Trial Transcript Volume 6

    No. 83-1968 . 

IN THE 

&uprrmt C!tnurt nf tlft 1lnitt~ &tatts 
OcTOBER TERM, 1985 

LAcY H. THORNBURG, et al., 
Appellants, 

v. 
RALPH GINGLES, et aZ., 

Appellees. 

On Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Eastem District of North Carolina 

JOINT APPENDIX 

JULIUS CHAMBERS 

Emc ScHNAPPER 

c. LANI GUINIER 
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND 

EDUCATIONAL FuND INc. 

16th Floor, 99 Hudson Street 
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

LESLIE J. WINNER 

FERGUSON, WATT, WALLAS, 

& ADKINS, P.A. 

JERRIS LEONARD 

KATHLEEN HEENAN MoGuAli 
LEONARD & McGuAN, P.C. · 
900 17th Street, N.W. 
Suite 1020 
Washington, D.C. 20006 
(202) 872-1095 

Counsel for .Appellants 

951 S. Independence Blvd. 
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 
( 704) 375-8461 

Counsel for .Appellees, Ralph Gingles, et al. 

JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT FILED JUNE 2, 1984 

PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED APRIL 29, 1985 





1 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF RELEVANT DocKET ENTRIES . JA-1 

ORDER oF THREE-JuDGE CoURT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J A-3 

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THREE-JUDGE CouRT . . . . . J A-5 

STIPULATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J A-59 

ExcERPTS FRoM TRANSCRIPT oF TRIAL BEFORE THREE-
JUDGE CoURT . . .......... .. .. . ... .. .. ... .. .. . . JA-119 

Witnesses: 

Bernard N. Grofman . ... . .. .. .... . .. .... . JA-119 

Direct Examination .. . ....... ... .. . . . .. JA-119 

Cross Examination .. . .. ... . .. .. . . . . . ... JA-143 

Redirect Examination .. . ....... .. . . . .. . JA-152 

Harry Watson . ... . .. . . ... . .. .. .. . . . .. . . . JA-156 

Direct Examination .. ..... . . . . . ...... . . JA-156 

Paul Luebke ... ... . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. .. JA-160 

Direct Examination ... ... .... .......... J A-160 

Cross Examination .... . . ... . .. . ... .. . . . JA-168 

Phyllis D. Lynch ... ... ........ ... .. ...... JA-174 

Direct Examination . .. .. ... . . . .. . . ... .. JA-174 

Cross Examination . . ... ... . . .. ... . ..... JA-183 

Samuel L. Reid .... . . . ... .. .. . . . .... . .. .. JA-193 

Direct Examination . .. .. . .. ... . . . ... . .. JA-193 

Cross Ex.Lmination . .. . . .. .. ... . ... . .. . . J A-194 



11 

TABLE oF CoNTENTS continued 

Page 

Robert W. Spearman .... .... ............. JA-198 

Direct Examination .. ...... . .... .. ..... JA-198 

Cross Exaillination ...... . .... ... . ...... JA-199 

Larry Little . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J A-201 

Direct Examination ...... . ... ...... . . . . JA-201 

Cross Examination ...... . ........ . .. ... JA-206 

Willie Lovett ... .......... ............... JA-210 

Direct Examination .............. . ..... JA-210 

G, K. Butterfi(>ld, Jr .......... . .. . . .. . .... JA-215 

Direct Examination .... ......... ... .... J A-215 

Fred Belfield, Jr .......... .. .... .. ... .... JA-228 

Direct Examination .... ... ......... .. . . J A-228 

Joe P. Moody . ............... .. ........ .. JA-232 

Direct Examination ................. . .. JA-233 

Theodore Arrington .. ............. . .... . . JA-233 

Direct Examination ............. .... ... JA-233 

Frank W. Ballance, Jr ........ .... .... .. . . JA-237 

Direct Examination .............. . ..... JA-237 

Cross Examination ..................... J A-246 

Leslie Bevacqua ... . .. .... ..... . .......... JA-248 

Direct Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J A-248 



Ill 

TABLE oF CoNTENTS continued 

Page 

Marshall Arthur Rauch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J A-249 

Direct Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J A-249 

Cross Examination ..................... JA-252 

Louise S. Brennan ....................... JA-255 

Direct Examination .................... JA-255 

Cross Examination .... . ................ JA-262 

Malachi J. Green ....................... .. JA-266 

Direct Examination .................... JA-266 

Recross Examination ................... J A-269 

Examination .................. . ....... J A-269 

Arthur John Howard Clement, III .. .. .. .. JA-270 

Direct Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J A-270 

Alloen Adams ................... .. .... .. . JA-271 

Direct Examination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J A-271 

Thomas Brooks Hofeller ........ . ......... JA-275 

Direct Examination ......... . . . ...... . . JA-275 

Cross Examination ......... . ....... . ... J A-277 





Date 

JA-1 

CHRONOLOGICAL UST OF 
RELEVANT DOCKET ENTRIES 

Documents 

9.16.81 Complaint 

10.16.81 Designation of Three-Judge Court 

11.13.81 Plaintiff's Motion to Supplement Complaint 

11.19.81 Order Allowing Supplement of Complaint 

1.29.82 Defendant's Motion to Consolidate with 

No. 81-1066-Civ.5 

2.18.82 Order Consolidating No. 81-803-Civ.5 with 
No. 81-1066-Civ.5 

3.17.82 Motion to Certify the Class 
Motion to Further Amend the Complaint 

3.25.82 Order Allowing Second Supplement to Complaint 

3.29.82 Answer To Second Supplemental Complaint 

4.02.82 Stipulation of Class Action 

4.22.82 Motion for Voluntary Dismissal of Claim as to 
N.C. Districts for the United States Congress 

4.23.82 Application for Hearing on Preliminary 
Injunction 

4.27.82 Order Granting Motion for Partial Voluntary 
Dismissal 

4.30.82 Hearing on Temporary Restraining Order 

5.03.82 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 
Denied 

5.12.82 Motion to Consolidate 82-545-CIV-5 with 
81-803-CIV-5 and 81-1066-CIV-5 

7.26.82 Order Consolidating 82-545-CIV-5 with 
81-803-CIV-5 and 81-1055-CIV-5 



Date 

JA-2 

DocKET ENTRIES (Cont.) 

Documents 

8.18.82 Motion to File Third Supplement on Amended 
Complaint 

9.03.82 Answer to Third Amended Complaint 

9.29.82 Order Allowing Third Amended Complaint 

12.22.82 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment 

1.18.83 Defendant's Cross-Motion for Summary 
Judgment 

7.14.83 Pre-Trial Order 
Pre-Trial Conference 

7.21.83 Gingles Plaintiffs' Pre-Trial Brief 
Pugh Plaintiffs' Pre-Trial Brief 
Defendants' Pre-Trial Brief 

7.21.83 Motion by Plaintiffs in 81-1066-CIV-5 To 
Intervene In Trial of 81-803-CIV-5 

7.22.83 Order Withdrawing Previous Order which con­
solidated 81-1066-CIV-5 with 81-803-CIV-5; 
Trial of 81-1066-CIV-5 continued without prej­
udice of plaintiffs to intervene in trial of 
81-803-CIV-5. 

7.22.83 Motion to Intervene Granted 

7.25.83 Trial Before Three-Judge Court (8 Days) 

9.22.83 Order entering Summary Judgment in favor of 
Defendants In 82-545-CIV-5 

10.07.83 Plaintiff's Proposed Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law 

10.07.83 Defendants' Proposed Findings of Fact and 
Conclusions of Law 

1.27.84 Memorandum Opinion and Order 

2.03.84 Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court 



JA-3 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

RALEIGH DIVISION 

No. 81-803-CIV-5 

RALPH GINGLES, et al. 

vs. 

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

Defendants. 

FILED 

JAN 27 1984 

J. RICH LEONARD, CLERK 
U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

E. DIST. NO. CAR. 

ORDER 

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of the 
court filed this day; 

It is ADJUDGED and ORDERED that: 

1. Chapters 1 and 2 of the North Carolina Session Laws of 
the Second Extra Session of 1982 (1982 redistricting plan) are 
declared to violate section 2 of the Voting rights Act of 1965, 
amended June 29, 1982, 42 U.S. C. § 1973, by the creation of 
the following legislative districts: Senate Districts Nos. 2 and 
22, and House of Representatives Districts Nos. 8, 21, 23, 36, 
and 39. 

2. Pending further orders of this court, the defendants, 
their agents and employees, are enjoined from conducting any 
primary or general elections to elect members of the State 
Senate or State House of Representatives to represent, inter 



JA-4 

· alia, registered black voters resident in any of the areas now 
included within the legislative districts identified in paragraph 
1. of this Order, whether pursuant to the 1982 redistricting 
plan, or any revised or new plan. 

This Order does not purport to enjoin the conduct of any 
other primary or general elections that the State of North 
Carolina may see fit to conduct to elect members of the Senate 
or House of Representatives under the 1982 redistricting plan, 
or to elect candidates for any other offices than those of the 
State Senate and House of Representatives. See N.C.G.S. 
i20-2.1 (1983) Cum. Supp.). 

3. Jurisdiction of this court is retained to entertain the 
submission of a revised legislative districting plan by the de­
fendants, or to enter a further remedial decree, in accordance 
with the Memorandum Opinion filed today in this action. 

4. The award of costs and attorneys fees as prayed by 
plaintiffs is deferred pending entry of a final judgment, or such 
earlier date as may be · shown required in the interests of 
justice. 

J. Dickson Phillips, Jr. 
United States Circuit Judge 

W. Earl Britt, Jr. 
Chief United States District Judge 

Franklin T. Dupree, Jr. 
Senior United States District Judge 

I certify the foregoing to be a true and correct copy of the 
Order. 

J. Rich Leonard, Clerk 
United States District Court 
Eastern District of North Carolina 

By Cherlyn Wells 
Deputy Clerk 



JA-5 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

RALEIGH DIVISION 

No. 81-803-CIV-5 

RALPH GINGLES, et al. 

vs. 

RUFUS 1. EDMISTEN, et al. 

Plain tiffs, 

Defendants. 

FILED 

JAN 27 1984 

J. RICH LEONARD, CLERK 
U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

E. DIST. NO. CAR. 

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

Before PHILLIPS, Circuit Judge, BRITT, Chief District Judge, 
and DUPREE, Senior District Judge. 

PHILLIPS Circuit Judge: 

In this action Ralph Gingles and others, individually and as 
representatives of a class composed of all the black citizens of 
North Carolina who are registered to vote , challenge on con­
stitutional and statutory grounds the redistricting1 plan 

1 For consistency and convenience we use the term "redistricting" 
throughout as a more technically, as well as descriptively, accurate one than 
the terms "apportionment" or "reapportionment" sometimes used by the 
parties herein to refer to the specific legislative action under challenge here. 
See Cantens v. Lcmnn, 543 F . Supp. 68, 72 n.3 (D. Col. 1982). 



.TA-6 

enacted in final form in 1982 by the General Assembly of North 
Carolina for the election of members of the Senate and House of 
Representatives of that state's bicameral legislature. Jurisdic­
tion of this three-judge district court is based on 28 U.S. C. 
§§ 1331, 1343, and 2284 (three judge court) and on 42 U.S.C. 
§ 1973c. 

The gravamen of plaintiffs' claim is that the plan makes use 
of multi-member districts with substantial white voting ma­
jorities in some areas of the state in which there are sufficient 
concentrations of black voters to form majority black single­
member districts, and that in another area of the state the plan 
fractures into separate voting minorities a comparable con­
centration of black voters, all in a manner that violates rights of 
the plaintiffs secured by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 
1965, amended June 29, 1982, 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (Section 2, or 
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 
1983, and the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments 
to the United States Constitution. 2 In particular, the claim is 
that the General Assembly's plan impermissibly dilutes the 
voting strength of the state's registered black voters by sub­
merging black voting minorities in multi-member House Dis­
trict No. 36 (8 members - Mecklenburg County), multi­
member House District No. 39 (5 members - part of Forsyth 
County), multi-member House District No. 23 (3 members -
Durham County), multi-member House District No. 21 (6 
members- Wake County), multi-member House District No. 8 
(4 members - Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash Counties), and 
multi-member Senate District No. 22 (4 members- Mecklen­
burg and Cabarrus Counties), and by fracturing between more 
than one senate district in the northeastern section of the state 
a concentration of black voters sufficient in numbers and con-

2 The original complaint also included challenges to population deviations 
in the redistricting plan allegedly violative of one-person-one-vote princi­
ples, and to congressional redistricting plans being contemporaneously 
enacted by the state's General Assembly. Both of these challenges were 
dropped by amended or supplemental pleadings responsive to the evolving 
course of legislative action , leaving only the state legislature "vote dilution" 
claims for resolution. 



:JA-7 

tiguity to constitute a voting majority in at least one single­
member district, with the consequence, as intended, that in 
none of the senate districts into which the concentration is 
fractured (most notably, Senate District 2 with the largest 
mass of the concentration) is there an effective voting majority 
of black citizens. 

We conclude on the basis of our factual findings that the 
redistricting plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in 
all the respects challenged, and that plaintiffs are therefore 
entitled to appropriate relief, including an order enjoining 
defendants from conducting elections under the extant plan. 
Because we uphold plaintiffs' claim for relief under Section 2 of 
the Voting Rights Act, we do not address their other statutory 
and constitutional claims seeking the same relief. 

I 

General Background and Procedural History 

In July of1981, responding to its legal obligation to make any 
redistrictings compelled by the 1980 decennial census, the 
North Carolina General Assembly enacted a legislative 
redistricting plan for the state's House of Representatives and 
Senate. This original 1981 plan used a combination of multi­
member and single-member districts across the state, with 
multi-member districts predominating; had no district in which 
blacks constituted a registered voter majority and only one 
with a black population majority; and had a range of maximum 
population deviations from the equal protection ideal of more 
than 20%. Each of the districts was composed of one or more 
whole counties, a result then mandated by state constitutional 
provisions adopted in 1968 by amendments that prohibited the 
division of counties in legislative districting. At the time this 
original redistricting plan was enacted (and at all critical times 
in this litigation) forty of North Carolina's one hundred coun­
ties were covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 
42 U.S.C. § 1973c (Section 5, or Section 5 of the Voting Rights 
Act. ). 



JA-8 

Plaintiffs filed this action on September 16, 1981, challeng­
ing that original redistricting plan for, inte1· alia, its population 
deviations, its submergence of black voter concentrations in 
some of the multi-member districts, and the failure of the state 
to obtain preclearance, pursuant to Section 5, of the 1968 
constitutional amendments prohibiting county division in 
legislative districting. 

After this action had been filed, the state submitted the 1968 
no-division-of-counties constitutional provisions for original 
Seeton 5 preclearance by the Attorney General of the United 
States. While action on that submission was pending, the 
General Assembly covened again in special session and in 
October 1981 repealed the original districting plan for the state 
House of Representatives and enacted another. This new plan 
reduced the range of maximum population deviations to ap­
proximately 16%, retained a preponderance of multi-member 
districts across the state, and again divided no counties. No 
revision of the extant Senate districting plan was made. 

In November 1981, the Attorney General interposed formal 
objection, under Section 5, to the no-division-of-counties con­
stitutional provisions so far as they affected covered counties. 
Objection was based on the Attorney General's expressed view 
that the use of whole counties in legislative districting required 
the use oflarge multi-member districts and that this "necessar­
ily submerges cognizable minority population concentrations 
into larger white electorates." Following this objection to the 
constitutional provisions, the Attorney General further ob­
jected, on December 7, 1981, and January 20, 1982, to the then 
extant redistricting plans for both the Senate and House as 
they affected covered counties. 

In February 1982, the General Assembly again convened in 
extra session and on February 11, 1982, enacted for both the 
Senate and House revised redistricting plans which divided 
some counties both in areas covered and areas not covered by 
Section 5. Again, on April 19, 1982, the Attorney General 
interposed objections to the revised districting plans for both 



JA-9 

the Senate and House. The letter interposing objection ac­
knowledged some improvement of black voters' situation by 
reason of county division in Section 5 covered areas, but found 
the improvements insufficient to permit preclearance. The 
General Assembly once more reconvened in a second extra 
session on April 26, 1982, and on April 27, 1982, enacted a 
further revised plan which again divided counties both in areas 
covered and areas not covered by Section 5. That plan, embo­
died in chapters 1 and 2 of the North Carolina Session Laws of 
the Second Extra Session of 1982, received Section 5 preclear­
ance on April30, 1982. As precleared under Section 5, the plan 
constitutes the extant legislative districting law of the state, 
and is the subject of plaintiffs' ultimate challenge by amended 
and supplemented complaint in this action. 3 

During the course of the legislative proceedings above 
summarized, this action proceeded through its pre-trial 
stages. 4 Amended and supplemental pleadings accommodating 
to successive revisions of the originally challenged redistrict­
ing plan were allowed. Extensive discovery and motion prac­
tice was had; extensive stipulations of fact were made and 
embodied in pretrial orders. The presently composed three-

3 The final plan's division of counties in areas of the state not covered by 
Section 5 was challenged by voters in one such county on the basis that the 
division violated the state's 1968 constitutional prohibition. The claim was 
that in non-covered counties of the state the constitutional prohibition re­
mained in force, notwithstanding its suspension in covered counties by virtue 
of the Attorney General's objection. In Cavanagh v. Brock, No. 82-545-CIV-
5 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 1983), which at one time was consolidated with the 
instant action, this court rejected that challenge, holding that as a matter of 
state law the constitutional provisions were not severable, so that their 
effective partial suspension under federal law resulted in their complete 
suspension throughout the state. 

4 At one stage in these proceedings another action challenging the 
redistricting plan for impermissible dilution of the voting strength of black 
voters was consolidated with the instant action. In Pugh v. Hunt , No. 
81-1066-CIV-5, also decided this day, we earlier entered an order of the 
cleconsolidation and permitted the black plaintiffs in that action to intervene 
as individual and representative plaintiffs in the instant action. 



JA-10 

judge court was designated by Chief Judge Harrison L. Winter 
of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on 
October 16, 1981. The action was designated a plaintiff class 
action by stipulation of the parties on April2 , 1982. Following 
enactment and Section 5 preclearance of the April 27, 1982, 
Senate and House districting plans, the pleadings were closed, 
with issue joined for trial on plaintiffs' challenge, by amended 
and supplemented complaint, to that finally adopted plan. 

Following a final pre-trial conference on July 14, 1983, trial 
to the three-judge court was held from July 25, 1983, through 
August 3, 1983. Extensive oral and documentary evidence was 
received. Decision was deferred pending the submission by 
both parties of proposed findings offact and conclusions oflaw, 
briefing and oral argument. Concluding oral arguments of 
counsel were heard by the court on October 14, 1983, and a 
limited submission of supplemental documentary evidence by 
both parties was permitted on December 5, 1983. 

Having considered the evidence, the memoranda oflaw sub­
mitted by the parties, the stipulations of fact , and the oral 
arguments of counsel, the court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 
52(a), enters the following findings of fact and conclusions of 
law, prefaced with a discussion of amended Section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act and of certain special problems concerning 
the proper interpretation and application of that section to the 
evidence in this case. 

II 

Amended Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act 

From the outset of this action plaintiffs have based their 
claim of racial vote dilution not only on the fourteenth and 
fifteenth amendments, but on Section 2 of the Voting Rights 
Act. As interpreted by the Supreme Court at the time this 
action was commenced, former Section 2, 5 secured no further 

5 Former Section 2, enacted pursuant to Congress's constitutional enforce­
ment powers , provided simply: 

No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, 
or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political 

(footnote continued on next page) 



JA-11 

voting rights than were directly secured by those con­
stitutional provisions. To the extent "vote dilution" claims lay 
under either of the constitutional provisions or Section 2, 6 the 
requirements for proving such a claim were the same: there 
must have been proven both a discriminatorily "dilutive" effect 
traceable in some measure to a challenged electoral mechanism 
and, behind that effect, a specific intent on the part of responsi­
ble state officials that the mechanism should have had the 
effect. City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). 

While this action was pending for trial and after the 
ultimately challenged redistricting plan had been enacted and 
given Section 5 preclearance, Congress amended Section 27 in 
drastic and, for this litigation, critically important respects. In 
rough summary, the amended version liberalized the statutory 
vote dilution claim in two fundamental ways. It removed any 
necessity that discriminatory intent be proven, leaving only 
the necessity to show dilutive effect traceable to a challenged 
electoral mechamism; and it made explicit that the dilutive 
effect might be found in the "totality of the circumstances" 
within which the challenged mechanism operated and not alone 
in direct operation of the mechanism. 

(footnote continued from previous page) 
subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United 
States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the 
guarantees set forth in Section 1973b(f)(2) of this title. 

42 U.S.C. § 1973 (1976). 
6 It is not now perfectly clear-but neither is it of direct consequence 

here-whether a majority of the Supreme Court considers that a racial vote 
dilution claim, as well as a direct vote denial claim, lies under the fifteenth 
amendment and, in consequence, lay under former Section 2. See Rogers v. 
Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 619 n.16 (1982). It is well settled, however, that such 
claims lie under the fourteenth amendment, though only upon proof of intent 
as well as effect. See City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980). 

7 H.R. 3112, amending Section 2 and extending the Voting Rights Act of 
1965, was passed by the House on October 15, 1981. On June 18, 1982, the 
Senate adopted a different version, S. 1992, reported out of its Committee on 
the Judiciary. The House unanimously adopted the Senate bill on June 23, 
1982, and it was signed into law by the President on June 29, 1982. There was 
no intervening conference committee action. 



.JA-12 

Following Section 2's amendment, plaintiffs amended their 
complaint in this action to invoke directly the much more 
favorable provisions of the amended statute. All further 
proceedings in the case have been conducted on our perception 
that the vote dilution claim would succeed or fail under 
amended Section 2 as now the obviously most favorable basis of 
claim. 8 

Because of the amended statute's profound reworking of 
applicable law and because of the absence of any authoritative 
Supreme Court decisions interpreting it, 9 we preface our find­
ings and conclusions with a summary discusson of the amended 
statute and of our understanding of its proper application to the 
evidence in this case. Because we find it dispositive of the vote 
dilution claim, we may properly rest decision on the amended 
statute alone and thereby avoid addressing the still subsisting 
constitutional claims seeking the same relief. See Ashwander v. 
Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288, 347 (1936) (Bran­
deis, J., concurring). 

8 Of course, the direct claims under the fourteenth (and possibly the 
fifteenth) amendment remain, and could be established under Bolden by 
proof of a dilutive effect intentionally inflicted. But no authoritative decision 
has suggested that proof alone of an unrealized discriminatory intent to 
dilute would suffice. A dilutive effect remains an essential element of con­
stitutional as well as Section 2 claims. See Hartman, Racial Vote Dilution 
and Separation of Powers: A n Explomton of the Conflict Between the 
Judicial "Intent" and the Legislative "Results" Standards, 50 Geo. W.L. 
Rev. 689, 737-38 n.318 (1982). Neither is there any suggestion that the 
remedy for an unconstitutional intentional dilution should be any more 
favorable than the remedy for a Section 2 "results" violation. Whether the 
evidence of discriminatory intent might nevertheless have limited relevance 
in establishing a Section 2 "result" claim is another matter. 

