundaries.

August 1991 through September 1991
In August 1991, the chairmen of the Privileges and Elections 

Committees of the Virginia Senate and House of Delegates, Senator 
Joseph V. Gartlan, Jr. (D-Fairfax County) and Delegate Ford C. 
Quillen (D-Scott County), directed committee staff to invite the 
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People 
("NAACP"), the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU"), and

-2-



Virginia's congressional delegation to use the General Assembly's 
computer-assisted redistricting system for preparing suggested 
congressional district plans and to submit plans for the Commit­
tee's consideration in advance of the November 18 Special Session 
of the General Assembly.

The committee chairmen also scheduled the first joint public 
hearing on congressional redistricting for Friday, October 11, 
1991, and directed that widespread advance notice be given for 
the hearing, which was done.

October 11, 1991, Public Hearing
The Virginia NAACP and ACLU presented similar proposals for 

one majority black congressional district combining black popula­
tion concentrations in urban areas (Henrico County and the Cities 
of Richmond, Petersburg, Norfolk, Newport News, Hampton, Ports­
mouth, and Chesapeake) linked by more rural areas along the James 
River.

The ACLU's proposed district (CO564750) contained 66.2% 
total black population and 63.1% black VAP. The NAACP's draft 
district (CO567750) had 65.4% total black population and 62.1% 
black VAP.

Statewide proposals were offered by 8th Congressional Dis­
trict Democratic Party Chairman, George Rawlings, and American 
Party Chairman, A1 Moore. (Subsequent analysis by committee 
staff demonstrated that each of these two proposals included one 
black majority district with approximately 54% total black popu­
lation . )

-3-



Under each of the four proposals described above, an incum­
bent member of Congress resided in the black majority district —  

Congressman Sisisky in the ACLU, NAACP, and American Party plans 
and Congressman Bateman in the Rawlings plan.

Delegate Kenneth Melvin (D-Portsmouth and member of the 
House Privileges and Elections Committee and the Black Caucus of 
the General Assembly) and Senator Robert C. Scott (D-Newport News 
and also a member of the Black Caucus) suggested that considera­
tion should be given to a combination of a 55% black majority 
district and a 45% black influence district, as an alternative to 
one 55% majority district.

November 7 and 8, 1991
The Joint Committees conducted two public hearings, one in 

Northern Virginia on November 7 and a second in Tidewater on 
November 8, which elicited no new proposals.

Later on November 8, Committee Chairmen Gartlan and Quillen 
released a November 8, 1991 working draft plan (C0596750) and 
announced that the Committees would hold a joint public hearing 
in Richmond on Wednesday, November 13, 1991, to receive alterna­
tive proposals to, and comments on, the working draft plan. 
Information describing the working draft plan and notice of the 
hearing were circulated through news releases and the Drawing the 
Line mailing list.

The November 8 , 1991 working draft plan contained an open
District 11 anchored in Fairfax County and a black majority Dis-
trict 3 (61.5% total black population and 58.5% black VAP) that

- 4 -



included portions of Henrico County and the Cities of Richmond, 
Hampton, Newport News, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Petersburg, and all 
or portions of 11 other localities. Congressman Herbert H. 
Bateman (R-Newport News) resided in proposed District 3. No 
members of Congress were combined in any district. Under the 
working draft plan, District 4 contained 33.3% total black popu­
lation and 31.9% black VAP. Congressman Norman Sisisky
(D - Petersburg) was the incumbent in District 4.

November 13, 1991
The Privileges and Elections Committees of the Senate and 

House of Delegates met jointly at 1:30 p.m. Four new plans were 
introduced:

1. A new ACLU three-district plan (C0609777). In response 
to the working draft plan, the ACLU had drawn a proposed 
District 4 with a 33.0% black population (30.9% VAP) 
(with Congressman Sisisky as the resident incumbent) and 
a proposed District 3 with a 65.7% black majority (62.4% 
VAP) (with Congressman Bateman as the incumbent). The 
proposed District 4 stretched from Henry County into 
Virginia Beach.

2. A new NAACP three-district plan (C0608721). The NAACP 
revision included 33.6% black population (31.6% VAP) in 
its District 3 (an open seat) in southside Virginia, the 
area from Henry County into Chesapeake, and a 66.6% 
black majority (63.5% VAP) in its proposed District 1 
(with Congressman Sisisky as the incumbent).

- 5 -



3. A three-district proposal offered by Senator Andrews
(D-Hampton) (C0605101). This proposal contained an open 
black majority District 11 (60.3% of total population
and 57.0% VAP) , a District 1 configured similarly to 
existing District 1, and a District 2 using portions of 
the City of Norfolk and all of the City of Virginia 
Beach. Under the Andrews proposal, Congressmen Bateman 
and Owen B. Pickett (D-Virginia Beach) were incumbents 
in Districts 1 and 2, respectively.

4. A statewide proposal offered by Delegate John C. Watkins
(R-Chesterfield) (C0565590). The Watkins proposal con­
tained a black majority District 11 (65.5% of total
population and 62.3% VAP). Delegate Watkins offered the 
plan with the understanding that the black majority seat
was an open district ( in fact , Congressman Sisisky ' s
precinct was included in the district) and that no
incumbent congressmen were combined in any district.

At this meeting, there was further discussion of the possi­
bility of creating two districts with majority or close-to-major- 
ity black population concentrations.

Delegate Quillen commented that he would prefile the working 
draft plan to have it available for House Privileges and Elec­
tions Committee consideration at a meeting Sunday, November 17. 
Senator Gartlan advised that the Senate Privileges and Elections 
Committee would meet at 10:00 a.m. on Monday, November 18, to 
consider the plan contained in the working draft and proposed 
revisions to it.

-6-



November 14, 1991
Delegate Quillen prefiled House Bill No. 4001, the November 

8, 1991 working draft plan (CO596750). Delegate Watkins prefiled 
House Bill No. 4002 (C0611590), a slightly revised version of the 
plan he had presented on November 13.

November 17 and 18, 1991
The House Committee met November 17 and heard comments and 

testimony on the working draft plan. The Senate Committee met 
November 18 and took under advisement a number of suggested 
revisions in the working draft plan.

Senator Kevin G. Miller (R-Harrisonburg) filed Senate Bill 
No. 2003 (C0642126) and presented it to the Senate Privileges and 
Elections Committee. This proposal incorporated Senator Andrews' 
three-district proposal (including a 60.3% black majority dis­
trict) into a statewide proposal. It also differed significantly 
from the working draft plan in the Richmond and Northern Virginia 
areas.

At an afternoon House Privileges and Elections Committee 
meeting on November 18, 1991, Delegate Watkins presented a 
revised plan (C0637590) which was drawn to incorporate various 
revisions discussed in earlier committee meetings. The black 
majority District 11 contained 65.8% total black population and 
62.6% black VAP.

Delegate Melvin filed a two-district proposal drawn by com­
mittee staff to approach, as closely as possible, two 55% black 
majority districts (C0640517). The black percentages for the two

- 7 -



districts were 55.7% (52.8% VAP) and 52.1% (49.4% VAP). On 
behalf of the Black Caucus, Delegate Melvin reported that the 
caucus was seeking a 60% black majority district and 45%+ black 
influence district in the areas covered by the two districts.

November 19, 1990 - Senate Privileges and Elections Committee
The Senate Privileges and Elections Committee began its 

afternoon meeting with a staff review of a revised working draft 
plan entitled "Amendments to Working Draft" (CG628118). This 
plan incorporated a number of changes discussed earlier in Com­
mittee meetings affecting Patrick County, the District 1 and 3 
boundary in Newport News and Hampton, Norfolk precincts, and 
Falls Church. The plan included an open District 3 with a 61.1% 
black majority (58.1% VAP) and retained an open Northern Virginia 
District 11. Congressman Bateman was the incumbent in 
District 1. Congressmen Bliley and Allen were combined in Dis­
trict 7 .

Senator Charles L. Waddell (D-Loudoun) presented a plan 
(C0648136) which combined Senator Andrews' three-district plan 
with elements of Senator Miller's plan and combined Congressmen 
Bliley and Allen in a central Virginia District 3. Under Senator 
Waddell's Plan, both the black majority District 11 and the newly 
drawn District 7 would be open seats.

Senator Elmo G. Cross, Jr. (D-Hanover) proposed amendments 
to combine Senator Andrews' three-district plan with elements of 
the original working draft plan and to redraw Districts 4, 7, 10, 
and 11.

- 8 -



The Committee rejected the Kevin Miller, Waddell and Cross 
proposals and reported the amended working draft plan (C0628118) 
with amendments proposed by or on behalf of Senators Madison E. 
Marye (D-Montgomery) , Andrews, C. A. Holland (D-Virginia Beach), 
Kevin Miller, Yvonne B. Miller (D-Norfolk), and R. Edward Houck 
(D-Spotsylvania). The committee substitute was reported by a 10- 
4 vote (Plan C0679888). The open black majority District 3 con­
tained a 60.9% black majority (57.9% VAP), a slight reduction due 
to amendments proposed by Senator Yvonne Miller for the Norfolk 
area.

