County Council of Sumter County v. United States and Blanding Post-Trial Brief for the United States of America

    htt.* t

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

couNTY couNCrL 0F SUr{TER )
COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA, €r aI., )

)Plaintiffs, )
) Civil Acrion No. BZ-0912v.)
)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, er al., )
)Defendants, )
)and )
)

LARRY BLANDING, €t a1., )
)Defendants-Intervenors. )

POST-TRIAL BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

STANLEY S. HARRIS
United States Attorney

I,{I,I. BRADFORD REYNOLDS
Assistant Attorney General

GERALD I^I. JONES
PAUL F. HANCOCK
J. GEMLD HEBERT
ROBERT N. KWAN
THOMAS G. SNOW
Attorneys, Voting Section
C ivil Righrs Divis ion
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution Avenue, N.I,{.
Washington, D.C. 20530(202) 724-6292



,J

A.

B.

'i, ,^

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. 
'*'*O"'TION 

AI.ID SUMMARY-

II. THE PURPOSE UNDERLYING THE ENACTMENT AI{D MAIN-
TENAI{CE OF THE AT.I.ARGE ELECTION SYSTEM-

The Legal Standard Concernlng Raclally
Discrirnlnatory Purpose- 4

Sumter County Has Failed to Show that the
L967 Decleion to Adopt an At-Large Electlon
System Was Free of a Racially Dtscrlminatory
Purpose- 8

1. The lmpact of the declslon to establlsh
, at-large electlons------- 10

2. The histortcal background of the declsion
to adopt at-large elections--- - 10

Page

1

4

3. The sequence of events leadlng up to the

4. Procedural and substantive departures
from the norm

5. The racial attitudes of the Sumter County
legislative delegation-

C. The Record Demonstrates that the At-Large
Election System Has Been l"lalntained for
Raclally Discrininatory Reasons-

III. THE EFFECT OF THE AT-LARGE ELECTION STRUCTURE---.-

IV. APPLICATION OF SECTION 2 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT
TO THIS SECTION PROCEEDING-.--

Section 2 is Applicable in Section 5
Proceedings-

B. The Record Supports an Affirmative Finding
that the At-Large Electlon Structure at
Issue Violates Section 2-

CONCLUSION--

L4

L7

A.

18

22

26

27

37

40v.

-1



I
l^'t

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases:

A1leq-v. State Board of Elections' 393 U'S' 544

-clgoel--
- Y: -H : -2?-1 -!:?! -2?! - - -

o""EEaESBl'Er*1-*a?"|?3ta?*"ttlf;i.I, 5*Hr,
f8O:--

* v. United States , 425 U'S' L30 (1976)

Blanding v. DuBose, 454 U'S' 393 (1982)------ 1

*BusbeerY;,H$:rll?rT' 
rE!E'iri3: 53;3;?; LZ:"' ^ ^ A

'n"*E:Er3:"EifjffiiuzE5oB8E"?ElB?.I' HBH, ,.

-

Church of the Holv Trinitv v' United States ' L43

ffi-

ffi"I;!*f,ffi: - : 1-: : I :l:I: - - - -

City of Mobile v. Bolc|en, 446 U'S' 55 (1980)

ffi,it *tffi:":*:X6,3"'n'
(U.S.' December 13, L982)----

Page

28 ,31

31

34

7 ,22,25,27 ,28,32

31

24,26

8,29

*Citv of Richoond v.< (Ivl))---
United States, 422 U.S. 358

v. United States, 450 F' SuPP' 378
1978)

*Citv of Romeffi

6

3 ,5 ,6 ,8 ,16

9

*Citv of Rome v.

-Cl-esof---
@ipallY relied uPon'

- li

Stateq,United

Cltv of Rome
D.D.C.

445 U.S. 156 - 2,28



f(l

Cases (contlnued):

*Countv Council of Sqqlg- Countf v' United States'
'ot t -a-

E@ v. Algonquin SNG, Inc. , 426 U'S' 548 (L976)---

Page

6,22,26

32

3,16

27

25

HaIe Countv v. Uqile4-E-tates., 496 F ' SuPP ' L2O6

ffire80p,
I"lcDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 130 (1981)

*ttisslsslppi v. United States, 490 F:-!9pB:^Iq?
ffi titffi4 u.s. ro5o (1980)

New Haven Board of-Educatloq v. Bell, 50 U'S'L'Iil'

NLRB v. Fruit Packers, 377 U.S. 58 (1964)

Personnel Administrator of !ggs. v' eg*: 
11

32

32

Portiand Cement dss'n v. Ruckelshaus , !96 F '2d..offi?il 417 U.s.
92L (Le74)

*Rogers v. Lodge, 50 U.S.L.w'
L982) ---

5041 (U. S. JulY 1,

South--.!Q4gq1:!na v. Katzenbach, 383 U 'S ' 301 (1955) -

Unlted States Inte:qe!1ona} Unio4-Un:[t!ed Auto-

*united srates v. stref4sld Bo@,==:iffi1iI
*Village of Arlington HeiEhts v' Metropolitan

HousinB Deveropmenc uo6' , 4m7s*-57
-(L977 ) --

@$i3glon v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229 (1976)

White v. Regester, 4L2 U.S. 755 (1973) :---
v. United States, 450 F. SuPP' 1171
arrT,--4ffiggg ( 1978) ---D.D.C. ) ,

7 ,L9 ,20,2L

L,2,3 ,7

30,31

28 ,32,35

8,9 ,10

9

8,39

25

31

*Wilkes Count

Zuber v. Allen, 395 U.S. 168 (1969)

- 111 -



Constitution, statutes and regulations :

Constitution of the Unlted States:
Fourteenth Anendment-
Fifteenth Amendment--

voting nieiit" ;;;'-;i-ii6s, sectlon 2 ' 42 u's'c'
1973 et 8€Q. i
sect LA *2 u 's 'c ' L973-
Section a, 42 V 'S 'C' 1973b-------:---
Secrion +ft), 42 v,s.C. 1973b(t).-
sectton ;iii i'i , ii- 'rq.g' 

1e73b(r) (4)

Section 5, 42 V'S'C ' L973c-
sectton 12, 42 U.S'C' L9733

28 C.F.R. Part'51 (appendix)------
28 C.F.R. 55 .2(e) -----

Page

7,L9
7 ,L9,27

oas s im53-
35
33,34
oasslmT57r
1
33

!llsceIlaneous:

" 3 33lE ; XE ! . H3311 -[8Ai ]', ( :: i 1;T!, iitil 7z',- -- - -' -- - ::Lz 
1982) ------

"i . 
8i:i: ft:::;ti?ii, 

irll'.:l;.1i3:1!i'liliii?;;:'?tr''o
H.
s; Rep.'Ne' 9 r-295 ' ?4rl' qongll- iqi=iess' '(1975)--- 

33

s. n"b. No' 97-

,- 34onTe-Ea-I

-iv-



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

couNTY COUNCTL OF SUI'{TER )
couuiv, sourH cARoLrNA, g 4J., )

Platntiffs, l) civll Actlon No. 82-0912
v.)

)
UNITED STATES OF AI'IERICA, et a1., )

)
Defendante, )

)
and )

)
LARRY BLAI{DING, 9! 4. , )

)
Defendants-Intervenors. )

---)

POST-TRIAL BRIEF FOR TITE UNITED STATES OF AI'IERICA

The united states of Amerlca, defendant herein,

respectfully submits this Post-trlal brief in accordance

with this Court's otder of March 10, 1983'

I. TNTRODUCTTON AND SIX',IMABY

The State of South Carolina ls subject to the special

provisions of the voting Rights Act of L965, 42 U.S.C. L973

et seq. i 28 C.F.R. Part 51 (aPPendix); Blandlng v' DuBose'

454 U.S. 3g3 (1982); South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U'S'

301,318 (1955). As a result of that coverage, the State and lts

political subunits must comply with the provisions of Section 5

of the Act . 42 U.S.C. L973c. Sectlon 5 requlres that whenever



the state (or political subunlt of the state) "shalI enact or

seek to administer any votlng quallflcation or prerequislte

to voting, or standard, Practlce or Procedure wlth respect to

voting, different from that ln force or effect on November 1'
*l

Lg64,.'ia must demonstrate, prior to implementation, that the

voting procedure "does not have the purpose and will not

havetheeffectofdenylngorabrldglnStherlghttovoteon
account of race or coIor, oE [merubershlp In a l-anguage mlnorlty

group]." The Section 5 requlrement of preclearance can be

satisfled by obtainlng a declaratory judgment from thls court

that the voting procedure is nondiscrlmlnatory ln both PurPose

and effect; alternaEively, the preclearance requirement can be

satisfied bY the s

Attorney General and the faiLure of the Attorney General to

interpose an objection within sixty days' (@')'

ThevotingProcedurewhichlsbeforethisCourtfor

section 5 review ls an at-large method of electing the sumter

County governing body. The County plaintiffs and not the

United States or the defendant-intervenors have the burden

ofprovingthattheat-largeelecEionsystenhasnelthera
discriminatory purpose nor a discriminatory effect' .city of

Romev.unitedstates,446U.S.156,183n.18(1980);South

oPt the term "voting Proctdll::' as a
E-horr-h"ra r"ii;;";; to- fr"oii"e-q";tificatloir or Prerequisite
to voting, oE stand-ard, Practi6e--or procedure with respect to
voting, differeni from'thai in force'or effect on November 1'
Lg64.ii- 42 U.S.C. 1973c.

-2



4!!g v. Katzenbach, -9-11pg3, 383 U'S' at 335; Hale CountY v'

united states , 496 F. SuPP . L2O6, L2L5 (D.D.C. 1980); Busbee v'

, 54g F. suPP - 4g4, 515 (D'D'c' 1982) ' aff 'd' 51 u's''L'w'

3552(U.S.January24,1983).Inordertosatisfytheburden
ofproof,plaintlffsmustdemonstratetheabsenceofboth
discrlrninatoryPurPoseanddlscriminatoryeffect.@!

v. united states , 422 u's' 358' 372' 378-379 (1975);

City of Rome v- Unlted States, -9rr2g'446 U'S' at L72; Busbee

v. $5q!,, -suP.Eg, 549 F ' suPP ' 8t 515 '

Thefactualrecordwhlchhasbeenpresentedtothe

Court is summarlzed in detail in the United Statest Proposed

Findings of Fact which accoEPany this brlef. we will attenpE

not to repeat those factual flndings ln this brlef, except to

the extenE necessary to explaln the appllcation of the proper

legal standard to those facts '
TherecordpresentedtotheCourtdoesnotsuPPorta

declaration that the at-large electlon structure at issue ls

nondiscriminatory in purpose and effect. The plaintiffs have

failedtodemonstratethattheat-largesystemwasenacted
without a racial purpose, and the record reveals clearly that

theat-Iargesystetrhasbeenmaintainedbytheplalntiffsfor
racially discriminatory reasons. Plaintiffs have failed also

Co deoonstraEe that the implementation of the at-large electlon

systeo has not had (and will not have) the raclally discriminatory

effect prohibited bY Section 5'

-3



Finally,therecordpresentedtotheCourtsuPPorEsa

findingthattheat-largeelectionsystematlssueviolatesSectton
2 of the Voting Rights Act ' 42 V'S'G' i.lg73' ancl that Sectlon 2

violationprovidesanalternatebaslsfordenialofSection5
preclearance.AlthoughwebelievetheSection2violationto

be clearry establlshed on the record, lt nay not be necessary

for the court to address the lssue ln light of the plalntlffsr

failuretoEatlsfythetrburdenofproofconcernlngracial

"purpose" and "effect" as defined In Sectlon 5'

ranErtlr rrrNn TIIE E'.NACTI,IENT ANDII.