9 There have , however, been a few lower federal court decisions interpret­
ing and applying amended Section 2 to state and local electoral plans. All 
generally support the interpretation we give the statute in the ensuing 
discussion. See Majorv. Treen, Civil Action No. 82-1192 Section C (E. D. La. 
Sept. 23, 1983) (three-judge court); Rybicki v. State Board of Elections, No. 
81-C-6030 (N.D. Ill. Jaan. 20, 1983) (three-judge court); Thomasville Branch 
of NAACP v. Thomas County, Civil Action No. 75-34-THOM (M.D. Ga.Jan. 
26, 1983); Jones v. City of Lubbock, Civil Action No. CA-5-76-34 (N.D. Tex. 
Jan. 20, 1983); Taylor v. Haywood County, 544 F. Supp. 1122 (W.D. Tenn. 
1982) (on grant of preliminary injunction). 



JA-13 

Section 2, as amended, reads as follows: 

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or 
standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or ap­
plied by any State or political subdivision in a manner 
which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any 
citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or 
color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in 
Section 4(±)(2), as provided in subsection (b). 

(b) A violation of subsection(a) is established if, based on 
the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political 
processes leading to nomination or election in the State or 
political subdivision are not equally open to participation 
by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection 
(a) in that its members have less opportunity than other 
members of the electorate to participate in the political 
process and to elect representatives of their choice. The 
extent to which members of a protected class have been 
elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one 
circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That 
nothing in this section establishes a right to have members 
of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their 
proportion in the population. 

Without attempting here a detailed analysis of the legisla­
tive history leading to enactment of amended Section 2, we 
deduce from that history and from the judicial sources upon 
which Congress expressly relied in formulating the statute's 
text the following salient points which have guided our applica­
tion of the statute of the facts we have found. 

First. The fundamental purpose of the amendment to Sec­
tion 2 was to remove intent as a necessary element of racial 
vote dilution claims brought under the statute. 10 

10 Senator Dole, sponsor of the compromise Senate version ultimately 
enacted as Section 2, stated that one of his "key objectives" in offering it was 
to 

make it unequivocally clear that plaintiffs may base a violation of Sec­
tion 2 on a showing of discriminatory "results" , in which case proof of 
discriminatory intent or purpose would be neither required , nor rele­
vant. I was convinced of the inappropriateness of an ''intent standard" 

(footnote continued on next page) 



JA-14 

This was accomplished by codifying in the amended statute 
the racial vote dilution principles applied by the Supreme 
Court in its pre-Bolden decision in White v. RegesteT, 412 U.S. 
755 (1973). That decision, as assumed by the Congress/1 re­
quired no more to establish the illegality of a state's ~lectoral 
mechanism than proof that its "result," irrespective of intent, 
when assessed in "the totality of circumstances" was "to cancel 
out or minimize the voting strength of racial groups," I d. at 765 
- in that case by submerging racial minority voter concentra­
tions in state multi-member legislative districts. The White v. 
RegesteT racial vote dilution principles, as assumed by the 
Congress, were made explicit in new subsection (b) of Section 2 
in the provision that such a "result," hence a violation of se­
cured voting rights, could be established by proof "based on 
the totality of circumstances . . . that the political processes 
leading to nomination or election . . . are not equally open to 
participation" by members of protected minorities. Cf. id. at 
766. 

Second. In determining whether, "based on the totality of 
circumstances," a state's electoral mechanism does so "result" 
in racial vote dilution, the Congress intended that courts 
should look to the interaction of the challenged mechanism 
with those historical, social and political factors generally sug­
gested as probative of dilution in White v. RegesteT and sub-

(footnote continued from previous page) 
as the sole means of establishing a voting rights claim, as were the 
majority of my colleagues on the Committee. 

S. Rep. No. 417, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 193 (1982) (additional views of Sen. 
Dole) (hereinafter S. Rep. No. 97-417). 

11 Congressional opponents of amended Section 2 contended in debate that 
White v. Regester did not actually apply a "results only" test, but that, 
properly interpreted, it required , and by implication found , intent also 
proven. The right or wrong of that debate is essentially beside the point for 
our purposes. We seek only Congressional intent, which clearly was to adopt 
a "results only" standard by codifying a decision unmistakably assumed­
whether or not erroneously- to have embodied that standard. See Hartman, 
Racial Vote Dilution, supra note 8, at 725-26 & n.236. 



JA-15 

sequently elaborated by the former Fifth Circuit in Zimmer v. 
McKeithen, 485 F.2d 1297 (5th Cir. 1973) (en bane) , affd on 
other grounds sub nom. East Carroll Parish School Board v. 
Marshall, 424 U.S. 636 (1976) (per curiam). These typically 
include, per the Senate Report accompanying the compromise 
version enacted as amended Section 2: 

1. the extent of any history of official discrimination in 
the state or political subdivision that touched the right of 
the members of the minority group to register, to vote, or 
otherwise to participate in the democratic process; 

2. the extent to which voting in the elections of the 
state or political subdivision is racially polarized; 

3. the extent to which the state or political subdivision 
has used unusually large election districts, majority vote 
requirements, anti-single shot provisions, or other voting 
practices or procedures that may enhance the opportunity 
for discrimination against the minority group; 

4. if there is a candidate slating process, whether the 
members of the mimority group have been denied access 
to that process; 

5. the extent to which members of the minority group 
in the state or political subdivision bear the effects of 
discrimination in such areas as education, employment 
and health, which hinder their ability to participate effec­
tively in the political process; 

6. whether political campaigns have been character­
ized by overt or subtle racial appeals; 

7. the extent to which members of the minority group 
have been elected to public office in the jurisdiction. 

Additional factors that in some cases have had proba­
tive value as part of plaintiffs' evidence to establish a 
violation are: 

whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness 
on the rart of elected officials to the particularized 
needs o the members of the minority gToup. 

whether the policy underlying the state or political 
subdivision's use of such voting qualification, prere­
quisite to voting, or standard, practice or procedure is 
tenuous. 



JA-16 

While these enumerated factors will often be the more 
relevant ones, in some cases other factors will be indica­
tive of the alleged dilution. 

S. Rep. No. 97-417, supra note 10, at28-29 (footnotes omitted). 

Third. Congress also intended that amended Section 2 
should be interpreted and applied in conformity with the 
general body of pre-Bolden racial vote dilution jurisprudence 
that applied the White v. R egester test for the existence of a 
dilutive "result. "12 

Critical in that body of jurisprudence are the following prin­
ciples that we consider embodied in the statute. 

The essence of racial vote dilution in the White v. R egester 
sense is this: that primarily because of the interaction of sub­
stantial and persistent racial polarization in voting patterns 
(racial bloc voting) with a challenged electoral mechanism, a 
racial minority with distinctive group interests that are cap­
able of aid or amelioration by government is effectively denied 
the political power to further those interests that numbers 
alone would presumptively, see United Jewish Organization v. 
Carey, 430 U.S. 144, 166 n.24 (1977), give it in a voting con­
stituency not racially polarized in its voting behavior. See 
Nevett v. Sides , 571 F .2d 209, 223 & n.16 (5th Cir. 1978). Vote 
dilution in this sense can exist notwithstanding the relative 
absence of structural barriers to exercise of the electoral fran­
chise. It can be enhanced by other factors - cultural, political, 
social, economic - in which the racial minority is relatively 
disadvantaged and which further operate to diminish practical 
political effectiveness. Zimmer v . McKeithen, supra. But the 
demonstrable unwillingness of substantial numbers of the ra-

12 SeeS. Rep. No. 97-417, supm note 10, at 32 ("[T]he legislative intent [is] 
to incorporate [White v. Regester} and extensive case law ... which de­
veloped around it."). See also id. at 19-23 (Bolden characterized as "a marked 
departure from [the] prior law" of vote dilution as applied in Wh ite v. 
Regester, Zimmer v. McKeithen, and a number of other cited federal deci­
sions following White v .. Regester). 



JA-17 

cial majority to vote for any minority race candidate or any 
candidate identified with minority race interests is the linchpin 
of vote dilution by districting. N evett v. Sides , supra; see also 
Rogers v . Lodge, 458 U.S. 613, 623 (1981) (emphasizing cen­
trality of bloc voting as evidence of purposeful discrimination). 

The mere fact that blacks constitute a voting or population 
minority in a multi-member district does not alone establish 
that vote dilution has resulted from the districting plan. See 
Z immer, 485 F.2d at 1304 ("axiomatic" that at-large and multi­
member districts are not per se unconstitutional). Nor does the 
fact that blacks have not been elected under a challenged 
districting plan in numbers proportional to their percentage of 
the population. I d. at 1305. 13 

On the other hand, proof that blacks constitute a population 
majority in an electoral district does not per se establish that no 
vote dilution results from the districting plan, at least where 
the blacks are a registered voter minority. Id. at 1303. Nor 
does proof that in a challenged district blacks have recently 
been elected to office. Id . at 1307. 

Vote dilution in the White v. Regester sense may result from 
the fracturing into several single-member districts as well as 
from the submergence in one multi-member district of black 
voter concentrations sufficient, if not "fractured" or "sub­
merged," to constitute an effective single-member district vot­
ing majority. See Nevett v. Sides, 571 F.2d 209, 219 (5th Cir. 
1978). 

Fourth. Amended Section 2 embodies a congressional pur­
pose to remove all vestiges of minority race vote dilution 
perpetuated on or after the amendment's effective date by 
state or local electoral mechanisms. 14 To accomplish this, Con-

1:3 This we consider to be the limit of the intended meaning of the disclaimer 
in amended Section 2 that "nothing in this section establishes a right to have 
members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in 
the population." 42 U.S.C. § 1973. 

l.J Both the Senate and House Committee Reports assert a purpose to 
forestall further purposeful discrimination that might evade remedy under 

(footnote continued on next page) 



JA-18 

gress has exercised its enforcement powers under section 5 of 
the fourteenth and section 2 of the fifteenth amendments15 to 
create a new judicial remedy by private action that is broader 
in scope than were existing private rights of action for con­
stitutional violations of minority race voting rights. Specifical­
ly, this remedy is designed to provide a means for bringing 
states and local governments into compliance with con­
stitutional guarantees of equal voting rights for racial minori­
ties without the necessity to prove an intentional violation of 
those rights. 16 

Fifth. In enacting amended Section 2, Congress made a 
deliberate political judgment that the time had come to apply 

(footnote continued from previous page) 
the stringent intent-plus-effects test of Bolden and to eradicate existing or 
new mechanisms that perpetuate the effects of past discrimination. See S. 
Rep. 97-417, supra note 10, at40; H.R. Rep. No. 227, 97th Cong., 1st Sess. 
31 (1981) (hereinafter H.R. Rep. No. 97-227). 

We accept-and it is not challenged in this action by the state defendants­
that Congress intended the amendment to apply to litigation pending upon 
its effective date. See Major v. Treen, supra, slip op. at 40-41 n.20. 

15 Both the Senate and House Committee Reports express an intention 
that amended Section 2 be regarded as remedial rather than merely redefini­
tional of existing constitutional voting rights. See S. Rep. No. 97-417, supra 
note 10, at 39-43; H.R. Rep. No. 97-227, supm note 14, at 31. 

16 Congressional proponents of amended Section 2 were at pains in debate 
and committee reports to disclaim any intention or power by Congress to 
overrule the Supreme Court's constitutional interpretation in Bolden only 
that the relevant constitutional provisions prohibited intentional racial vote 
dilution, and to assert instead a power comparable to that exercised in the 
enactment of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to provide a judicial remedy 
for enforcement of the state's affirmative obligations to come into com­
pliance. See , e.g., S. Rep. 97-417, supra note 10, at 41 ("Congress cannot 
alter the judicial interpretations in Bolden ... . [T]he proposal is a proper 
statutory exercise of Congress' enforcement power .. . . "). 

No challenge is made in this action to the constitutionality of Section 2 as a 
valid exercise of Congress's enforcement powers under the fourteenth (and 
possibly fifteenth) amendment, and we assume constitutionality on that 
basis. See Major v. Treen, supra, slip op. 44-61 (upholding constitutionality 
against direct attack). 



JA-19 

the statute's remedial measures to present conditions of racial 
vote dilution that might be established in particular litigation; 
that national policy respecting minority voting rights could no 
longer await the securing of those rights by normal political 
processes, or by voluntary action of state and local govern­
ments, or by judicial remedies limited to proof of intentional 
racial discrimination. See, e.g., S. Rep. 97-417, supra note 10, 
at 193 (additional view of Senator Dole) (asserting purpose to 
eradicate "racial discrimination which ... still exists in the 
American electoral process"). 

In making that political judgment, Congress necessarily 
took into account and rejected as unfounded, or assumed as 
outweighed, several risks to fundamental political values that 
opponents of the amendment urged in committee deliberations 
and floor debate. Among these were the risk that the judicial 
remedy might actually be at odds with the judgment of signifi­
cant elements in the racial minority; 17 the risk that creating 
"safe" black-majority single-member districts would perpetu­
ate racial ghettos and racial polarization in voting behavior; 18 

the risk that reliance upon the judicial remedy would supplant 
the normal, more healthy processes of acquiring political pow­
er by registration, voting and coalition building;19 and the 

17 See Voting R ights Act: Hearings BefoTe the Subc01nm. on the Constitu­
tion of the Senate Comm. on the Judiciary, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. 542-46 (Feb. 
1, 1982) (hereafter Senate Hemings) (prepared statement of Professor Mc­
Manus, pointing to disagreements within black community leadership over 
relative virtues of local districting plans). 

18 See Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Senate Committee on the 
Jndiciw71, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., Voting Rights Act, Report on S. 1992, at 
42-43 (Comm. Print 1982) (hereafter Subcommittee R epoTt), Teprinted in 8. 
Rep. No. 97-417, supm note 10, 107, 149 (asserting "detrimental con­
sequence of establishing racial polarity in voting where none existed, or was 
merely episodic, and of establishing race as an accepted factor in the decision­
making of elected officials"); Subcommittee R eport, snpra, at 45, rep?inted 
inS. Rep. No. 97-417, supm note 10, at 150 (asserting that amended Section 
2 would aggravate segregated housing patterns by encouraging blacks to 
remain in safe black legislative districts). 

19 See Subcommittee RepoTt, supm note 18, at 43-44, rep1·inted inS. Rep. 
No. 97-417, supra note 10, at 149-60. 



JA-20 

fundamental risk that the recognition of "group voting rights" 
and the imposing of affirmative obligation upon government to 
secure those rights by race-conscious electoral mechanisms 
was alien to the American political tradition. 20 

For courts applying Section 2, the significance of Congress's 
general rejection or assumption of these risks as a matter of 
political judgment is that they are not among the circum­
stances to be considered in determining whether a challenged 
electoral mechanism presently "results" in racial vote dilution, 
either as a new or perpetuated condition. If it does , the remedy 
follows, all risks to these values having been assessed and 
accepted by Congress. It is therefore irrelevant for courts 
applying amended Section 2 to speculate or to attempt to make 
findings as to whether a presently existing condition of racial 
vote dilution is likely in due course to be removed by normal 
political processes, or by affirmative acts of the affected 
government, or that some elements of the racial minority 
prefer to rely upon those processes rather than having the 
judicial remedy invoked. 

III 

Findings of Fact 

A. 
The Challenged Districts 

The redistricting plans for the North Carolina Senate and 
House of Representatives enacted by the General Assembly of 
North Carolina in April of 1982 included six multi-member 
districts and one single-member district that are the subjects 
of the racial vote dilution challenge in this action. 

20 See Senate Hearings, supra, note 17, at 1351-54 (Feb. 12, 1982) (pre­
pared statement of Professor Blumstein); id. at 509-10 (Jan. 28, 1982) (pre­
pared statement of Professor Erler), reprinted in S. Rep. No. 97-417, supra 
note 10, at 147; id. at 231 (Jan. 27, 1982) (testimony of Professor Berns), 
rep1"inted inS. Rep. No. 97-417, supra note 10, at 147. 



JA-21 

The multi-member districts, each of which continued pre­
existing districts and apportionments, are as follows, with 
their compositions, and their apportionments of members and 
the percentage of their total populations and of their registered 
voters that are black: 

District 

Senate No. 22 (Mecklenburg 
and Cabarrus Counties (4 
members) 

House No. 36 (Mecklenburg 
County) (8 members) 

House No. 39 (Part of For­
syth County) (5 members) 

House No. 23 (Durham 
County) (3 members) 

House No. 21 (Wake County) 
(6 members) 

House No. 8 (Wilson, Nash 
and Edgecombe Counties) 
(4 members) 

%of Population 
that is Black 

24.3 

26.5 

25.1 

36.3 

21.8 

39.5 

%of Registered Voters 
that is Black 
(as of 1014182) 

16.8 

18.0 

20.8 

28.6 

15.1 

29.5 

As these districts are constituted, black citizens make up 
distinct population and registered-voter minorities in each. 

Of these districts, only House District No. 8 is in an area of 
the state covered by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

At the time of the creation of these multi-member districts, 
there were concentrations of black citizens within the bound­
aries of each that were sufficient in numbers and contiguity to 
constitute effective voting majorities in single-member dis­
tricts lying wholly within the boundaries of the multi-member 
districts, which single-member districts would satisfy all con­
stitutional requirements of population and geographical con­
figuration. For example, concentrations of black citizens em-



JA-22 

braced within the following single-member districts, as de­
picted on exhibits before the court, would meet those criteria: 

Multi-Member District 

Single-Member District: 
location and racial 

composition E xhibit 

Senate No. 22 Part of Mecklenburg County; Pl. Ex. 9 
(Mecklenburg/Cabarrus 70.0% Black 

Counties) 
House No. 36 (1) Part of Mecklenburg County; Pl. Ex. 4 
(Mecklenburg County) 66.1% Black 

(2) Part of Mecklenburg County; Pl. Ex. 4 
71.2% Black 

House No. 39 Part of Forsyth County; 70.0% Pl. E x. 5 
(Part of Forsyth County) Black 
House No. 23 Part of Durham County; 70.9% Pl. Ex. 6 
(Durham County) Black substitute 
House No. 21 Part of Wake County; 67.0% Pl. Ex. 7 
(Wake County) Black 
House No. 8 Parts of Wilson, Edgecombe and Pl. Ex. 8 
(Wilson, Edgecombe, Nash Nash Counties; 62.7% Black 

Counties) 

The single-member district is Senate District No. 2 in the 
rural northeastern section of the state. It was formed by ex­
tensive realignment of existing districts to encompass an area 
which formerly supplied components of two multi-member 
Senate districts (No.1 of2 members; No. 6 of2 members). It 
consists of the whole of Northampton, Hertford , Gates, Ber­
tie, and Chowan Counties, and parts of Washington, Martin, 
Halifax and Edgecombe Counties. Black citizens made up 
55.1% of the total population of the district, and 46.2% of the 
population that is registered to vote. This does not constitute 
them an effective voting majority in this district. 21 

21 We need not attempt at this point to define the exact population level at 
which blacks would constitute an effective (non-diluted) voting majority , 
either generally or in this area. Defendant's expert witness testified that a 
general "rule of thumb" for insuring an effective voting majority is 65%. This 

(footnote continued on next page) 



JA-23 

This district is in an area of the state covered by § 5 of the 
Voting Rights Act. 

At the time of creation of this single-member district, there 
was a concentration of black citizens within the boundaries of 
this district and those of adjoining Senate District No. 6 that 
was sufficient in numbers and in contiguity to constititute an 
effective voting majority in a single-member district, which 
single-member district would satisfy all constitutional require­
ments of population and geographical configuration. For ex­
ample, a concentration of black voters embraced within a dis­
trict depicted on Plaintiffs Exhibit 10(a) could minimally meet 
these criteria, though a still larger concentration might prove 
necessary to make the majority a truly effective one, depend­
ing upon experience in the new district alignments. In such a 
district, black citizens would constitute 60.7% of the total 
population and 51.02% of the registered voters (as contrasted 
with percentages of 55.1% and 46.2%, respectively, in chal­
lenged Senate District 2). 

B 

Circumstances Relevant To The Claim Of Racial Vote 
Dilution: The "Zimmer Factors" 

At the time the challenged districting plan was enacted in 
1982, the following circumstances affected the plan's effect 

(footnote continued from previous page) 
is the percentage used as a "benchmark" by the Justice Department in 
administering § 5. Plaintiffs' expert witness opined that a 60% population 
majority in the area of this district could only be considered a "competitive" 
one rather than a "safe" one. 

On the uncontradicted evidence adduced we find-and need only find for 
present purposes-that the extant 55.1% black population majority does not 
constitute an effective voting majority, i.e., does not establish peT se the 
absence of racial vote dilution, in this district. See KiTksey v. BoaTd of 
Supervisors, 554 F.2d139, 150 (5th Cir. 1977) ("Where ... cohesive black 
voting strength is fragmented among districts, .. . the presence of districts 
with bare population majorities not only does not necessarily preclude 
dilution but . . . may actually enhance the possibility of continued minority 
political impotence."). 



.JA-24 

upon the voting strength of black voters of the state (the 
plaintiff class), and particularly those in the areas of the chal­
lenged districts. 

A History Of Official Discrimination Against Black Citizens 
In Voting Matters -

Following the emancipation of blacks from slavery and the 
period of post-war Reconstruction, the State of North Carolina 
had officially and effectively discriminated against black 
citizens in matters touching their exercise of the voting fran­
chise for a period of around seventy years, roughly two genera­
tions, from ca. 1900 to ca. 1970. The history of black citizens' 
attempts since the Reconstruction era to participate effective­
ly in the political process and the white majority's resistance to 
those efforts is a bitter one, fraught with racial animosities that 
linger in diminished but still evident form to the present and 
that remain centered upon the voting strength of black citizens 
as an identified group. 

From 1868 to 1875, black citizens, newly emancipated and 
given the legal right to vote, effectively exercised the fran­
chise, in coalition with white Republicans, to control the state 
legislature. In 1875, the Democratic Party, overwhelmingly 
white in composition, regained control of state government 
and began deliberate efforts to reduce participation by black 
citizens in the political processes. These efforts were not imme­
diately and wholly successful and black male citizens continued 
to vote and to hold elective office for the remainder of the 
nineteenth century. 

This continued participation by black males in the political 
process was furthered by Fusionists' (Populist and Republican 
coalition) assumption of control of the state legislature in 1894. 
For a brief season, this resulted in legislation favorable to 
black citizens' political participation as well as their economic 
advancement. 