November 19, 1990 - House Privileges and Elections Committee
At its morning session, the House Privileges and Elections 

Committee heard Delegate William P. Robinson, Jr.'s (D-Norfolk) 
report on the Black Caucus Plan (C0653750 ). This plan was a 
follow-up to Delegate Melvin's two-district plan. The Black 
Caucus Plan revised the working draft plan: (i) to include 60.3% 
black majority District 3; (ii) to increase the black percentage 
in District 4 to 36.8%; and (iii) to add the Eastern Shore coun­
ties to District 2 (to replace Norfolk population shifted to 
District 3). The plan differed from Delegate Melvin's Plan by 
retaining the working draft boundary between Districts 4 and 5 
and not extending District 4 west into additional southside coun­
ties .

In the afternoon session, Delegate Quillen presented plan 
C0643552 incorporating revisions to the working draft plan as a 
vehicle for discussion and amendment. This revised plan incor­

- 9 -



porated changes affecting a number of localities and amendments 
earlier proposed to the Committee. The proposed black majority 
District 3 remained similar to the working draft plan (with minor 
adjustments affecting, for example, Richmond County and the line 
in the Cities of Norfolk and Newport News).

Under the revision, District 3 became an open district (Con­
gressman Bateman was the resident incumbent in District 1, and 
Congressmen Bliley and Allen were combined in District 7), and 
District 3 contained 61.6% total black population and 58.6% black 
VAP. District 4 contained 32.3% and 30.8% black total and voting 
age populations.

The Committee voted to reject Delegate Watkins' House Bill 
No. 4002 as its working draft, voted to adopt the Delegate 
Quillen's revision, and then voted on a series of amendments to 
that revised plan. At the conclusion of the meeting, the Commit­
tee reported, by a vote of 11-7, a substitute for House Bill 4001 
incorporating Delegate Quillen's revision and approved amend­
ments. The reported substitute is Plan C0680552. The combina­
tion of the revised plan and approved amendments reduced the 
black population in District 3 to 60.4% of total population and 
57.3% of voting age population. The reduction in percentages 
from Plan C0643552 was due primarily to an amendment by Delegate 
Melvin affecting Petersburg and Portsmouth precincts.

November 20, 1991 - Senate
The Senate convened in the morning. Substitute legislation 

offered by Senator Robert Russell (R-Chesterfield) (C0667146) and

- 1 0 -



Senator Waddell (C0648136) failed by votes of 13-25 and 17-20, 
respectively. The Russell Substitute was identical to Plan 
C0637590 offered on November 18 by Delegate Watkins in the House 
Privileges and Elections Committee meeting and later on November 
20 on the floor of the House of Delegates. Senator Waddell's 
Plan was the same as the plan he previously had offered to the 
Senate Privileges and Elections Committee and was defeated on 
November 19.

The Senate defeated amendments by Senator William E. Fears 
(D-Accomac) to move Congressman Bateman into District 3 and by 
Senator Cross to reunite Hanover and reconfigure major portions 
of the Committee Substitute Plan. Three minor amendments were 
approved, and the amended committee substitute passed the Senate 
by a 24-14 vote.

November 20, 1991 - House of Delegates
The House Privileges and Elections Committee received the 

engrossed Senate Bill 2003 (C0697750) and reported out a substi­
tute —  the same plan (C0630552) it had earlier reported for 
House Bill 4001 . Action then proceeded on Senate Bill 2003 in 
the House of Delegates. The House rejected Delegate Watkins' 
Substitute (C0637590) by a 38-52 vote and adopted the Committee 
Substitute. It defeated two floor amendments and approved an 
amendment by Delegate Melvin. The effect of the Melvin amendment 
(C0689517) was to reverse his earlier amendment approved in Com­
mittee and to increase the black population in District 3 to 
51.3% of total population and 58.3 VAP.



The House of Delegates passed the amended substitute by a 
vote of 53-39.

November 20, 1991 - Senate and House of Delegates Conferees
The Senate and House of Delegates put the bill in confer­

ence. Later that night the conferees reported plan C0705552 to 
resolve the areas in conflict —  primarily in Northern Virginia 
and in the Northern Neck area. District 3 was not in dispute and 
only was affected insofar as necessary to retain zero population 
deviations. As proposed by the conferees, District 3 had a 61.5% 
black majority of total population and a 58.5% black VAP.

The conferees' report was approved 23-9 in the Senate and 
50-36 in the House of Delegates. All black members were present 
and voted for the conferees' report except Delegate Jean 
Cunningham (D-Richmond) who was not present to vote.

November 21 through December 11, 1991 - Governor Wilder's Substi­
tute Amendment

Following criticism of the three-way division of the City of 
Richmond and Henrico County and his review of Senate Bill 2003, 
Governor Lawrence Douglas Wilder returned the bill to the General 
Assembly on December 2 with a substitute. The key elements of 
the Governor's substitute (C0723750) were to: (i) increase the
percentage of black population in District 3 by adjustments in 
the City of Norfolk between Districts 2 and 3; (ii) eliminate 
three-way divisions of the Cities of Richmond and Newport News

- 1 2 -



and Henrico County; (iii) draw a more compact District 7; and 
(iv) reduce the population deviations among the districts.

As proposed by the Governor, District 3 contains 63.98% 
total black population and 61.17% black voting age population.

The General Assembly met on December 9. The House of Dele­
gates and Senate Privileges and Elections Committees met jointly 
for an information session on the Governor's proposal.

The Senate voted to adopt the Governor's substitute by a 
vote of 22-16, and the House of Delegates agreed by a vote of 42- 
41. All ten black members of the General Assembly were present 
and voted in favor of the Governor's substitute.

On December 11, Governor Wilder signed Senate Bill 2003 as 
amended and reenrolled, and plan C0723750 became Chapter 6.

- 1 3 -



TABLE
LIST OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT PLANS

Black Majority Districts
Plan Name Plan Number Black Percentage Black Percentage
Sponsor of Total of VAPDate Offered Population

1980 Districts C0003000 N/A N/A
ACLLJ One-District 
Plan —  10/11/91

C0564750 66.22 63.13

NAACP Two-District 
Plan —  10/11/91

C0567750 65.38 62.15

Working Draft 
Gartlan/Quillen 
11/8/91 —  HB 4001

C0596750 61.51 58.56

ACLU Three-District 
11/13/91

C0609777 65.74 62.39

NAACP Three-District 
11/13/91

C0608721 66.61 63.47

Senator Andrews 
Three-District Plan 
11/13/91

C0605101 60.35 57.05

Delegate Watkins 
Plan —  11/13/91

C0565590 65.53 62.26

Delegate Watkins 
Plan —  11/14/91 
HB 4002

C0611590 65.63 62.37

Senator K. Miller 
Plan —  11/18/91 
SB 2003 (introduced)

C0642126 60.35 57.05

Delegate Watkins C0637590
Revised Plan
11/18/91
Floor Sub. for SB 2003 
Also Senator Russell 
Plan —  11/20/91 
Floor Sub. for SB 2003

65.81 62.64

-14-



Delegate Melvin C0640517
Two-District Plan
11/18/91

55.68
52.09

52.75
49.42

Senate Committee C0628118 
Amended Working 
Draft —  11/19/91

61.07 58.12

Senator Waddell C0648136 
Plan —  11/19/91

60.35 57.05

Senate Comm. Sub. C0679888
for SB 2003
11/19/91

60.86 57.87

Black Caucus Plan C0653750 
11/19/91

60.26 57.33

House Committee C0643552 
Revised Working 
Draft —  11/19/91

61.59 58.64

House Comm. Sub. C0680552 
for HB 4001 and 
for SB 2003 
11/19/91

60.43 57.34

SB 2003 as passed C0697750
by the Senate
11/20/91

60.86 57.87

Melvin Floor C0689517 
Amendment for 
House Comm. Sub.
11/20/91

61.28 58.30

Conferees' Report C0705552 
11/20/91

61.48 58.50

Governor's C0723750 
Substitute - 12/2/91 
Agreed to 12/9/91 
Signed 12/11/91 
Chapter 6, 1991 Acts 
(Special Session II)

63.98 61.17

NOTE: These plans also are being submitted in computer-readable f o

- 1 5 -



Apr-23-96  01:1 IP  tJ. G e ra ld  Hebert (703) 684-3586 P . 28

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Rights Division

Appellate Section 
P  0 . Box 66078

Washington, D  C. 20035-6078

April 3, 1996

J. Gerald Hebert, Esq.
800 Parkway Terrace 
Alexandria, Virginia 22302

Re: Moon v. Meadows, C.A. No. 3:95CV 942 (E.D. Va.)
Dear Mr. Hebert:

This is in response to your request for my opinion 
concerning whether it would be permissible for you to work on the 
above-referenced case as a private practitioner. This case is a 
challenge to the congressional reapportionment plan in Virginia. 
You have indicated that you served as an attorney in the Voting 
Section of the Civil Rights Division until May 31, 1994.