A.

rr{E PURPoSE UNDERLYTNG= TEE=EI+gIXPXI

The Unlted States and the Sumter County Pra

as to the reach of the section 5 burden, Concerning dlscrimlnatory

purpose. We belleve that Section 5 ' as applied to the factual

circumstances of this lawsult, requires the county to demonsErate

thattheaE-largeelectionsystemwasenactedwithoutaraciall.y
discriminatoryPurPoseandthattheat-].arBesystemhasbeen
maintainedtothisdatewlthoutaraciallydlscriminatory
purpose. The County plaintlffs' of, the other hand' contend

thattheyaxerequiredtodemonstrateonl'ytheabsenceof
racialPurPoseinthe196Tenactmentoftheat-largesystem.
plaintiffs' Post-TriaI Brief and Proposed Findings of Fact

contain no discussion of the purpose behind the maintenance

oftheat-Iargesystem'Thus'underplaintiffs'theory'they

-4



are entitled to a declaration that the at-large system does

not have the purpose of discrimlnating on the basis of race'

even lf the evidence demonstrates that they have naintained

the at-large election system from L967 to the present

for the purpose of denylng black cltlzens the right to eLect

candidates of their choice to the county governing body. t'Ierely

describing plalntiffs' theory demonstrates lts lncorrectness.

The votlng Rights Act requlres "preclearance" (that ls a

declaration of nondiscrirnlnatlon prlor to funplementatlon), and

thus the lssue of dlscrlDlnatory malntenance normally should not

arlse. However, the language of Sectlon 5 does not I'imit the

plaintiffs' burden to showing nondiscrimlnation in enactment.

D-+rArr Section 5 requires that when a jurlsdictlon "shaLl enact
5-3 L!l:

demonstrate that the procedure "does not have Ia discrirninatory]

purpose." The language of the Act uses the present tense and

thus the Section 5 standard cannot be limited to the purpose

behind enactnent ln 1967 '
The Supreme Court has rejected

the Section 5 PurPose burden.

States, -W,, the Court held

voting procedure at issue was adopted

specifically Plaintiffs'
In Citv of Richmond v.

that even though the

several years earlier

view of

United

-5



,,the controlling factor ... is whether there are now objectively

verifiable, regiEimate reasons for the Ivoting procedure] 
"'*l

422 u.S.-at 375 (emphasis added)T, The Court further stated:

An official action, whether an annexation
or ;il;;;i;el-iaten for the PurPose of
disciininating againsq Negroes on account
of ;;;i; ;;ce"naE-no legiEimacy a: all

""a!i-o"t-Cott"tituEion 
or -under the

"..i"t"l- 
S""tion 5 forbids voting

"tt"ig"" 
- t"t"r, with th: PufPo:: of

a."Yi"E ih" 'ot" bn the- grbunds of
race or color '

422 V.S. at

516 F. SUPP.

December 1 3,

378. See also Citv of Port Arthur v'

g87 (D.D.C. 1981 ) , aff'd, 51 U'S'L'W'

1 gg2) .

United States,

4033 (U.S.

the case at bar this Court determrneo

Ttrar in applying the "effeclii-P;;;i";-oi-ttre Section 5 standard
,,we should consider " .orp"iisSn of the appointive and at-
large methods in the contbxl of the-pt""-i.,t." Cqgr,rtv, Councilffiffi;as itr" "effect" test is aPI
;; ;;; strould-the purpose- test be applied'

whether examinins PurPose or effect:-!h:-9:Y::-:l::Id.look
ro r[:';::;"=;;;':i;8"il;;;;-"""-"t-tt'" time preclearance is

..1 ,l ha .Fa1 1ar^ri nq tiStI!""l:;;:.'"i,-;;i;q. :", -it:^g:i;:.,:::'u^?",::::::l# Il:;::::.::x'}i;'.ilio"il.Eiry@,g,'fl:Ii;:,:1'::";:?'::9procedure lPproveo In tutL) v'r ^vue' :-;'tta tirl of decision."
iealities oi- a situation as they "*itt,.3l r. c..aa qt )tL, ^[:|+t:}"il: i."uii."a--d..i"rl-'""pi"' 472 F. suPP ' aE 247 '

-6



In Rogers v. Lodge, 50 U'S'L'W' 5041 (U'S' JuIy 1' 1982) '

the Supreme Court upheld a finding of a vlolation of the Fourteenth

and Fifteenth Anendments by an "at-large scheme of electing

commissioners [whlch], 'although raclally neutral when adopted'

ls being maintained for invidlous Purposes"' 50 u.s.L.w' at

5043(emphasisinoriglnal).TheVotlngRightsAct,ofcourse,

"reflects Congress' firu intentlon to rld the county of raclal

discriminatlon ln votlng" (South Caroltna v. Katzenbach, .9}PE'

383 U.S. at 315) and it certainly would defeat that leglslatlve

intent by lnterpretlng the Actte provletons Inore narrowly than

the constltutlonal provisions which the Act was deslgned to

ef fectuate. see a1so, lgg v. united states , 425 U.S. 130, 141

(Lgl6) (Section 5 preclearance should be denled Lf the voting

procedure at is

or color as to violate the Constitution") '
For these reasons, W€ believe the plaintiffs must be

required to demonstrate the absence of discrininatory r)urPose

in both the adoption and maintenance of the at-l-arge eLection

:t
system.

f concerning maintenance
ilas ;;";e-by-;i;i";iii;; ;rt,'de1av in seeking- sectlon 5

oreclearance; lnd the imposltion oi the added burden 1s

5;;;i;;;#-;irt"rr,"--1";i;r"ii"" design of shlfting "rhe
;;;;;;;;e of tirne ang inertia from the pe-rpetra.tor.s of the
evil to its viciir".'i South Carolina v. Katzenbach, -suPre',
383 U.S. at 328.

-7



B. that the 1967 Decislon
stem Was eeo a

scritrinator

A i"terrlnation of whether a raclally dlscrlnlnatory Purpose

notivated the declslon to adopt an at-large electlon Bystem

in 1967 demands "a sensitlve lnqulry lnto such clrcumstantlal

and direct evidence of intent as may be avalLable.l' Vlllage of

Arlington llelghts v. Metropolltan Houslng DeVelOpnent corp' '

42g U.S. 252, 266 (1g77); !@q v. @' eE1' 549 F' SuPp'

at 5:15. The inqutry ls not deslgned to deternine whether raclal

discrlmlnatlon ltas the sole or even the primary PurPose behlnd

adoptlng the at-large electlon system, for "Ir]arely can lt be'

said that a leglslature or administrative body operatlng under

concern, of even that a partlcular PurPose was the 'dominant.

or,primary,one.,,Arlingtonl{eightsv.I"letropolitanllousing
Development corp., -w, 42g U.S. at 255' Rather sectiOn 5

requirestheplaintiffstodemonstratetheabsenceofdiscriminatory

PurPose;thus,lftheevidencedemonstratesthat',discriminatory
purpose has been a motivating factor in the decision"'sectlon 5

preclearanceshouldbedenied.E.at265-266;CltyofRonev.

UnitedStates,.suPraiCityofRichmondv.UnitedStates,.W,
422|).s.at378;]1g@v.Smith,.9]lPE,54gF.SuPP.8t516-517.

8



In Arlington Heights, the supreme court identified some of

the proper subjects of inquiry in determining whether racially

discriminatoryintentexists.Thesesubjectsincludethe
following: the inpact of the decision; the historical background

of the declsion, particularly lf it reveals a serles of declelons

undertaken with discriminatory intent; the sequence of events

leading up Eo the decision; rrrtrether the challenged decislon

departs, either procedurally or substantively, from the normal

Practlce; and contemPoraneous statements and vlerrpoints held by

the decislonmakers. Arlington Heights v' Metropolitan llousing

Developqenq Cgg., g-]lPE., 429 U'S' at 266-268' In applylng

thesesubjectsofinqulrytoEhefindlngsthataccomP

Post-trialbrief,ltlsclearthattheSumterCountyCouncil
has failed to show that raci SCrimrna *l
factor in the decision to adopt an at-large election system'

@-their''purpose''burden,'theCountyp1aintiffs
6raim in rhei; p.ri:rri"i'sli"f-ippi i+.-tS) and ttr-eir- proposed

findings (pp. fi:1g)-it"t U"".""d'Lhe Attorney General's 1976

obiecrion rerrer ro sumrer a;;;iy councll's cirange-ro at-large
:id;;i;;; ;;i;-;eierenced the countv's failure to demonstrate
rhe absence "f ;=;;;;;ii;- iir"riminltory effect, the united
Srares has .aiilt"a-;il-LU""t"" of a -r-atially discrininatory
;;il;;"1--nErE-again, counry plaintlffs are wrong.

we nore first that the Lg76 letter of obj-ecli9tt does not state
rhar rhe ar-large election ;;;i;-;;" adoptei without a racially
discriminarory purpose. I"-i;;;;-it,L f"tl"t states that Sumter

Cor:nry had faiflE-[o ,""t itt-U"iaen-of showing the absence of
e consrirurio"af 

-riof.tio", -"t!ilg^ilg standariis announced 1n

white v. n"e"ri!t-,- -+iz irdl jZt (isz1>' The suprerne court has

held subsequeffi't!;; -in" E-i19. ".. n'ugster standard encomPasses

a finding of ,""i"iii_discrfinalgry p"-t-Po"". City-of Mobile

v. Bolden, 44]6*i:il-5S,-Og-70 (1980)-.' Moreover, thfs Section
5 dffito'y"5ia;;.;!'.iiio" i?.* ge # Pl93"'il19"li"i..
Srii'i?'fi;;:'"1";iirrqi;;i;, -iso il.sr'PF i -T a, 381:382 and

*ffi iizffiotliv etliliil{"-13::^:h:-}"d"':l irliil;";r,i';;3:;";"Jr-ilort 
- Ji"6,'irinaEory_purpose and

discriminator; ;fi;;a: s"-sF-bg^yr^tg"+I'' ?11..i:--tB?''., t??i 515

?;5:;:'ffi;;;] ;iita, sr u.s=o,. 35s2-@'s' Ja'"'arv 24' 1e83) '

-9



An ,,important starting polnt" in the purpose lnqulry is the

impactor-resu].tofthedecisiontoadoptanat-largeelection

structure.ArlingtonIleights,.sE,42glJ.s-at266;washingtonv'
Davls, 426 U.S. 22g, 242 (1976). Black cltizens comprlse about

44:D of Sumter County's total populatlon and yet onLy one Person

of the black communlty's choice has been elected to the surnter

CountyCouncllsincethelnceptlonofat-largeelectlonsln
1967. The county ltself has admitted that lts at-large electlon

systeE makes lt ,,more dlfflcult to elect mlnorlty DeoberE.''
*l t r

(see Findinge ls gg, 10g),. The clear and adnltted adverse

racialimpactoftheat-]-argeelectlonsysternlnSumterCounty
,,bearIs] heavily on the lssue of purposeful dlscrimlnatlon.t'

2. The historical background of the decision to adopt

at-large elections

Theundisputedevldenceofrecordshowsal-ongpervasive

historyofracialdiscriminationagainstblackvotersbythe
state of south carolina. This discrimination agalnst black

citizensshedsfurEherlighuonthe196Tdeclsiontoadoptan
at-largeelectionstructureforSumterCounty.Arlington
Heights,.W,42g|J.S.at267.The''hlstoricaldiscrlmination
is rerevant Eo drawing an inference of purposefur discrimination'

d also demonsErates that even white
officials who seek ro r"prlr"rr;-Ih; black community of sumter

countv are deflated as a- resulc of the at-large structure'
ia;;-hinaings t 109) '

-10



particularly in cases such as this one where the evldence shows

that discriminatory practices were commonly utillzed, that they

\rere abandoned when enjoined by courts or made lllegal by civll

rightslegislation,andthattheywerereplacedbylawsand
practices which, though neutral on thelr face, serve to maintatn

the status guo." BggE t. !ck., -W', 50 U'S'L'W' at 5044'

In additlon to the long history of dlscrinlnation ln votlng
*l

in South Carollna and Sumter Countj, tt " years imnediately precedlng

the decislon to enact an at-large electlon system for Sumter County

(1965-67) were suffused wlth raclal concernE. (Findlng t 16)'

For example, publlc accommodations had Just become desegregated;

mandatory, court-ordered school desegregatlon was lnminent; the

biack electorate was growing in substantial numbers; black

candidates were beginning to run for publlc offices that had

been out of reach since Reconstruction; and the sumter daily

newspaper contained numerous artlcles about the racial implications

of these political and racial developments. (Findings ls 13,

L4,16,20).Suchevidencemakesitobviousthatthosewho

e Court noted:

[I]n most of the States covered by-the [Voting
nightsl e"i, includlng South.Carolina'- various
resrs i"J-ai"ices travE been instituted wlth the
prrtpo""--of disenfranchising Negrges' h"yg been

frarned in such a way as to-facilitate this aim,
and have- been administered in a discriminatory
fashion for nanY Years'

South Carolin? v...Katzenbach, .supg, 383 U'S' at 333-334
(footnotes omittect).