The Fusionists' legislative program favorable to blacks im­
pelled the white-dominated Democratic Party to undertake an 



JA-25 

overt white supremacy political compaign to destroy the 
Fusionist coalition by arousing white fears of Negro rule. This 
campaign, characterized by blatant racist appeals by pamphlet 
and cartoon, aided by acts of outright intimidation, succeeded 
in restoring the Democratic Party to control of the legislature 
in 1898. The 1898 legislature then adopted constitutional 
amendments specifically designed to disenfranchise black vo­
ters by imposing a poll tax and a literacy test for voting with a 
grandfather clause for the literacy test whose effect was to 
limit the disenfranchising effect to blacks. The amendments 
were adopted by the voters of the state, following a compara­
ble white supremacy campaign, in 1900. The 1900 official litera­
cy test continued to be freely applied for 60 years in a variety of 
forms that effectively disenfranchised most blacks. In 1961, 
the North Carolina Supreme Court declared unconstitutional 
the practice of requiring a registrant to write the North Caroli­
na Constitution from dictation, but upheld the practice of 
requiring a registrant "of uncertain ability" to read and copy in 
writing the state Constitution. Bazemore v . Bertie County 
Board of Elections, 254 N.C. 398 (1961). At least until around 
1970, the practice of requiring black citizens to read and write 
the Constitution in order to vote was continued in some areas of 
the state. Not until around 1970 did the State Board of Elec­
tions officially direct cessation of the administration of any 
form of literacy test. 

Other of:fjcial voting mechanisms designed to minimize or 
cancel the potential voting strength of black citizens were also 
employed by the state during this period. In 1955, an anti­
single shot voting law applicable to specified municipalities and 
counties was enacted. It was enforced, with the intended effect 
of fragmenting a black minority's total vote between two or 
more candidates in a multi-seat election and preventing its 
concentration on one candidate, until declared unconstitutional 
in 1972 inDunstonv. Scott, 336 F. Supp. 206 (E.D.N.C. 1972). 
In 1967, a numbered-seat plan for election in multi-member 
legislative districts was enacted. Its effect was, as intended, to 
prevent single-shot voting in multi-member legislative dis-



JA-26 

tricts . It was applied until declared unconstitutional in the 
Dunston case, supra, in 1972. 

In direct consequence of the poll tax and the literacy test, 
black citizens in much larger percentages of their total num­
bers than the comparable percentages of white citizens were 
either directly denied registration or chilled from making the 
attempt from the time of imposition of these devices until their 
removal. After their removal as direct barriers to registration, 
their chilling effect on two or more generations of black citizens 
has persisted to the present as at least one cause of continued 
relatively depressed levels of black voter registration. Be­
tween 1930 and 1948 the percentage of black citizens who 
successfully sought to register under the poll tax and literacy 
tests increased from zero to 15%. During this eighteen-year 
period that only ended after World War II , no black was 
elected to public office in the state. In 1960, twelve years later, 
after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Board of E duca­
tion, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), only 39.1% of the black voting age 
population was registered to vote, compared to 92.1% of age­
qualified whites. By 1971, following the civil rights movement, 
44.4% of age-qualified blacks were registered compared to 
60.6% of whites. This general range of statewide disparity 
continued into 1980, when 51.3% of age-qualified blacks and 
70.1% of whites were registered, and into 1982 when 52.7% of 
age-qualified blacks and 66.7% of whites were registered. 22 

22 The recent history of white and black voter registration statewide and in 
the areas of the challenged districts is shown on the following chart. 

Whole State 
Mecklenburg 
Forsyth 
Durham 
Wake 
Wilson 

Percent of Voting Age 
Population R egistered to Vote 

10/78 10180 10/82 
White Black White BlcLck White Black 

61.7 43. 7 70.1 51.3 66.7 52.7 
71.3 40.8 73.8 48.4 73.0 50.8 
65.8 58.7 76.3 67.7 69.4 64.1 
63. 0 39.4 70.7 45.8 66.0 52. 9 
61. 2 37.5 76. 0 48.9 72.2 49.7 
60.9 36.3 66.9 40.9 64.2 48.0 

(footnote continued on next page) 



JA-27 

Under the present Governor's administration an intelligent 
and determined effort is being made by the State Board of 
Elections to increase the percentages of both white and black 
voter registrations, with special emphasis being placed upon 
increasing the levels of registration in groups, including 
blacks, in which those levels have traditionally been depressed 
relative to the total voting age population. This good faith 
effort by the currently responsible state agency, directly 
reversing official state policies which persisted for more than 
seventy years into this century, is demonstrably now produc­
ing some of its intended results. If continued on a sustained 
basis over a sufficient period, the effort might succeed in 
removing the disparity in registration which survives as a 
legacy of the long period of direct denial and chilling by the 
state of registration by black citizens. But at the present time 
the gap has not been closed, and there is of course no guarantee 
that the effort will be continued past the end of the present 
state administration. 

The present condition - which we assess - is that, on a 
statewide basis, black voter registration remains depressed 
relative to that of the white majority, in part at least because of 
the long period of official state denial and chilling of black 

(footnote continued from previous page) 
Percent of Voting Age 

Population Registered to Vote 

10/78 10/80 10182 
White Black White Black White Black 

Edgecombe 63.8 37.9 68.2 50.4 62.7 53.1 
Nash 61.2 39.0 72.0 41.2 64.2 43.0 
Bertie 75.6 46.0 77.0 54.1 74.6 60.0 
Chowan 71.3 44.3 77.4 53.9 74.1 54.0 
Gates 80.9 73.5 83.9 77.8 83.6 82.3 
Halifax 66.8 40.9 72.0 50.4 67.3 55.3 
Hertford 75.6 56.6 81.8 62.5 68.7 58.3 
Martin 69.3 49.7 76.9 55.3 71.2 53.3 
Northampton 72.4 58.5 77.0 63.9 82.1 73.9 
Washington 74.3 62.8 82.2 66.0 75.6 67.4 



JA-28 

citizens' registration efforts. This statewide depression of 
black voter registration levels is generally replicated in the 
areas of the challenged districts, and in each is traceable in part 
at least to the historical statewide pattern of official dis­
crimination here found to have existed. 

Effects Of Racial Discrimination In Facilities, Education, 
Employment, Housing And Health 

In consequence of a long history, only recently alleviated to 
some degree, of racial discrimination in public and private 
facility uses, education, employment, housing and health care, 
black registered voters of the state remain hindered, relative 
to the white majority, in their ability to participate effectively 
in the political process. 

At the start of this century, de jure segregation of the races 
in practically all areas of their common life existed in North 
Carolina. This condition continued essentially unbroken for 
another sixty-odd years, through both World Wars and the 
Korean conflict, and through the 1950's. During this period, in 
addition to prohibiting inter-racial marriages, state statutes 
provided for segregation of the races in fraternal orders and 
societies; the seating and waiting rooms of railroads and other 
common carriers; cemeteries; prisons, jails and juvenile deten­
tion centers; institutions for the blind, deaf and mentally ill; 
public and some private toilets; schools and school districts; 
orphanages; colleges; and library reading rooms. With the 
exception of those laws relating to schools and colleges, most of 
these statutes were not repealed until after passage of the 
federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, some as late as 1973. 

Public schools in North Carolina were officially segregated 
by race until 1954 when Brown v. Board of Education was 
decided. During the long period of de jure segregation, the 
black schools were consistently less well funded and were 
qualitatively inferior. Following the Brown decision, the pub­
lic schools remained substantially segregated for yet another 
fifteen years on a de facto basis, in part at least because of 
various practical impediments erected by the state to judicial 



JA-29 

enforcement of the constitutional right to desegregated public 
education recognized in Brown. As late as 1960, only 226 black 
students throughout the entire state attended formerly all­
white public schools. Until the end of the 1960's, practically all 
the state's public schools remained almost all white or almost 
all black. Substantial desegregation of the public schools only 
began to take place around a decade ago, following the Su­
preme Court's decision in Swann v. Mecklenburg County 
Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1 (1971). In the interval since, 
"white-flight" patterns in some areas of the state have pre­
vented or reversed developing patterns or desegregation of 
the schools. In consequence, substantial pockets of de facto 
segregation of the races in public school education have re­
arisen or have continued to exist to this time though without 
the great disparities in public funding and other support that 
characterized de jure segregation of the schools. 

Because significant desegregation of the public schools only 
commenced in the early 1970's, most of the black citizens of the 
state who were educated in this state and who are over 30 years 
of age attended qualitatively inferior racially segregated pub­
lic schools for all or most of their primary and secondary 
education. The first group of black citizens who have attended 
integrated public schools throughout their educational careers 
are just now reaching voting age. In at least partial con­
sequence of this segregated pattern of public education and the 
general inferiority of de jure segregated black schools , black 
citizens of the state who are over 25 year of age are substantial­
ly more likely than whites to have completed less than 8 years 
of education (34.6% of blacks; 22.0% of whites), and are sub­
stantially less likely than whites to have had any schooling 
beyond high school (17.3% of blacks; 29.3% of whites). 

Residential housing patterns in North Carolina, as generally 
in states with histories of de jure segregation, have traditional­
ly been separated along racial lines. That pattern persists 
today in North Carolina generally and in the areas covered by 
the challenged districts specifically; in the latter, virtually all 
residential neighborhoods are racially identifiable. Statewide, · 



JA-30 

black households are twice as likely as white households to be 
renting rather than purchasing their residences and are sub­
stantially more likely to be living in overcrowded housing, 
substandard housing, or housing with inadequate plumbing. 

Black citizens of North Carolina have historically suffered 
disadvantage relative to white citizens in public and private 
employment. Though federal employment discrimination laws 
have, since 1964, led to improvement, the effects of past dis­
crimination against blacks in employment continue at present 
to contribute to their relative disadvantage. On a statewide 
basis , generally replicated in the challenged districts in this 
action, Blacks generally hold lower paying jobs than do whites, 
and consistently suffer higher incidences of unemployment. In 
public employment by the state, for example, a higher percen­
tage of black employees than of whites is employed at every 
salary level below $12,000 per year and a higher percentage of 
white employees than black is employed at every level above 
$12,000. 

At least partially because of this continued disparity in em­
ployment opportunities, black citizens are three times as likely 
as whites to have incomes below the poverty level (30% to 
10% ); the mean income of black citizens is 64.9% that of white 
citizens; white families are more than twice as likely as black 
families to have incomes over $20, 000; and 25.1% of all black 
families, compared to 7.3% of white families, have no private 
vehicle available for transportation. 

In matters of general health, black citizens of North Carolina 
are, on available primary indicators, as a group less physically 
healthy than are white citizens as a group. On a statewide 
basis, the infant mortality rate (the standard health measure 
used by sociologists) is approximately twice as high for non­
whites (predominately blacks) as for whites. This statewide 
figure is generally replicated in Mecklenburg, Forsyth, 
Durham, Wake, Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash Counties (all 
included within the challenged multi-member districts). 
Again, on a statewide basis, the death rate is higher for black 



JA-31 

citizens than for white, and the life-expectancy of black citizens 
is shorter than is that of whites. 

On all the socio-economic factors treated in the above find­
ings, the status of black citizens as a group is lower than is that 
of white citizens as a group. This is true statewide, and it is true 
with respect to every county in each of the districts under 
challenge in this action. This lower socioeconomic status gives 
rise to special group interests centered upon those factors. At 
the same time, it operates to hinder the group's ability to 
participate effectively in the political process and to elect rep­
resentatives of its choice as a means of seeking government's 
awareness of and attention to those interests. 23 

Other Voting Procedures That Lessen The Opportunity Of 
Black Voters To Elect Candidates Of Their Choice 

In addition to the numbered seat requirement and the anti­
single shot provisions of state law that were declared unconsti­
tutional in 1972, see supra p. 28, North Carolina has, since 
1915, had a majority vote requirement which applies to all 
primary elections, but not to general elections. N.C.G.S. 
§ 163-111.24 

The general effect of a majority vote requirement is to make 
it less likely that the candidates of any identifiable voting 

23 Section 2 claimants are not required to demonstrate by direct evidence a 
causal nexus between their relatively depressed socio-economic status and a 
lessening of their opportunity to participate effectively in the political 
process. See S. Rep. No. 97-417, supra note 10, at 29 n.114. Under 
incorporated White v. Regester jurisprudence, "[i]nequality of access is an 
inference which flows from the existence of economic and educational 
inequalities." Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors, 554 F.2d139, 145 (5th Cir.), 
cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968 (1977). Independently of any such general 
presumption incorporated in amended Section 2, we would readily draw the 
inference from the evidence in this case. 

2~ There is no suggestion that when originally enacted in 1915, its purpose 
was racially discriminatory. That point is irrelevant in assessing its present 
effect, as a continued mechanism, in the totality of circumstances bearing 
upon plaintiffs' dilution claim. See Part II, supra. 



.JA-32 

minority will finally win elections, given the necessity that 
they achieve a majority of votes, if not in a first election, then 
(if called for) in a run-off election. This generally adverse effect 
on any cohesive voting minority is, of course, enhanced for 
racial minority groups if, as we find to be the fact in this case, 
see infm pp. 48-58, racial polarization in voting patterns also 
exists. 

While no black candidate for election to the North Carolina 
General Assembly-either in the challenged districts or 
elsewhere-has so far lost (or failed to win) an election solely 
because of the majority vote requirement, the requirement 
nevertheless exists as a continuing practical impediment to the 
opportunity of black voting minorities in the challenged dis­
tricts to elect candidates of their choice. 

The North Carolina majority vote requirement manifestly 
operates with the genE?ral effect noted upon all candidates in 
primary elections. Since 1950, eighteen candidates for the 
General Assembly who led first primaries with less than a 
majority of votes have lost run-off elections, as have twelve 
candidates for other statewide offices, including a black cancli­
date for Lt. Governor and a black candidate for Congress. The 
requirement therefore necessarily operates as a general, ongo­
ing impediment to any cohesive voting minority's opportunity 
to elect candidates of its choice in any contested primary, and 
particularly to any racial minority in a racially-polarized vote 
setting. 25 

North Carolina does not have a subdistrict residency 
requirement for members of the Senate and House elected 
from multi-member districts, a requirement which could to 
some degree off-set the disadvantage of any voting minority in 
multi-member districts. 26 

25 See White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 775, 766 (1973). 

26 See icl. at 766 n.10. 



JA-33 

Use Of Racial Appeals In Political Campaigns 

From the Reconstruction era to the present time, appeals to 
racial prejudice against black citizens have been effectively 
used by persons, either candidates or their supporters, as a 
means of influencing voters in North Carolina political cam­
paigns. The appeals have been overt and blatant at some times, 
more subtle and furtive at others. They have tended to be most 
overt and blatant in those periods when blacks were openly 
asserting political and civil rights- during the Reconstruction­
Fusion era and during the era of the major civil rights move­
ment in the 1950's and 1960's. During the period from ca. 1900 
to ca. 1948 when black citizens of the state were generally 
quiescent under de jure segregation, and when there were few 
black voters and no black elected officials, racial appeals in 
political campaigning were simply not relevant and according­
ly were not used. With the early stirrings of what became the 
civil rights movement following World War II, overt racial· 
appeals reappeared in the campaign of some North Carolina 
candidates. Though by and large less gross and virulent than 
were those of the outright white supremacy campaigns of 50 
years earlier, these renewed racial appeals picked up on the 
same obvious themes of that earlier time: black domination or 
influence over "moderate" or "liberal" white candidates and 
the threat of "negro rule" or "black power" by blacks "bloc 
voting" for black candidates or black-"dominated" candidates. 
In recent years, as the civil rights movement, culminating in 
the Civil Rights Act of 1964, completed the eradication of de 
jure segregation, and as overt expressions of racist attitudes 
became less socially acceptable, these appeals have become 
more subtle in form and furtive in their dissemination, but they 
persist to this time. 

The record in this case is replete with specific examples of 
this general pattern of racial appeals in political campaigns. In 
addition to the crude cartoons and pamphlets of the outright 
white supremacy campaigning of the 1890's which featured 
white political opponents in the company of black political 
leaders, later examples include various campaign materials, 



.JA-34 

unmistakably appealing to the same racial fears and pre­
judices, that were disseminated during some of the most hotly 
contested statewide campaigns of the state's recent history: 
the 1950 campaign for the United States Senate; the 1954 
campaign for the United States Senate; the 1960 campaign for 
Governor; the 1968 campaign for Governor; the 1968 Presiden­
tial campaign in North Carolina; the 1972 campaign for the 
United States Senate; and most recently, in the imminent 1984 
campaign for the United States Senate. 

Numerous other examples of assertedly more subtle forms 
of "telegraphed" racial appeals in a great number of local and 
statewide elections, abound in the record. Laying aside the 
more attenuated forms of arguably racial allusions in some of 
these , we find that racial appeals in North Carolina political 
campaigns have for the past thirty years been widespread and 
persistent. 

The contents of these materials reveal an unmistakable in­
tention by their disseminators to exploit existing fears and 
prejudices and to create new fears and prejudices on the part of 
white citizens in regard to black citizens and to black citizens' 
participation in the political processes of the state. The con­
tinued dissemination of these materials throughout this period 
and down to the present time evidences an informed percep­
tion by the persons who have disseminated them that they 
have had their intended effect to a degree warranting their 
continued use. 

On this basis, we find that the historic use of racial appeals in 
political campaigns in North Carolina persists to the present 
time and that its effect is presently to lessen to some degTee the 
opportunity of black citizens to participate effectively in the 
political processes and to elect candidates of their choice. 

The Extent Of Election Of Black Citizens To Public Office 

Statewide history. It appears that, with one exception, no 
black citizen was elected during this century to public office in 
North Carolina until after World War II. In 1948 and during 



JA-35 

the early 1950's a few black citizens were elected to various city 
councils. Twenty years later, in 1970, there were in the state 62 
black elected officials. In 1969 a black citizen was elected to the 
State House of Representatives for the first time since Recon­
struction; in 1975 two blacks were elected, for the first time, to 
the Senate. From 1970 to 1975 the number of black elected 
officials increased from 62 to over 200 statewide; in 1982, that 
number had increased to 255. 

At present the number of elected black officials remains 
quite low in relation to total black population, which is 22.4% of 
the state total. Black citizens hold 9% of the city council seats 
(in cities of over 500 population); 7.3% of county commission 
seats; 4% of sheriffs offices; and 1% of the offices of Clerk of 
Superior Court. There are 19 black mayors, 13 of whom are in 
majority black municipalities. Of the black city council mem­
bers, approximately 40% are from majority black municipali­
ties or election districts. Three black judges have been elected 
in statewide elections to seats to which they had been ap­
pointed by the Governor. Other than these judges, no black has 
yet been elected during this century to any statewide office or 
to the Congress of the United States as a representative of this 
state. 

Between 1971 and 1982 there have been, at any given time, 
between two and four black members of the North Carolina 
House of Representatives out of a total of 120-between 1.6% 
and 3.3%. From 1975 to 1983 there have been, at any given 
time, either one or two black members of the State Senate out 
of a total of 50-between 2% and 4%. Most recently, in 1982, 
after this action was filed, 11 black citizens were elected to the 
State House of Representatives. Six of those 11 were elected 
from multi-member districts in which blacks constituted a 
voting minority (including 5 of those challenged); 5 were 
elected from newly created majority black districts. 

Historically, in those multi-member districts where some 
blacks have succeeded in being elected, overall black candida­
cies have been significantly less successful than white candida-



JA-36 

cies have been significantly less successful than white candida­
cies. Black candidates who, between 1970 and 1982, won in 
Democratic primaries in the six multi-member districts under 
challenge here were three times as likely to lose in the general 
election as were their white Democratic counterparts, a fact of 
statistical significance in assessing the continued effect of race 
in those elections. 

In The Challenged Multi-Member Districts 

House District 36 (Mecklenburg County); Senate District 22 
(Mecklenburg/Cabarrus Counties). 

In this century one black citizen has been elected to the State 
House of Representatives and one black citizen has been 
elected to the Senate from Mecklenburg County. The House 
member was elected as one of an eight-member delegation in 
1982, after this lawsuit was commenced. Seven other black 
citizens had previously run unsuccessfully for a House seat. 
The Senate member served as one of a 4-member delegation 
from Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties from 1975 to 1980. 
Since then two black citizens have run unsuccessfully and no 
black now serves on the Senate delegation. 

Since World War II , blacks, who now constitute 31% of the 
city's population, have been elected to the City Council of 
Charlotte, but never in numbers remotely proportional to their 
percentage of the city's population. During the period 1945 to 
1975, when the council was elected all at-large , blacks con­
stituted 5.4% of its membership. From 1977-1981, when the 
council was elected partially at-large and partially by districts, 
blacks won 28.6% of the district seats compared with 16.7% of 
the at-large seats, though more ran for the latter than the 
former. 

One black citizen has been elected (three times) and defeated 
one time for membership on the five-member County Board of 
Commissioners, and presently serves. Two black citizens have 
been elected and now serve on the nine-member County Board 
of Education. 



JA-37 

Following trial of this action, a black citizen was elected 
mayor of the City of Charlotte, running as a Democrat against 
a white Republican. The successful black candidate, a widely­
respected architect, received approximately 38% of the white 
vote. 

House District No. 29 (part of Forsyth County). 

Before 1974 Black citizens had been elected to the City 
Council ofWinston-Salem, but to no other public office. In 197 4 
and again in 1976 a black citizen was elected to the House of 
Representatives as one of a five-member delegation. In 1978 
and 1980 other black citizens ran unsuccessfully for the House. 
In 1982, after this litigation was commenced, two black citizens 
were elected to the House. 

No black citizen has been elected to the Senate from Forsyth 
County. 

Since 1974, a black citizen has been elected, twice failed te be 
reelected, then succeeded in being reelected to one of eight 
seats on the otherwise all-white Board of Education; and 
another has been elected, failed to be reelected, then suc­
ceeded in being reelected to one of five seats on the otherwise 
all-white Board of County Commissioners. 

House District No. 23 (Durham County). 

Since 1973 a black citizen has been elected each two-year 
term to the State House. No black citizen has been elected to 
the Senate. Since 1969, blacks have been elected to the Board 
of County Commissioners, and three of twelve Durham City 
Council members are blacks elected in at-large elections. The 
City of Durham is 4 7% black in population. 

House District No. 21 (Wake County). 

A black citizen has been twice elected to the State House 
five-member delegation from this district and is presently 
serving. Another black citizen was elected for two terms to the 
State Senate, serving from 1975 to 1978. 



JA-38 

A black citizen has been twice elected Sheriff of Wake Coun­
ty and is presently in that office. Another black citizen, who 
lives in an affluent white neighborhood, has served since 1972 
as the only black on the seven-member County Board of Com­
missioners. Another black citizen, elected from a majority 
black district, serves as the only black on the nine-member 
County School Board. Another black citizen served one term 
as mayor of the City of Raleigh from 1973 to 1975, and still 
another serves on the Raleigh City Council. 

House District No. 8 (Edgecombe, Nash, Wilson Counties). 

There has never been a black member of the State House or 
Senate from the area covered by this district. There had never 
been a black member of the Board of County Commissioners of 
any of the three counties until 1982 when two blacks were 
elected to the five-member Board in Edgecombe County, in 
which blacks constitute 43% of the registered voters. In Wilson 
County, where the black population is 36.5% of the total, one of 
nine members of the County Board of Education is black. In the 
City of Wilson, which is over 40% black in population, one of six 
city councilmen is black. 

Senate District No. 2 ( Northampton, Hertford, Gates, Bertie, 
Chowan, and parts of Washington, Martin, Halifax and 

Edgecombe Counties). 