As we have discussed, the pertinent post-employment 
restrictions are found at 18 U.S.C. 207(a)(1) and (2). Section 
207(a) (1) prohibits you from representing anyone before the 
government on a particular matter involving specific parties in 
which you participated personally and substantially while with 
the government. Section 207(a) (2) prohibits you for two years 
from representing another person on a particular matter involving 
specific parties which you know was pending under your 
responsibility for the last year of your government service.

You stated in your letter that the Moon case was filed in 
November 1995, after you left the Voting Section. You also 
indicated that you do not recall having any involvement in the 
Voting Section's review of Virginia's congressional redistricting 
plan under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, 
while an attorney in the Voting Section. Representatives of the 
Voting Section have stated that they do net believe that you were 
involved in the Section 5 review process while in the Voting 
Section, and a review of the Section's files revealed no such 
involvement. Based on the information I have been provided, your 
participation in this case would appear to violate neither 
Section 207(a) (1) nor Section 207(a) (2) .



2

Please feel free to call me at (202) 514-2195 if you have 
any questions regarding this case, or any other Voting Rights Act 
case that you may wish to handle in private practice.

Sincerely,

O' /
Dennis J. Dimsey &  

Deputy Designated Agency 
Ethics Official 

Civil Rights Division
c c :  William R. Yeomans 

Elizabeth Johnson



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

DONALD MOON and ROBERT SMITH, )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)

v. ) Civil No.3:95CV942
)

M. BRUCE MEADOWS, )
)

Defendant, )
)

and )
)

CURTIS W. HARRIS; JAYNE W. BARNARD, )
JEAN PATTERSON BOONE; RAYMOND H. BOONE; )
WILLIE J DELL; HENRY C. GARRARD, SR.; )
and GERALD T. ZERKTN, )

__________ Defendant-Intervenors._____________________

DECLARATION OF WILLIAM S. COOPER

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1746, I, William S. Cooper, make the following 
declaration:

1. I serve as a demographic consultant for the defendant-intervenors in this
lawsuit.

2. I have a BA degree in Economics from Davidson College, supplemented with 
graduate work in Urban and Regional Planning at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State 
University.

3. Since 1986, as an employee of the American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia, 
I have prepared redistricting maps in approximately 350 jurisdictions for Section 2 
litigation, Section 5 comment letters, and for use in other efforts to promote compliance 
with the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 1 have prepared election plans for Section 2 litigation



in Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, 
North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, Virginia, and Tennessee.

4. I have testified at trial as an expert witness on redistricting and demographics 
in federal courts in the following voting rights cases: Georgia (Woodard v. Lumber City , 
Love v. Deal, and Askew v, City of Rome): Louisiana (Knight v. McKeithen and Reno v, 
Virginia): Maryland (Cane v. Worcester Countv): Mississippi (Gunn v, Chickasaw 
County and Ewing v, Monroe County): Nebraska (Stabler v. Thurston Countv): 
Tennessee (Cousins v. McWherter and Rural West Tennessee African American Affairs 
Council v. McWherter): and Virginia (Henderson v. Richmond County. McDaniel v. 
Mehfoud. White v. Daniel, and Smith v. Brunswick County).

5. In addition, I have filed declarations or been deposed in the following voting 
rights cases: : Colorado (Cuthair v. Montezum-Cortez ), Florida (Johnson v. DeSoto 
County): Georgia (Jones v. Cook County. Cofield v. City of LaGrange. and Johnson v. 
Miller: Louisiana (Rodney v. McKeithen and Wilson v. Town of St. Francisville): 
Mississippi (Clark v. Calhoun County (on remand), NAACP v. Fordice. Teague v. Attala 
County (on remand), and Stanfield v. Lee County): North Carolina (Lewis v. Alamance 
County, Gause v. Brunswick County, and Webster v. Person Countv), and South 
Carolina (Vander Linden v. Campbell).

Census Block-Level Distribution of the African-American Population in Virginia

6. According to the 1990 census, Virginia has a population of 6,187,358, of 

whom 1,162,994 persons are African American. Virginia has a total voting age population 

of 4,682,620 and a black voting age population of 823,250. African Americans comprise 

18.8% of the total population and 17.6 % of the voting age population.

7. At the request of counsel for defendant-intervenors, 1 analyzed population by 

race at the census block-level for all of Virginia. This analysis is based on data from the 

1990 Bureau of the Census PL 94-171 data file -  the complete population count file used 

for reapportionment of legislative districts.

2



8. Of the 144,371 populated census blocks in Virginia, there are 14,681 where 

African Americans comprise more than 50% of the population. The total population in 

these majority-black census blocks is 833,688, with a black population of 688,1 12. Thus, 

in Virginia, about three of five African Americans (59.17%) live in majority-black census 

blocks.

9. About one-quarter of the African American population, (371,262 persons or 

24.29%), resides in the 8,418 census blocks that are over 90% black. About seven in 10 

non-black persons, (3,575,747 persons or 71.17%) live in 70,847 census blocks that are 

over 90% non-black. About one-third of non-black persons (1,723,999 persons or 

34.31%), reside in the 59,000 census blocks that do not contain any African Americans.

Socio-Economic Characteristics of Whites and African Americans in Virginia and 

the Third Congressional District (104lh)

10. At the request of counsel for defendant-intervenors, 1 prepared tables and bar 

charts comparing socio-economic characteristics of the population by race for Virginia and 

the Third Congressional District (104th), I extracted the data for these tables and charts 

from the 1990 Census o f  Population and  Housing Summary Tape File 3 A on CD -RO M  

(Virginia) and the 1990 Census o f  Population and  Housing Summary Tape File 3D 

(1995) on CD-ROM. I formatted the data and calculated the percentages using a 

computer spreadsheet, Microsoft Excel fo r  Windows. The bar charts were also prepared 

with Microsoft Excel.

11. The ten variables displayed in these tables and charts are listed below by 

variable ID code as defined by the Census Bureau.

3



P20. RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND PRESENCE AND 
AGE OF CHILDREN

P58. RACE BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT

P71. RACE BY SEX BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS

P82. RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989

P115A. PER CAPITA INCOME IN 1989 BY RACE

PI 19. POVERTY STATUS IN 1989 BY RACE BY AGE

H10, TENURE BY RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER

H39, RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY VEHICLES AVAILABLE

H45. RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY GROSS RENT

H66. RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY PLUMBING FACILITIES

PI 15A. PER CAPITA INCOME IN 1989 BY RACE

PI 19. POVERTY STATUS IN 1989 BY RACE BY AGE

H39. RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY VEHICLES AVAILABLE

12. The 1990 census reveals sharp socio-economic disparities between African 

Americans and whites in Virginia.

13. The 1990 census shows that the socio-economic characteristics for African 

Americans residing in the Third Congressional District mirror the low socio-economic 

status experienced by African Americans statewide..

14. In 1989, per capita income for white persons in Virginia was $17,361, per capita 

income for African Americans in Virginia was $9,439. Per capita income for African 

Americans in the Third Congressional District was $8,502.

4



15. In 1989, 7.38% of white persons (342,970) in Virginia lived below1 poverty 

level; 22.36% of African Americans (245,972) in Virginia lived below poverty level. In the 

Third Congressional District, 28.34% of African Americans (98,576) lived below poverty 

level.

16. In 1989, 8.53%, of white children under 5 years (27,179) in Virginia lived 

below poverty level; 34.73% of African American children under 5 years (33,873) in 

Virginia lived below poverty level. In the Third Congressional District, 46.23% of African 

American children under 5 years (14,847) lived below poverty.

17. In 1989, 8.69% of white children 5 years of age (5,509) in Virginia lived below 

poverty level; 34.24% of African American children 5 years of age (6,676) in Virginia 

lived below poverty level. In the Third Congressional District, 46,49% of African 

American children 5 years of age (2,945) lived below poverty level.

18. In 1989, 8.17% of white children 6 to 11 years of age (29,351) in Virginia 

lived below poverty level, 30.95% of African American children 6 to 11 years of age 

(35,111) in Virginia lived below poverty level. In the Third Congressional District,

41.71% of African American children 6 to 11 years of age (14,936) lived below poverty 

level.