-11 -



decided to adopt the at-large structure in 1967 were fully

aware of lts adverse racial consequences. This foreseeability

also rais6s an inference that the adverse effecte of aE-Iarge

electlons were lntended. See Personnel Adnlnistrator of l'lass'

V. Feeney, 442 |J.s. 256, 279 n. 25 (1979); Bolden v. Citv of

I"lobi1e,542F.SuPP'1050,1074(S'D'Ala'1982)'
It is also lnportant that the declsion to adopt at-large

electlons was made ln 1967, a mere tlro years after enactment

of the Voting Rights Act. "[T]here are grounds for suspicion

where the change to at-large electlons \fa8 enacted 8o swiftly

after the passage of the Voting Rtghte Act """ Ilale County'

Alabana v. united states , 496 F. SuPP. 1206, 1218 (D.D'C'

1 980).

3. The sequenc@ to the 1957 enactment-

one of the rnost significant events preceding the enactment

of at-large elections for sumter county involved statewide

senate reapportionment. The record establishes that there was

a definite link beEween senate reaPPortionment in South Carolina

and reorgani zLng county government in Sumter County' (Findings

{s 2L to 27). The concern over senate reapportionment was a

-L2



racial one, and a particular concern was that Sumter Gounty rnay
tcl

comprlse a portion of a najority black senate districtT If this

occurred, -a black person, oE a person symPathetic to the concerns

of the black commr:nity, night be elected to the South Carolina

Senate and that person would have uajor resPonsibtlity for

recommending persons to serve on the governing body of

Sumter County. Sumter County's Senator Richardson announced

publicly that senate reapportlonment made reorganl zLng surnter

County's government not only desirable but necessary. (Flndlng

l 24).

The record reveals that a motivatlng factor ln the declsloh

to adopt at-large elections was a desire to eliminate the role of

the locaI senator in appolnting members to the County governing

body and to permit citizens of the Cor:nty, a majoliqy of whon\r
are white, to select members of the governing body; this motivating

factor apPears to have been racially based

rJ-P-f leged racial motivation
flni"a-i"""to. Richardson's position is also discredited by.the
i."i that the lnclusion of Williannsburg County in a senatorial
district with Sumter and Clarendon would have decr=eased rather
than increasea-itre proportion of black voters G--ffieTTstrict."
ii;t.i"-iiii;;-iroporld irindtngs of Facts, I 48). We are unable
to determine the neaning of Et is statement. The census statistics
demonsErate that if theEe three counties were included in one
diil;iai,-itr" airtricr would have been 57% black in total population.
The combined populations of Sumter and Clarendon Counties were
53% black as of 1960.

** / plalntiffs' post-trial brief describes a number of raclally
r,"rtrai-factors ,irich influenced the decision to eliminate the
appointnent system-.(e.g., -the appo_intmelt system was "cumbersome
dit slow" and'was "ai--aniiquatei'form of coirnty gove-rnment.''
ii;i.i;iiff" t Post-Trial Brief at 1 8-1 9). We -agree that a number
of iacially neutral reasons were motivating factors in the
;h;t;; toi"""i, if a ra-cially-dlscriTinatory_purpose was also
a ,oEivating factor in the dettsion, Section 5 preclearance
must be denied.

-13



4. Procedural and substantlve rtures from the norm

when the lssue of establlshlng a new county government

for Surnter County was first discussed in May 1957, the 1gl-nutes

of that meeting suggest that alternate election plans were

considered. This seems like1y since the officials looked to

ogher South Carollna countles for guidance on whlch election

systen to choo8e. (Findings ls 24, 28, 30, 31)' I{hile the

record does not reveal a strong etate pollcy for elther electton

by district or election at-Iarge as of L967, lt does aPPear

that most election plans adopted attenPted to achleve rePresentatlon

of differing segments of the community affected; this was

achieved by district electlons or by at-large electlons wlth

res idency cl:.s

from this state policy and speclflcaLly reJected proposals

which would al}ow rePresentation of differing conmunlty areas'

Th s departure from what aPPears to be normal state policy

particularly affected the black communlty. No black cltizens

LTere involved ln meetings calLed to consider the change to

at-large elections and there is no evidence they were even

notified of these meetings. Around thls same tirne perlod

-t4



blacks routinely appeared at regular meetings of the county
governlng body. The fact that the declsion to adopt an*l
at-large eLection system was uade in a "whltes onlli' settlng
further suggests a racially discriminatory purpose.

contrary to the assertion in sunter county's post-trlal
brief that Act No. 371 establlshlng at-large elections ',had the
support of the black leadershlp in sumter" (p. I ), there ls not
a scintilla of evidence that any black person supported the
switch to an at-large system ln L967. The Lack of such evideirce

eavily on Charlton County Board of
$|g1getiog v. Unitgd S_tate-s, C.A. [lo. 71916). Hordev€Er -in that case this court found merely that the
tharltoT pralntlffs had sarisfied rhe burden of proo-f requlreduy lgclion 5. we have no di-sagreenent with the iegal standard
?Ppfied-in Ch.arlton. I{hat disElnguishes thls case"from Charltonis the factua-Ffffird presented t; the court. rn ttt"-""ffiffibar the sumter county platntiffs have failed to demonstratethat the at-Iarge system rdas enacted and maintalned without adiscrininatory purpgs-e and that the at-Iarge system wil_I nothave the effetr'prbtribited by i""iio"-s.

15



buttresses the suggestion that

with a raclallY discrininatorY

the at-1arge sYstem was adoPted
:t

PurPose.

@y-6-uil{-as 5-eien-able. to sho!' is that a f ew

E-rack leaders';:ii";;j"i"-r goz rhar an elecrlon eystem vras better
than an appointive system. 

-gt t-suct evidence does not supPort a

finding that Ufacts iupportea-iU"-change to an at-large election
svs tem.

Plalntlffshavecluedalsoto.sometesLimonvofformer
legislators and eo*Ii-I;t;t;-oiit"itt" aB to wirv the change

was made ro an electii.e-;;;;ar:- ili;-;vldence-' 'however' does

nor relate at a1-f tot[.-Li-t^,-g"-i""t"" of the 1967 law'

whit e leelslarors "r,a""ioliy-"iEi"i;1;-denied-.that 
thev acted

wlth a ricially discriminatbry P-";;;;;,-;I1;-"iestlrnonv t l
musr be vlewed wlrh ;fi;ltiiri i"r' several reasona .,' Hale

. o,,o."-ffi i i"ffi;#;; ??"i+' H E iffi ?\l ; if , er
f[eC
the enactment, are ';"Irt.i"ri-r""r-i"ii"u1" and should be- accorded

relativelylessweightthan-"lystatement..oprlorEooratthe
rime oi-rire-uirr,s iil";;;:''*(ipi;:i.--r"rrherfoore, rhese "inreresred
wftnes
for the most ParE, "ontirro"a 

to-serve Is countv officials after its
enacEmenr. rheir r;ii:;;;;i"!- a"ii.i"-or-iaci11Iv discriminarorv
inrent are to be "fioia"a 

lesE '"iit'[-tt'"" other 6b5ective

evidence ro rhe "o"ii"iy._.9itY 
of"Richmond v' Uniled-St?!es'

supra, 422 U.S. at 111-.' Th@-truE where' as

fe-re, there 1s no aiailable t""otd bf legi-slative debates to

substantiate their denials'

}loreover,thisCourthashad.nooccasiontoassessthe
credibility of ttrosl-iir" i""i"i having-any -raciallv discriminatory

nq' p o 
" 
! I 

- - i,,"*p r i c ai rvl- :l: ^ : ::: :;.li;l::l : :i f x: " 
i.t ii':t;ilJ":r 

den

:: i:::l 3:,:l:,'HlEfliio3:;:'i;:' "iJ."oi 
-ot rt "*itrt;i;; .eiectton

"y"."rl- iil"-u"ir"a-'s'r.i"" , 
't or"r!"1"i."t- senator Richirdson' I

tesEimony by depositiJ"-""a that't"ttirot-,f - 
is 

. 
a Dart of the

record. Ar the a"poritior,, the ci""iy-piii"iiff's' counsel did

nor ask Senator Rtchardson one q""tii6"' (S"e Richardson Dep'

at 61).

- 15



5. The raclal attitudes of the sumter county legislative

An examination of the racial attitudes of those resPonslble

for enacting the at-Iarge election system (primarily Senator

Richardson) are also helpful ln determining intent' The evidence

of record, which again ls uncontradicted, showg that the members

of the legislative delegation had long opposed equality for black
*l

cirizens (Findings I L7 to 2O). Stagements by these legislators

and other evidence of record (9g-, exPert testimony) "lead

unerrlngly to the concluslon that Iat-large] advocates were

not simply a\rare of its exclusionary effects on blacks, but

affirmatively desired and intended that result." Bolden v'

City o!--l{qbile., 542 F. SuPP. 1050, 1055 (S'D' A1a ' 1982) '

rrltrile we believe that the evidence of record supPorts

an inference of racially discriroinatory purpose in enacting the

at-large election p1an, such a concluston is not necessary to

deny section 5 preclearance. The pLalntlffs' burden is to

demonstrate the absence of raclal PurPose ln the declsion to

adopt at-large elections and, oD thls record, they clearly have

failed to satisfY that burden.

enator Richardson's vlews towards black
airir""" in"li67, tt" County p]-aintlffs ln their proPosed
iiili;il ;i facr'(i 38 at 1-9)'portray Senator Rlchardson as a

;;f-t1;";fiiciai-wtio i'contribut;d to hany beneficial things for
the blact comnuniiy ana . o. was responsive and not offenslve to
blacks." Plaintlffs cite itt" testiiony of Ruben GTty, a black
;;;;;"y, in ;6;;;a oi th-eir portravai' -l'tr: Gr-av's testimonv'
h;;;;;;','t,.iaiy"5;;;";at -tha-piopos"i finding' . .whs' asked
about Senator Richardson, Mr.'Griy actuaLlv said that Richardson
was much closer to the whit. "orrlttity-thair 

the black community'
and "Iots of ii*"" [Richardson] wouldir't" take action on behalf
of rhe black ;;;;"i;t: -(Ci"y' Dep. at 45-47). Plaintiffs
taffea to cite testim6ny in the rbcord that is contra!]-!p
rheir propo""i ;i;;i;;.' (d"", -".i., Palmer DeP. aE 23-24).