No black person has ever been elected to the State Senate 
from any of the area covered by the district. In the last four 
years, black candidates have won three elections for the State 
House from areas within the borders of this district, one in 1980 
in a majority-white multi-member district, two in 1982 in dif­
ferent majority-black districts. In Gates County, where 49% 
of the registered voters are black, a black citizen has been 
elected and presently serves as Clerk of Court. In Halifax 
County, black citizens have run unsuccessfully for the Board of 
County Commissioners and for the City Council of Roanoke 
Rapids. 



JA-39 

Looking only to these basic historical facts respecting black 
citizens' election to public office, we draw the following in­
ferences. Thirty-five years after the first successful candida­
cies for public office by black citizens in this century, it has now 
become possible for black citizens to be elected to office at all 
levels of state government in North Carolina. The chances of a 
black candidate's being elected are better where the candidacy 
is in a majority-black constituency, where the candidacy is in a 
single-member rather than a multi-member or at-large dis­
trict, where it is for local rather than statewide office, and 
where the black candidate is a member of the political party 
currently in the ascendancy with voters. Relative to white 
candidates running for the same office at whatever level, black 
candidates remain at a disadvantage in terms of relative proba­
bility of success. The overall results achieved to date at all 
levels of elective office are minimal in relation to the percen­
tage of blacks in the total population. There are intimations 
from recent history, particularly from the 1982 elections, that a 
more substantial breakthrough of success could be imminent­
but there were enough obviously aberrational aspects present 
in the most recent elections to make that a matter of sheer 
speculation. 27 In any event, the success that has been achieved 
by black candidates to date is; standing alone, too minimal in 
total numbers and too recent in relation to the long history of 
complete denial of any elective opportunities to compel or even 

27 Both parties offered evidence-anecdotal, informed "lay opinion," and 
documentary-to establish on the one hand that recent black successes 
indicated an established breakthrough from any preexisting racial vote 
dilution and on the other, that those successes are too "haphazard" and 
aberrational in terms of specific candidacies, issues, and political trends and, 
in any event, still too minimal in numbers, to support any such ultimate 
inference. Heavily emphasized with respect to successful black candidacies 
in 1982 was the fact that in some elections the pendency of this very litigation 
worked a one-time advantage for black candidates in the form of unusual 
organized political support by white leaders concerned to forestall 
single-member districting, and that this cannot be expected to recur. Our 
finding, as stated in text , reflects our weighing of these conflicting 
inferences. 



JA-40 

arguably to support an ultimate finding that a black candidate's 
race is no longer a significant adverse factor in the political 
processes of the state-either generally or specifically in the 
areas of the challenged districts. 

Racial Polarization in Voting 

Statistical evidence presented by duly qualified expert wit­
nesses for plaintiffs, supplemented to some degree by direct 
testimony oflay witnesses, establishes, and we find, that with­
in all the challenged districts racially polarized voting exists in 
a persistent and severe degree. 

Multi-Member Districts 

To analyze the existence and extent of any racially polarized 
voting in the challenged multi-member districts, Dr. Bernard 
Grofman, a duly qualified expert witness for plaintiffs, had 
collected and studied data from 53 sets of recent election re­
turns involving black candidacies in all of the challenged multi­
member districts. 28 Based upon two complementary methods 
of analysis of the collected data, 29 Grofman gave as his opinion, 
and we find, that in each of the elections analyzed racial 
polarization did exist and that the degree revealed in every 

28 Included were all the elections for the General Assembly in which there 
were black candidates in Mecklenburg, Durham, and Forsyth County; 
elections for the State House of Representatives in Wilson, Edgecombe, and 
Nash Counties; and elections for the State Senate in Cabarrus County for the 
election years 1978, 1980, and 1982; county-wide local elections in each of 
Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash Counties in which there were black 
candidates. The 53 elections included both primary and general elections and 
represented a total of 32 different election contests. 

29 The two methods employed, both standard in the literature for the 
analysis of racially polarized voting, were an "extreme case" analysis and an 
"ecological regression" analysis . The extreme case analysis focuses on voting 
in racially segregated precincts; the regTession analysis uses both racially 
segregated and racially mixed precincts and provides any corrective method 
to reflect the fact that voters in the two types may behave differently. In Dr. 

(footnote continued on next page) 



JA-41 

election analyzed was statistically significant, in the sense that 
the probability of its occurring by chance was less than one in 
100,000;30 and that in all but two of the elections the degree 
revealed was so marked as to be substantively significant, in 
the sense that the results ofthe individual election would have 

Grofman's analysis the results under both methods conformed closely in most 
cases. The purpose of both methods is simply to determine the extent to 
which blacks and whites vote differently from each other in relation to the 
race of candidates. 

Defendants' duly qualified expert witness, Dr. Thomas Hofeller, had 
studied Dr. Grofman's data and the mathematics of his analysis of that data, 
and heard his live testimony. Aside from two mathematical or typographical 
errors, Dr. Hofeller did not question the accuracy of the data, its adequacy as 
a reliable sample for the purpose used, nor that the methods of analysis used 
were standard in the literature. He questioned the reliability of an extreme 
case analysis standing alone , but, as indicated, Dr. Grofman's did not stand 
alone. Dr. Hofeller also questioned Dr. Grofman's failure to make an exact 
count of voter turn-out by race rather than using estimated figures . The 
literature makes no such demand of precision in obtaining this figure , and Dr. 
Grofman's method of estimating is accepted. Dr. Hofeller made no specific 
suggestion of error in the figures used. 

We have accepted the accuracy and reliability of the data collected and the 
methods of analysis used by Dr. Grofman for the purposes offered. The 
general reliability of Dr. Grofman's analysis was further confirmed by the 
testimony of Dr. Theodore Arrington, a duly qualified expert witness for the 
Pugh intervenor-plaintiffs, see note 4, supra. Proceeding by a somewhat 
different methodology and using different data, Dr. Arrington came to the 
same general conclusion respecting the extent of racial polarization in the 
narrower area of his study. 

30 These conclusions were reached by determining the correlation between 
the voters of one race and the number of voters who voted for a candidate of 
specified race. In experience, correlations above an absolute value of .5 are 
relatively rare and correlations above .9 extremely rare. All correlations 
found by Dr. Grofman in the elections studied had absolute values between . 7 
and . 98, with most above . 9. This reflected statistical significance at the 
.00001 level - probability of chance as explanation for the coincidence of 
voter's and candidate's race less than one in 100,000. Cf. Major v. Treen, 
supra, slip op. 30-32 n.17 (comparable analysis of racial vote polarization by 
correlation coefficients). 



JA-42 

been different depending upon whether it had been held among 
only the white voters or only the black voters in the election.'31 

Additional facts revealed by this data support the ultimate 
finding that severe (substantively significant) racial polariza­
tion existed in the multi-member district elections considered 
as a whole. 32 In none of the elections, primary or general, did a 
black candidate receive a majority of white votes cast. On the 
average, 81.7% of white voters did not vote for any black 
candidate in the primary elections. In the general elections, 
white voters almost always ranked black candidates either last 
or next to last in the multi-candidate field except in heavily 
Democratic areas; in these latter, white voters consistently 
ranked black candidates last among Democrats if not last or 
next to last among all candidates. In fact, approximately two­
thirds of white voters did not vote for black candidates in 
general elections even after the candidate had won the Demo­
cratic primary and the only choice was to vote for a Republican 
or no one. Black incumbency alleviated the general level of 
polarization revealed, but it did not eliminate it. Some black 
incumbents were reelected, but none received a majority of 
white votes even when the election was essentially uncon­
tested. Republican voters were more disposed to vote for 

31 The two exceptions involved 1982 State House elections in Durham and 
Wake Counties, respectively, in which black candidates were elected to seats 
in majority white multi-member districts. Both were incumbents, and in 
Durham County there were only two white candidates in the race for three 
seats so that the black candidate had to win. Though each black candidate 
won, neither received a majority of the white vote cast. These two excep­
tions did not alter Dr. Grofman's conclusion that, in his terms, racial polariza­
tion in the elections analyzed as a whole was substantially significant . Nor do 
they alter our finding to the same effect. 

32 Defendants' expert witness questioned the accuracy of any opinion as to 
the "substantive" significance of statistically significant racial polarization in 
voting that did not factor in all of the circumstances that might influence 
particular votes in a particular election. This flies in the face of the general 
use, in litigation and in the general social science literature, of correlation 
analysis as the standard method for determining whether vote dilution in the 
legal (substantive) sense exists, a use conceded by defendant's expert. 



JA-43 

white Democrats than to vote for black Democrats. The racial 
polarization revealed, of course, runs both ways , but it was 
much more disadvantageous to black voters than to white. 
Aside from the basic population and registered voter majority 
advantages had by white voters in any racially polarized set­
ting, fewer white voters voted for black candidates than did 
black voters for white candidates. In these elections, a signifi­
cant segment of the white voters would not vote for any black 
candidate, but few black voters would not vote for any white 
candidate. One revealed consequence of this disadvantage is 
that to have a chance of success in electing candidates of their 
choice in these districts, black voters must rely extensively on 
single-shot voting, thereby forfeiting by practical necessity 
their right to vote for a full slate of candidates. 

The racial polarization revealed in the multi-member elec­
tions considered as a whole exists in each of the challenged 
districts considered separately, as indicated by the following 
specific findings related to elections within each district. 

House District No. 36 And Senate District No. 22 
(Mecklenburg And Cabarrus Counties). 

In elections in House District No. 36 (Mecklenburg County) 
between 1980 and 1982, the following percentages of black and 
white voters voted for the black candidates.indicated: 

1980 (Maxwell) 
1982 (Berry) 
1982 (Richardson) 

Primary 
White Black 

22 71 
50 79 
39 71 

General 
White Black 

28 92 
42 92 
29 88 

In elections in Senate District No. 22 (Mecklenburg and 
Cabarrus Counties) between 1978 and1982, the following per-



JA-44 

centages of white and black voters voted for the black cancli­
dates indicated: 

1978 (Alexander) 
1980 (Alexander) 
1982 (Polk) 

Prima?"Y 
White Black 

47 87 
23 78 
32 83 

General 
White Black 

41 94 
n/a n/a 
33 94 

The fact that candidate Berry received votes from one half of 
the white voters in the primary does not alter the conclusion 
that there is substantial racially polarized voting in Mecklen­
burg County in primaries. There were only seven white cancli­
dates for eight positions in the primay and one black candidate 
had to be elected. Berry, the incumbent chairman of the Board 
of Education, ranked first among black voters but seventh 
among whites. 

The only other black candidate who approached receiving as 
many as half of the white votes was Fred Alexander, running in 
the 1978 Senate primary as an incumbent. Alexander ranked 
last among white voters in the primary and would have been 
defeated if the elction had been held only among the white 
voters. 

Approximately 60% of the white voters voted for neither 
Berry nor Alexander in the general election. 

House District No. 39 (Forsyth County). 

In House and Senate elections in Forsyth County from 1978-
1982 the following percentages of white and black voters voted 
for the black candidates indicated: 

Prima?"Y General 
White Black White Black 

1978 House -
Kennedy, H. 28 76 32 93 
Norman 8 29 n/a n/a 
Ross 17 53 n/a n/a 
Sumter (Repub.) n/a n/a 33 25 



JA-45 

Primary General 
White Black White Black 

1980 House -
Kennedy, A. 40 86 32 96 
Norman 18 36 n/a n/a 

1980 Senate -
Small 12 61 n/a n/a 

1982 House -
Hauser 25 80 42 87 
Kennedy, A. 36 87 46 94 

As revealed by this data, no black candidate, whether suc­
cessful or not, has received more than 40% of the white votes 
cast in a primary, and no black candidate has received more 
than 46% of the white votes cast in a general election during the 
last four elections. 

Though black candidates Kennedy and Hauser won the 
House election in 1982, this does not alter the conclusion that 
substantial racial polarization of voting continued through that 
election. White voters ranked Kennedy and Hauser seventh 
and eighth, respectively, out of eight candiates in the general 
election. In contrast black voters ranked them first and second 
respectively. 

House District No. 23 (Durham County). 

In House and Senate Elections from 1978 through 1982, the 
following percentages of white and black voters voted for the 
black candidates indicated: 

Prima?"Y General 
White Black White Black 

1978 Senate -
Barns (Repub. ) n/a n/a 17 5 

1978 House-
Clement 10 89 n/a n/a 
Spaulding 16 92 37 89 



JA-46 

Primary General 
White Black White Black 

1980 House -
Spaulding nla nla 49 90 

1982 House-
Clement 26 32 nla n/a 
Spaulding 37 90 43 89 

Black candidate Spaulding ran uncontested in the general 
election in 1978 and in the primary and general election in 1980. 
In the 1982 election there was no Republican opposition and 
the general election was, for all practical purposes, unopposed. 
A majority of white voters failed to vote for the black candidate 
in the general election in each of these years even when they 
had no other choice. Furthermore, in the 1982 primary, there 
were only two white candidates for three seats so that one 
black necessarily had to win. Even in this situation, 63% of 
white voters did not vote for the black incumbent, the clear 
choice of the black voters. At least 37% of white voters voted 
for no black candidate even when one was certain to be elected. 

House District No. 21 (Wake County). 

In elections for the North Carolina House of Representa­
tives from 1978 through 1982 the following percentages of 
white and black voters voted for the black candidate indicated: 

1978 (Blue) 
1980 (Blue) 
1982 (Blue) 

Primary 
White Black 

21 76 
31 81 
39 82 

Gene'ral 
White Black 

nla nla 
44 90 
45 91 

The fact that black candidate Blue won election in the last 
two of these candidacies does not alter the conclusion that 
substantial racial polarization in voting persists in this district. 
In Wake County winning the Democratic primary is historical­
ly tantamount to election. Nevertheless, in these elections 



.JA-47 

from 60% to 80% of white voters did not vote for the black 
candidate in the primary compared to 76% and 80% of black 
voters who did. 

Wake County is overwhelmingly Democratic in registration 
and normally votes along party lines. Nonetheless, 55% of 
white voters did not vote for the black Democrat in the general 
electioin. 

House District No. 8 (Wilson, Nash, Edgecombe Counties). 

In county-wide or district-wide elections from 1976 through 
1982 in House District No. 8 and Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash 
Counties, the following percentages of white and black voters 
voted for the black candidates indicated: 

House District No. 8 
1982 House-Carter 

Wilson County 
1982 Congress-

1st Primary-Michaux 
2nd Primary-Michaux 

1976 County Commission­
Jones 

Edgecombe County 
1982 Congress-

1st Primary-Michaux 
2nd Primary-Michaux 

1982 County Commission­
Green 

' McClain 
Thorne 
Walker 

Primary General 
White Black White Black 

4 

6 
7 

32 

2 
3 

0 
0 
4 
2 

66 

96 
98 

77 

84 
97 

14 
27 
75 
82 

38 
36 

91 
94 



Nash County 
1982 Congress-

1st Primary 
2nd Primary 

1982 County Commission­
Sumner 

JA-48 

Primary General 
White Black White Black 

6 
6 

9 

73 
81 

82 

With one exception, over this period more than 90% of the 
white voters have failed to vote for the black candidate in every 
primary in each of these three counties. The one time, in 1982, 
that black Democratic candidates have run in a general elec­
tion, they failed to receive over 60% of the white vote even 
though Edgecombe County is overwhelmingly (88.5%) Demo­
cratic. 

This data reveals racial polarization of voting in House Dis­
trict No. 8 so extreme that, all other factors aside, no black has 
any chance of winning election in the district as it is presently 
constituted. This conclusion, as expressed in evidence by plain­
tiffs' expert witness, was not seriously challenged by defend­
ants. 

Single-Member District 

Senate District No. 2. 

Essentially unchallenged and unrebutted opinion evidence 
given by plaintiffs' expert witness, Dr. Grofman, and testimo­
nial evidence of experienced local political observers and black 
community leaders establishes that severe and persistent ra­
cial polarization in voting exists in the area covered by the 
challenged single-member Senate District No. 2. 

Based on these evidentiary findings with respect to racial 
polarization in voting, we find that in each of the challenged 
districts racial polarization in voting presently exists to a sub­
stantial or severe degree, and that in each district it presently 
operates to minimize the voting strength of black voters . 



JA-49 

Other Factors Bearing Upon The Claim 
Of Racial Vote Dilution 

Increased participation by black citizens in the political 
process. 

The court finds that in recent years there has been a measur­
able increase in the ability and willingness of black citizens to 
participate in the state's political processes and in its govern­
ment at state and local levels. The present state administration 
has appointed a significant number of black citizens to judicial 
and executive positions in state government, and evinces a 
good faith determination further to open the political processes 
to black citizens by that means. In some areas of the state, 
including some of those directly involved in this litigation, 
there is increased willingness on the part of influential white 
politicians openly to draw black citizens into political coalitions 
and openly to support their candidacies. Indeed, among the 
witnesses for the state were respected and influential political 
figures who themselves fit that description. 

The court has considered what this implies for the plaintiffs' 
claim of present racial vote dilution-of a present lack of equal 
opportunity by black citizens relative to white citizens to par­
ticipate in the political process and to elect candidates of their 
choice. Our conclusion is that though this wholesome develop­
ment is undoubtedly underway and will presumably continue, 
it has not proceeded to the point of overcoming still entrenched 
racial vote polarization, and indeed has apparently done little 
to diminish the level of that single most powerful factor in 
causing racial vote dilution. The participatory level of black 
citizens is still minimal in relation to the overall black popula­
tion, and, quite understandably, is largely confined to the 
relatively few forerunners who have achieved professional 
status or otherwise emerged from the generally depressed 
socio-economic status which, as we have found on the record 
produced in this case, remains the present lot of the gTeat bulk 
of black citizens. 



JA-50 

Divisions Within The Black Community. 

Not all black citizens in North Carolina, notwithstanding 
that the class technically certified in this action includes all who 
are registered to vote, share the same views about the present 
reality of racial vote dilution in the challenged districts (or 
presumably elsewhere), nor about the appropriate solution to 
any dilution that may exist. 

Several black citizens testified in this action, as witnesses for 
the state, to this effect, identifying their own views as opposed 
to those advanced by plaintiffs' witnesses. In terms of their 
experience, achievement and general credibility as witnesses , 
the views of these defendant-witnesses were clearly as deserv­
ing of acceptance by the court as were those of the black 
citizens who, in larger numbers, testified as witnesses for the 
plaintiffs. 

Two facts appeared, however, to the court. The first is that 
the views expressed by defendants' witnesses went almost 
exclusively to the desirability of the remedy sought by plain­
tiffs, and not to the present existence of a condition of vote 
dilution. The other fact is that the defendants' witnesses' views 
must be accounted, on the record adduced in this case, a 
distinct minority viewpoint within the plaintiff class as certi­
fied . The division between the two elements is essentially one 
of proper political ends and means to break free of racial vote 
dilution as a present condition, and not of the present existence 
of that condition. Only if a dissident element were so large as to 
draw in question the very existence of an identifiable black 
community whose "ability to participate" and "freedom to elect 
candidates of its choice" could rationally be assessed, could the 
existence of a dissident view have relevance to the establish­
ment of a racial vote dilution claim. That clearly is not the 
circumstance here , on the record made in this action. As earlier 
indicated, the further political question of the proper means to 
eradicate such racial vote dilution as might be shown presently 
to exist has been decided by Congress and does not properly 
figure in our judicial inquiry. See Part II , supm. 



JA-51 

Fairness Of The State Legislative Policy Underlying The 
Challenged Redistricting 

Under amended§ 2 it presumably remains relevant to con­
sider whether race-neutral and compelling state policies might 
justify a redistricting plan that concededly, or at least arguab­
ly, "results" prima facie in racial vote dilution. The Senate 
Report, discussing the continued relevance of the "tenuous 
state policy" inquiry as one of the incorporated Zimm er factors 
that evolved in White v. Regester dilution jurisprudence, in­
dicates as much, though "tenuousness" as a gauge of intent is 
obviously no longer relevant under § 2's "result-only" test. 

If the procedure markedly departs from past practices 
or from practices elsewhere in the jurisdiction, that bears 
on the fairness of its impact. But even a consistently 
applied practice premised on a racially neutral policy 
would not negate a plaintiffs showing through other fac­
tors that the challenged practice denies minorities fair 
access to the process. 

8. Rep. No. 97-417, supra note 10, at 29 & n.117. See also 
Major v. Treen, supra, slip op. 67-74 (analyzing state 
redistricting policy in terms of fairness) . 

The parties in this litigation have addressed the point under 
the "tenuous state policy" rubric, and we will assume the 
inquiry's continued relevance under a "results" -only test. On 
this basis, we are persuaded that no state policy, either as 
demonstrably employed by the legislature in its deliberations, 
or as now asserted by the state in litigation, could "negate a 
showing" here that actual vote dilution results from the chal­
lenged district plan. 

During the legislative deliberations on the redistricting 
plan, the legislature was well aware of the possibility that its 
plan could result under then applicable federal law in imper­
missible dilution of black citizens' voting strength if concentra­
tions of black voters were intentionally "submerged" in multi­
member districts or "fractured" into separate districts. That 
fact was brought to its attention by special counsel, by black 
citizens' groups concerned with the problem, and by various 



JA-52 

legislators who proposed plans specifically designed to avoid 
any possibility of impermissibly diluting black citizens' votes in 
these ways. The specific dilution problems presented by the 
black voter concentrations in the challenged districts in this 
litigation were known to and discussed in legislative delibera­
tions . 

The basic policy justification advanced by the state in this 
litigation for the legislature's declination to create single­
member districts to avoid submerging concentrations of black 
voters in the challenged multi-member districts was the main­
tenance of an historical, functionally sound tradition of using 
whole counties as the irreversible "building blocks" of legisla­
tive districting. Although the state adduced fairly persuasive 
evidence that the "whole-county" policy was well-established 
historically, had legitimate functional purposes, and was in its 
origins completely without racial implications, that all became 
largely irrelevant as matters developed in this particular 
legislative redistricting plan. At the time of its final enact­
ment, the state policy-though compelled-was that counties 
might be split. When the Attorney General declined to give 
preclearance to the state constitutional prohibition of county 
divisions in redistricting, the state acquiesced and, indeed, 
divided counties thereafter both in non-covered as well as 
covered counties in the final redistricting plan. See note 3, 
supm. To the extent the policy thereafter was to split counties 
only when necessary to meet population deviation require­
ments or to obtain§ 5 preclearance of particular districts-and 
this is what the record demonstrates-such a policy obviously 
could not be drawn upon to justify, under a fairness test, 
districting which results in racial vote dilution. 

The same findings apply, though with added force, to Senate 
District No. 2. There, of course, in the final plan counties were 
split; indeed four were split in the face of a proposed plan which 
would have yielded an effective black-majority single-member 
district which only involved splitting two counties. Other poli­
cy considerations that were plainly shown to have influenced 
the legislature in its final drawing of Senate District No. 2lines 



J A-53 

were the protection of incumbents and, in the words of one 
legislator-witness in this action, swallowing the "smallest of 
three pills" offered by the Justice Department in preclearance 
negotiations respecting the lowest permissible size of the black 
population concentration in the district. Obviously, neither of 
these policies could serve to outweigh a racial dilution result. 