19. In 1989, 7.68% of white children 12 to 17 years of age (26,331) in Virginia 

lived below poverty level, 26.51% of African American children 12 to 17 years of age 

(27,202) in Virginia lived below poverty level. In the Third Congressional District,

35.07% of African American children 12 to 17 years of age (10,944) lived below poverty 

level.

5



20. In 1989, 6.48% of white adults 18 to 64 years of age (196,988) in Virginia 

lived below poverty level; 17.00% of African American adults 18 to 64 years of age 

(113,230) in Virginia lived below poverty level. In the Third Congressional District, 

21.69% of African American adults 18 to 64 years of age (44,727) lived below poverty 

level.

21. In 1989, 8.58% of white adults 65 to 74 years of age (28,040) in Virginia lived 

below poverty level; 26.63% of African American adults 65 to 74 years of age (17,088) in 

Virginia lived below poverty level. In the Third Congressional District, 26.23% of African 

American adults 65 to 74 years of age (6,126) lived below poverty level.

22. In 1989, 15.37% of white adults 75 years of age and over (29,572) in Virginia 

lived below poverty level; 34.96% of African American adults 75 years of age and over 

(12,792) in Virginia lived below poverty level In the Third Congressional District, 31.61% 

of African American adults 75 years and older (4,001) lived below poverty level.

23. In 1989, 3.99% of white households (73,373) in Virginia had income of less 

than $5,000, 12.33% of African American households (48,234) in Virginia had income of 

less than $5,000. In the Third Congressional District, 16.49% of African American 

households (20,942) had income of less than $5,000

24. In 1989, 10.3% of white households (189,448) in Virginia had income of loss 

than $10,000; 23.92% of African American households (93,577) in Virginia had income of 

less than $10,000. In the Third Congressional District, 29.63% of African American 

households (37,619) had income of less than $10,000.

25. In 1989, 17.17% of white households (315,867) in Virginia had income of less 

than $15,000; 35.05% of African American households (137,129) in Virginia had income

6



of less than $15,000. In the Third Congressional District, 41.62% of African American 

households (52,849) had income of less than $15,000.

26. In 1989, the majority (67.4% or 1,240,526) of white households in Virginia 

had income of $25,000 or more; the majority of African American households (55.54% or 

217,302) in Virginia had income of $25,000 or less. In the Third Congressional District, 

61.54% of African American households (78,138) had income of less than $25,000.

27. In 1989, 51.65% of white households (950,681) in Virginia had income of 

$35,000 or more; 28.4% of African American households (111,118) in Virginia had 

income of $35,000 or more. In the Third Congressional District, 23.26% of African 

American households (29,540) had income of $35,000 or more.

28. In 1989, 31.99% of white households (588,808) in Virginia had income of 

$50,000 or more; 13.37% of African American households (52,319) in Virginia had 

income of $50,000 or more. In the Third Congressional District, 9.9% of African 

American households (12,577) had income of $50,000 or more.

29. In 1989, 13.44% of white households (247,385) in Virginia had income of 

$75,000 or more; 3.47% of African American households (13,589) in Virginia had income 

of $75,000 or more. In the Third Congressional District, 2.09% of African American 

households (2,651) had income of $75,000 or more.

30. In 1989, 6.06% of white households (111,563) in Virginia had income of 

$100,000 or more; 1.10% of African American households (4,312) in Virginia had income 

of $100,000 or more. In the Third Congressional District, 0.57% of African American 

households (724) had income of $100,000 or more.

7



31. In 1990, of 1,309,963 white family households in Virginia, 140,039 (10.69%) 

were female-headed households with no husband present. Of 282,714 African American 

family households in Virginia, 102,100 (36.1 1%) were female-headed households with no 

husband present. In the Third Congressional District, of 89,639 African American family 

households, 39,735 (44.33%) were female-headed households with no husband present.

32. In 1990, of 3,666,493 white persons 16 years and over in Virginia, 88,186 

(3.51%) were unemployed, of 821,563 African American persons 16 years and over in 

Virginia, 47,863 (8.93%) were unemployed. In the Third Congressional District, of 

258,932 African American persons 16 years and over, 16,912 (10.54%) were unemployed

33. In 1990, of 3,163,904 white persons 25 years and over in Virginia, 9,76% 

(308,766) had less than a 9th grade education, of 676,995 African American persons 25 

years and over in Virginia, 17.43% (118,013) had less than a 9th grade education. In the 

Third Congressional District, of 208,540 African American persons 25 years and over, 

16.13% (33,640) had less than a 9th grade education.

34. In 1990, of 3,163,904 white persons 25 years and over in Virginia, 21.71% 

(686,977) had less education than a high school diploma; of 676,995 African American 

persons 25 years and over in Virginia, 39.72% (268,893) had less education than a high 

school diploma. In the Third Congressional District, of 208,540 African American persons 

25 years and over, 41.58% (86,715) had less education than a high school diploma.

35. In 1990, of 3,163,904 white persons 25 years and over in Virginia, a majority 

(51.6% or 1,632,522) had some college education or more; of 676,995 African American 

persons 25 years and over in Virginia, a majority (67.4% or 456,293) had a high school

8



diploma or less. In the Third Congressional District, of 208,540 African American persons 

25 years and over, 69.17% (144,237) had a high school diploma or less.

36. In 1990, of 3,163,904 white persons 25 years and over in Virginia, 32.75% 

(1,036,123) had an associate's degree or more education; of 676,995 African American 

persons 25 years and over in Virginia, 15.27% (103,352) had an associate's degree or 

more education. In the Third Congressional District, of 208,540 African American persons 

25 years and over, 13.05% (27,218) had a an associate's degree or more education.

37. In 1990, of 3,163,904 white persons 25 years and over in Virginia, 16.92% 

(535,216) had a bachelor’s degree; of 676,995 African American persons 25 years and 

over in Virginia, 7.51% (50,841) had a bachelor's degree. In the Third Congressional 

District, of 208,540 African American persons 25 years and over, 6.43% (13,403) had a 

bachelor’s degree.

38. In 1990, of 3,163,904 white persons 25 years and over in Virginia, 26.98% 

(853,581) had a bachelor's degree or more education, of 676,995 African American 

persons 25 years and over in Virginia, 11.15% (75,472) had a bachelor's degree or more 

education. In the Third Congressional District, of 208,540 African American persons 25 

years and over, 9.2% (19,178) had a bachelor’s degree or more.

39. In 1990, of 3,163,904 white persons 25 years and over in Virginia, 10,06% 

(318,365) had a graduate or professional degree; of 676,995 African American persons 25 

years and over in Virginia, 3.64% (24,631) had a graduate or professional degree. In the 

Third Congressional District, of 208,540 African American persons 25 years and over, 

2.77% (5,775) had a graduate or professional degree.

9



40. In 1990, of 1,841,346 housing units occupied by white householders in 

Virginia, 1,296,422 (70.41%) were owner occupied and 544,924 (29.59%) were renter 

occupied; of 389,928 housing units occupied by African American householders in 

Virginia, 191,749 (49.18%) were owner occupied and 198,179 (50.82%) were renter 

occupied. In the Third Congressional District, of 127,647 housing units occupied by 

African American householders, 55,683 (43.62%) were owner occupied and 71,694 

(56.38%) were renter occupied.

41. In 1990, of 1,841,346 white occupied housing units, 112,359 (6.10%) had no 

vehicle available; of 389,928 African American occupied housing units, 88,454 (22.68%) 

had no vehicle available. In the Third Congressional District, of 127,647 African 

American occupied housing units, 39,428 (30.89%) had no vehicle available.

42. In 1990, of 1,841,346 white occupied housing units, 19,674 (1.07%) lacked 

complete plumbing facilities; of 389,928 African American occupied housing units,

15,553 (3.99%) lacked complete plumbing facilities. In the Third Congressional District, 

of 127,647 African American occupied housing units, 1,372 (1,07%) lack complete 

plumbing facilities

43. In 1990, of 523,538 white renter-occupied housing units, a majority (56.58% 

or 296,153) had a gross rent of $500 or more, of 193,798 African American renter 

occupied housing units, a majority (63.89% or 123,822) had a gross rent of $499 or less. 

In the Third Congressional District, of 71,060 African American renter occupied housing 

units, a majority (77.98% or 55,415) had a gross rent of $499 or less.

10



I declare under penalty of perjury that the above is true and correct

Executed at Richmond, Virginia this ;©_th day of May, 1996.