-L7



C. The Record Demonstrates that gtre At-Large Elec :

The proposed findlngs detail the actions of the Sumter

County Council from 1967 to the present ln malntalning lts at-
large el-ection structure for raclally dlscrinlnatory reasons.

(Findings ls 52 to 100). The two most irnportant events durtng

that perlod concern the County Council's racially motlvated

efforts to change the manner of electing School Dlstrlct No. 2

trustees (Findings ls 70 to 78), and the County Councilrs successful

efforts to inject race into the 1g78 referendum election and

thereby Becure contlnuatlon of at-large electlons (Flndlngs ls. 82

Eo 100).

The evidence concerning School District No. 2 demonstrates

EheE Ehe eeuaEy efficials eppesed elections by dlstrlct because

that method resulted in election of blacks to the schooL board.

For the same reason the County offlcials opposed the adoption

of single-member district elections in the 1978 referendum.

When the referendum campaign began, the issue presented was

nonracial. The Democratic and Republican parties both supported

a change to single-rnember districts; in fact, DO organizatlon or
governmental body other than the Sumter County Council supported

at-large elections. Participants ln the campaign recognLzed that
the mosE effectlve way to defeat the single-member district plan

\f,as to demonstrate the racial implicatlons of the change. The

white members of the County Council went to great lengths to

- 18



highlighttheracialissues,andwereSuccessfulinretalning
at.large-electlons.Theevldencedescribedlntheflndings
therefore, warrants a findlng not only that the county council

has failed to meet its burden of showlng the absence of

discriminatoryPurPoselnmaintainingat-largeelectlonssince
196T,butalsosuPPortsafindingthatthewhltemembersofthe

Councilhave,infact,actedtomalntalnat-Iargee]-ecttongfor
racially discrininatory reasons'

InaddltlontothedlrectevldencethattheCountyCouncll

hasusedraciallydlscrlrnlnatorymeansEomalntainat-latge
elecuions,thereisotherevldencelntherecordwhlchwould

dine "that the at-large system .. ' has been

maintainedforthepurPoseofdenylngblacksequalaccessto

Ehe political processes in the county." Rogers v. @, -s19,

50U.S.L.w.at5045.l,Iediscussbelowtheappllcationofthe

$gg v. Lodge decislon to this c8s€'

The suprerne Gourt's decision last terrn ln @ is the

most recent declsion of the supreme court analyzing the standards

tobeappliedindeterminingwhetheranat-largee]-ectlonSystem
isbeingmaintalnedforraciallydiscriminatoryreasonsln
violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Arnendments' In upholding

- 19



a declslon that the at-large election nethod ln Burke County'

Georgia *as being unconstltutlonally nalntained, the court

observed:

At-large voting schemes and multinember
di";;iEas tend-to mininize the voting

"ii""Eit 
of minority grouPs.by permltting

tt "-p8titical 
rnajority to- eLect all

reDresentatives 6i-tttL district :' The
,i;;;i6;t-"oii"s Pgv'ef it]. 3 murtimember
aitlii"tispttti"i'r?flydllutedwhenbloc
voting occurs at'd U"ltot" are caot along
stricE majorlty-rninority llnes '

Rogers v. @|g9., -gry,, 50 U'S'L'W' at 5042' '

Thefactualclrcumstanceswhlchsupportedadeclsionln.

Rogers that the at-Iarge election system ln Burke County' Georgia

was beine maintained for racially dlscrimlnatory reasons are

also present ln Sumter county. sumter county ls nearly 457" black'

has elected only one black to its governing body (ln Burke county

there was none), and has a Long history of raclal- discrirnination'

As in Burke County, there is "overwhelrning evidence of bloc votlng

along raciar lines" in sumter county' Bogers v' !odge'' -ryElj1'

50 U.S.L.W. at 5044. l.Ioreover, Sr:nter County's black citizens,

like those in Burke county, also suffer the continuing effects

of past discrinination (Findlngs ts 10' L2' 113 and 115);

and there is unrebutted exPerE testirnony in this case that this

historical discrimination restricts the present opPortunity of

blacks to participate effectively in the political Process'

See lggg v. Lodge, -ggpg.1, 50 U'S'L'W' at 5044'

-20



I^Ihile elected officials in Burke County were found to be

"unresponsive and lnsensitive to the needs of the black community"

(Ibtd.), the evidence in Sumter County shows not only an un-

responslve and insensltlve County Councll (Flndlngs ls L15 to L22),

but deuonstrates that ln nearly every l-ssue that black citlzens

have had a particular interest (g&-, School Dlstrlct No. 2,

November 1978 referendum, the antl-Voting Rtghts Act resolution),

the whites on the County Cor:ncll have taken posltions antagonistlc

to black citizens of the County. Sumter County's efforts to keep

the operatlons of County government ln the hands of whltes is

further demonstrated in its failure to appolnt blacks to boar'ds

and comnlsslons (Findings ls 117 to L19), and ln lts efforts

to implenent an "afffu^mative actlon plan," whlch actually

resulted ln a decrease ln the number of black enployees and an

increase in the number of whltes. (Findings ls L20 to LzL) '

A1l of this evidence is similar to the tyPe cited by the*l
Supreme Court in RogerE and "increases the likellhood that the

political process Iis] not equally oPen to bIacks." (Id. at 5044).

In sugl, an application of the legal standard of Rogers v.

Lodge to the evidence of record establlshes qulte convlncingly that

the at-Iarge election system in Sumter County is being maintained

with an invidious racial PurPose.

ty,amajor1ty.voterequiremsntisineffectin
Sirrr"i Co""iy. 

- This ilquireient r"submergeIs] the w1Ll of the
ii"".ityi-;;a-th;;-;aeniiesi the mino-rityrs a9c9?t t9 the [political]
;;";;;.1" -(id. at 5045i. ihere has been a sirnilar impact^of the
rnljority vot-ieqrrfi"r"ttt in Sumter County. (Finding I 110)'

Like Burke County, the sheer geographlc size and shape-of
Sumter County-(findiiri f 110) hav6 ent-ranced the tendency of.
;[;-;i-Large' eiection system to minimize the voting strength
of blacks. See Rogers v. Lodge, -ggp,Eg, 50 U.S.L'I^I' at 5045'

-2L-



III. THE EFFECT OF THE AT-LARGE ELECTION STRUCTURE

To denonstrate the absence of a raclally discriminatory

"effect,"-as that term has been construed under Section 5,

plaintiffs are required to establish that the at-large electlon

sysEem w111 not "lead to a retrogression in the positlon of

racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of

the electoral franchise." Beqq v. Unlted States, -gry,, 425 V.S.

at 141.

If the retrogression test ls to be applied by comparing

the at-large BysteID wlth the appolntlve systeo, that couparLson

should be made "in the context of the present," that ts, "how

the appointive systen used prior to 1967 would operate todav

as compared to how an at-large system ln place todav would

operate." Countv Council of Sumter County v. Eited States,

supra, 555 F. Supp. at 705, citing Citv of Roue v. United States,

supra, 472 F. Supp. at 247, aff'd, 446 U.S. at 185. Applying

Beer in this fashion, there are two possible approaches to

examining the voting strength of blacks under the gubernatorial

appointment systen. Under either approach, the at-large system

fails the retrogression test of Beer.

The first approach involves a review of the appointive

system itself to see what the likely resul-ts would be today if the

appointive system were in place. There is ample uncontradicted

evidence that if the appointive system were in operation today,

-22



there Iikely would be at least two representatives of the bLack

community_on the Sumter County Councll. (See Findings ls 103

to 104). Under the at-Large system, only one such person has ever

been elected (as a result of single-shot votlng) (Findtng 1 52),

and there is a reasonable Llkellhood that, ln future electlons, Do

candidates of choice of the black communlty wiLl be elected

under the at-large Bystem. (Flndlngs ls 105 to 111). In terms

of black representatlon on the County Councll, the at-1arge

system 1s retrogressive.

It ls also approprlate, ln cornparlng the appointlve wlth

the at-large electlon Eystem, to agsess the relatlve votlng

strength of blacks under the appointive system lf lt were

persons who would be doing the appointing today (1.e., the

legislative delegation) and to determine the present abillty

of black voters to choose those aPPointers (leg,tslators).

Today, the Sumter County legislatlve delegation ls comprised*l
of five House members and one Senator. The fivE House members

(indeed the entire South Carolina House slnce 1974) are elected

from single-member districts. (Finding f 111). Two of the

single-member llouse districts are majorlty black in population

and those districts have elected a black to the resPectlve House

rnor had the ultimate -resPonsibili-ty for.
EppointnenE, the record demonstrates that the Governor honored
th-e recommendations of the legislative delegation.

-23



seaEs. Thus, r:nder the appointive system Lf it were operatlng'

blackvoterswouldbeabletochooseatleasttwoofthesix
membersofthelegislativedelegatlonthatwouldbeuaklng
aPPointlDentrecommendationstotheGovernor.Asystemwhereby

blackvoterscanParticipateinchoosingtwoofslxleglslators

who would be recommending aPPointoents to the county governing

body gives blacks more opportunlty to 1nf1uenc".7"U choose

county rePresentatives than the at-large system'

Adrnittedly,therePresentatlonwhlchwouldbeafforded

blackcltizenstodayunderthegubernatorialappolntlvesystem.

is a question requiring speculation' Clearly' there is sone

difficulty in making a meaningful assessment regarding Possibl-e

retrogression if the old appointive system ls used as the

benchmark.ThemainreasonforLhisdlfficultylsthefact
thar the plaintiff county counciL waited flfteen years before

bringing this lawsuit' As a result of the County's delay'

comParingthetwosystemstodayismoreawkwardthanitwouldhave
been in 1967. rn fact the appointive system now has been

@Sr1l1em9 Court's recent decision in Citv
-?5,fffi,I' #li.: : :;it@l' ;i ; EF:fi:"''
courtsaid',theproPer"o,p"iiJo,,-i,ueffiEili,syitemand
rhe sysrem r"H.ii;";; ;;;'""i-""- N"vembei-1 ' 19 [54] ' regardless

of whlt s tate 
- i""-fi iet't 

- 
t'""I "tlq"ii"a' 

1 -, r: 
i i+r:r loct?art 

ali i s ion
united srgtes,-*rE--a ;t^y.'s'L'w' at 4L9

did nor arrer tEERome ."qriiEr""t that the courE anaffie the

1s64 sysretr ""'TE;ffia-;;;;;;; 
ioday. it"t 1s preciserv the

comparison we-n"t""t"r". ^ ih;-sygrem- acruarly.i1. eflect on

i;;5ffi;;-i' , 
" 

r gor ,", the 't:ll;:iii""i:t;:"3i1'Il"':Ei:;l:::;",.svst.em is enPloYed in the
rt the appointive system *;;;-";;a'ioaay some Persons with

responsibility for r""orr"r,ding persons' f;i apiointment would

be elected by district and ttrai fact is included in the analvsis'



f

abandoned in South Carolina. In llght of thls unusual

factual posture, w€ believe that an alternative approach to using

the appointlve system as a benchmark for measurlng retrogression

would be to Deasure whether the at-Large structure "fairLy
reflects the strengEh of black voting power as lt exists.rt

l'lississippi v. United States, 490 F. Supp . 569 (D.D.C. 1979) ,

aff 'd, 444 U.S. 1050 (1980); See also l,Illkes Countv v. Unlted

States, 450 F. Supp. L171, 1178 (D.D.C.), aff 'd, 439 U.S.

999 (1978) ("Since the existing election districts are severely

malapportioned, lt ls approprlate, ln measurtng the effect of

the votlng changes, to compare the votlng chanEes with optlons'

for properlv apportloned single-member distrlct plans. Iemphasls

addedl"). As described in our proposed findings (ls 103 to

105), a fairly apportloned slngle-roember district plan would gtve

black citizens an opportunity to elect three of the seven

members to the county government. In comparlson, the at-Iarge

election structure dlminishes that opportunlty, and is

therefore retrogressive.