The final policy consideration suggested by the state is the 
avoidance of race-conscious gerrymandering. While there may 
be some final constitutional constraint here, cf. Karcher v. 
Daggett,_ U.S._,_, 51 U.S.L.W. 4853, 4860 (U.S. 
June 22, 1983) (Stevens, J., concurring), we find that it is not 
approached here by the available means of avoiding sub­
mergence or fragmentation of any of the black voter concentra­
tions at issue. The most serious problem is that posed by the 
configuration of the black voter concentration in House Dis­
trict No. 8, conprised of Wilson, Nash and Edgecombe Coun­
ties. The configuration of the single-member district specifical­
ly suggested by the plaintiffs as a viable one is obviously not a 
model of aesthetic tidiness. But given the evidence, not chal­
lenged by defendants, that in the present multi-member dis­
trict the black population, 39.5% of the total, simply cannot 
hope ever to elect a candidate of its choice, aesthetics, as 
opposed to compactness and commonality of interests, cannot 
be accorded primacy. See Carstens v. Lamm, supra; Skolnick 
v. State Electoral Board, 336 F. Supp. 839, 843 (N.D. Ill. 1971) 
(three-judge court) (even compactness not a fundamental 
requirement). 

Ultimate Findings Of Fact 

1. Considered in conjunction with the totality of relevant 
circumstances found by the court-the lingering effects of 
seventy years of official discrimination against black citizens in 
matters touching registration and voting, substantial to severe 
racial polarization in voting, the effects of thirty years of per­
sistent racial appeals in political campaigns, a relatively de­
pressed socio-economic status resulting in significant degree 
from a century of de juTe and de facto segregation, and the 



J.A.-54 

continuing effect of a majority vote requirement-the creation 
of each of the multi-member districts challenged in this action 
results in the black registered voters of that district being 
submerged as a voting minority in the district and thereby 
having less opportunity than do other members of the electo­
rate to participate in the political process and to elect repre­
sentatives of their choice. 

2. Considered in conjunction with the same circumstances, 
the creation of single-member Senate District No. 2 results in 
the black registered voters in an area covered by Senate Dis­
tricts Nos. 2 and 6 having their voting strength diluted by 
fracturing their concentration into two districts in each of 
which they are a voting minority and in consequence have less 
opportunity than do other members of the electorate to partici­
pate in the political process and to elect representatives of 
their choice. 33 

33 The state challenges the basic premise of this finding with the familiar 
argument that the relative merits oflegislative division of a minority popula­
tion that is not large enough to form voting majorities in two single-member 
districts into an effective voting majority in one single-member district and 
an ineffective minority in another or, on the other hand , dividing it into two 
substantially influential minorities in two districts is so problematical that 
neither the one nor the other division can properly be adjudged "dilutive" by 
a court. See, e.g., Seamon v. Upham, 536 F. Supp. 931, 949 (E .D. Tex.) 
(three-judge court) rev'd on other grounds, 456 U.S. 37 (1982); compare 
Jordan v. Winter, 541 F. Supp. 1135, 1143 (N.D. Miss. 1982) (three-judge 
court), vacated and remanded for further consideration in light of amended 
§ 2, 103 S. Ct. 2077 (1983) (legislative preference unchallengeable) with 
Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors, 554 F .2d at 150 (dilution possible even if 
one of districts has a bare black population majority). The specific argument 
here is that any increase in the present minority population of 55. 1% in 
Senate District No. 2 will be at the expense of the present 49.3% black 
population in Senate District No.6, the obvious source of District 2 increase. 

We are not impressed with the argument. While the dilemma is a real one, 
we think it is one that Congress has , in effect, committed to the judgment of 
the black community to whom it has given the private right of action under 
amended § 2. The right created is, by definition, that of a "class" and the 
procedural means of vindicating it by a class action has also been provided by 

(footnote continued on next page) 



JA-55 

IV 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 

1. The court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the sub­
ject matter of the action under'28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343, and 42 
U.S.C. § 1973c. 

· 2. The court is properly convened as a three-judge court 
under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). 

3. The action has been properly certified as a class action on 
behalf of all black residents of North Carolina who are reg­
istered to vote. No challenge is made to the propriety of the 
class action under any of the criteria of the governing class 
action rule, Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. 

4. Of the challenged districts, only House District No. 8 
(Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash) and Senate District No. 2 
include counties that are covered under § 4(a) of the Voting 

(footnote continued from previous page) 
Congress in Fed.R.Civ.P. 23. When, as here, such a class action is brought 
by a class which includes such a fragmented concentration of black voters, a 
group judgment about the group's best means of access to the political 
process must be assumed reflected in the specific claim made by the class. 
The legitimacy of that group judgment, from the standpoint of members of 
the class identified, can be put to test by standard procedures: by challenges 
to the adequacy of representation or the typicality of claims by any members 
of the identified class who question the wisdom or validity of the class claim 
under Rule 23(a)(3) & (4), Fed.R.Civ.P., or even by attempted intervention 
under Rule 24, Fed.R.Civ.P. When, as here, no such challenges are made, a 
dilution claim made by the class is properly assessed in the terms made, and 
on the understanding that any judgment entered on its basis will be binding 
on all members of the class who may not later second-guess it under ordinary 
principles of claim preclusion, see Restatement (Second) Judgments § 24 
comments b, c; § 25 comments f, m; § 4l(l)(e), (2) comment e, or, possibly, 
judicial estoppel, see Allen v. Zurich Ins. Co., 667 F .2dll62 (4th Cir . 1982). 

If this were not the approach taken, a foolproof means would be provided 
for irremediable fracturing of any such minority voter concentration. That 
cannot have been intended by Congress. A different situation of course 
would be presented if the class of black voters bringing such a dilution-by­
fracturing claim included only the voters in one of the districts into which the 
fracturing had occurred. That is not this case. 



JA-56 

Rights Act and for which preclearance is required under § 5 of 
that Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. 

The Attorney General's indication on April27, 1982, that, so 
far as it affected covered counties, he would interpose no 
objection under § 5 to the legislative enactment of the 
redistricting plan which, inter alia, created House District No. 
8 and Senate District No.2 does not have the effect of preclud­
ing this claim by plaintiffs brought under amended § 2 to chal­
lenge the redistricting plan in respect of these two districts. 42 
U.S.C. § 1973c; Major v. Treen, supra, slip op. at 200 n.1; 
United States v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board, 594 
F .2d 56, 59 n.9 (5th Cir. 1979); see also Morris v. Gressette, 432 
U.S. 491, 506-07 (1977). Because the standards by which the 
Attorney General assesses voting changes under§ 5 are differ­
ent from those by which judicial claims under § 2 are to be 
assessed by the judiciary, seeS. Rep. No. 97-417, supra note 
10, at 68, 138-39, and because the former are ·applied in a 
non-adversarial administrative proceeding, the Attorney 
General's preclearance determination has no issue preclusive 
(collateral estoppel) effect in this action. See Restatement 
(Second) Judgments §§ 27 comment C; 83(2) & (3) (1980). 

5. The meaning and intended application of amended § 2 of 
the Voting Rights Act in relation to the claims at issue in this 
action are as stated in Part II of this Memorandum Opinion. 

6. On the basis of this court's ultimate findings of fact , the 
plaintiffs have established that the creation by the General 
Assembly of North Carolina of multi-member House Districts 
Nos. 8, 21, 23, 36and39, multi-memberSenateDistrictNo. 22, 
and single-member Senate District No. 2 will, as applied, 
result in an abridgement of their voting rights, as members of a 
class protected by subsection (a) of amended § 2 of the Voting 
Rights Act, in violation of that section. 

7. The plaintiffs are entitled to appropriate relief from the 
violation. 



JA-57 

v 
REMEDY 

Having determined that the state's redistricting plans, in 
the respects challenged, are not in compliance with the man­
date of amended § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the court will 
enter an order declaring the redistricting plan violative of§ 2 
in those respects, and enjoining the defendants from conduct­
ing elections pursuant to the plan in its present form. 

In deference to the primary jurisdiction of state legislatures 
over legislative reapportionment, White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 
783, 795 (1973), we will defer further action to allow the Gener­
al Assembly of North Carolina an opportunity to exercise that 
jurisdiction in an effort to comply with § 2 in the respects 
required. This is especially appropriate where, as here, the 
General Assembly adopted the plan found violative of § 2 be­
fore the enactment of the amended version of that statute 
which now applies, and where there has accordingly been no 
previous legislative opportunity to assess the amended stat­
ute's substantial new requirements for affirmatively avoiding 
racial vote dilution rather than merely avoiding its intentional 
imposition. 

Having determined that the present plan violates a secured 
voting right, our obligation remains, however, to provide 
affirmative judicial relief if needed to insure compliance by the 
state with its duty to construct districts that do not dilute the 
voting strength of the plaintiff class in the ways here found, or 
in other ways. See In re: Illinois Congressional Districts Re­
apportionment Cases, No. 81 C 1395, slip op. (N.D. Ill. 1981), 
affd mem. sub nom., Ryan v. Otto, 454 U.S. 1130 (1982); 
Rybicki v. State Board of Elections, No. 81 C 6030 (N.D. Ill. 
Jan. 12, 1982); Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors, 554 F .2d 139 
(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 968 (1977). 

Recognizing the difficulties posed for the state by the immi­
nence of 1984 primary elections, the court will convene at any 
time, upon request of the state, to consider and promptly to 
rule upon any redistricting plan that has been enacted by the 



JA-58 

State in an effort to comply with the mandates of § 2 and with 
this decision. Failing legislative action having that effect with­
in a reasonable time under the circumstances, not later than 
March 16, 1984, the court will discharge its obligation to de­
velop and implement an appropriate remedial plan. 

An appropriate order will issue. 



JA-59 

I. STIPULATIONS 

The parties to Ging~es v. Edmisten and Pugh v. Hunt 
enter into the following stipulation for use in these actions. 

A. Jurisdictional Stipulations (1-6) 

B. Legislative Chronology (7-48 with Exhibits A-II 
and AAA-RRR) 

C. Other Stipulations of Fact ( 49-193 with Exhibits 
JJ-SS) 

A. Jurisdictional Stipulations 

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of 
these two actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ~~ 1331 and 1343 
(a) (3) and (a)(4). 

2. A three judge court is properly convened pursuant 
to 28 U.S.C. ~2284(a). 

3. The court has jurisdiction over all parties to the 
actions . 

• • • • • • • • • 
4. Gingles v. Edmisten has been properly certified as a 

class action on behalf of all black residents of North 
Carolina who are registered to vote. 

5A. Ralph Gingles is an adult black resident of Gaston 
County, North Carolina and is registered to vote. 

B. Sippio Burton is an adult black resident of Cumber­
land County, North Carolina and is registered to vote. 

C . . Joe P. -Moody is an adult black resident of Halifax 
County, North Carolina and is registered to vote. 

D. Fred Belfield is an adult black resident of Edge­
combe County, North Carolina and is registered to vote . 
• • • • • • • • • • 



JA-60 

6C. Maron McCullough, is an adult black resident of 
Iredell County and is registered to vote and affiliated with 
the Republican party. 

6D. Paul B. Eaglin is an adult black resident of Cum­
berland County and is registered to vote and affiliated with 
the Republican party. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
6I. Joe B. Roberts is an adult black resident of Meck­

lenburg County is registered to vote and is affiliated with 
the Republican party. 

B. Legislative Chronology 

7. The 1981 General Assembly, pursuant to N.C.G.S. 
120-11.1, convened on Wednesday, January 14, 1981. 

8. On January 16, 1981, the Speaker of the North Caro­
lina House of Representatives, the Honorable Liston B. 
Ramsey, pursuant to Rules 26 and 27 of the Rules of the 
1981 House of Representatives, General Assembly of 
North Carolina, appointed the following members of the 
Legislative Redistricting Committee: Representatives 
Jones and Lilley, Chairmen; Representatives Bundy and 
Messer, Vice Chairmen; Representatives Almond, Barnes, 
Beam, Blue, Bone, Brennan, Chapin, Church, D. Clark, 
Craven, Creecy, Diamont, Enloe, Bob Etheridge, Evans, 
Gillam, Grady, Guy, Hackney, Hege, Hiatt, Hightower, 
Holmes, J. Hunt, R . Hunter, T. Hunter, Lacey, McAlister, 
Morgan, Nash, Nesbitt, Nye, Quinn, Rabon, Redding, 
Rhodes, Spaulding, and Taylor. 

9. Representatives Blue, Creecy and Spaulding were the 
only black members of the House during the 1981 General 
Assembly. 

10. On January 19, 1981, the President of the North 
Carolina Senate, the Honorable James C. Green, pursuant 
to Rules 31 and 32 of the Rules of the 1981 Senate, Gen-



JA-61 

eral Assembly of North Carolina, appointed the following 
members of the Committee on Redistricting-Senate: 
Senators Rauch, Chairman; Duncan, Allsbrook, Vice­
Chairmen; Allred, Ballenger, Barnes, Boger, Cavanagh, 
Clarke, Creech, Garrison, Gray, Hardison, Harrington, 
Kincaid, Lawing, Mills, Noble, Palmer, Raynor, Royall, 
Soles, Speed, Thomas of Craven, Thomas of Henderson, 
Walker, Warren, and Wright. The members of the Com­
mittee on Redistricting-Senate, appointed on January 19, 
1981, were all white. 

11. On July 2, 1981, Chapter 771 of the 1981 Session 
Laws (Regular Sessions, 1981), AN ACT TO PROVIDE 
FOR THE SEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF 
REDISTRICTING AC'l'S OF THE GENERAL ASSEM­
BLY, was ratified in the General Assembly. (Exhibit A). 

12. On July 3, 1981, Chapter 800 (House Bill 415) of 
the 1981 Session Laws (Regular Sessions, 1981), which 
redistricted the House of Representatives, was ratified 
in the General Assembly. (Exhibit B). The Legislative 
Services Office prepared a map indicating districts of and 
computer statistics analyzing the districts created by that 
Chapter (Exhibit C, D, respectively). 

13. On J"uly 3, 1981, Chapter 821 (Senate Bill 313) of 
the 1981 Session Laws (Regular Sessions, 1981) which 
redistricted the Senate was ratified in the General Assem­
bly. (Attachment E). The Legislative Services Office pre­
pared a map indicating and computer statistics analyzing 
the districts created by that Chapter. (Exhibits F, G 
respectively). 

14. On September 16, 1981 Gingles v. Edmisten, 81-803-
CIV-5, was :filed alleging, inter alia that the apportion­
ments of the North Carolina House of Representatives 
and Senate violated the one person one vote requirement 
of the equal protection clause, illegally and unconstitu­
tionally diluted the voting strength of black citizens, and 



JA-62 

that Article II, §~ 3(3) and 5(3) of the North Carolina 
Constitution were being enforced without having been 
pre-cleared pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

15. On September 23, 1981, North Carolina made its 
initial submission of Article II, § 3(3) and ~ 5(3) of the 
North Carolina Constitution to the United States Depart­
ment of Justice pursuant to~ 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 
This submission was completed on October 1, 1981. 

16. On October 10, 1981, the President Pro Tempore 
of the Senate appointed Senator Frye of Guilford County 
to the Committee on Redistricting-Senate in response to 
a request by Senator Gray of Guilford County that she 
be removed from the Committee. 

17. Senator Frye was the only black member of the 
Senate during the 1981 General Assembly. 

18. On October 29, 1983, the General Assembly met 
again to consider redistricting pursuant to Resolutions 66 
and 80 of the 1981 Session Laws (Regular Sessions, 1981). 
(Exhibits H, I). 

19. On October 30, 1981, Chapter 1130 (House Bill1428) 
of the 1981 Session Laws (Regular Sessions, 1981), AN 
ACT TO APPORTION THE DISTRICTS OF THE 
NORTH CAROLINA HOUSE OF REPRESENTA­
TIVES, was ratified in the General Assembly (Exhibit J). 
The Legislative Services Office prepared a map indicating 
and computer statistics analyzing the districts created by 
that Chapter. (Exhibits K, L respectively). The General 
Assembly did not enact a new apportionment of the 
Senate. 

20. The Legislative Services Office did not systematical­
ly analyze proposed reapportionment plans using race as 
a factor until after the October, 1981 legislative sessions. 

21. On November 25, 1981, Pugh v. Hunt, 81-1066-CIV-5 
was filed in the Superior Court for Iredelle County, North 



JA-63 

Carolina. It was subsequently removed to this Court. It 
alleged, inter alia that the apportionments of the North 
Carolina House of Representatives and the North Caro­
lina Senate violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the 
United States Constitution. 

22. By letter of November 30, 1981, the United States 
Attorney General interposed objection pursuant to ~ 5 of 
the Voting Rights Act to two amendments to the Con­
stitution of North Carolina, Article II, ~ 3(3) and ~ 5(3). 
(Exhibit M). 

23. By letter of December 7, 1981, the United States 
Attorney General interposed an objection pursuant to ~ 5 
of the Voting Rights Act to Chapter 894 (S.B. 87,) and 
Chapter 821 (S.B. 313), North Carolina's reapportion­
ment plans for the State Senate and the United States 
Congre.ss. (Exhibit N). 

24. The Legislative Services Office, in analyzing plans 
proposed or adopted after December, 1981, used the popu­
lation statistics indicated in Exhibit N-1. 

25. By letter of January 20, 1982, the United States 
Attorney General interposed an objection pursuant to ~ 5 
of the Voting Rights Act to Chapter 1130 (H.B. 1428,), 
North Carolina's reapportionment plan for the State 
House of Representatives. (Exhibit 0). 

26. On January 28, 1982, the Senate Committee on Re­
districting-Senate and the House Redistricting Subcom­
mittee met to be briefed by the State's retained counsel. 
At a joint meeting the Senate Committee and the House 
Subcommittee adopted the redistricting criteria in Ex­
hibit 0-1. On February 2, the full House Committee on 
Legislative Redistricting adopted the amended redistrict­
ing criteria contained in Exhibit 0-2. 

27. On February 3, 1982, Representative Joe Hege pre­
sented to the House Committee on Legislative Redistrict-



JA-64 

ing a map illustrating the Republican House single-mem­
ber redistricting plan, attached as the final document in 
the minutes and transcripts of the House Legislative 
Redistricting Committee, entitled ''House Legislative Re­
districting, February Session-1982" (Exhibit LLL). 

The plan contained all single member house districts of 
contiguous territory and had, according to statistics sup­
plied by Mr. Hege, a population deviation of less than. 
plus or minus 5'%. The apportionment included majority 
black single member districts in Mecklenburg, Forsyth, 
Guilford, Cumberland, Wake, Durham, and Northeast 
North Carolina. 

28. On February 4, 1982, the Congressional redistricting 
committees of the House and Senate, the Senate Com­
mittee on Redistricting-Senate and the House Committee 
on Legislative Redistricting held a joint public hearing 
in the State Legislative Building in Raleigh. Notices of 
the hearing were published in the Asheville Citizen and 
Asheville Times, Durham Mornimg Herald, the Raleigh 
News and Observer, and the Charlotte Observer, on J anu­
ary 31, February 1, 2, 3, and 4, 1982, with the exception 
of the Asheville Citizen and Asheville Times, which did 
not publish on January 31, 1982. Said notice, in its en­
tirety, is reflected by Exhibit P. In addition, those groups 
listed in Exhibits Q and Q-1 were provided with press 
releases and supporting information in the manner indi­
cated. (Exhibits Q, Q-1) . A transcript of this public hear­
ing is attached as Exhibit AAA. 

29. On February 4, 1982, at the public hearing, the 
North Carolina Black Lawyers Association submitted a 
proposed apportionment of the North Carolina Senate 
which contained three majority black single-member dis­
tricts. Each of the single-member districts in the appor­
tionment plan contained contiguous territory and had a 
population deviation of less than plus or minus 5%. The 
statistics used to produce this plan were obtained from 



JA-65 

the 1980 census and are accurate. This apportionment 
included a Senate district wholly within Mecklenburg 
County which is 62.3% black and a Senate district in 
northeast North Carolina which is 60.7% black. 

30. At the public hearing on February 4, 1982 the North 
Carolina Black Lawyers Association presented a proposed 
apportionment of the North Carolina House of Repre­
sentatives which contained ten majority black single-mem­
ber districts. This map included a single-member district 
wholly within Wake County which is 67% black, a single­
member district wholly within Durham County which is 
71.9% black, a single-member district wholly within For­
syth County which 81.6% black, a single-member district 
in Mecklenburg County which is 69.9% black, and an 
additional single-member district in Mecklenburg County 
which is 56.8% black. The single-member districts in this 
plan all contain contiguous territory, have less than plus 
or minus 5% population deviation and are statistically 
accurate based on the 1980 census. 

31. The House and Senate proposals of the North Caro­
lina Black Lawyers Association are attached as the final 
two documents in the "N. C. General Assembly Extra 
Session 1982, Redistricting Public Hearings of 02-04-82, 
Minutes, Transcripts, and Attachments" (Exhibit AAA). 

32. On February 9, 1982, the North Carolina General 
Assembly convened in an extra session for the purpose 
of enacting new apportionment plans for the State House 
of Representatives, State Senate, and United States Con­
gress pursuant to a proclamation of the Governor. (Ex­
hibit Q-2). 

33. On February 11, 1982, Chapter 4 (House Bill 1) of 
the Session Laws of the First Extra Session 1982, which 
again redistricted the House of Representatives was rati­
fied in the General Assembly. (Exhibit R). The Legis­
lative Services Office prepared a map and computer statis-



JA-66 

tics analyzing the districts created by this Chapter. (Ex­
hibits S, T respectively). 

34. On February 11, 1982, Chapter 5 (Senate Bill 1) of 
the Session Laws of the First Extra Session, 1982, which 
again redistricted the Senate was ratified in the General 
Assembly on February 11, 1982. (Exhibit U). The Legis­
lative Services Office prepared a map indicating and com­
puter statistics analyzing the districts created by this 
Chapter. (Exhibits V, W respectively). 

35. In addition, by Chapter 7 of the Session Laws of 
the First Extra Session, the General Assembly enacted a 
new apportionment of North Carolina's Congressional 
districts. This plan was pre-cleared by the United States 
Attorney General, and by Order dated April 27, 1982, the 
claims in Gingles v. Edmisten, regarding the Congres­
sional plans were voluntarily dismissed. 

36. In addition to enacting its State legislative redis­
tricting plans, the General Assembly ratified on February 
11, 1982, Chapter 3 of the Session Laws of the First 
Extra Session, 1982 providing, among other matters, for 
alternative dates for North Carolina's filing period and 
primaries. (Exhibit X). 

37. By letter of April 19, 1982, the United States At­
torney General interposed an objection to the House and 
Senate Redistricting Plans, Chapters 4 and 5 of the Ses­
sion Laws of the First Extra Session, 1982, and deferred 
consideration of Chapter 3. (Exhibit Y). On April 26, 
1982, the General Assembly reconvened for the Second 
Extra Session. 