William S. Cooper



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3

Summary Level: State 
Virginia: FIPS STATE=51

PER CAPITA INCOME IN 1989 BY RACE 
Universe: Persons

Per capita income in 1989:

White $17,361
Black $9,439
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut $14,049
Asian or Pacific Islander $14,022
Other race $10,249
□



Per Capita Income In 1989 By Race -- Virginia

$18,000

$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$ 10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$ 0

Per Capita Income

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State 
Virginia: FIPS STATE=51

POVERTY STATUS IN 1989 BY RACE BY AGE 
Universe: Persons for whom poverty status is determined

Income in 1989 below poverty level:
Persons % by race

White:

Under 5 years 27,179 8.53%
5 years 5,509 8.69%
6 to 11 years 29,351 8.17%
12 to 17 years 26,331 7.68%
18 to 64 years 196,988 6.48%
65 to 74 years 28,040 8.58%
75 years and over 29,572 15.37%
All Ages 342,970 7.38%

Black:

Under 5 years 33,873 34.73%
5 years 6,676 34.24%
6 to 11 years 35,111 30.95%
12 to 17 years 27,202 26.51%
18 to 64 years 113,230 17.00%
65 to 74 years 17,088 26.63%
75 years and over 12,792 34.96%
All ages 245,972 22.36%



Poverty Status in 1989 by Race by Age -- Virginia

years years years years years and
over

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State 
Virginia: FIPS STATE=51

RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989 
Universe: Households

Households % by Race

White:

Less than $5,000 73,373 3.99%
$5,000 to $9,999 116,075 6.31%
$10,000 to $14,999 126,419 6.87%
$15,000 to $24,999 284,477 15.45%
$25,000 to $34,999 289,845 15.75%
$35,000 to $49,999 361,873 19.66%
$50,000 to $74,999 341,423 18.55%
$75,000 to $99,999 135,822 7.38%
$100,000 or more 111,563 6.06%

Total 1,840,870 100.00%

Black:

Less than $5,000 48,234 12.33%
$5,000 to $9,999 45,343 11.59%
$10,000 to $14,999 43,552 11.13%
$15,000 to $24,999 80,173 20.49%
$25,000 to $34,999 62,904 16.07%
$35,000 to $49,999 58,799 15.03%
$50,000 to $74,999 38,730 9.90%
$75,000 to $99,999 9,277 2.37%
$100,000 or more 4,312 1.10%

Total 391,324 100.00%



Race of Householder by Household Income in 1989 -- Virginia

$5,000 $9,999 $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State 
Virginia: FIPS STATE=51

RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND PRESENCE AND 
OF CHILDREN 
Universe: Households

Households % by Race

White:

Family households:

Married-couple family:
With own children under 18 years 515,405 39.35%
No own children under 18 years 607,524 46.38%
Total Married-couple 

Other family:
Male householder, no wife present:

1,122,929 85.72%

With own children under 18 years 19,768 1.51%
No own children under 18 years 27,227 2.08%
Total Male householder 46,995 3.59%

Female householder, no husband present:
With own children under 18 years 68,999 5.27%
No own children under 18 years 71,040 5.42%
Total Female householder 140,039 10.69%

Total Family households 1,309,963 100%

Nonfamily households 

Black:

Family households:

530,907

Married-couple family:
With own children under 18 years 84,485 29.88%
No own children under 18 years 78,291 27.69%
Total Married-couple 

Other family:
Male householder, no wife present:

162,776 57.58%

With own children under 18 years 6,909 2.44%
No own children under 18 years 10,929 3.87%
Total Male householder 17,838 6.31%

Female householder, no husband present:
With own children under 18 years 60,542 21,41%
No own children under 18 years 41,558 14.70%
Total Female householder 102,100 36.11%

Total Family households 282,714 100%

Nonfamily households 108,610



Family Household Type by Race -- Virginia

Married 
couple, 
children 
under 18

Female 
householder, 

children 
under 18

Male
householder, 

children 
under 18

No Children 
under 18

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State 
Virginia: FIPS STATE=51

RACE BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS 
Universe: Persons 16 years and over

Persons % by Race

White:

Civilian:
Employed 2,422,537 96.49%
Unemployed 88,186 3.51%

Labor Force Participation 2,510,723 68.11%
Not in labor force 1,175,770 31.89%

Persons 16 and Over 

Black:

3,686,493

Civilian:
Employed 488,283 91.07%
Unemployed 47,863 8.93%

Labor Force Participation 536,146 65.23%
Not in labor force 285,737 34.77%

Persons 16 and Over 821,883

N o t e :  U n e m p l o y m e n t  r a t e  is d e f i n e d  a s  a  p e r c e n t a g e  o f  t h e  civ i l i a n  l a b o r  f o r c e .  

L a b o r  f o r c e  p a r t i c i p a t i o n  r a t e  is d e f i n e d  a s  a  p e r c e n t a g e  o f  

t h e  ci v i l i a n  p o p u l a t i o n  o v e r  1 6 .



Unemployment & Labor Force Participation Rates by Race --
Virginia

Note: Unemployment rate is defined as a percentage of the civilian labor force. Labor force participation rate is defined as a percentage of the civilian population over 16.

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State 
Virginia: FIPS STATE=51

RACE BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 
Universe: Persons 25 years and over

White:

Less than 9th grade
9th to 12th grade, no diploma
High school graduate (includes equivalency)
Some college, no degree
Associate degree
Bachelor's degree
Graduate or professional degree

Universe

Black:

Less than 9th grade
9th to 12th grade, no diploma
High school graduate (includes equivalency)
Some college, no degree
Associate degree
Bachelor's degree
Graduate or professional degree

Universe

Persons % by race

308,766 9.76%
378,211 11.95%
844,405 26.69%
596,399 18.85%
182,542 5.77%
535,216 16.92%
318,365 10.06%

3,163,904 100%

118,013 17.43%
150,880 22.29%
187,400 27.68%
117,350 17.33%
27,880 4.12%
50,841 7.51%
24,631 3,64%

676,995 100%



( P e r c e n t a g e  o f  

P o p u l a t i o n

OV6rMo%

25.00%

20 .00%

15.00%

10.00%

5.00%

0 .00%

Educational Attainment by Race -  Virginia

Less than 9th 
grade

9th to 12th 
grade, no 
diploma

High school 
graduate 
(includes 

equivalency)

Some 
college, no 

degree

Associate
degree

Bachelor's
degree

Graduate or 
professional 

degree

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing



Summary Level: State 
Virginia: FIPS STATE=51

TENURE BY RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER 
Universe: Occupied housing units

1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Housing Units % by Race

Owner occupied:
White 1,296,422 70.41%
Black 191,749 49.18%

Renter occupied:
White 544,924 29.59%
Black 198,179 50.82%

t



Housing Tenure by Race Virginia

P e r c e n t a g e  o f  O c c u p i e d  

H o u s i n g  U n i t s

Owner occupied Renter occupied

□  Black

□  White

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



Summary Level: State 
Virginia: FIPS STATE=51

RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY VEHICLES AVAILABLE 
Universe: Occupied housing units

1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Housing Units % by Race

White:

None 112,359 6.10%
1 or more 1,728,987 93.90%

Black:

None 88,454 22.68%
1 or more 301,474 77.32%



P e r c e n t a g e  o f  

O c c u p i e d  H o u s i n g  

U n i t s

Race of Householder by Vehicles Available -- Virginia

□ Black

□  White

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State 
Virginia: FIPS STATE=51

RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY PLUMBING FACILITIES 
Universe: Occupied housing units ____________

Housing Units % by Race

White:
Complete plumbing facilities 1,821,672 98,93%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 19,674 1.07%

Black:
Complete plumbing facilities 374,375 96.01%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 15,553 3.99%



P e r c e n t a g e  o f  O c c u p i e d  

H o u s i n g  U n i t s

Race of Householder by Plumbing Facilities -- Virginia

4 .0 0 % -i/ /

/
3 .5 0 % - / /

3 .0 0 % -
/

/
1 :  : 

r i / v r  •

2 .50% /
; .