The factual evidence presented thus clearly demonstrates

that the at-large election system has led "to a retrogression

in the position of racial ninorities with respect to their

effective exercise of the electoral franchise" (Beer v. United

States, E-gpgg, 425 U.S. at 141) and that factual conclusion

does not differ if the appointlve system or an alternate electlon

system 1s used to measure retrogression.

-25



In -granting the motion of defendants-lntervenors

Blandlng,€tal"tolnterveneinthiscase'thisCourtmade
the following observatlon:

The Sectlon 2 lssue cannot^!:-ig"ored'
at r""'i'iPoi i;;;; i'Pt""sion ".. we

may or i"r'not be reouired to decide
the s""ti'o""I-il""L"bt't we will be

better ;bi; ;t-4;;i lrlth it if we have

evidenci-ittto if thP argument-were
before ""-o"fY 

in the abstract

County Councll--of Sr:mter County v' United States' 555 F'

SuPP.at699._Inourvlew,theplainttffshavefalledto
meet thelr burden of proof concernlng raciar "purpose" and

"effect"asdefinedinSection5'Accordingly'althoughwe

itmaybeunnecessarytoreachthatissueonthisrecord.
However,ilrtheeventthattheCourtdeemsltnecessaryto
addressuheSection2issue,W€describebelowourbaslsfor
concludingthatsection2isappl-lcableinSection5proceedings
andwesummarizetheevidencewhlchdemonstratesthatthe

at-large election system at lssue violates Section 2'

ffii"!',!llir! I _i:" r_iiii:;:":, :*l.E?Bidffi

rv.

ii;H':'-3:,}$t?d:i:i:;.:.i:itii*.3*i':uffi
ffii.:e" tnl.ll ,'?I='; s}'lii ' 1f :^.ly;t;.lill:"H\r. UIII LEs u s'

on Filbruarf 23,On ii;rii ;;;';;;;.,;-go,ir! 9:"t*:dr:1:: ?i3i;
::"li:ffi'{.'1L"t3i;nE"E":;i;;-i i;;; in the rirst instance'

il-u:s.Llw. at 4191 n' 9'

-26



A. Section 2 is Applicable in Seglion 5 Proceedings*l
ThestatutorylanguageofSections2_.and5ltselfdoes

not say one way or the other whether sectton 2 applies to

Section5preclearancedeterminations.Section5uerelystates
thatnovotingchangenaybeenforcedunlesslthasbeenProven
that lt "does not have the purpose and w111 not have the effect

denylng or abrldging the rlght to vote on account of race or

color, of [roernbershlp ln a language olnorlty grouP].|l 42 U.S.C.

1973c. Consequently, the lesue of whether Sectlon 2 should

apply to a Section 5 proieedlng "18 not e caae ln which the

languageofthecontrollingstatuteunambiguouslyans\f,ersthe
questlonpresented"'McDanielv'sanchez'452U'S'130'146
(1981).ItiscustomaryinsuchinstancesEoresorttot,he
legislative history of the Etatute

Congress,andtheSupremeCourthasdonepreciselythisin
interpreting Section 5' See Beer v'

U.S. at 1 39-141; l'lcDanie1 v' Sanchez '

Unlted Statqs, -suPffi, 425

supra,452 U.S. at 146-153'

*-r-fireplaintifl:]. po".-trial brief (p. 40)

6n the Section-2'iss[e foaEes Ln erroneous statement of fact'
Praintiffs "r.ii 

;;;;-.'t;j"-iI" iii"' section 2 relates to
orivare acrions brought Py'i"ii"ia""i or class plaintiffs to

thall"rrg" "f""iio"-pi."ril""--r"gardless -of whether thev are

covered uy s"Iii;; 5.;--oi=io;;3;;-;I"-ii' i;;;," section 2

makes no mention of private ;;;i;;" ' - rn-iact ' Section Lz of

the Voring Rtghts Act proria-"r-;h;i the Attorney General has

rhe aurhoriry";;""r,ior!"-tt"-ptovisions of tt'" A"t (including

section 2) . rn extending [i"'v6i-i;I-iiJehts-1"1 i:. ]:82'
however, corrgi""" "a" iE cf"ar ttraE tlere is a PriYate
righr of actili-inill-s"".;;;-r.- s"" s. ReP. No. e7-417,

eTEt 
-cottg. , Za s""t ' 30 (1982) '

-27



In Beer v. Unlted States, decided eleven years after

passage of the Voting Rights Act, the Supreme Court was faced with

the issue _of how to measure discrirninatory effect in a Section 5.

case. Because the language of Sectlon 5 did not answer thls

question, the Supreme Court in Beer said, "A determination of

when a [voting change] has 'the effect of denying or abridging

the right to vote on account of race or color,' must depend,

therefore, uPon the intent of Congress ln enacttng the Voting

Rights Act and speclfically S5." 425 V.S. at 139-140. To

ascertain congressional intent, the Court ln Beer turned to an

examination of the leglslative history of the Votlng Rlghta Act,*l
such as committee rePorts and leglslators' remarksl

Repeatedly, the Supreme Court has resorted to such

See, e.g., CitJ of Rome v. United States, gllIra. (no individual

bailout for subjurisdictions subject to Section 5 preclearance

requirements by statewide coverage); United States v' Sheffield

Board of Connissioners , 435 U.S. 1 1 0, 129-35 (1978) (subjuris-

dictions are subject to precLearance provisions by statewide

coverage); Allen v. State Board of Elections , 3g3 U.S. 544,

563-71 (1969) (preclearance required of "any state enactment which

altered the election law in a covered State in even a minor way").

@eTeffect, " the Beer
committee repoETf

for measuring
uDon the House
the Act. 425
94tn Cong.,

tlie retrogression test
Court relied primarilY
the 1975 ext-ension of
H.R. Rep. No. 94-L96,U.S. at L4L, citing

lst Sess. 60 (1975).

-28



The legislative history of the L982 re-enactment of the

Voting Rights Act is the appropriate history to examine to

deternine _whether Congress lntended that Sect Lon 2 be applled
,cl

in Section 5 proceedings. Wtrile,that issue did not recelve

extenslve consideration in the leglslatlve proceediDBS, each

time the lssue is addressed the conclusion is that SectLon 2

is to be applied in section 5 proceedings. The senate Report

accompanylng the Lg82 extension of the Act Etates: "In Ilght

of the amendment to Section 2, lt le lntended that a Sectlon 5

obJ ection also follow lf a new votlng Procedure ltself ao

dlscrlminates as to vlolate Sectlon 2." S. ReP' No' g7-4L7,

gTgn Cong. , 2d Sess. 12 n. 31 (1982;/ There are statements

on the floor of both the Senate and the House that likewise

Senator Kennedy, one of the sPonsors of Ehe L982 extension of

the Act, said: "At the same time, as the [Senate] report Points

out, where there is a Section 5 subnission which is not

retrogressive, it would be objected to only if the new practlce

itself violated the Constitution or amended Sectlon 2." 128 Cong'

ent to Secti'on 2, t|e Section was

Ef"ria"ila-to be co-extensive wlth the Fifteenth Amendment.
5""-CiS:4.-Uq.bife ". Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980); S' Rep' No'
g1-+tfffiI5-27.--TE; Beeq Court held that Section 5

is vioiaEAf6i a vorlng procedFwhich "itself so discrininates
on the basls [rf-r."" oi tofor as to violate the Constitution."
425 U.S. at 141.

** / Plaintiffs devote a great deal of their Section 2

E-fscus"io" to their contention that the expllcit reference to
;h;-6;1i".Uifiiy of Sectton 2 to Sectlon 5 cases is e fooEnote
in the Senate R"iott and does not- aPpear in the text of that
Jo""r""t. Plainliff" cite to no lelif authority for. Ehe
proposition that footnotes in legislative documents have no
irr"t.r"tive value in determining the intent of Congress '

-29



*l
Rec. 57095 (daily ed. June 16, 1982t. On the House floor,

Representatlve Sessenbrenner, "one Of the archltects of

the results test in the House" (S' ReP'No' 97-4L7 ' -suPre'' at

138), said that "when there is a section 5 eubmlssion that is

not retrogresstve, it would be objected to only if the new

practice itself violated the Constitution or amended Section**l
2." L28 Cong. Rec. H3841 (daiIy ed. June 23, 1982)l Immediately

after these remarks Irere made, Representative Edwards, one of

the llouse sponsors of the final bill and the chairman of the

House subcommlttee havlng jurisdlctlon over the extension of the

Act, stated hle concurrence wlth Representative Sessenbrenner'8

lnterpretatlon of the bi11. (Ibid.).

These are the only references to the issue at bar

each statement clearly indicates an intentlon that

be applied in Section 5 proceedings and no contrary

However,

Section 2

views

tiffs in their Post-trial brief (pp' 43-45) '
S"rr.io. i""""av'! remarks on the flobr of the Senate occurred
;;;;-itt. ."a ;t it" debate and just Prior to the reenactment
of the Voting Rights Act. it"iitiff; fail to state whv the timing
of those remarks-would dirninistr itr"tt sitniiicance. as Lvidence of
lesislative inlent. In any -vent, while-the remarks of one Senator
ilf ';"';;'i["i' "r,ii.r"a ro tn"';;; weight as t 1 carefullv considered
committee reports, Ehe r"rr"i" debate-pieceding-the Passag-e of-the
11982 exrensi;;-;i the Voti"I nigngsl^Act conEirms what the lSenate
Committee n.poit j -a"roo"s tt.tE" . "= gBitga=stg99s Y;.I+*-++}iP
**/ As a member of the House subcommittee--resPonsible for
m: f"ii"f.iio"-."a one of itt.-"architects" of-the Section 2

',results" test, RepreSentative SeSSenbfennef was "amOng^the
,;;;-;;;i"e-ii;si;i;;oiti i" securing P-assage. of" th" 1e82

"*i"""io" or-ttE-voiing nigtrts Act; ar-rd-ttrus hls views are
entirled to *"iett i; E"t"i*i"i;; iegislatlve intent' Portland
Cemenr Ass' " ii"ii""k'dbe"t', 

-ia'o-r. re-fi 5:-sAt -ggz (D' c;-eil-
iiffifir a""ffis. s21 (1e74).

ffiH; :'fri r iE["i,ii "i.tii"_ "" 
ii"' ", ffi 5 3 5:i'$f, -(1el7f.

-30



LI
have been discoveredl BuE see L28 Cong. Rec. II3844-H3845

(daily ed. June 23, L982) (rernarks of Representatives Levitas,
**/

Fowler and EdwardF).

We believe that these statements are entitled to substantiat

weight ln any effort to discern legislative intent. The Senate

Report, for example, was commended to the full Senate and thus is

entltled to greater weight than any other of the legislative

American Jewish Congress v. Kreps, 574 F.2d 624, 529 n..

C1r. 19 The remarks of Senator KennedY and

@atthisissuewa8notd1scussedextens1ve1yit1.
eongress does not mean that the_ legi-slaglve references shouLd be
ienSred. As uentioned previously,-the Beer retrogression standard
;;; discerned frou relatively ninor refffices in the legislative
history. In _SJrel-!ig_Ld, supra, the Supreme Court ln attemP_ling
Lo dislern thE-inEenEonlftongress, stated: "The specific
,rrrro, question was not extensively dlscussed at the time of
orieinai enacEment, but there is l-itt]e, if anythlng, in the

.

hlstory.
36 (D.C. \r+

orlgInaI IeElS Iatlve frrs L(Jry LrrilL ru .arry w4.y DTTPPL': uD

criipling cSrstruction of the district court." 393 U.S. at 130.