38. On April 26, 1982, Representative Joe Hege filed 
House Bill 7 which would create a single-member redis­
tricting plan for the House. The bill was drawn by the 

·Legislative Services Office's Bill Drafting Division using 
a computer print-out furnished by Representative Hege 
(Exhibit Y-1, Y-2, respectively). House Bill 7 received its 



JA-67 

:first reading on April 27, 1982, and was referred to the 
House Committee on Legislative Redistricting. 

39. On April 27, 1982, Senator Ballenger offered to the 
Committee on Redistricting-Senate a map with accom­
panying statistics outlining a single-member Senate dis­
trict plan and by substitute motion, moved its adoption. 
That motion was tabled. (Exhibits Y-3, Y-2). 

40. On April 27, 1982, Senators Ballenger and Wright 
:filed Senate Bill 2 which would create a -single-member 
redistricting plan for the Senate. As the General Assem­
bly adjourned that day the bill never received its first 
reading. The bill was prepared by the Legislative Services 
Office's Bill Drafting Division from a computer print-out 
furnished by Senator Ballenger (Exhibits Y-3, Y-2, re­
spectively). 

41. The plans referred to in Paragraphs 32, 33 and 34 
all contain contiguous territory, have less than plus or 
minus 5% population deviation and are statistically 
accurate. 

42. Chapter 1 (House Bill 1) of the Session Laws of the 
Second Extra Session, 1982, which redrew House Districts 
17 and 18, was ratified in the General Assembly on April 
27, 1982. (Exhibit Z). The Legislative Services Office 
produced a map indicating and computer statistics analyz­
ing the new plan. (Exhibits AA, and BB). 

43. Chapter 2 (Senate Bill 1) of the Session Laws of 
the Second Extra Session, 1982, which redrew Senate 
Districts 1, 2, 3, 6, 9, 10, and 11, was ratified in the 
General Assembly on April 27, 1982. (Exhibit CC). The 
Legislative Services Office produced a map indicating and 
computer statistics analyzing the new plan. (Exhibits DD, 
EE respectively). 

44. On April 27, 1982, Chapter 3 (House Bill 2) of the 
Session Laws of the Second Extra Session, 1982, which 
provided, among other matters, for alternative dates for 



JA-68 

North Carolin~ 's filing period and primaries. (Exhibit 
FF). 

45. By letter of April 30, 1982, the United States At­
torney General indicated that he would not interpose an 
objection to Chapters 1 and 2 of the Session Laws of the 
Second Extra Session, 1982, (the amended House and 
Senate redistri,cting plans) but interposed an objection to 
the candidate filing period and primary election date con­
tained in Chapter 3 of said Session Laws. (Exhibit GG.) 
The State of North Carolina, through the North Carolina 
State Board of Elections, responded to the objection of 
the United States Attorney General on May 6, 1982, by 
revising the 1982 primary election timetable for the State 
of North Carolina, providing inter alia, that the date of 
the primary elections for 1982 be changed from June 10, 
1982, to June 29, 1982, as is exhibited by the letter and 
attachments to Mr. William Bradford Reynolds from Mr. 
Alex K. Brock of the State Board of Elections. (Exhibit 
HH). 

46. By letter of May 20, 1982, the Office of the Attorney 
General indicated it would not interpose an objection to 
the revised 1982 primary election timetable for 1982 as 
amended by the State Board of Elections. (Attachment 
II) . 

47. In accordance with the revised timetable and with 
Chapters 2 and 3 of the Sessions Laws of the Second 
Extra Session, Primary and General Elections were held 
for the North Carolina General Assembly in 1982. 

48. Exhibits AAA-UUU are accurate copies of the 
Journals of the North Carolina House of Representatives 
of the North Carolina Senate, the minutes of the House 
and Senate Redistricting Committees and of the tran­
scripts of committee meetings and floor debates relating 
to redistricting. The transcripts are accurate transcrip­
tions of those portions of the meetings which they pur­
port to transcribe. 



JA-69 

AAA - NO General Assembly-Extra Session 1982-
Redistricting . Public Hearings of February 4, 
1982-Minutes, Transcripts and Attachments 

BBB - NO General Assembly-First Extra Session 1982 
-House and Senate Journals 

CCC - 1981 Senate Redistricting-Munutes of Senate 
Redistricting Committee Meetings and Other 
Supplementary Materials 

DDD - NO Senate Legislative Redistricting- First Ex­
tra Session 1982 (February) Senator Marshall A. 
Rauch, Chairman 

EEE - Verbatim Transcript of the Senate of the Gen­
eral Assembly of the State of NO-Second Extra 
Session, April 1982 

FFF - 1981 General Assembly, Regular Sessions- 1981 
Senate Legislative Redistricting-Committee 
Meeting Transcripts 

GGG - 1981 Senate Redistricting-October Special Ses­
sion-Minutes and Supplementary Related Ma­
terials 

HHH- NO General Assembly- (Second Extra Session 
1982) Bills, Amendments, Roll Calls, and Maps 

ITI - Journal of the Senate of the General Assembly 
of the State of NO-Second Extra Session 1982 

J J J - N C General Assembly 1982-First Extra Ses­
sion-Transcript of Senate Proceedings-Febru­
ary 9-10-11, 1982-Floor Debate 

:KKK - NO General Assembly- First Extra Session 1982 
(February)-Summary of Proceedings with 
Supplementary Materials (Senate) 

LLL - House Legislative Redistricting, February Ses­
sion-1982 



JA-70 

MMM- NO House of Representatives 1981-Legislative 
Reapportionment History and Information 

NNN - NO House Reapportionment-October 1981: 
Legislative History for HB-1428 

000 - House Legislative Redistricting-April Session-
1982 

PPP - NO General Assembly-First Extra Session 1982. 
-HB-1 (Session Laws Chapter 4): Bill Drafts, 
Amendments Offered, and Roll Calls 

QQQ - NO General Assembly (Second Extra Session 
1982)-House Journal 

RRR - 1981 General Assembly, Regular Sessions 1981-
House Legislative Redistricting Committee Meet­
ing Transcripts 

SSS - Volume 1 Minutes-House Legislative Redis­
tricting Committee-February 2, 1982 

Volume 2 Minutes-House Legislative Redis­
tricting Committee-February 3, 1982 

TTT - North Carolina General Assembly Second Extra 
Session-1982 Senate Legislative Redistricting 
Committee Meetings-Minutes and Transcripts 

UUU- NO General Assembly (Second Extra Session 
1982)-House Legislative Redistricting Commit­
tee-Meeting Transcripts (April, 1982) 

C. Other Stipulations of Fact 

49. The vote abstracts, voter turnout figures, and voter 
registration figures used by Bernard Grofman and Thomas 
Hofeller as the basis of their analyses of or testimony 
about voting patterns are accurate and genuine. Any 
party or witness may refer to the information indicated 



JA-71 

in these documents during the course of the trial of these 
actions without further foundation. 

50. The following is an accurate list of the black candi­
dates who filed to run in the indicated elections. All candi­
dates were Democrats unless otherwise indicated. This is 
not a complete list of all elections in which there were 
black candidates. 

A. Mecklenburg County 

1978 Senate - Fred Alexander 
1980 Senate- Fred Alexander 
1980 House - Bertha Maxwell 
1982 Senate- James Polk 
1982 House - Phil Berry 

James Richardson 

B. Durham C ownty 

1978 Senate- Alexander Barnes (Rep) 
1978 House - Howard Clement 

Kenneth Spaulding 
1980 House --,-- Kenneth Spaulding 
1982 House - Howard Clement 

Kenneth Spaulding 

C. Forsyth County 

1978 House - Harold Kennedy 
Joseph N orme 
C. C. Ross 

1980 Senate- Moses Small 
1980 House - Annie Kennedy 

Joseph Norman 
Rodney Sumter 

1982 House, 39th District-C. B. Houser 
Annie Kennedy 

1981 Winston-Salem-Winston-Salem City Council­
Southeast Ward Larry Womble 



JA-72 

D. Wake County 

1978 House - Dan Blue 
1978 Sheriff- John Baker 
1980 House - Dan Blue 
1982 House - Dan Blue 
1982 . Sheriff- John Baker 

E. Nash County 

1982 Congress - Mickey Michaux 
1982 N.C. House - Otis Carter 
1982 County Commission- Quentin Summer 

Wilson County 

1982 Congress - Mickey Michaux 
1982 N.C. House - Otis Carter 
1976 County Commission- Grover L. Jones 

Edgecombe County 

1982 Congress - Mickey Michaux 
1982 N.C. House - Otis Carter 
1982 County Commission - Naomi Green 

Earl McClain 
J. 0. Thorne 



JA-73 

51. ThEl General Assembly divided counties in the ap­
portionment of the House of Representatives and of the 
Senate only when necessary to bring population deviation 
under plus or minus 5% or when necessary to obtain pre­
clearance from the United States Department of Justice 
pursuant to '§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as 
amended. 

52. From 1776 through 1981, no county was divided in 
the formation of either House or Senate districts with 
the exception of six and then seven borough towns which 
were additional House districts from 1776 until 1835. 

52A. In multimember districts there is no subdistrict or 
residency requirement which requires that at-large candi­
dates reside in particular geographic subdistricts. 

53. From 1835 through 1981 all North Carolina House 
and Senate Districts have been either single or multi­
member districts consisting of an entire county of two or 
more whole counties joined together. 

54. On May 27, 1983, Representatives John Jordan and 
Chris Barker introduced House Joint Resolution Bill1146 
in the North Carolina General Assembly. That resolution 
authorized the Legislative Research Commission to study 
the feasibility of redistricting in 1990 so as to have single­
member districts. It charged the Commission to produce a 
map redistricting the Senate and House into single-mem­
ber districts and to report to the 1985 General Assembly. 
It was referred to the House Committee on Rules and 
received an unfavorable report on June 3, 1983. 

55. In February and April, 1982 the General Assembly 
was aware that multi-member districts in Mecklenburg, 
Forsyth, Durham, Wake, Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash 
Counties would be maintained if these counties were not 
divided. 

56. For statistics which use white and non-white, non­
white is 93% black in North Carolina. 



JA-74 

57. The percentage of the population and of the regis­
tered voters in the following House and Senate districts 
is as indicated: 

House District 
and Number 

Percentage of 
population 

that is Black 1 

Mecklenburg ( #36) 26.5 
Forsyth ( # 39) 25.1 
Durham ( #23) 36.3 
Wake ( #21) 21.8 
Wilson-Edgecomba-Nash ( #8) 39.5 

Senate Districts 

Mecklenburg-Cabarrus ( #22) 24.3 
Northeast North Carolina 

( #2) 55.1 

Percent of 
Registered Voters 

that is Black 

18.0 2 

20.8 3 

28.6 2 

15.1 2 

29.5 2 

46.2 4 

1 From Legislative Services Office, derived from 1980 Census. 

2 From October 4, 1982 State Board of Elections Registration 
Statistics Part II. 

3 October 4, 1982 Forsyth registration minus registration for 
Belews Creek, Salem Chapel #1 and Salem Chapel #2 precincts. 

4 October 4, 1982 registration for whole counties from State 
Board of Elections Registration Statistics Part II ; township regis­
tration October 4, 1982 from Washington, Martin, Halifax, and 
Edgecombe Boards of Elections. 

58. A lower percentage of the black population than of 
the white population is registered to vote in Mecklenburg, 
Forsyth, Durham, Wake, Wilson, Edgecombe, Nash, Hali­
fax, Northampton, Hertford, Gates, Martin, Bertie, Wash­
ington and Chowan Counties. Specifically, the percentage 
of the black and white voting age population which is 
registered to vote in each of these counties is as follows: 



JA-75 

Percent of Voting Age Percent of Voting Age 
Population Registered Population Registered 

County to Vote 1970 1• 2 to Vote 1980 3 

White Black White Black 

Mecklenburg 66.3 40.6 68.1 43.8 
Forsyth 73.0 73.6 69.7 62.8 
Durham 72.0 64.0 66.1 43.3 
Wake 63.7 37.2 68.3 42.3 
Wilson 66.2 36.3 64.4 40.0 
Edgecombe 75.4 46.0 67.3 40.7 
Nash 48.2 18.4 58.1 21.3 
Halifax 92.4 47.9 69.7 48.2 
Northampton 107.8 80.7 74.6 61.6 
Hertford 73.4 64.6 78.9 60.0 
Gates 79.3 57.5 82.5 77.6 
Martin 86.6 66.0 73.9 53.3 
Bertie 106.2 98.3 77.0 50.1 
Washington 68.2 78.1 80.1 64.3 
Chowan 77.3 48.7 72.3 53.3 

1 Number of whitejnon-white voters as of June 5, 1970 divided 
by total white/black population 21 years old or older. 

2 Beginning in the twelve-month period following the 1972 Presi­
dential Election, county Boards of Elections have been required 
to remove from permanent registration records the names of all 
persons who have failed to vote for a period of four years. Begin­
ning January 2, 1981, after the 1980 Presidential Election and 
thereafter for each subsequent presidential election, county Boards 
of Elections are not allowed to remove from registration records 
the name of any person who voted in either one of the two most 
recent presidential elections or in any other election conducted in 
the period between the two presidential elections. County Boards 
of Elections may also remove the names of any persons who have 
either moved their residence from the county or who have died, as 
indicated by Certificates of Death received from the State Depart­
ment of Human Resources or cancellation notices received from 
other counties and states as to residency. 

3 
Number of white/black registered voters as of April 8, 1980 

divided by total whitejblack population 18 years old or older. 



JA-76 

59. The following is the percent of the population, the 
voting age population and the registered voters that is 
black in the indicated counties: 

1980 
Percent of Percent of Percent of 
Population. V.AP Reg. voters 

that is Black that is black that is Black 

Mecklenburg 26.5 24.0 16.9 
Forsyth 24.4 22.0 20.3 
Durham 36.3 33.6 24.9 
Wake 21.7 20.5 13.7 
Wilson '36.4 32.4 23.0 
Edgecombe 50.8 46.7 34.6 
Nash 32.9 29.4 13.2 
Halifax 47.1 44.0 35.2 
Northampton 60.7 56.2 51.4 
Hertford 54.8 51.1 44.3 
Gates 52.6 49.4 47.8 
Martin 44.5 40.6 33.1 
Bertie 59.2 54.5 44.2 
Washington 43.3 39.1 34.0 
Chowan 41.5 38.1 31.2 

60. Exhibit JJ, entitled "Vital Statistics of Counties in 
North Carolina," is a compilation of registration figures 
for each county as of February 9, 1982, with estimated 
percentages of voting population registered figured for 
white, non-white, and total voting age populations by race. 

61. Exhibits KK and LL ''Registration Statistics Parts 
I and II," is the .most recent statewide compilation of 
voter registration figures for each county in the state by 
race and party, reported as of October 4, 1982. 



JA-77 

62. In 1980 there were 1,319,054 black people in North 
Carolina. That is 22.4% of the total population. (.Source : 
1980 Census). 

63. The mean income of households in 1979 was as 
follows: 

Black White Difference 

North Carolina $13,833 $21,162 $7,329 (34.6%) 

National $15,806 $24,939 $9,133 (36%) 

Difference $ 1,973 $ 3,770 

64. 44.7% of the households with no vehicles available 
are black households. 75•% of black households and 93% 
of white households have vehicles available. 

65. 30.3% of black people in North Carolina live in 
poverty compared to 10.0% of white people. 

66. Non-white households in North Carolina are 23.0% 
.of all households but are 42% of all poverty households. 
(A poverty household is one in which the combined house­
hold income falls below 100% of the poverty level (ad­
justed by family size) established by the United States 
Office of Managment and Budget.) Blacks account for 
11.7% of the United States population but are 32.S% of 
the United States population living in poverty. 

67. In North Carolina 51% of the single parent house­
holds have a black head of household. 

68. Between 1970 and 1980 non-white workers consist­
ently had a higher incidence of unemployment than whit~ 
workers. For each of these years non-whites were a higher 
·percentage of claimants for unemployment benefits than 
the percentage of the workforce which is non-white. 



JA-78 

Male Female 
Male non-white F emale non-white 

non-white in non-white vn 

Year Claimants 1 Workforce 2 Claimants 1 Workforce 2 

1970 21.0 13.3 18.6 8.5 
1971 16.7 13.3 17.8 8.5 
1972 17.7 13.3 19.0 8.2 
1973 22.8 11.0 18.0 8.6 
1974 15.9 11.0 19.0 8.6 
1975 13.5 11.0 14.0 8.6 
1976 17.6 11.0 13.4 8.6 
1977 18.0 11.0 12.6 8.6 
1978 22.3 11.2 14.1 9.0 
1979 18.1 11.2 17.4 9.0 
1980 17.3 11.2 16.2 9.0 

1 Percent of all claimants which is non-white malejfemale. 

2 Percent of all labor force which is non-white male/female 
[Note: This is taken from the ESC first survey week of each year.} 

69. As of June 30, 1980, the percent of North Carolina 
permanent full-time employees subject to the State Per­
sonnel Act, excluding universities, that fall in each salary 
range was as follows : 



Salary Range 

Less than $8,000 
$8,000-$8,999 
$9,000-$9,999 
$10,000-$10,999 
$11,000-$11,999 
$12,000-$12,999 
$13,000-$14,999 
$15,000-$16,999 
$17,000-$19,999 
$20,000-$23,999 
$24,000+ 

JA-79 

Percent of 
White Employees 

2.06 
5.09 
7.88 

12.15 
11.21 
11.21 
14.59 
8.36 

12.02 
7.54 
7.88 

Percent of 
Black Employees 

7.41 
12.40 
14.33 
20.05 
15.82 
10.72 
7.88 
3.55 
4.73 
1.93 
1.17 

Median salaries: White $13,053 
Black $10,790 

A higher percent of black employees than of white employees 
is employed at every salary level below $12,000 and a higher 
percent of white employees than of black employees is em­
ployed at every salary level above $12,000. 

70. As of December 31, 1980, permanent full-time North 
Carolina State Government employees covered by the 
State Personnel Act, excluding university system person­
nel, numbered 50,012, 78% of whom were white, 21'% 
black, and 1% of other ethnic/ racial origins. One half of 
employees earn below the following amounts annually: 

male 
female 

White 

13000 
12000 

Black 

11000 
11000 

Other 

12000 
11000 

71. The following chart shows the white and black per­
centage of employees of each salary grade classification 
group for June 30, 1977, and December 31, 1981. These 
figures include all permanent full time non-university em-



JA-80 

ployees subject to the State Personnel Act. In the 83-87 
category, others (non-white, non-blacks) decreased in both 
number and percentage. In the 93+ category there were 
18 employees on June 30, 1977, and 12 on December 31, 
1981. 

White Black 
Salary Grade 6/30/77 12/31/81 6j30j77 12/31/81 

48-52 39.1 37.5 60.4 62.1 
53-57 73.6 65.9 25.8 32.7 
58.62 85.9 77.1 13.5 21.9 
63-67 90.6 88.3 8.8 10.7 
68-72 93.7 90.0 5.6 9.0 
73-77 95.6 93.2 3.9 5.9 
78-82 97.2 94.9 2.5 4.6 
83-87 79.3 90.0 6.7 7.0 
88-92 83.4 86.8 0.8 2.7 
93+ 100.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 

72. For the period from December 31, 1978, to June 20, 
1980, black permanent full-time non-University State Em­
ployees subject to the State Personnel Act showed the 
following percentage increases in the following categories 
as exemplified by the table below : 

Officials and Administrators 
Skilled Craft 
Office and Clerical 
Protective Service 
Professional 
Paraprofessional 
Service & Maintenance 

Percentage 
Increase 

+14.5% 
+14.0% 
+11.7% 
+11.1% 
+10.0% 
+11.0% 
+ 2.3% 

Percent Black 
12/31/78-6/30/80 

5.3% to 6.2% 
8.6% to 10% 

12.8% to 14.5% 
17.6% to 19.8% 
10.6% to 11.5% 
34.0% to 38.2% 
42.9% to 43.9% 

73. Infant mortality rates in North Carolina are higher 
for non-whites than for whites. For the five year period 



JA-81 

from 1976-1980 the infant mortality rate by race was as 
follows: 

White 
Non-white 

F'etal 1 

9.4 
16.9 

N eonatal 2 Post N eonatal 3 

9.5 
15.8 

3.3 
7.5 

· 
1 The fetal death rate is the number of nonabortion fetal deaths 

after 20 weeks gestation per 1000 live births plus fetal deaths. 

2 The neonatal death rate is the number of deaths from birth to 
28 days per 1000 live births. 

3 The post neonatal death rate is the number of deaths from 29 
days to 1 year per J 000 live births that attained the age of 29 days. 
This is a four year rather than a five year measure. 

(Source: "Maternal and Child Care Statistics in North Carolina 
over the last Decade, "North Carolina Department of Human 
Resources, Spring 1981.) 

74. The birth weight and infant death rate by race for 
the following North Carolina counties IS as indicated 
below. 

1975-1979 Five Year Rate 

Percent Post 
Above 2501g t Neonatal 3 Neonatal" 

at birth F etal Death 2 Death Death 

White Non·W White Non·W White Non·W White Non·W 

Mecklenburg 94.1 86.6 7.9 15.7 9.0 19.5 3.0 5.9 
Forsyth 94.0 81.2 9.0 15.0 9.7 16.2 2.5 4.6 
Durham 94.4 86.6 6.7 17.8 7.2 14.5 2.1 6.8 
Wake 94.1 86.7 9.1 15.5 8.0 15.9 2.8 6.8 
Wilson 94.4 86.2 8.8 22.3 11.4 16.3 3.2 8.8 
Edgecombe 93.5 86.9 7.7 13.5 7.7 14.8 2.8 6.9 
Nash 94.8 89.2 11.0 17.8 6.6 18.1 2.8 9.1 

1 It is considered healthy for a baby to weigh more than 2501 
grams at birth. 2501 grams is 5.5 lbs. 



JA-82 

2 The fetal death rate includes deaths after 20 weeks of gestation 
excluding abortions. 

3 The neonatal death rate includes deaths from birth to 28 days. 

• The post-neonatal death rate includes deaths from 29 days to 
one year. 

(Source : ''Maternal and Child Health Statistics, ''North Caro­
lina Department of Human Resources, 1979. 

75. The death rate for non-whites in North Carolina is 
higher than the death rate 1 for whites.2 For example, the 
age-adjusted mortality rate for 1978 was: 

male 
female 

White 

916.9 
453.7 

1 Deaths per 100,000 population adjusted for age. 

Non-wMte 

1192.5 
621.8 

2 North Carolina mortality rates for years during the decade 
from 1970 to 1980 are not completely accurate. Because minorit ies 
were undereounted in North Carolina in the 1970 census, projec­
tions for minority populations for years between 1970 and 1980 
were based on an inaccurately low estimate of the minority popu­
lation and resulted in high estimate of the death rate. For example, 
death rate figures for 1980 based on the 1980 census are 1.6% lower 
for whites and 6.2% lower for blacks than death rates for 1980 
based on projections from the 1970 census. 

76. From 1978 to 1979 the North Carolina death rate 
decreased by five percent for non-white females, by four 
percent for non-white males, by one percent for white 
males, and by one percent for white females. 