:

2 .0 0 % -
//

///

1 .5 0 % -
/

1 .0 0 % -

/
/

/ • -'V:-

0 .5 0 % -

0.00%

/ ' |

r,

□ Black

□  White

Lacking
Complete
Plumbing

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State 
Virginia: FIPS STATE=51

RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY GROSS RENT 
Universe: Specified renter-occupied housing units

Rental Units % by Race

White:

Less than $200 26,690 5.10%
$200 to $299 44,185 8.44%
$300 to $499 156,510 29.89%
$500 to $749 160,754 30.71%
$750 to $999 65,419 12.50%
$1,000 or more 40,659 7.77%
No cash rent 29,321 5.60%

Total 523,538 100.00%

Black:

Less than $200 32,132 16.58%
$200 to $299 20,577 10.62%
$300 to $499 71,113 36.69%
$500 to $749 44,809 23.12%
$750 to $999 11,462 5.91%
$1,000 or more 3,651 1.88%
No cash rent 10,054 5.19%

Total 193,798 100.00%



Race of Householder by Gross Rent -- Virginia

P e r c e n t a g e  o f  R e n t e r - O c c u p i e d

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



Summary Level: State-Congressional District (104th)
District 3: FIPS STATE=51, CONGR=03

PER CAPITA INCOME IN 1989 BY RACE 
Universe: Persons

Per capita income in 1989:

1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3

White $14,036
Black $8,502
American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut $11,071
Asian or Pacific Islander $8,035
Other race $8,422
□



$16,000

$14,000

$12,000

$10,000

$8,000

$6,000

$4,000

$2,000

$ 0

Per Capita Income In 1989 By Race -  3rd Congressional District (104th) -
___________  _ Virginia _______  __ ____

Per Capita Income

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing



Summary Level: State-Congressional District (104th)
District 3: FIPS STATE=51, CONGR=03

POVERTY STATUS IN 1989 BY RACE BY AGE 
Universe: Persons for whom poverty status is determined

1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Income in 1989 below poverty level:
Persons % by race

White:

Under 5 years 1,755 13.40%
5 years 176 8.17%
6 to 11 years 1,276 11.03%
12 to 17 years 992 9.72%
18 to 64 years 9,792 8.36%
65 to 74 years 1,433 9.52%
75 years and over 1,237 12.89%
All Ages 16,661 9.31%

Black:

Under 5 years 14,847 46.23%
5 years 2,945 46.49%
6 to 11 years 14,936 41.71%
12 to 17 years 10,994 35.07%
18 to 64 years 44,727 21.69%
65 to 74 years 6,126 26.23%
75 years and over 4,001 31.61%
All ages 98,576 28.34%



Poverty Status in 1989 by Race by Age -  3rd Congressional District (104th) -
Virginia

years years years years years and
over

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



Summary Level: State-Congressional District (104th)
District 3: FIPS STATE=51, CONGR=03

1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY HOUSEHOLD INCOME IN 1989 
Universe: Households

Households % by Race

White:

Less than $5,000 4,106 5,27%
$5,000 to $9,999 6,566 8,43%
$10,000 to $14,999 6,954 8.93%
$15,000 to $24,999 16,547 21.24%
$25,000 to $34,999 14,688 18.85%
$35,000 to $49,999 14,828 19.03%
$50,000 to $74,999 10,219 13.12%
$75,000 to $99,999 2,553 3.28%
$100,000 or more 1,453 1.86%

Total 77,914 100.00%

Black:

Less than $5,000 20,942 16.49%
$5,000 to $9,999 16,677 13.13%
$10,000 to $14,999 15,230 11.99%
$15,000 to $24,999 25,289 19.92%
$25,000 to $34,999 19,302 15.20%
$35,000 to $49,999 16,963 13.36%
$50,000 to $74,999 9,926 7.82%
$75,000 to $99,999 1,927 1.52%
$100,000 or more 724 0.57%

Total 126,980 100.00%



Race of Householder by Household Income in 1989 -- 3rd Congressional
District (104th) -  Virginia

$5,000 $9,999 $14,999 $24,999 $34,999 $49,999 $74,999 $99,999

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State-Congressional District (104th) 
District 3: FIPS STATE=51, CONGR=03

RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY HOUSEHOLD TYPE AND PRESENCE AND 
OF CHILDREN 
Universe: Households

Households % by Race

White:

Family households:

Married-couple family:
With own children under 18 years 17,072 34.76%
No own children under 18 years 23,317 47.47%
Total Married-couple 40,389 82.23%

Other family:
Male householder, no wife present: 
With own children under 18 years 795 1.62%
No own children under 18 years 1,207 2.46%
Total Male householder 2,002 4.08%

Female householder, no husband present: 
With own children under 18 years 3,301 6.72%
No own children under 18 years 3,423 6.97%
Total Female householder 6,724 13.69%

Total Family households 49,115 100%

Nonfamily households 28,799

Black:

Family households:

Married-couple family:
With own children under 18 years 20,883 23.30%
No own children under 18 years 23,675 26.41%
Total Married-couple 44,558 49.71%

Other family:
Male householder, no wife present: 
With own children under 18 years 1,799 2.01%
No own children under 18 years 3,547 3.96%
Total Male householder 5,346 5.96%

Female householder, no husband present: 
With own children under 18 years 23,986 26.76%
No own children under 18 years 15,749 17.57%
Total Female householder 39,735 44.33%

Total Family households 89,639 100%

Nonfamily households 37,341



Family Household Type by Race -  3rd Congressional District (104th) -
Virginia

under 18 under 18 under 18

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State-Congressional District (104th) 
District 3: FIPS STATE=51, CONGR=03

RACE BY EMPLOYMENT STATUS 
Universe: Persons 16 years and over

Persons % by Race

White:

Civilian:
Employed 86,887 95.83%
Unemployed 3,779 4.17%

Labor Force Participation 90,666 63.18%
Not in labor force 52,831 36.82%

Persons 16 and Over 143,497

Black:

Civilian:
Employed 143,596 89.46%
Unemployed 16,912 10.54%

Labor Force Participation 160,508 61.99%
Not in labor force 98,424 38.01%

Persons 16 and Over 258,932

Note: Unemployment rate is defined as a percentage of the civilian labor force. 
Labor force participation rate is defined as a percentage of 
the civilian population over 16.



3rdUnemployment & Labor Force Participation Rates by Race --
Congressional District (104th) -- Virginia

70.00%

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%

30.00%

20 .00%

10 .00%

0 .00%

Unemployed Labor Force Participation

Note: Unemployment rate is defined as a percentage of the civilian labor force. Labor force participation rate is defined as a percentage of the civilian population over 16,
Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



Summary Level: State-Congressional District (104th)
District 3: FIPS STATE=51, CONGR=03

RACE BY EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT 
Universe: Persons 25 years and over

1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Persons % by race

White:

Less than 9th grade 12,438 9.89%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 20,897 16.61%
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 38,061 30.26%
Some college, no degree 25,282 20.10%
Associate degree 6,918 5.50%
Bachelor's degree 14,760 11.73%
Graduate or professional degree 7,434 5.91%

Universe 125,790 100%

Black:

Less than 9th grade 33,640 16.13%
9th to 12th grade, no diploma 53,075 25.45%
High school graduate (includes equivalency) 57,522 27.58%
Some college, no degree 37,085 17.78%
Associate degree 8,040 3.86%
Bachelor's degree 13,403 6.43%
Graduate or professional degree 5,775 2.77%

Universe 208,540 100%



( P e r c e n t a g e  o f  

P o p u l a t i o n  

o v e r  2 5 )

Educational Attainment by Race -- 3rd Congressional District (104th)
Virginia

diploma (includes degree
equivalency)

degree

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State-Congressional District (104th) 
District 3: FIPS STATE=51, CONGR=03

TENURE BY RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER 
Universe: Occupied housing units

Housing Units % by Race

Owner occupied:
White 45,421 58.22%
Black 55,683 43.62%

Renter occupied:
White 32,599 41.78%
Black 71,964 56.38% I



Housing Tenure by Race -- 3rd Congressional District (104th) -- Virginia

P e r c e n t a g e  o f  O c c u p i e d  

H o u s i n g  U n i t s

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State-Congressional District (104th) 
District 3: FIPS STATE=51, CONGR=Q3

RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY VEHICLES AVAILABLE 
Universe: Occupied housing units

Housing Units % by Race

White:

None 7,812 10,01%
1 or more 70,208 89.99%

Black:

None 39,428 30.89%
1 or more 88,219 69.11%



Race of Householder by Vehicles Available --
P e r c e n t a g e  o f —Virginia

O c c u p i e d  H o u s i n g

3rd Congressional District (104th)

□ Black

□  White

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



Summary Level: State-Congressional District (104th)
District 3: FIPS STATE=51, CONGR=03

1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY PLUMBING FACILITIES 
Universe: Occupied housing units ____________

Housing Units % by Race

White:
Complete plumbing facilities 77,654 99.53%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 366 0.47%

Black:
Complete plumbing facilities 126,275 98.93%
Lacking complete plumbing facilities 1,372 1.07%



Race of Householder by Plumbing Facilities --
P e r c e n t a g e  o f  O c c u p i e d  , „ ̂  „,, , ... . .