*r, I In our view, the specific references to the application of
Sctton 2 to the Sectfoir 5 standard i.n the Senate Report should
be accorded greater weight in ascertaining legislative intent
than the more general rEferences to Section 5-relied r,pon by
plaintiffs. (Frainriffsr Post-Trial Brief at 46-47)... In any
Lvent , to the extent that there is conflict, if any, "reports
by the legislative committees resPonsible for forrnulatlng-
tire legisiation must take precedence over statements in the
f.ii"iIii"" debates on the' floors of the houses of Congr€ss. r'

amErican Airlines, Inc. v. cAB, 365 F.2d 939,948-949 (D.c.
@ y:- rE!9'qg!igP.1

Un i on . ui-, i t. a 
-a"E 

offiiTe-Eo-rk e r s,--I5ZT. S; 5 6 7, T8-t-(1-9"50F

*** I The report of the standing committee in each house of the
@islarure which investigated tEe desirability of t!r" statute
,nE"r consideration is a iuch used source for determinlng the
intent of the legislature, especially when it sets forth the
comrnittee's grouids for recomtnenQirg Pas-sage of the proposed 

-
bill and, ,oi" important, its underitandin-g 9f lhg nature and
effect of the meabure. See Church of the Holy Trinity v.
united states ,-744 u.s. +s2, , 396
ns. 1E;tT_5 (1969).

-31



Representatives Sessenbrenner and Edwards are also instructive.

As sponsors of the legislatlon, the remarks of Senator Kennedy

and Representatlve Edwards "deservIe] to be accorded substantlal

weight . . . .,, NLRB v. Frult Packers, 377 U.S. 58, 65 (L964);

FEA v. Algonquin sNG, Inc., 426 V.S. 548, 564 (L976). I{trile

the statepents of individual leglslators are not controlling,

the comoenta of thoee who sPonsored the legislation "are 8n

authoritatlve guide to the statute's construction." E
Haven Board of Edqq4t:pn v. BelI, 50 U.S.L.W. 4501 , 4504

(U.S. Ilay 17, 1982).

Thus, when the legislative history to the Voting Rights

Act is examined !n the same manner as was done in Beer, Shef-

9'1 - 'C
rl a-'

r
\

field and Rome, the inescapable conclusion is that Uongress

inrended rhar section 5 preclearance be denied if it lj
determined that a voting procedure violates Section 2l

The position that the presence of a Section 2 violation

precludes the granting of a Section 5 declaratory judgment

is consistent with the past enforcement of the Voting Rights

Act. The Attorney General has interpreted the intent of Congress

at- Congress did not merelY
aie"J-rh; vo;i;; Riehts Act in L9821 uut rather re-enacted
the Act. Thus,-altEough the language of Section 5 was not

"ii"i"a, 
lt is proper to refer to the legi-slative hlstory

;i-ih;-L982 re-Lnattment of Section 5 to determine how Congress
intended the Section to be appIled.

-32



I

as requiring a denlal of Section 5 preclearance to votlng

changeswhichviolateotherprovisionsoftheActdesignedtor
ellninatediscrlminationlnvoting.Forexanple,theAttogney
GeneralconslsEentlyhasdeniedSection5precl.earancetovoting
changeswhlchvlolateSection4(f)(4)oftheVotingRightsAct.
Section4(f)(4)requlrescertaincoveredjurlsdlctlonsto
tmplement btllnguaI voting proceduree' The Procedures for

theAdmlnletratlonofSectlon5stateapeclfical'Iy:

Conelderatlon by the Attornev General

of a jurirai"ti'on[-";;]!9nle wlth the

iEquiienents oi- s""t ion- 4 t1I!tI.:";"'.?
i;-il;-;L'ri"* Pursuant to s

iii"-il.-or-"tt"i'ges with resPect to
voting ' '

l(;{ Thus, section 5 review of changes in-

volvingtheeffecEofbilingualelectionProgralDslsnot
limitedto,,retrogression,,or,,constitutionaliEy'';rather

;rf1h ePorEs ?tg:'!l"Ylng the 197 5

axtension ot tile-Votfng Rigirts Act do noi'stEte specifically
rhar Secrron i"IrUrission"t"il,rii-be-revrewed in this manner'

Rarher the reports srare_rh;;";;Iitai"tiotts mt'st demonstrate
'ifi i,i- it ".,o 

i 
1k : 

;Hn:,:*lti -iii: t itli:ii4:. :i : :, 

"::::"'"
minority grou
3s. D. 39 trgTs); H'R'-n"pl'N;l 6l:igo' 

-i+itt Eong" lst sess ' 27 '

n.'43 (1975).

33



the Sectlon 5 deterrnination also involves a revlew of whether

the change cornplies with Section 4(f) (4)'

This interpretation of section 5 by the Attorney

General was reported to the Congress during its conslderation

of extending the Votlng Rights Act |n L982. For example, in

testlfying before the Subcommittee on the Constitutlon of

the Senate Judictary Conni.ttee on March 1, L982, the Assistant

Attorney for the civil Rights Dlvislon stated:

Several enforcement actlons have been filed
ooa". Sectlon 5 to obtaln compliance with
the bllingua1-eLectlon requirements ot
Section 4(f).

Votine Rl tg Hearings Before the Subcomm. on the

he Judicia

Cong., 2d Sess. 1659 (1983) (Statement of Wm. Bradford Reynolds,

Assistant Attorney General, CiviL Rights Division); see also,

id. at L72O (Attachnent A-2 to Statement of Wn. Bradford

Reynolds) ("Section 5 has been used in several lnstances to

obtain compliance with the bllingual-election requirements

of Section 4(f)|'). Wtrile these remarks were linited to the

chool
Civ. No.t/I-V. t\(J. I l-LCTLJ \Y'Yov', --'
while not disPositive in a Section
guidance regaiding wha! constitutes
igainst lan[uage ninoritles." Slip

5 litigation, Provides
di scrininatorY behavior
op. 15.).

-34



application of Section 4(f) language nondiscrimination provisions

through Se_ction 5, there would aPpear to be no sound basis for

differential treatment of a voting change whlch violates

another provision of the Act deslgned to prohibit racial

discrimination in voting, euch as Sectlon 2'

of course, adninistrative construction of the Act by

the Attorney General ls particularly pereuaslve, ln llght of

the key rol-e that the Attorney General has played "in draftlng

the statute and explainlng lte operatlon to Congress.'' United

States v. Sheffield Board of Conrnissloners, 9lrIg, 435 U'S' at'131

(footnote omltted). In relylng on "the Attorney GeneraL's

longstanding construction of 55" (id. at L32), Congress re-enacted

preclearance would be denied to those votlng changes that run

afoul of other nondiscrimlnatlon provisions of the Act' "Wtlen

a Congress that re-enacts a statute voices its approval of an

administrative or other interpretation thereof, congress is

treated as having adopted that interpretation, and Ithe SuPreme]

Court is bound thereby." (Id. at 134; cltations omitted)'

Alsoasamatterofpublicpollcy,W€believethat

preclearance should be denied for changes that violate Section 2 '

Section 5 preclearance by the Attorney General or this Court

is viewed as a certification that a change has neither a

-35



racially discriminatory PurPose or effect. It would, therefore'

be inconsistent with the overall PurPoses of the Voting Rlghts

Act to lnterpret Sectlon 5 ln a manner whlch would require

approval when the facts establish a cLear violation of another

nondiscrimination provlsion of the same statute. In such cir-

cu1trstances, denial of preclearance on section 2 grounds would

be more consistent wlth the purposes of the Act than grantlng

precLearance to votlng procedures that are raclally discrinlnatory*l
within the meaning of Sectlon 2l

For the above reasons we belleve that the Sectlon 2

standard is applicable in Sectlon 5 proceedingE' Ilowever ' 
'

r^re do not believe that the Section 2 appllcation imposes an

aarlirional burden of proof on Section 5 plaintiffs. Rather,

in our view, if a violation of SectLon 2 is alleged as a basis

for denying section 5 preclearance, it is the responsibility of

the charging party to go forward to Prove discriminatory

"results" in the first instance. In this litigation that

burden falls on the United States and the intervening defendants;

t 1-! "Pt""1earance is denied
E; .;-;;iiorative chaige, the effect is to resurrect the
exisring, ror!-;;;r;;;iie'law." (Platntif{p' Post-Trial Brief
;;- 41-"1't g). However, as mentloned previously, !|" ry. test
it""if--protriUit"-Secti6n 5 preclearalte of an ameliorative
;;;i;g iio""a"i" ,t i"tr violltes the Constitution and thus the
same argument-""" U" applled to that decision' The answer is
that the Court-envisioirla that the constitutional vlolation
would be ."r"Ji.a; and Congress had the same thought concerning
violations of the aroended Section 2'

-36



the burden shifts to the plaintiffs only after a prima facie

case has been made. rf the evidence presented in this Danner

supportsanaffirmativefindingbytheCourtofaSection2

violatlon,preclearanceunderSection5shouldbedenied.
In1'lghtoftheseproceduralrequlrements,W€believe

that the section 2 issue need be addressed only if Ehe court

determines Ehat plaintiffs have satisfled thelr burden of

proofunderSection5,l'e',Lftheyhavedemonstratedthat

the at-l a:rile system is not "retrogresslve" and was enacted

and has been naintained without a racially dlscriuinatory

PurPose.Ifthatburdenhasnotbeensatleftedthereisno
need to consider the affirmative flndings required by Sectiort 2""

B. The Record S rts an Aff irrnat-ive Finding.tlrat

Section2oftheVotingRightsAct,ssamendedbyCon-

gress in L982, Provides:

Sec. 2. (a) No voting quallfication or Prerequisite
to voting or siandaral- fractice or Procedure shall

:;"Hffi 
Ei";:" iiili i;,li "f,"I "3 

Ii E : ?I'"" l :: i :i:" i* :
;;;i;il;r,i--oi ffi;";i'ii;-;i anv cltizen of the united
States to vote on acEount of l"ct or color' oE in
contravention of the gt-r"ttti"Lt set forth in section 4

iijiz>, as provided ii subsection (b)'

(b) A violation of subsectlon (a) is established
if, based on ;[;-lotalrty of rhe circumstances, lt is
shown rhar rnl"ioii;i;;i'pio"""""s leadilq.tg nomination
or election in the state br polltical subdivislon are

nor equally of."--r"-qa-rtfcipltion by.members of a class
of citizens p[It""."e-bt s"t'section- (a) in that its
members have less opporrunii,-it"" othlr members of the
electorate to Participate i"'fni Polilical Process "ld
to elect t"pt"I-ttatives of their-choice' The extent

-37



to which members of a protected class have been

elecied ro office in the srate or- politica]
suuiivision is one circumstance- yhic{r roay.be

"o"riili"al 
-Frovided, Th-ar norhing ln this

s ecr i;;- es iaUEffiEil r lght to- have members of a

pi"t""i"a class elected In numbers equal Eo thelr
ProPortion ln the PoPulatlon'

The amendrnent to section 2 was designed to make clear

that proof of discriminatory intent ls not required to establlsh*l
a violation of sectLon 2. S. ReP. No. 97-417, supra, aT 27 '

',Sectlon 2 protectg the rlght of mlnorlty voters to be free from

electlon practices, proeedureE or methods, that deny thern the

same opportunlty to partlciPste tn the politlcal process as other

citizens enjoy. If as a result of the challenged practice or

structure [black citlzens] do not have an equal oPPortunity to

participate in the political Processes and elect candldates of

Congresshasdescribedanumberoffactorsapplicableinassessing
a possible Sect Lon 2 violation. The factors described in the

senate heport include the following: (l ) history of dlscrimination

in voring; Q) racial bloc voting; (3) rnajority vote and ful1-

slate requirements that enhance the discriminatory result;