77. The following table shows life expectency in 1973 
and 1974. 



JA-83 

Selected Life Table Values, by Age, Color and Sex: 
North Carolina, 1973 and 197 4 

White Non-White 
Value Total Male Female Male Female 

Expectation of 
Life: 

at Birth 
1973 68.90 66.68 74.70 59.06 67.56 
1974 69.87 67.54 75.44 60.13 69.04 

At Age 1 
1973 69.32 66.91 74.88 ·59.86 68.32 
1974 70.16 67.77 75.40 60.74 69.59 

At Age 25 
1973 46.64 44.37 51.67 37.92 45.43 
1974 47.30 44.99 52.14 38.48 46.67 

At Age 65 
1973 13.95 12.32 15.88 11.61 13.95 
1974 14.23 12.56 16.07 11.89 14.49 

Percent Surviving 
from Birth: 

To Age 1 
1973 97.97 98.19 98.44 97.04 97.45 
1974 98.19 98.20 98.75 97.38 97.79 

To Age 25 
1973 95.69 95.49 97.21 92.79 95.56 
1974 96.21 95.99 97.59 93.74 95.96 

To Age 65 
1973 68.61 63.17 82.03 44.99 65.05 
1974 70.51 65.13 83.35 46.16 68.46 



Median Age 
At Death: 

1973 
1974 

73.52 
74.40 

JA-84 

70.35 
71.03 

79.92 
80.34 

62.58 
63.17 

72.01 
73.51 

Note: North Carolina mortality rates for years during the decade 
from 1970 to 198{) are not completely accurate. Because mi­
norities were undercounted in North Carolina in the 1970 
census, projections for minority populations for years be­
tween 1970 and 1980 were based on an inaccurately low 
estimate of the minority population and resulted in high 
estimate of the death rate. For example, death rates for 
1980 based on projections from the 1970 census. 

78. The following percentage of black and white stu­
dents failed the North Carolina Competency Test in the 
fall of 1980, 1981, and 1982 (by school district). This 
chart reflects only the first time each student took the 
test; those who failed were given the opportunity to take 
the test again later. 



1980 1981 1982 

B1 w B w B w B w B w B w 
Rdg Rdg Math Math Rdg Rdg Math Math Rdg Rdg Math Math 

Mecklenburg 21% 2% 25% 3% 19% 2% 20% 3% 19% 2% 18% 3% 
Forsyth 16% 2% 22% 3% 16% 2% 19% 3% 14% 2% 19% 4% 
Durham Co. 16% 1% 21% 3% 15% 1% 18% 3% 10% 2% 18% 3% 
Durham City 8% 7% 13% 8% 13% 0% 23% 4% . 9% 4% 16% 2% 
Wake 20% 2% 17% 3% 18% 2% 24% 2% 19% 1% 28% 3% 
Wilson 25% 2% 30% 5% 25% 2% 27% 5% 15% 2% 23% 5% 
Edgecombe 22% 4% 25% 7% 28% 3% 28% 7% 20% 3% 19% 5% 
Tarboro City 25% 2% 38% 2% 17% 0% 19% 3% 20% 2% 26% 3% 
Nash 18% 1% 22% 5% 22% 1% 28% 5% 16% 2% 18% 3% ~ 
Rocky Mount tf'" 
City 13% 0% 12% 1% 15% 2% 14% 3% 10% 1% 15% 3% 00 

Q1 

Halifax Co. 21% 4% 30% 0% 27% 9% 27% 10% 16% 5% 15% 5% 
Roanoke 
Rapids 0% 1% 13% 1% 13% 3% 12% 3% 18% 2% 18% 2% 
Weldon 25% 12% 33% 12% 14% 0% 20% 9% 9% 8% 34% 15% 
Northampton 16% 0% 25% 6% 20% 5% 28% 6% 20% 3% 25% 2% 
Hertford 20% 2% 22% 5% 19% 1% 17% 6% 17% 3% 17% 1% 
Gates 29% 0% 25% 0% 10% 0% 14% 0% 8% 0% 11% 0% 
Martin 24% 2% 26% 3% 22% 3% 24% 6% 16% 3% 23% 6% 
Bertie 25% 8% 31% 9% 24% 8% 23% 8% 19% 6% 14% 6% 
Washington 25% 0% 39% 3% 23% 11% 30% 5% 20% 4% 24% 10% 
Chowan 18% 2% 25% 4% 31% 6% 28% 4% 18% 1% 20% 4% 

1 B=Black; W=White; Rdg=Reading. 



JA-86 

79. The following table reflects the gains in reading for 
North Carolina students between 1977 and 1982 based on 
the annual testing program as shown for black students 
and for all North Carolina students. 

North Carolina Average Scale Scores 

Grade 3-5.1% gain over 1977-1982, from 391 to 411 
Grade 6-4.7% gain over 1977-1982, from 489 to 512 
Grade 9-3.0% gain over 1977-1982, from 562 to 579 

Black North Carolina Students' Average 

Grade 3-7.7% gain over 1977-1982, from 362 to 390 
Grade 6-6.9% gain over 1977-1982, from 448 to 479 
Grade 9-4.7% gain over 1977-1982, from 507 to 531 

80. In 1980 76% of the high school seniors who were 
awarded certificates instead of diplomas were black. (A 
.certificate means the student completed all requirements 
for graduation but did not pass both parts of the com­
petency test.) There were a total of 1,193 students awarded 
certificates: 984 black, 288 white; and 21 others. This 
number represents 1.82% of all high school seniors who 
neither withdrew nor were retained. (The racial composi­
tion and number of seniors who withdrew or were retained 
is not available.) 

Of those receiving certificates, some were handicapped. 
The type of handicap by ethnic origin is as follows: 



JA-87 

Ethnic G·roup 

Type of Handicap Black White Other 

% % % 
Not handicapped 314 24.3 61 4.7 5 .3 
Multiple handicapped 12 .9 12 .9 2 .2 
Educable mentally 

handicapped 612 47.3 191 14.8 7 .5 
Hearing impaired 1 
Visually impaired 1 
Learning disabled 28 2.2 16 1.2 
Other handicap 18 1.4 6 .5 7 .5 

76.1% 22.3% 1.6% 

81. Black adults have fewer years of education than do 
white adults. The following chart shows the percent of 
the black/white adults 25 years old and over by the 
number of years of education completed. 

Elementary (0-8 yrs.) 
High School (1-3 yrs.) 
High School ( 4 yrs.) 
College ( 1-3 yrs.) 
College ( 4 or more yrs.) 

Black 

34.6% 
22.4% 
25.7% 
10.0% 
7.3% 

White 

22.0% 
20.0% 
28.4% 
14.7% 
14.6% 

82. Between 1970 and 1980, the percentage of black 
adults 25 years of age or older, who had completed at 
least four years of high school or education beyond high 
school increased from 22.9% to 43%, an increase of 
87.8%. The increase in white adults with at least four 
years of high school or education beyond high school, 
during the period from 1970 to 1980, was from 42.2% 
to 57.7%, a 36.7% increase. 

83. A higher percent of black households in North Caro­
lina rent their homes and live in substandard or over­
crowded housing than of white households. The following 



JA-88 

chart shows the percent of each race which falls in each 
category according to the North Carolina Citizen's Survey 
(1979).3 

Percent Percent 
Percent Percent Over- Inadequate 
Buying Renting crowded 1 Plumbing 2 

White 80.8 4 16.8 2.4 0.7 
Black 55.0" 41.5 12.0 8.5 
Other 71.4 23.8 14.3 9.6 
Whole 
State 75.6 21.7 4.4 2.2 

1 Overcrowding is defined as more than one person per room. 

2 Inadequate plumbing is defined as no plumbing or lacking at 
least one of hot and cold piped water, flush toilet, and bathtub or 
shower. 

3 Between 1970 and 1980 according to census figures, the per­
centage of blacks in owner occupied housing units increased from 
45.5% to 50.9%, an increase of over 5% of the black population 
and an increase of more than 10% above the proportion in owner 
cccupied housing units in 1970. During this same period, whites in 
owner occupied housing units increased from 70.0% to 72.8%, an 
increase of 2.8% of the white population and an increase of 4% 
of the proportion in owner occupied housing in 1970. 

4 The figures in the 1979 North Carolina Citizen 's Survey show 
a higher percentage of whites and blacks in owner-occupied hous­
ing than the 1979 figures from the 1980 Census. In the Citizen's 
Survey, 25.5% of the respondents were in the 18-29 age group 
compared to 32% estimated in that age group by the Division of 
State Budget and Management and 31.4% estimated by the March 
1979 Current Population Survey. Of 1,389 respondents to the 
Citizens Survey, the raw figures show between 1,103 and 1,105 
whites, and 250 to 279 non-whites answering the housing questions. 

84. In the Spring of 1981, the North Carolina Housing 
Finance Agency, the United States Secretary of Housing 



JA-89 

and Urban Development, and the United States Secretary 
of the Treasury identified 24 urban census tracts which 
were eligible for loans under the Mortgage Subsidy Bond 
Tax Act. The criterian is that 70% or more of the families 
have income which are 80% or less of the statewide 
median family income. Of the 48,562 people living in these 
census tracts 39,369 (81%) were black compared to 8,814 
(18%) white and 174 (.6%) indian. The tracts eligible for 
targetting are as follows: 

Table 10 
NORTH CAROLINA CENSUS TRACTS ELIGIBLE FOR TARGETING 

County No. Tract County 1980 White Black American 
Total Pop. Indian 

21 2.00 Buncombe 2173 557 1608 7 
51 1.00 Cumberland 1005 441 523 34 
51 2.00 Cumberland 2787 487 2249 48 
51 3.00 Cumberland 1482 449 958 0 
51 13.00 Cumberland 2269 77 2186 2 
63 12.01 Durham 864 0 859 0 
63 12.02 Durham 976 1 975 0 
65 201.00 Edgecombe 401 34 367 0 
67 6.00 Forsyth 2718 23 2689 4 
67 8.02 Forsyth 3065 710 2309 17 
81 108.01 Guilford 703 459 221 14 

119 4.00 Mecklenburg 623 338 281 3 
119 6.00 Mecklenburg 1901 66 1825 3 
119 7.00 Mecklenburg 757 90 665 0 
119 8.00 Mecklenburg 3346 95 3246 0 
119 37.00 Mecklenburg 2562 6 2547 0 
119 49.00 Mecklenburg 215 0 215 0 
129 111.00 New Hanover 3755 132 3607 12 
129 113.00 New Hanover 1381 1024 351 5 
129 114.00 New Hanover 1675 5 1665 4 
189 9.00 Wake 4033 118 3904 5 
191 10.00 Wanye 3007 2658 337 4 
191 17.00 Wanne 567 271 268 1 
195 8.00 Wilson 6297 773 5514 4 

24 Census Tracts 48562 8814 39369 174 



JA-90 

85. In Lassiter v. Northampton County Board of Elec­
tions, 360 U.S. 45 (1959) , the United States Supreme 
Court affirmed the decision of the North Carolina Su­
preme Court which upheld the use of the literacy require­
ment for voting in North Carolina. In Bazemore v. Bertie 
County Board of Elections, 254 N.C. 398 (1961), the North 
Carolina Supreme Court struck down the practice of re­
quiring registrants to write the North Carolina Constitu­
tion from dictation but upheld the requirement of ability 
to read and write the North Carolina Constitution to be 
administered to all applicants of uncertain ability. Use 
of the literacy requirement in North Carolina did not 
totally cease until1970. 

86. In 1970, a referendum was submitted to the voters 
of North Carolina to amend the constitution of North 
Carolina to delete the literacy requirement for voting. 
Of the proposed constitutional amendments before the 
voters at that time, the amendment to delete the literacy 
requirement was the only one defeated. The amendment 
was defeated in each of the following counties: Mecklen­
burg, Forsyth, Durham, Wake, Wilson, Edgecombe, Nash, 
Halifax, Northampton, Hertford, Gates, Martin, Bertie 
and Washington. The literacy requirement is currently 
N.C.G.S. '§ 163-58 and Article VI ~ 3 of the North Caro­
lina Constitution but is not currently enforced. 

87. N.C.G.S. ~ 163-67{a) provides that "No person shall 
be registered to vote without first making a written, sworn 
and signed application to register upon the form pre­
scribed by the State Board of Elections. If the applicant 
cannot write because of physical disability, his name shall 
be written on the application for him by the election offi­
cial to whom he makes application, but the specific reason 
for the applicant's failure to sign shall be clearly stated 
upon the face of his application." 

88. Since 1915 North Carolina has had a majority vote 
requirement for party primaries. The first majority vote 



JA-91 

requirement was enacted at the same time as the initial 
enactment of the primary election on method of nomination 
of candidates. It currently is contained in N.C.G.S. <§ 163-
111 and reads as follows : 

(a) Nomination De-termined by Majority; Definition 
of Majority.-Except as otherwise provided in this 
section, nominations in primary elections shall be de­
termined by a majority of the votes cast. A majority 
within the meaning of this sectioon shall be deter­
mined as follows: 

{1) If a nominee for a single office is to be selected, 
and there is more than dividing the total vote 
cast for all aspirants by two. Any excess of 
the sum so ascertained shall be a majority and 
the aspirant who obtains a majority shall be 
declared the nominee. 

(2) If nominees for two or more offices ( constitut­
ing a group) are to be selected, and there are 
more persons seeking nomination than there 
are offices, the majority shall be ascertained by 
dividing the total vote cast for all aspirants 
by the number of positions to be filled, and by 
dividing the result by two. Any excess of the 
sum so ascertained shall be a majority, and 
the aspirant who obtains a majority shall be 
declared the nominee. 

(b) Right to Demand Second Primary.-If an in­
sufficient number of aspirants receive a majority of 
the votes cast for a given office or group of offices 
in a primary, a second primary, subject to the condi­
tions specified in this section, shall be held: 

{1) If a nominee for a single office is to be selected 
and no aspirant receives a majority of the votes 
cast, the aspirant receiving the highest number 



JA-92 

of votes shall be declared nominated by the 
appropriate board of elections unless the aspir­
ant receiving the second highest number of 
votes shall request a second primary in accord­
ance with the provisions of subsection (c) of 
this section. In the second primary only the 
two aspirants who received the highest and 
next highest number of votes shall be voted for. 

(2) If nominees for two or more offices ( constitut­
ing a group) are to be selected and aspirants 
for some or all of the positions within the 
group do not receive a majority of the votes, 
those candidates equal in number to the posi­
tions remaining to be filled and having the high­
est number of votes shall be declared the nomi­
nees unless some one or all of ·the aspirants 
equal in number to the positions remaining to 
be filled and having the second highest number 
of votes shall request a second primary in ac­
cordance with the provisions of subsection (c) 
of this section. In the second primary to select 
nominees for the positions in the group remain­
ing to be filled, the names of all those candi­
dates receiving the highest number of votes 
and all those receiving the second highest num­
ber of votes and demanding a second primary 
shall be printed on the ballot. 

89. North Carolina has never had a majority-vote re­
quirement for general elections. 

90. In 1983, Representative Kenneth Spaulding, black, 
introduced legislation, HB 171, to reduce the majority vote 
requirement to 40% for primaries for the U.S. Senate, 
congressional seats, state-wide offices, the General Assem­
bly and judgeships. This bill was defeated in the House 
Election Laws Committee. Later in the 1983 Session, after 



JA-93 

the defeat of HB 171, Representative Spaulding intro­
duced HB 536 to reduce the majority vote requirement to 
41% for primaries as long as the leading candidate ob­
tained at least 3% more of the votes than the next highest 
votegetter. This bill was defeated in the House Election 
Laws Committee. 

91. North Carolina enacted an anti-single shot voting 
law for local elections in specified counties and municipal­
ities in 1955. It was enforced until it was declared uncon­
stitutional in 1972 in Dunston v. Scott, 336 F.Supp. 206 
(EDNC 1972). It has not been enforced since 1972. At 
least since 1915, North Carolina has not had an anti­
single shot provision for nomination or election of can­
didates for the North Carolina General Assembly. 

92. North Carolina enacted a numbered seat require­
ment for specified legislative multi-member districts in 
1967. The provision was modified and re-enacted when the 
General Assembly was reapportioned in 1971. It was de­
clared unconstitutional in 1972 in Dunston v. Scott, 336 
F.Supp 206 (EDNC 1972), primarily on the ground that 
it did not apply statewide. Numbered seat requirements 
prevent single shot voting. 

q3. North Carolina has not had a numbered seat plan 
for election of legislators since 1972. 

94. At least since 1950, North Carolina has not had 
any statutory or regulatory provisions for slating of 
candidates in any county or district with any significant 
concentration of minority votes. (There have, during this 
period, been some provisions for nomination by conven­
tion from some western counties with a very low per­
centage of minority votes.) 

95. By district, the following number of black members 
have served in the General Assembly: 



JA-94 

District (Number 
of S eats) 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 

Mecklenburg House ( 8) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 

Mecklenburg/ Cabarrus 
Senate (4) 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 

Forsyth House (5) 0 0 0 1 1 I• 0 2 

Forsyth Senate (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Durham House (3) 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 

Durham Senate (2) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Wake House (6) 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Wake Senate (3) 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 

Wilson/Edgecombe/Nash 
House ( 4) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Senators from counties 
in Senate District #2 (1) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Representatives from 
counties in Senate 
District #2 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2•• 

• Appointed mid-term 

••Both elected from majority black districts 

96. No black person was elected to the North Carolina 
General Assembly from 1900 until 1969 when one black 
representative was elected. No black person was elected 
to the Senate until 1975 when two black senators were 
elected. The number and percent of black members serving 
in the General Assembly since 1969 is as follows : 



JA-95 

House (Number followed Senate (Number followed 

Term by Percent) by Percent 

1969-70 1 (.8%) 0 

1971-72 2 elected and 1 appoin-
ted mid-term (2.5%) 0 

1973-74 3 (2.5%) 0 

1975-76 4 (3.3%) 2 (4%) 

1977-78 4 (3.3% )2 2 1 (4%) 

1979-80 3 elected and 1 appoin-
ted mid-term (3.3%) 1 (2%) 

1981-82 3 (3.5%) 1 (2%) 
1983-84 11 (9.2%)a 1 (2%) 3 

1 One black senator resigned midterm and a black person was 
appointed to that seat. 

2 Three blacks resigned midterm and were replaced by black 
members. 

3 Five representatives and the senator (or one half) were elected 
from districts which are majority black. Five representatives were 
elected at large from majority white multimember districts which 
are not covered by § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Prior to 1982 all 
districts were majority white and all elections were at large. 

97. The following are the only black people to serve in 
the North Carolina General Assembly this century: 

Session Name Party-County District Terms 

1969-70 Henry E. FrytJ D-Guilford 26th House 1969-70 

1971-72 Henry E. Frye D-Guilford 26th House 1971-72 
Joy J . Johnson D-Robeson 24th House 1971-72 
Alfreda Webb 1 D-Guilford 26th House 1971-72 

1973.74 Henry E. Fryil D-Guilford 23rd House 1973-74 
Joy J. ,Johnsoll. D-Robeson 21st House 1973-74 
Henry M. ~fichaux, Jr. D-Durham 16th House 1973-74 



JA-96 

Session Name Party-County District Terms 

1975-76 Fred D. Alexander D-Mecklenburg 22nd Senate 1975-76 
John W. Winters D-Wake 14th Senate 1975-76 
Richard C. Erwin D-Forsyth 29th House 1975-76 
Henry E. Frye D-Guilford 23rd House 1975-76 
Joy J. Johnson D-Robeson 21st House 1975-76 
Henry M. Michaux, Jr. D-Durham 16th House 1975-76 

1977-78 Fred D. Alexander D-Mecklenburg 22nd Senate 1977-78 
John W. Winters D-Wake 14th Senate 1977• 
Clarence E. Lightner l!l D-Wake 14th Senate 1977-78 
Richard C. Erwin D-Forsyth 29th House 1977-78 
Henry E. Fry<- D-Guilford 23rd House 1977-78 
Joy J. Johnson D-Robeson 21st House 1977-78 . 
Henry M. Michaux, Jr. D-Durham 16th House 1977 
A.J . Howard Clements a D-Durham 16th House 1977-78 
Howard L. Kennedy, Jr:' D-Forsyth 29th House 1978 
Robert E. Davis 5 D-Robeson 21st House 1978 

1979-80 Fred D. Alexander D-Mecklenburg 22nd Senate 1979-80 
Robert E. Davis D-Robeson 21st House 1979-80 
Henry E. Frye: D-Guilford 23rd House 1979-80 
Kenneth B. Spauling D-Durham 16th House 1979-80 
Anne B. Kennedy 6 D-Forsyth 29th House 1979-80 
Rowe Motley D-Mecklenburg 22nd Senate 1980 

1981-82 Henry E . Frye D-Guilford 19th Senate 1981-82 
Dan T. Blue, Jr. D-Wake 15th House 1981-82 
Kenneth B. Spaulding D-Durham 16th House 1981-82 
C. Melvin Creecy D-Northampton 5th House 1981-82 

1983- William N. Martin D-Guilford 31st Senate 1983 
Frank W. Balance, Jr. D-Warren 7th House 1983 
Phillip 0. Berry D-Mecklenburg 36th House 1983 
Dan T. Blue, Jr. D-Wake 21st House 1983 
C. Melvin Creecy D-Northampton 5th House 1983 
C.R. Edwards D-Cumberland 17th House 1983 
Herman C. Gist D-Guilford 26th House 1983 
C.B. Hauser D-Forsyth 39th House 1983 
Luther R. J eralds D-Cumberland 17th House 1983 
Annie Kennedy Brown D-Forsyth 39th House 1983 
Sidney A. Locks D-Robeson 16th House 1983 
Kenneth B. Spaulding D-Durham 23rd House 1983 



JA-97 

1 Webb was appointed December 31, 1971, to replace McNeil 
Smith (Guilford). 

2 Lightner was appointed on August 3, 1977, to replace John W. 
Winters (Wake County). 

$Clement was appointed on August 3, 1977, to replace Henry M. 
Michaux, Jr. (Durham County). 

4 Kennedy was appointed February 9, 1978, to replace Richard 
C. Erwin (Forsyth County). 

5 Davis was appointed February 17, 1978, to replace Joy J. John­
son (Robeson County). 

6 Kennedy was appointed October 19, 1979, to replace Judson 
DeRamos (Forsyth County). 

7 Motley was appointed in April, 1980, to replace Fred Alexander 
(Mecklenburg County). 

General Note on Term of Office: Article II, Section 9 of the 
Constitution of North Carolina sets the terms of office for Legisla­
tors. Prior to 1983, this commenced "at the time of their election". 
In 1982, a constitutional amendment was approved setting ''the first 
day of January next after their election,'' as the starting date. 

98. North Carolina General Statutes ~ 163-11 provides 
the mechanism for filling a vacancy in the General Assem­
bly. Between 1967 and 1973, the Governor was required to 
appoint for the remainder of the term the person elected 
by the County Executive Committee of the political party 
with which the vacating member was affiliated when 
elected from the county in which the vacating member 
resided. In 1973, the provision was amended to provide 
that, in the case of a multi-county district, the Governor 
should appoint the person recommended by the district 
House of Representatives or senatorial committee of the 
political party with which the vacating member was affili­
at~d when elected. Members of the respective district com­
mittees were chosen by the county conventions or county 
executive committees of each political party, with at least 



JA-98 

one member from each county within the district, with 
votes on the committee based on population of the respec­
tive counties. The provision has since been amended to 
provide further adjustments in situations in which part of 
a county is included within a district. 