H o u s i n g  u n i t s (104th) -  Virginia
3rd Congressional District

1.20%

1.00%

0.80%

0.60%

0.40%

0 .20%

0 .00%

Lacking
Complete
Plumbing

□  Black

□  White

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



1990 Census Of Population And Housing Summary Tape File 3A

Summary Level: State-Congressional District (104th) 
District 3: FIPS STATE=51, CONGR=03

RACE OF HOUSEHOLDER BY GROSS RENT 
Universe: Specified renter-occupied housing units

Rental Units % by Race

White:

Less than $200 1,856 5.81%
$200 to $299 1,858 5.82%
$300 to $499 15,434 48.35%
$500 to $749 9,687 30.35%
$750 to $999 1,026 3.21%
$1,000 or more 541 1.69%
No cash rent 1,520 4.76%

Total 31,922 100.00%

Black:

Less than $200 16,479 23.19%
$200 to $299 7,352 10.35%
$300 to $499 31,584 44.45%
$500 to $749 12,151 17.10%
$750 to $999 1,209 1.70%
$1,000 or more 153 0.22%
No cash rent 2,132 3.00%

Total 71,060 100.00%



Race of Householder by Gross Rent -- 3rd Congressional District (104th)
Percentage of Renter-Occupied Vi rg i n ia

Source: 1990 Census of Population and Housing Summary Tape 3A



for llic seat vacated l>y the tie .1 of  the incumbent. 
In llic February 15, 1^77. I. icraltc runoff. Mr. 
Johnson defeated Ins white opponent by 2 . I'Ll votes 
to Z.Obl.111 H owever, in the April 5. I')77. hnal 
eleetion. Mr. Johnson failed to. allrael any aihiitional 
while Mippoil, which was needed to ensure his 
election over Ins Republican opponent. In 4 predom­
inantly while precincts, he polled 25 votes in the 
February runoff compared to 502 votes for Ins 
Democratic opponent.1'* In the final election Mr. 
Johnson could increase Ins support in these precincts 
to only 4H votes, while Ins Republican opponent 
polled KU2 voles .11’ Mr. Johnson lost the election by 
over 700 vo les .11* In that election G eorgetown  
County elected its first Republican to the statehouse 
in this century.11*

Virginia

Shite House—Mtillimenibcr Districts
The Virginia House o f  Delegates elects its l(X) 

members from 20 single-member districts, 2K multi- 
member districts, and 4 lloterial districts.1** (Flolert- 
al districts arc single-member districts whose bound­
aries encompass other districts, e lec tors  in these 
districts, therefore, vote lor candidates who will 
represent the lloterial district, as well as for those 
who will represent the other districts ) O f the 1(X) 
members in the house o f  delegates, 4 are black.3*'
1 his level o f  black representation is related in part to 

the fact that only one district in the entire house of  
delegates has a potential black voting-age m a j o r i ­

ty. ’*’ Although blacks constitute Ib percent of  the 
State population, and are concentrated in the south­
ern anil southeastern portions of  the Stale, the 
diaw m g of legislative boundaries and the extensive 
use o f  multunember districts has hunted black 
opportunities lor elected o ll ice .’*’

Cuircully, all four blacks in the Virginia House of  
Delegates are elected liom  mullimember districts In

( lane ( inint is. " Johnson Wins |*i 1111 ■ 1 y Kimoll.  ' (*«."**.(.*••*. (5  f ) 
/•**., , I . I. | 7 1*117 p i
"* l l .m r f oiiihiis, " ^ iu i» | |  U ms \ ' j i  .ml Sr*t m Hi mint I .«•*(•>••» m 

<S( | /»*»»,» Api 17 1**77 11 | |l< 1.11 >1 itf l j i i u u r n  I•' 1 th r  V o.mt  v ••{
( n'oi iirioAii.  I lir W lm lr  N idiiI^ i «•( \  o t r i  ( jm  |« >1 | )isi« is 1 11H 11. •••%* of
Hrpii ' scni jiiv rs  
•’* Ibi.l

Ihul
••• llml

t/iwlc of ViiRiiio. I illc 24 | .  ( 12  1 I lm»i K fn d i ie k  ilur> loi.
Virginia Aini' iu  411 (. i ' l l  I dn it ir s  Ihnoii ;in«l fudv i  • ohito- 1 g \inlf
.111«»inr v. Vtr gnu.1 A n i r in  an ( 1 s il i lU il if s  Ihuoii inter s ir »s m H •< !• *#••••»• I 
^ . J d n  1 1. I*/KU ( lu'ir-illc 1 1 Hril 4 \  Kt m in t  W jm l  ( #ol«H«« 1 g I n i n  \ « 1
**' loud  l  1 tilt*f Ini I'niiiit al Slmlirs. /  hi  Aon. •*».#/ /<mh 1 .»/ L I  h , i r j  

rV/hi«/» '-••I IO | I**H | ), |. 2*2
*** l l‘»*j i. i .dc i.  I Ii / .iIm i Ii V j n l icjim-. ami Meg Williams. I  Hr  •!/**«.<«.*, *•/

5(i

these p.u ocular d s is, candidates must 1 tin d is -*
tnctwiile loi lim  ) seven seats 111 llic house ol
delegates. Since none ot these districts has a black 
majority, there is a tenuous d e c im a l  base loi tilas k 
candidates As a lesult ol the lelusal ol many 
whiles to suppoit black candidates, only single-shot 
voting in the black community has 111 some instances 
assured black representation. In I'D'), ol the loin 
black delegates elected, t inee ran far behind white  
delegates elected in the same nmltnnembei districts 
In Newport News, Delegate Robert C Scott ran at 
least 2.5IX) votes behind the successful sslute candi­
dates.1*1 In Richmond, Delegates Hcni.nnm Lambert 
and James Christian, Jr., ran at least t.tXXI voles  
behind the successful while candidates.1** In fact, 
Mr. Christian avoided defeat by only 442 votes.1*1 
Only the late William F Robinson, former delegate  
from Norfolk, avoided tins situation in the last bouse 
o f  delegates election.1*" Accord ing  h> Norfolk c o m ­
munity leader Hvclyn Mutts, however, Mr. Kolunson 
finished first in the seven-member Norfolk district 
because a ceilam  number of  blacks voted for bun 
only.1** In past elections, Mr. Robinson had finished 
seventh m the seven-member district despite the fact 
lie had been endorsed by the local Democratic 
party.1’" efforts were made in l')7‘> to avoid tins 
through smgle-sliot voting.1”

The piohlcm for black candidates m multunember 
legislative districts in Virginia is that they must gam 
white support or organize extensive single-shot 
voting campaigns in the black community, liven  
when blacks are part o f  a slate, seeming while  
support is problematic. I or example. Delegates  
Lambert and Christian ran m the Richmond multi- 
member district In l ‘)7') as part o f  a Democratic 
slate. Although tins gamed litem some while sup­
port, it also gave the whites on the slate mote black 
support.1'1 Accord ing  to a study by Michael Drown 
o f  the Vngiiua Stale Conference ol IIrauchcs, 
N A A C I’, one out ol tw o  black votcis wippoitcd  
white candidates, but only one ol tluee while* volets  
supported a black candidate m the 1777 house of 
delegates race m Richmond

1 '-V'-’ I.J 1' , ‘l f t i . , (I j t o  l  h t m  li. Vfl ll , c  W ..... . , \ , i t \ . v i  I xml f m l l
IIt m  j h r i  , net /In-.I n . i ,  J 
*** Kf mil •* k mill ( tolt||>ei|( liilettievc

Muli i ir l  l l i tiwo. 1 <•<•«,Iniftlot. l» | ,|  t u r n  It .M .v .o rs ,  Vngnn*  N A At I*, 
m t r r s i rw  m  K nlu n o n . l ,  V * .  J.,„ | 1 | •* Kl» th«i., . l i<i , .1, ,IN Hi..wu
I nit 11 t r u  |
*** / h r  .4 I m . i m n  . p |f»
*•* II...I . |. 4K

’•* lltt.l
'** II*mI . p w

I Hulls. tiHli.tti  I e m n i t i  tl ( t i i / ru s  l.*r ,1 I . in . zii.ui
i .xr i s m m m N . n lo l l .  j 5 | oh |
* • Ho.I
** II-..I
**' Muli . t r !  lit .m i l .  •‘All Anal V MS  , ,f  th r  Kts lun.ni.l l | . . , .vr .*1
I jtrv Ka, r tun|Mihltv|n .1 |**Mf)»,, n

i: I

CL



T A B L E  2.1 Black Elected Officials in Southern States Covered Under the Preclearance 
Provisions of the Voting Rights Act, July 1980

US. State
Congress legis la ture County  ohfices Munic ipal o ff ices

Other
officials TotalSenate Mouse Senate House

County
qoverni.nq
boa'd

la w  en- County 
forcemenl school 
officials board

Other
positions Mayor

Governing
body

City
school
board Other

Alabama 0 0 2 13 18 40 23 9 16 110 2 5 0 238
Georgia 0 0 2 21 20 8 31 5 7 139 12 4 0 249
Louisiana 0 0 2 10 65 34 87 1 12 1 19 4 8 1 363
Mississippi 0 0 2 15 27 77 45 34 17 143 13 14 0 357
Nonh Carolina' 0 0 1 4 18 7 42 2 13 136 16 3 5 247
South Carolina 0 0 0 14 34 20 47 5 13 86 9 1 9 238
Texas 0 t 0 13 5 18 77’ 0 5 68 0 5 4 196
Virginia 0 0 1 4 34 5 — 3 5 71 — 1 0 124

Total 0 1 10 94 24 1 209 352 59 88 872 56 41 19 2.042

' Statewide data, in d u in g  the 40 counties subject to preclearance 
’ School t-oard members elected in independent school districts 
—  Not an elective position.