(4) depressed socio-economic conditions in the minorlty commr:nity;

*_/_o>f racial purpose ln either the
Eioiiio" or maint"i'r.t,L" of the voting-procedure at issue
would also constit;;; a violation of-SLction 2' See S' Rep'

No. g7-4L7, supra ,'ii zl and n. ioa. consequently' a finding
thaE Sumter County "itf,"t- 

adopted or is maintaining the

"t-r.Ii"-"r""ioi.i 
ri"r", for' racially discriminatory PurPoses

would EstaUfish a Section 2 violation'

tr)r
'\-

t *.,

-38



)

(5)injectionofraceintocampaignsandelectioncontests;

and (6) the consistent defeat of minority candidates' other

factors thaE sometimes may be relevant include a showing of

governmental unresponsiveness, and a tenuous state policy in

favor of the challenged votlng procedot"l'

Theevidenceofrecord,whenviewedinlightofthese

factors,suPPortsanaffirmativefindingthatblackcitizens
in sumter county do not have an equal opportunity to Particlpate

ln the polltlcal Proces8e8 and elect candldates of thelr choLce'

In fact, affirmatlve factual flndtngs can be made on thls record

concerning each of the exemplary factors described by congress:

historical discrimination in voting (Findings ls 8 Eo 1 4); racial

bloc voring (Findings {s 106 to 109); majority vote and full-slate
L

requirements

amongblacks(Findingsls10,12and113);lnjectionofracial
appeals into campaigns (Findings ls 82 to 99); and the consistent

defeat of minoriu) candidates (Findings ls 106 to 110)' In

addition, the record confirms the county's unresPonsiveness to the

blackcommunlty(Flndingsls116to122);andtherehasbeena
showingthat,whilethestatepollcyisnotstrong,itleansmore
roward distrlct-tyPe elections than at-Iarge (Findings ts 28 and 1 1 I ) '

ed from the decision of the

*::uti"f:*.I:,#,;-ffi+-;.tli,Y;i, l;!. !liii];,,::"
Theultimatedecisionconcerning.aSection2violation
',requires the Co;;i'" or"..If-jiagr"rrt,.based on a totality
of circumstances and guideJ-by-it3t" relevant factors in the

parricular J;;; o-i-rf,"itt"i lf,"-voting strength of ninoritv
voters rs ...'-;iinimizea oi ca"."iea 5ut.'" -S' ReP' No' 97-

4L7, supra, 8t 28-29 and n' 118'

-39



The totality of the factual clrcumstances Presented on this

record demonstrates that the at-Iarge election system violates

Sectlon 2 of the Votlng Righte Act; that vlolation requires

that Sectlon 5 preclearance be denied.

V. CONCLUSION

Since plalntiffs have failed to demonstrate that the

at-large election structure "does not have the purpose and

will not have the effect of denylng or abridging the right to

vote on account of race Or c6lor,r'the requegt for a Section 5

declaratory judgment muat be denled. Should the Court find

lt appropriate to addrees the issue of whether Section 2 of

the Voting Righte Act applies, that question should be answered

in the affirnative. tltren applied to the facts of this case

a violation of Section 2 has been shown and, thus, SecEion 5

preclearance also must be denled on that basls '

STAI{LEY S. HARRIS
United States AttorneY

R,espectfully submitted,

WM. BRADEORD REYNOLDS
Assistant AttorneY General

w.
PAUL F. HANCOCK
J. GERALD HEBERT
ROBERT N. K![AI{
THOMAS G. SNOW
Attorneys, Voting Section
Civil Rights Division
Department of Justice
10th & Constitution Ave., N.I^I.
Washington, D.C. 20530
(202) 724-6292



I

...

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certlfy that on thls 20th day of Aprll, 1983,

I served the foregolng Post-Trlal Brlef of the Defendant unlted

States of America on the followlng counsel of record, by placing

a true and accurate copy of the same in the united states mail,

first-class, PrePald Postage to:

Joseph W. Dorn, 899.
Kllpbtrick and Cody
250\ tl Street, N.IiI:, Suite 500
Washlngton, D.C. 20037

/t

Randafl T. BeIl, Esq.
![. Elizabeth Crum ,- Esq.
McNair, G1enn, Konduros, Cor]gY,

SingietarY, Porter and Dlbble, P'A'
D n R.nrr 'l I ?qO

Columbla, South Carollna 29211

Howard P. King, Esq.
Bryan, Bahnmuller, King,
P.0. Box 2038
Sr:mter, South Caro'ina

Armand Derfner, Esq.
5520 33rd Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 2001 5

Laughlin McDonald, Esq.
52 Fairlie Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgla 30303

Herbert Buhl, III, Esq.
533-A Harden Street

Goldrnan and McElveen

291 50

Colunnbia, South Carolina 29205

Department of Justice
l0th and Constitution Avenue, N'W'
Washington, D.C. 20530
(2O2) 724-6292

X;.;;;;, ffii;s sect ion
Civil Rights Dlvision



_5



, Gtw!" 
/lln^o l**

LG/ r
Attach

Gulnier

June 6, 198s

To: Jim Blacksher
Armand Derfner
Mark Gergen/Barbara AttweIl
Laughlin McDonald
Frank Parker
Eric Schnapper

Thank you for att€nding the
meeting Monday. We appreciateyour thoughtful suggestions and.observations and uige you tocontinue to bring your-thinking
on this case to our attention is
we write the brief . As promJ_sed,
I enclose a copy of an appendixto Bernie Grofman's aeporl that
shows in Condensed Summary Table 3992 of blacks in Durham single shotto get a black elected.
Thanks again for your assistance.



'}1 lr--7
't'r ;' -l

Appcndlr 3r rEffectr

,, . In Elcht

Level of Hhlte Voter Support for BIack Candldates vs; Biick
and General Electlons ln whlch there was at least one Black,i

Proportlon of whlte,
voters for black
candldate(s).

.{,

,33

l,

,rl0' ,'
. :t, I: '' ,as.,.

' r8l
.la ,e?

.i ' '
t, ,?8 '"''!
t,' ,1'l' ,
l,

,'t; 1

I" i 
,.11' ;,,
,.fg 

. ,

, ,..1? ,,

"13 
I

.]4.,}i
' ,3J

,Y f, ,tlL

Voter Support f
Candldate,1978-

Proportlon of black
voters for black
cand ldate( s )

,1'l
, 
., ,1,1

.5t,
;:f "{

,i'',' ,gr,

.9J ,rg

; 
,9e

1 ,1\

,o 5' 
,71
,10

' ,91'

,15 .r,5

,96,.

,81 , 9q

I

GEIITRAL

(5) llecklenburg & Cabarrui
(t,L,r,1) leTJ Senate

Cl , l, {, o ) 1982 senrte

'(9) llecklenb..rrg

f I ', ,, tr, l) I?78 Sen.rte

C', l{,, r, d) ilrso'tlcuse
(1, -r..t, t) 1933 Senate

(a, tr, B,r) l?J? lrluse

(<) C:barrl:s

Cl,t,tl, I ), lJls serrate

( t,7, {rd) t3tj2 senate.

(5) Dr,ihan

(,, {) er c) ,rlfr;Tir"
(. l,),7.t,1) :97s House

( t, 5. l, t ) l9uo Hcuse

( l,'1, ),'t) \e82 Huuse

(7) tors;4h I

(aJ,r,d). 
ii?;*i;i"( t,lo,SrJ) tgcoHouse

( a, v, 5,I) ieE? l{ouse

*In Edg.:ccrnbe, l{llson and Nash there was
a l9i6 County Corrcnlsslon race ln t{llson,

on'ly black candldate for House or S

1982 Congreqslonal Prlmarles, and E

of l{ul t

North Carol

coiloENsE0

(,s,Y
(l 

, b-,'l

Q,6'

( 
, s,'l

(, $,
(t .t3,
(l,L'
. ].?,

(i,

(tr,

(r,,

(1,

(r 
,

(lt
("

House and State Senate 0lstrlcts

a Countlesl 1978-1982'
I ..,'

B lack
982.*

tJt f fillttl

,1,1t

PU!4ARY

1978 Senate

1980 Senate
l9B2 Senate.

l97B Senate'
1930 Sanate:
l9{10 llouse
l9B2 Senate
I982 llouse

l97B Senate
1980 Senrte
1982 Sonate

I978 tlouse
l9B0 Housa

1982 tlouse

1978 Hcuse
'1980 Senate
l9S0 House

I982 tlouse

t)
,)
l).

t)
o)

;l)
,f)
rr)

(1, 1

(h. ?

, o)

,0 )

,o)

l, ,)

5,.1 )
ar,)
5,1)
c,l)

5r,
5,
t,

TI8LEI ' "i'

Candldates ln Elght North Carollna
:'

:..

c and I date( s )

1..i.

,,,rl7

' ') 1

:' ,50
,) 5

: '..: ,.i.. , 
"1 ).31

5-' .3 ?'(0) G)

,j,
' f /
,30

0.10, ,tb,x
,aL ,1'l

,18 ,oS',1?
,rq.lo .g

"a6 .)rL

te ln the perlod 1978-1982. 0ata for those countles are based In addtilc-, cn
arrd Nash 1982 County Cormlsslon Prlmarles and Seneral Eiections.

ltumber of black c,rnrlJ.datea
total nunrber of c;rndidates

(-tncluding bl'ackr;) i,, ;, I

nunher crf . wlrrnlng eund.irhLes
number of' wlnnlhg t,laci
candldates

c;un t I ;Jtouse a"E Iertii-piTffi '

Proportlon:of whlte I Proportlon of black
voters for black !voters for Slack

candldate( s)

, 6't
,7y
,g v

, [r7
,7?. ,7[
.r1, )1' 

- 
,71

\o) 1A )

'7s
.77. 
._71,

,7e
V

,1A . ,1c

Jb .ai .5?
,lrl

.gL ,3b
,.90 .? I

Irr
Yr:

lra
QE

,gl



(5) lfake
(l,6,rr,t) l?Bo House
( t ,tl, L, r) l9B2 Housa

(:) E..t!..:.r

( 5) Ed;:eccabe

GEIIERAL

1932 County
Connlssl

lProportlon of whlte
lvoterrs for black

lcanatoate( 

s )

| ,q,
L{s

I q.t,3, I )

(4) ltllson

,?8 ,3L

Proportlon of ilact
voters for black
candldate( s)

.cl o

,qf

.gl ,cll

I

ABLE I tlonrrrr.ot

I lProoortton or whtteI I voters for blackI Pntunnv lcandldate(s)

c,,,nj.,,,; I .o,
[t.,t?,1",t) lgSoHouse I ']l
[r , rrrf , r1 le82 Hous 

I 
, ,,

1 
,rr, ,lur. (r1,1,, ol I , oY

lt'8:,J*r"nnf',),4, l) I 'r'I
ItTr,fr*r'"n( t,a,r,rll ' os

l,',,,,i,",,1;:;l; l, I :i
f 
"F:,3fr'"nn(,., a, i, ,) | ,o i
l"t*f,tiln..({, 

,1, ,,rll o o',,0't ,oa

|,ro,,,1,," Ct,7,Y,,'; | " .d)

f 

t'ffi,fi:r'"t 
r, B,l, o\ I ' ,(tL

l]'Bl,fr{lrtonn(,},\,r) | ,o'7

l"e:.:{u*,.,(,, r1z, ,tl , 3a

lt
I

I

Proportlon of b'lack
voters for black
candl date( s )

,7L ':

. &f
. tra

,AC
, g'/

.1J

L7
,e,f

,1q

clq ,21 .?, ,g)

.)c
"?L

'1e
,a1J



'i

GENERAL

Proportlon of whlte
voters for black
candtdate(s)

30 llouse & Senate (P&G)

4 County Cormlssloner (PAG)

2 Cong Prlmarles

36'

Proportlon of black
voters for black
cendldate( s)

TABLE i

1976

1982 I
Pr

1982

Pr

1982 C

0N) nasn

N'53

Actual dlstrlct races '

I nued )

" Cl, ,,r, o,

:"'.( I , 3, a, t)

Proportlon of whlte
voters for black
candldate( s )

,04

,ol,

,0 L

.o1

Proportlon of black
voters for black
cand ldate( s.)

,str

,?7

,tl
.t7

PRIMARY

lrton'1l 13, l, o )

Corm ::1L." 
(t,b,7,01



.' !--

1

'a

Rank{ng of Hhlte Voter Support
and General Electlons ln uhlch

(5) !{ecklenburg & Cabarrus
(lrb,1, I) tgzs senate

( t ,z, I,o) lsez senate

( 9) [iecklenburg

C t r !,Y, l) .1978 senate

Ct ., tu;G, r ') rsao lirrse
( f, ?,1, c) 1982 Senate

C Q,tP, c,l ) 1982 House

(5) Cabarrus
f I ., L.,,t, I ) 1978 Senate

f , ,?, Y) o ) r9B2 senate

(6) D:rham

(lr{,d'o)
.(l,a,a,q)
C t,3,J,!)

(^ r 1{r 3, l)' .

,_(7) Fors$h

\ Qr1,5,o)
( t,10, 5, c\

(a. g,s 
, 
a)

1978 Senate
(Rep B )

1978 House

1930 House

1982 House

1978 House

(l Rep B)
I980 House

1982 House

for Elack
there was

Ranklng of rhlte
voters for black
c rnd I date( g)

'1

['{ st
G

7 l'l

5

G

lrst.
\q tl^
lq bt

3

l"rl n,rtt lart

I qtt

lrsh rurt *, tr:t

rln Edgecombe, l'lilson and Nash there was only black candldate for House or
a l976"County Cormlsslon race ln lJl'lson, l9g2 Congresslonal Prlmarles, and

1

6

Candldates vs. Black Voter Support
at least one Black Candldate' 1978

Rank'lng of black
votars for b'lack
candldrte( r)

I

l
I

a

I

I

3
t

I

I

a rSrJ\

and llash l9B2 County Conmlsslon

'cot{DENsE0 Y TABLE

6,
fr
(l

(\r
Ca.

(a,
,?,1 )

,'1.,1 \
t,Y,o \
b,q.l)

PRII.IARY

1978 Senate

1980 Senate
1982 Senate

1978 Senaie
l9B0 Senate
l9B0 tlouse
l9B2 Senate
l9B2 House

,'{,o) tgrs senate

,'t, o) I98o senate

,Y,J 
1982 Senate

G
( t,

Cl ,r

6,
ct
(l 

,

Nu

(A,
r{

, ), l)

,brl)
e,d)
5, l\

1978 House

I980 House

1982 House

1978 House

1980 Senate
1980 House

l9B2 House

or BIack candldates ln Elght Nortlt carollna countles, House and senate Prlmary
982.r

anklng of nhlte
oters for black
andl date( s )

I att
(ar t

5

latrt
(qsl

1U

? 
5 lq:t

Iatt
los'f
q

tq?+ G
v

ne,.+ h t.* hr't

7 tqtt 8

tarl
nrrtlr [qrt lart

8r{

ln the perlod 1978-1982. Data for

Ranklng of black
voters for black
c rnd ldate( s )

I

I

I

those countles are ba',eC ln aCJitlon or
Prlmarles and General Eleciions.

(?

I

I
I

a
Y

)
I

a
e

AIn:anCer lcses
irr 197? C:barru
or lnary.
olk l:s:s ln

I l8l C,r),'irru s

rIi,f:'i,



-

(5) uake
( l.$.1r,1) l98o House

I t ., t?, L, , 11 
l9E2 Hou5"

(r) ,-r-*

GENERAL

1932 Count
Corrni ss

lanklng of rhlte
voters for black

ldate( s )

G
5

( 5) F.{gecombe 
.

? ,{, it})

(4i liilr,on

d

Ranklng of black
voters for black
candldate( s)

J

( cont I nued )

, PR II.IARY

il,
( lr
(,.,

),6,a ) rrr, ,,orr.

.6,1)1980House

, c, rl 1982 House

(t,-1,y,, )

fi,1,J, t)
(r,a,l,o)

lrouse (t,'trY,o)

Lilrtonn .[t.' 3, a, t)

frlfr'onn 't,a , t, I )

[",,11t'r"., 
(1 ,lt, t,t'

House (., r,t/, a 
1

,Iilr'o" fr 1a, a, o\

ri:gyco"s'(,',)., o \

House

lst Cong
v

Znd Cong
v

198
P

197

I

Ranklng of whlte
voters for black
cand ldate( s )

9
g

5

tn' r)
'tq sI

lnr\

[.:]

In s]
lq sI

trst hrlt,'
last

lqst
tq r1

[q sf
' t\

Ranklng of black
voters for black
candldate(s)

I

I

I

t

I

L{l}l

I

I

Hichaux rlns it
Edgeconbe onlY



. d |J-

() xotr,

l{.53

Actual dlstrlct

Ranklno of whlto
voters-for black
candldate( s )

t.

30 House i $qn6ts (P&G)

4 County Cormlssloner (P&G)

2 Cong Prlmarles

I

36.

Ranklno of black
voters-for black
candldate( s)

:I

GEI!ERAL

races .

PRIU'RY

Ranklng of whlte
voters for black
candldate(s)

Ranklno of black
voters-for black
candldate( s)

Cong

v

1976

1982

Pr

1932

Pr

st Cong.

ounty
I ss{orter

(i, r, Y,r )

(f,1a,t)

(rlrlro)

c1,6,3,0)

.l
trnl fin lrs.[

(orf

(t



.o 12, - p

(5) t4ecklenburg & Cabarrus

C lL,'t, tl l97B Senate

I I ,l,Y,o ) l9B2 senare

(9) l'lecklenburg

C t ,L,\ ,l ) t slg senate

[],/6,t,r) le6o House

( t, ?,Y,1) l9B2 Senate
(e,te,'J.r) lgBZHouse

(5) Cabarxus

[(,L,q,tl lgTSsenate

(l ., ) ,,1 ,o i 1982 senate

(!) Du:^tram( l,9,,lrdl

GEIIERAL

1978 Senate
(Rep I )

1978 House

1980 House

1982 House

1978 House
(l Rep B)
1980 House

1982 llouse

(t 1, i,1)
f f,J,i,t.l
C, ,,r 1, l)

(7) Forsyth
( .I,? 1,r\
( r;0, t,o)

f ;r ,6,':. ))

iIn Edgeccrnbe, l{llson and Nash there was only black candldat-e for House or
a 1976-County Cormlsslon rtce ln l{llson, 1982 Congresslonal Prlmarles, rnd

Level of llhlte Voter Support forBlack Candldates vs. Black Voter Support f
and General Electlons ln rhlch there was at least one Black Candldate, I

Proportlon of
the votes cast
bv rhlte voters
vrhlch oo to the
black iandldate(s)

Pi{B

,lG

,ll

.15

,05
,ll
,t)

,lq

,l-l

,l)
,e8
,?t
, }L

'lu
, orl

,"1 I

CONDENSEU

Proportlon of
the votes cast
by black voters
whlch oo to the
black iandldate(s)

Pis

,3s

,'lb

,38
,a3
,'{rl
,'18

1'l

,aJ

,, )a
.31
,35
,,1 6

,1tl

,t,l
.,5 s

*

Y TAELE 3

PRIHARV

1978 Senate

1980 Senate
1982 Senate

1976 Senate
1980 senato
.l980 

llouse
l9B2 Senate
1982 House

1978 Senate

l9B0 Senate
1982 Sena'.e

fi,s
(r ,

Cl'

({:
Ct ,

(rL
(?,

(t,
A

l'tr

(a,
tlo
(a

(t ,l
C',
(Q,
(a,

1,t)
1,0 )

,1,1 )

,1, l)
,'l,ol
t,,)

tl. I \
1,1,))

,Y,t )

5,9,r )

,1r')

. i, lJ l97B House

f tt,tTl't 1980 House

, 3, I ) 1982 House

, si, I ) 1978 House

,2,0 ) 1980 Senate

r,Y,l) 1980 Houstt

l'r ti,1\ 1982 House

Black Candldates ln Eight North Carollna Countles, House and Senate Prlmnry

Proportlon of
the votes cast
by whlte voters
which oo to the
black iandldrrte( s)

PiE

,lb
,O1
,la

,l rl
,01
,0"1
, tl
,11

,15
-o7
, ll,

,10
x

,15

, tq
,0 'l
.t5
,15

Proportlon of
the votes cast
bv black voters
rvhlch oo to the
black landloate( s)

Pis

.5v
.54
't{?

,59
c?

,3'l
,5 t'
,5 Y

, irl
.37
. a8

,11
K

:?l

,G7
,51
. 5'5
, 5.5

the perlod 1978-1982. Data for those countles are based ln addltlon ot

inO ilistr igB2 County Conmlsslon Prlmarles and General Electlons.

Alexander loss;
ln 1973 Crbarru'
pr imary.
Polk loses ln
l9E2 Cabarrus
p r I inary.



- e ,1_
.r.

(5) xake

C,l], !, I'
C[,r", L,l)

(3) E-,!-N

( 5) Edgeccmbe

GENERAL

I980 House

1982 House

l9B2 County
Corrnl ss loner

Proportlon of
the votes cast
by whtte Yoters
whlch oo to the
black iandldate(s)

P,lB

,0 1

,0q

,to

Proportlon of
the v.otes cast
by black voters
which oo to the
black dandldate(s)

or.BB

,t?
,lg

,bg

TA8LE 3

I 982

Pr

l9B2
Pr

1982

Pr

1982
Pr

( l, ra,

I ,9,
ri, t5

I9B2 I

1982 I

1982 c

I 982

1982
Prl

1982

contlnued)

,0)

,l)
L, ll

t Cong

v

Cong

PRI!'IARY

1978 llouse

l9B0 House

1982 House

( rr1,{, d )

Ir'on' ct,)ta,l)

lrton'(sra,t.,o)

se (t,1,1r0)

lrton:( t, l)l I r I

lrtonn(',e,l,d)

irlt'on..&,1 d, 3, l )

(r,r, a)
(i, 1a, a )

1i,],1,0)Pr ry

1976
c SliJ^.' gr.,i1,7,0)

Proportlon of
the votes cast
by white voters
whlch qo to the
black iandldate(s)

h
,0 5
,01
, i0

,al
, ,0]
,05

,01

.0e

,0i
,04

.o I

'rA 
1

.o rl

,O 5

Proportlon of
the votes cast
by black vots13
whlch oo to the
black dandldate(s)

Dt,BB

,rr 0

,50
,,{ I

,?L
,f0
,1',l

,3)
.g)

,1?

,611

,5)
,qE

,11

,v0

lllchaux wlns ln
Edgecombe only



" 'lU

GE}IERAL

({) xasr,

il .53

Actuar 
.drstrrct 

racee t 
T ffiff 

-rgi::,;'::l,r.n,

. _3ConS Prlmarles

,

36

contlnued )

I 976

t952 I t cong (i, 1.a,1 )
Prl v

(r,-r,,t, o )

lr'onn 
(1., a, t, o )

( u,t, o1

Proportlon of
the votes cast
by black voters
whlch oo to the
black iandldate(s)

,31

,17

, B')-

,'l 1

PjIr,lARY

Proportlon of
the votes cast'
by whlte Voters
whlch oo to the
black iandldate(s)

Pi,B P,it

198?

Pr

1982

.o l

orl

,0'C

.0 "l