Source Jont Center tor Political Studies. N a u c a i Rosier ol Sleek E ec.'ec 0 “ c e  s voi to  ( t § s t ) Data or. Virginia succeed ty  Virginia State 
Conference NAACP



T A B L E  2.3 B lacks as Percentage of Population and Elected Offic ia ls in
Southern States Covered Under the Preclearance Provis ions of the 
Vot ing Rights Act, July 1980

Elected officials
Siaic Populaiion porcenl black. 1980 Tolal oflieials Ulack officials

Number Percenl ol lotal

Alabama 25 6% 4.151 230 5 7°.0
Georgia 26.0 6,660 249 3.7
Louisiana 29.4 4.710 363 7.7
Mississippi 35.2 5.271 307 7 3
Norib Carolina' 22 4 5.295 247 4.7
Soulh Carolina 30 4 3,225 230 7 4
Texas 12.0 24.720 196 0 .0
Virginia 18 9 3.04 1 124 4.1

’ Siaiewide data. including ihe 40 counlies subject lo preclearance.
S o u ic e  Jom i C e n io f lo t I ’ u li l ic a l S tu d ie s . N .iim n o l H o sier  o l UidC* t i le c lu d  U thO dls . vu l 10 (1 9 0 1 )  Dul«ji o n  V i iy i t iu  s u p p lie d  Dy
Virginia Stalu Conlerunce NAACP

T A B L E  2.4 Black Elected Off icials as Percentage of all Elected Off ic ials in
Southern States Covered Under the Preclearance Provis ions of the 
Vot ing Rights Act, July 1980

Slale
U S Slale

County
governing

Local
school

Municipal
qovernmcj

Population 
peicent

Cong ress leyisialute body board boa id black. 1900

Senale House Senate House

Alabama 0 0°'.. 0 0% 5 7°/u 12 4U. o 6 6uo 7 l “ o 5 3“ o 25 6°u
Georgia 0 0 0 0 3 6 1 1 7 3 4 5 9 5 2 26 0
Louisiana 0 0 0 0 5 1 9 5 13 2 13 4 9 4 29 4
Mississippi 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 3 6 6 10 3 10 4 3!. 2
North Carolina' 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 3 3 7 7.4 It 0 22 4
Soulh Carolina 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 1 1 7 11 6 6 7 30 4
Texas 0 0 4 2 0 0 0 7 0 5 1 0 1 '1 12 0
Virginia 0 0 0.0 2.5 4 0 6 0 — 5 2 10 9

' Statewide data, including the 40 counties subject to preciearance.
— not an elective position.

S o u rce s  U S O c p .ir tm o n l o l C o m m e rc e  H u i im u  o l ihe  C e n s u s  Potmi.uiy C /e»< /«*•/ O lh c n tls  vo l l n o  .mO
Jum i C e n tu r lo r P o lit ic a l S lu J te s . N j h o i u t l  H o b l c t  o t  L lo t  l e d  OUn.i.tib vo l 10 (1 'J t i t )  O u tii o n  V irg in ia  hy V m jim a
o ia iu  C o n lo ie n c e  N A A C P

I S



T A B L E  2.10 Percentage of Vot ing Age Populat ion Reported Registered in
Jur isd ic t ions  Covered by Sect ion 5 of the Vot ing Rights Act, by 
Race and Ethnici ty,  1976

State Percent reported registered, 1976

Whito Black Hispanic
American Indian/ 
Alaskan Native

Alabama 75.4% 58.1% __
Alaska 73.0 _ 62 0%Arizona 715 _ 60.9% 40 0California" 65.3 __ 49 5
Colorado' GO 1 _ 52 8
Florida" 66 5 _ 63.7
Georgia 73.2 56.3
Louisiana 78.8 63 9 _
Michigan"' 63.7 52.4
Mississippi 77.7 67 4
Now York" 69.0 51.4
North Carolina" 63.1 40 2 65.6
South Carolina 64.1 60 6 _
South Dakota" 77.3 _ 52 7
Texas 69.4 64 0 61.1
Virginia 67.0 60.7 _

Solocted county (counties) subject to preclearanco rnthor than entire Stale. 
Soloctod towns subjoct to preciearance rathor than ontire Slate.

— Group not covorod undor soction 5

S o u tco  U S . D e p n r lm e n l o l C o m m e rc e . O iirn a u  o l the  C e n iu s .  R e g is tr a tio n  n n d  V oting  m  N o v o m b e r  19 7 0 — J u risd ic tio n s  C o v e r e d  
by  th e  V o ting  R ig h ts  A c t  A m e n d m e n ts  o l  1 9 / 5. s e n e s  P -2 3  n o  74 ( iy /0 1 ,  la b lo s  1 e n d  2



Business,
.Science & Technology

Virginia
Statistical Abstract

1994-95 Edition

Prepared under the direction of 
Michael A. Spar, Ph.D. 

Research Associate 
Demographic Studies

Center for Public Service 
University of Virginia 

Charlpttesville

1994

APEX'90
Award for Publication Excellence 

for Desktop Publications



Figure 9.1
Popular Vote Cast for President in Virginia, 1984-1992

a ,

Source: Table 9.11

Figure 9.2
Black Elected Officials, 1991

S'
i

14t
12-

10-

8-*

6-'

4-

2-

0-*

- 35 .
V - -> Vt s' ||| M . | /" xC -.v . % 1 1 :

' -./'sot '•V  > ' *. • < :s s --- ; i|||§
r.

il l • . . . , .  > ;

•> V  • •

k g ■e~ im l a i l l l a J
US VA DE DC FL GA KY MD NC SC TN WV

Source: Table 9.18

278 ■



9 • Government and Elections

TABLE 9.8
Black Elected Officials by Office for the U.S., 
Virginia, and Surrounding States: 1989-1991

1991

Tool

U.S, 
t  Stale 

Legislatures

city
ft County 
Offices

Law
Enforce.

ment Education
1990
Total

United States 7,445 476 4,493 847 1.629 7,335

Virginia 151 11 127 IS 149

Delaware 26 3 14 3 6 22
District d  Columbia 209 4 198 7 235
Florida 184 14 127 26 17 177
Georgia 511 37 360 26 88 495
Kentucky 71 3 54 6 8 70
Maryland 132 32 71 23 6 118
North Carolina 443 19 324 24 76 453
South Carolina 405 21 246 12 126 396
Tennessee 163 14 100 25 24 149
West Virginia 25 2 19 4 25

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Conmerce, Bureau of the Cenaua. S ta tistica l Abstract a t the U nled Stales, 1991. U.S. 
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., annual.

NOTES: Ae of January at each year.
'U .S . a State Legislatures' Indudee elected state adminstralori.
■City a County Offices' Indudee county commfulonert and coundlmen, mayors, vice mayors, aldermen, 
regional officials, and other.
'Law Enforcement* indudee judges, magistrates, constables, marshals, sheriffs, justices of the peace, and other. 
‘ Education* includes members o( state education agencies, college boards, school boards, and other.

TABLE 9.S
Women Holding State and Local Public Offices for 
the U.S., Virginia, and Surrounding States: 1975-1992

Statewide
Elective

Executive
Office,

1992

Stats
Legislature,

1992

County
Governing

Boards,
1988

. " T "
Municipal
Council

M anibafs,
1985

" 1984
. ..To tal

II 1975
Total

United States 60 1,375 1,653 14,672 17,077 16,083 6,997

Virginia 1 17 49 211 248 226 132

Delaware 1 8 2 57 66 55 33
District d  Columbia (NA) (NA) (NA) 7 6 6 3
Florida 1 30 51 311 366 395 204
Georgia 34 28 251 252 262 93
Kentucky 8 17 450 456 34
Maryland **• 44 21 133 195 157 92
North Carolna 25 45 337 418 332 174
South Carolina 1 22 36 184 189 127 84
Tennessee 15 .117 144 212 196 96
West Virginia 28 11 202 209 204 135

SOURCES: U.S. Department at Commerce, Bureau of the Cenaua. Statistical Abstract a t the Undsd States, 199Z U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., annual; U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau d  the Census. 
State and M etropolian Ares Data Book, 1966. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C„ 1986.

NOTES: 'Statewide Elective Executive Office' as of July. Exdudas women elected to the judiciary, women appointed to
state cabinet-level positions, women elected to executive poets by the legislature, and eiacted members ot 
university Board ot Trusteas or Boards d  Education.
NA—N d  applicable.

■ 285

8 |