99. Of 299 clerical and non-professional workers, other 
than pages appointed for one week's service, employed by 
the General Assembly for the week ending February 4, 
1983, 24 (8.0%) have been identified by Mr. George R. 
Hall, Jr., Legislative Services Officer, to be black. (Records 
are not kept on the race of employees of the General 
Assembly.) Of these 24, 9 are housekeepers, 11 are secre­
taries to the black Representatives and Senator, 3 are on 
the Sergeant-of-Arms staff, and 1 is on the House Clerk's 
staff. 170 of the 299 clerical and non-professional workers 
other than pages are personal secretaries to the individual 
representatives and senators. Each senator and represent­
ative selects his or her personal secretary. 

100. No black person has been elected to statewide office 
in North Carolina or to the United States Congress from 
North Carolina since 1900 with the exception of Clifford 
.Johnson who was elected as a Superior Court Judge in 
1978, Richard Irwin who was elected to the Court of Ap­
peals in 1978, and Charles Becton who was elected to the 
Court of Appeals in 1982. Each of these was elected to 
fill a seat to which he had previously been appointed. 

101. All judges who were appointed were appointed by 
the Governor in office at that time. Special Superior Court 
Judges are appointed by the Governor for four year terms 
and do not run for election at any time. ·There are eight 
Special Superior Court Judges. All other judicial posi­
tions are normally filled by election, including Supreme 
Court Justices, Judges of the Court of Appeals, Resident 
Superior Court Judges, and District Court Judges, al­
though initially a judge may take office by gubernatorial 
appointment to fill a vacancy in office. 



1968 
1970 
1972 
1974 
1976 
1978 
1980 
1982 
1983 

JA-99 

102. There were no black judges in North Carolina be-
fore 1968. Since 1968 the following number and percent of 
judges in North Carolina have been black: 

Resident Special Court of Supreme 
District Superior Superior Appeals Court 

1/112 ( 0.9%) 0/41 0/8 0/12 0 
1/112(0.9%) 0/41 0/8 0/12 0 
2/112(1.8%) 0/41 1/8(12.5%) 0/12 0 
4/118(3.4%) 0/42 1/8(12.5%) 0/12 0 
5/118 ( 4.29%) 0/47 1/8(12.5%) 0/12 0 
6/124( 4.8%) 1/58(1.7%) 1/8(12.5%) 1/12(8.3%) 0 
9/124(7.3%) 1/58(1.7%) 0/8 1/12(8.3%) 0 
11/124(9.1%) 1/58(1.7% )1 2/8(25%) 2/12(16.7%) 0 
12/124(9.7%) 0/58 2/8(25%) 2/12(16.7%) 1/7(14.2% 

1 Judge Johnson stopped serving as a Superior Court Judge in 
1982 when appointed to the Court of Appeals. He is counted in 
both places on this chart. 

2 There is no official record of the number of black lawyers in 
North Carolina but the North Carolina Association of Black 
Lawyers has identified approximately 350. This is an underesti­
mate of the actual number but is approximately 4% of all lawyers 
in North Carolina. 

103. Exhibit SS is a list of black candidates who ran 
for the North Carolina House of Representatives or Sen­
ate since 1970 with success in Primary and General Elec­
tions indicated. 

104. North Carolina has 100 counties. They range in 
black population from 0.1% to 60.7%. Each has between 
three and seven county commissioners. Exhibit MM is a 
list of all known black County Commissioners in North 
Carolina. 

105. Exhibit · NN is a publication by the Institute of 
Government of the University of North Carolina entitled 



JA-100 

"Form of Government of North Carolina Counties" (1981 
Edition) , giving county population, form of government, 
and method of selecting the governing body. 

106. There are 17 municipalities with a population over 
25,000 in North Carolina; 25 municipalities with a popu­
lation between 10,000 and 25,000; 28 municipalities with 
a population between 5,000 and 10,000; 67 municipalities 
with a population between 2,500 and 5,000; 109 munici­
palities with a population between 1,000 and 2,500; 112 
municipalities with a population between 500 and 1,000; 
and an unknown number of towns or villages with a popu­
lation less than 500. 

107. Exhibit 00 is a publication by the Institute of 
Government of the University of North Carolina of Chapel 
Hill, entitled "Form of Government of North Carolina 
Cities" (1981 Edition), giving North Carolina cities by 
size and providing information such as county of location, 
form of government, type and selection of governing body, 
for all known North Carolina municipalities with popula­
tions of 500 or more. 

108. Exhibit PP is a list of all known black mayors in 
North Carolina as of May, 1983. Exhibit QQ is a list of 
all known black city council members in North Carolina 
as of May, 1983. 

109. Prior to 1969 the State Board of Elections had no 
black members. For each year since 1969, the North Caro­
lina State Board of Elections has had at least one black 
member, out of the total of five members. Since October, 
1981, the State Board of Elections has had two black mem­
bers. Black members serving on the Board of Elections 
during the period from 1969 through the present are as 
follows: 

L. H. Jones, 1969-1977 
Dr. Sidney Y. Barnwell, 1977-1981 



JA-101 

William Marsh, 1981-still serving on the Board 
Elloree Erwin, 1981-still serving on the Board 

(Elloree Erwin is a Republican. The rest are 
Democrats.) 

110. Mecklenburg County (House District #36) can be 
divided into eight single-member House districts with 
two and only two districts over 65% black in population. 

111. At its February, 1982 Session, the North Carolina 
House of Representatives had available to it the proposal 
of the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers, a 
proposal presented by Representative Hege, (R-Davidson 
County) and a staff drawn plan, each of which contained 
two single-member districts in Mecklenburg County which 
were majority black in population. The plan developed 
by the member of the legislative staff included a district 
which was 66.1% black in population and a district which 
was 71.2% black in population.• 

112. The Mecklenburg; Cabarrus County Senate district 
(Senate District #22) can be divided into four single 
member districts with one of the districts over 65% black 
in population. • Only one majority black Senate district 
with a black population over 65% can be drawn. 

113. In February, 1982, the General Assembly had be­
fore it the plan of the Black Lawyers Association and the 
plan presented by Senator Ballenger (R-Catawba County) 
each of which created a single-member Senate district 
wholly within Mecklenburg County which was over 60% 
black in population. In addition, a member of the legisla­
tive staff developed a single-member district in Mecklen­
burg County which was 70.77% black in population.* 

-
• Each district would be contiguous, reasonably compact, and 

have a population deviation of less than plus or minus 5%. 



JA-102 

114. If Mecklenburg County were divided into single­
member districts, for either the House or Senate, it would 
be the first division of that county for legislative districts. 

115. The 1966 and 1971 plan for election of members 
to the General Assembly placed Mecklenburg County in 
an eight-member House of Representatives district con­
sisting solely of Mecklenburg County. No black person 
was elected as a Representative from that district from 
1966 through 1981. During that period seven black people 
ran for the House of Representatives. 

116. The House district consisting of Mecklenburg Coun­
ty was not changed in the 1982 apportionment. In the 1982 
general election, Mecklenburg County elected eight mem­
bers of the North Carolina House for 1983-1984. One of 
those members, Phillip 0. Berry is black. James D. Rich­
ardson, who is also black, ran but was not elected. He 
came in ninth. 

117. The 1971 plan for election of members to the Gen­
eral Assembly placed Mecklenburg County in a four-mem­
ber Senate District consisting of Mecklenburg and Cabar­
rus Counties. No senator from Mecklenburg County was 
black until 1975. Fred D. Alexander, who was black and 
was from Mecklenburg County ran for the Senate but was 
defeated in 1972. He was elected to the North Carolina 
Senate from that district for the 1975-76, and 1977-78, 
and 1979-80 General Assemblies. Alexander filed for re­
election in 1980, but died before the primary was held. 
When Alexander died, Rowe Motley, who is black, was 
appointed by the Governor to fill Alexander's unexpired 
term. Alexander's name could not be removed from the 
primary election ballot. Alexander lost the primary. 

118. Mecklenburg and Cabarrus County elected four 
members to the Senate in 1982. James Polk, who is black, 
ran as a Democrat but was defeated in the General Elec­
tion, running fifth. 



JA-103 

119. Mecklenburg County has a :five-member Board of 
County Commissioners, all of whom are elected-at-large. 
Currently, one of those :five members, Robert L. Walton, 
is black. Walton was :first elected in 1976. In 1978 he was 
defeated in his bid for reelection. Walton was elected in 
1980 and 1982. 

120. Mecklenburg County has never had a black Sheriff. 
It has a black V AP of 24'%. 

121. Clifton E. Johnson, who is black, was appointed 
to the North Carolina Court of Appeals in 1982, where 
he is currently serving. Johnson was appointed to the 
District Court for Mecklenburg County in 1969 and was 
subsequently elected and reelected to that position. He 
was appointed by the Governor to be a Resident Superior 
Court Judge from Mecklenburg County in 1978, having 
been nominated by voters in the Mecklenburg County 
primary and elected by statewide vote in the general 
election. He ran unopposed in that election. Johnson was 
the :first and only black resident Superior Court Judge 
from Mecklenburg County of :five Resident Superior Court 
Judges. He is the only black ever to serve as a Resident 
Superior Court Judge in North Carolina. He served in 
that role until his appointment to the North Carolina 
Court of Appeals. At the time Johnson was appointed 
to the Court of Appeals, Yvonne Mims Evans, a black 
attorney, sought to :fill the Superior Court vacancy, but 
the Mecklenburg County Democrat Party Executive Com­
mittee selected a white nominee instead, and the white 
nominee was appointed by the Governor. There are cur­
rently no black Resident Superior Court Judges. 

122. Mecklenburg County is a single-member Judicial 
District, which elects ten District Court Judges. Currently, 
two of those judges, T. Michael Todd, and Terry Sherrill 
are black. Todd was appointed in 1979 and elected in 
1980. He came in third in the vote of the Mecklenburg 



JA-104 

County Bar for nominations for the seat. He came in 
behind two white candidates. Todd was, nonetheless, ap­
pointed by the Governor. Terry Sherrill came in third in 
the vote of the Mecklenburg County Bar behind two 
white candidates and was appointed by the Governor 
in 1983. 

123. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education has 
nine members elected at large to four-year terms on a 
staggered schedule. Currently, two of those members, 
Sarah Belle Stephenson and George E. Battle, Jr., are 
black. Stephenson was elected in 1980 for the first time. 
Battle was elected in 1978 for the first time and was re­
elected in 1982. Until his resignation to run for a House 
seat in the North Carolina General Assembly, Phillip 0. 
Berry, who is black, was chairman of the Board, serving 
along with Stephenson and Battle. Berry was first elected 
to the Board in 1976 and was re-elected in 1980. Of six 
or more persons seeking to replace Berry upon his resig­
nation, a white person was selected by the remaining 
Board members although Arthur Griffin, who is black, 
sought the position. 

124. Exhibit RR is an accurate list of black candidates 
who have run for countywide office in Mecklenburg County 
or in municipal elections for the City of Charlotte since 1964. 

125. The Mecklenburg County Board of Elections has 
three members. From March 2, 1970, until his death in 
May of 1972, Mr. Walter B. Nivens served on that Board, 
and was Chairperson from March of 1972, until his death. 
Jack Martin also served on the Mecklenburg County 
Board of Elections from July 13, 1972, through March of 
197 4, serving as Chairperson for a part of that time. 
Phyllis Lynch has served on the Mecklenburg County Board 
of Elections since June of 1977 through the present and 
has been Chairperson since June of 1981 through the 
present. Nivens, Martin and Lynch are black and are the 



JA-105 

only black people who have served on the Mecklenburg 
County Board of Elections. 

126. The immediate Past Chairman of the Mecklenburg 
County Democratic Executive Committee, for the term 
from 1981 through May 1983, was Robert Davis, who is 
black. Davis is the only black person ever to hold that 
position. 

127. The 'City of Charlotte, located in Mecklenburg 
County, has a total population of 314,447 according to 
1980 census figures. 31% of the population and 20.6% of 
the registered voters in Charlotte are black. 

128. The Charlotte City Council has eleven members, 
seven elected . from Districts and four elected at large. 
Of the current members, Charles Dannelly and Ronald 
Leeper, both elected from majority black districts, and 
Harvey Gantt, elected at large, are black. Gantt was first 
elected to the City Council in 1975, and re-elected in 1977. 
He was elected to the City Council again in 1981. He is 
currently Mayor Pro-Tem of Charlotte. Gantt did not run 
for City Council in 1979 because he ran for Mayor. He 
was defeated by a white candidate in the Democratic Pri­
mary. Dannelly and Leeper were both first elected in 1977 
and re-elected in 1979 and 1981. 

129. The portion of Forsyth County which is in House 
District 39 can be divided into five single-member districts. 
Either one district over 65 % black can be formed or two 
majority black districts can be formed. • 

130. In February, 1982, the General Assembly had avail­
able to it the plan of the Black Lawyers Association and 
a plan presented by Representative Hege (R-Davidson), 
each of which contained a single member district wholly 

-
• Each district would be contiguous, reasonably compact, and 

lJave a population deviation of less than plus or minus 5%. 



JA-106 

within Forsyth County which was over 80% black in pop­
ulation. In addition, a member of the legislative staff had 
developed a single-member district in Forsyth County 
which was 70.00% black in population. • 

131. It is not possible to draw a majority-black single­
member Senate district in Forsyth County. 

132. In the 1982 General Elections for members of the 
North Carolina General Assembly, District thirty-nine 
elected five Representatives of whom two, C. B. Hauser 
and Annie Brown Kennedy, are black. District 39 consists 
solely of Forsyth County, not including two townships of 
Forsyth County placed in District 29. · 

133. Richard C. Erwin, who is black, was elected as a 
member of the North Carolina House of Representatives 
from Forsyth County for 1975-76 and 1977-78. He resigned 
from the General Assembly upon his appointment as a 
Judge of the North Carolina Court of Appeals in 1977, 
to which he was elected in 1978, and where he continued 
to serve until his appointment in October 1980 as a United 
States District Court Judge for the Middle District of 
North Carolina. Erwin, one of twelve Court of Appeals 
Judges, was the first black to serve on the Court of Ap­
peals when he was appointed in 1977. 

134. Harold L. Kennedy, Jr., was appointed February 
9, 1978, to replace Richard C. Erwin in the North Carolina 
General Assembly upon Erwin's appointment to the North 
Carolina Court of Appeals. Kennedy is black and is from 
Forsyth County. Kennedy ran for re-election to the House 
of Representatives in 1978 and lost. 

135. On October 19, 1979, Annie B. Kennedy, who is 
black, was appointed to replace Judson DeRamus, who 

• Each district would be contiguous, reasonably compact, and 
have a population deviation of less than plus or minus 5%. 



JA-107 

is white, as a member of the North Carolina House of 
Representatives from Forsyth County. Kennedy ran for 
re-election in 1980 and lost; she ran in 1982 and won. 

136. The Forsyth County Board of County Commis­
sioners has five members elected at large. Currently, that 
Board has one black member, Mazie Woodruff. When 
elected in 1976, she was the first black member of the 
Forsyth County Board of County Commissioners. Forsyth 
County elects Commissioners for four year terms. Wood­
ru:ff ran again in 1980 and was defeated by a white can­
didate. She ran again in 1982 and was elected. 

137. Forsyth County has never had a black Sheriff. 
The Voting Age Population of Forsyth County is 22% 
black. 

138. James Arthur Beaty, Jr., a black resident of For­
syth County, was appointed by the Governor as a special 
Superior Court Judge in 1981. 

139. The Forsyth County School Board has eight mem­
bers elected at-large. Beauford Bailey, who is black, is 
currently a member of that Board. Thirty seven percent 
of the student enrollment of the Forsyth County Public 
Schools is black. The population of Forsyth County is 
24% black. 

140. In Forsyth County there has been no black chair­
man of the Democratic Party. 

141. The Forsyth County Board of Elections has three 
members. H. B. Goodson, who is black, served on that 
Board from 1973 until 1979. Joan Cardwell, who is also 
black, has served on that Board from 1979 through the 
present and is Secretary. 

142. The City of Winston Salem, located in Forsyth 
County, has a total population of 131,885 according to 
1980 census figures. 40.16% of the population and 31.9% 



JA-108 

of the registered voters in the City of Winston Salem are 
black. 

143. The Winston-Salem City Council has eight mem­
bers elected from wards in addition to the mayor. Cur­
rently there are four black members on the Council. Larry 
Little, Vivian Burke, Virginia Newell, and Larry Womble. 
Little, Burke, and Newell were all elected in 1977 and 
re-elected in 1981 from majority black wards. Womble was 
first elected in 1981 by defeating an incumbent white 
Democrat in the primary and a white Republican in the 
general . election. His ward has 4,536 white registered 
voters, 2,893 black registered voters, and three of other 
races. Prior to 1977, C. C. Ross, Carl Russell, and Richard 
Davis, all black, were elected in 1970 and 197 4 from ma­
jority black wards. (The election schedule was changed 
from even to odd years between the 197 4 and 1977 elec­
tion.) 

144. Durham County (House District #23) can be di­
vided into three single member districts with one and 
only one of them over 65% black in population." 

145. In February, 1982, the General Assembly had be­
fore it the Black Lawyers Association apportionment 
which contained a single member district in Durham Coun­
ty which was over 70% black in population and the pro­
posal of Representative Hege, (R-Davidson County) which 
contained a single-member district within Durham County 
which was over 65% black in population. In addition, a 
member of the legislative staff has developed a single­
member district for Durham County which was 70.91% 
black in population. 

146. It is not possible to draw a majority-black single­
member Senate district which is in Durham County or 
which includes substantial parts of Durham County. 

• Each district would be contiguous, reasonably compact, and 
have a population deviation of less than plus or minus 5%. 



JA-109 

147. If Durham County were divided into single-mem­
ber districts, for either House or Senate districts, the 
division of Durham County would be the first division 
of that county for legislative districts. 

148. At all times since 1973, one of Durham County's 
three Representatives to the North Carolina House of 
Representatives has been black. Black members from Dur­
ham County during that period are as follows: 

1. Henry M. Michaux, J r.-elected to the 1973, 1975, 
and 1977 General Assemblies (resigned in 1977 
to become United States Attorney for the Middle 
District of North Carolina). 

2. A. J. Howard Clement, III, appointed to the ex­
piration of Michaux's term in 1977 General As­
sembly. He ran for re-election in 1978 and 1982 
and was defeated both times in the Democratic 
Primary. 

3. Kenneth B. Spaulding-elected to terms in the 
1979, 1981, and 1983 General Assemblies, where 
he continues to serve. 

149. Prior to 1973 no black person was elected to the 
House of Representatives from Durham County and no 
black person has ever been elected to the Senate from 
Durham County. 

150. The Durham County Board of County Commis­
sioners has five members elected at large. No blacks served 
prior to 1967. The following black people have served on 
the Commission since 1969: 

Asa T. Spaulding 
Nathan Garrett 
William V. Bell 
Edna Spaulding 

1969-72 
1973-74 
1973-current 
1975-current 



JA-110 

William V. Bell is currently Chairman of the Durham 
County Board of County Commissioners. 

151. Durham County has never had a black Sheriff. 
Durham County has a black Voting Age Population of 
33.6%. 

152. Chales L. Becton, a black resident of Durham 
County, was appointed by the Governor to the North 
Carolina Court of Appeals as one of its twelve judges 
in 1981. He was elected by a statewide vote to that office 
in 1982 to :fill the remainder of the term until 1984. Bec­
ton and four other incumbents ran unopposed in the 
1982 election. Ten Democrats ran for the three other seats 
which were up for election in 1982 with no incumbents 
runmng. 

153. Durham County is a single-county judicial district 
with four District Court Judges. Prior to 1977, none were 
black. In 1979, the Governor appointed William G. Pear­
son, who is black to be a District Court Judge. Pearson 
was elected in 1978 and in 1982. In 1979 the Governor 
appointed Karen Galloway, who is black, to be a District 
Court Judge. Galloway was elected in 1982. 

154. The Durham County Board of Elections is a three­
member board. From March 2, 1970, until June of 1981, 
William Marsh was a member of that board. Marsh, who 
is black, served as chairman for six years ending in 1979. 
Since 1981 there has not been a black member on the 
Board. 

•155. The Chairmanship of the Durham County Demo­
cratic Party has been held by a black for approximately 
ten of the last fourteen years. Persons serving in the chair­
manship during that period are as follows: 

• Each district would be contiguous, reasonably compact, and 
have a population deviation of less than plus or minus 5%. 



Name 

* Lavonia Allison, B 
Howard Clement, B 
Willie Lovett, B 
Barbara Smith, W 
Robert Sugg, W 
Jeanne Lucas, B 

JA-111 

Beginnilng of Term 

1969 or 1970 
1974 
1977 
1979 
1981 
1983 

Lavonia Allison was the first black chairman of the 
Durham County Democratic Party. 

• B-indicates black 
W -indicates white 

156. The City of Durham, located in Durham County, 
has a total population of 100,538 according to corrected 
census figures. 47.08% of the population and 38.9% of the 
registered voters in the City of Durham are black. 

157. The Durham City Council consists of twelve mem­
bers, in addition to the mayor. Six are elected at large. 
Six are elected at large, but must r eside in wards. Cur­
rently, the following three members are black: Ralph 
Hunt, representing a majority black ward; Chester L. 
Jenkins elected at large; and A. J. Howard Clement, 
appointed on May 16, 1983, to thE: expiration of Maceo 
K. Sloan's term. Sloan, who is also black, was elected at 
large and resigned April18, 1983. 

158. Wake County (House District #21) can be divided 
into six single member districts with one and only one 
of them over 65% black in population.• 

159. In February, 1982, the Legislature had available 
to it the proposal of the Black Lawyers Association which 
contained a single-member district in Wake County which 

-
• Each district would be contiguous, reasonably compact, and 

have a population deviation of less than plus or minus 5%. 



JA-112 

was over 65% black in population. In addition, a member 
of the legislative staff had prepared a single-member dis­
trict for Wake County which was 68.5% black in popu­
lation.• 

160. If Wake County were divided into single-member 
House districts, it would be the first division of that 
county for House districts. Wake County was divided 
the first time for Senate districts in 1982. 

161. It is not possible to draw a single-member majority 
black Senate district which is in Wake County or includes 
substantial parts of Wake County. 

162. Dan T. Blue, Jr., who is black, was elected as a 
member of the House from Wake County for the 1981-82 
and 1983-84 General Assemblies. In the 1982 Democratic 
primary, Blue received the highest vote total of the fifteen 
Democrats running. In the 1982 general election, Blue 
received the second highest vote total of the seventeen 
candidates for six seats. Five of the seventeen candidates 
were Libertarians. All Democratic candidates won. Blue 
had run in 1978 as a Democrat and he lost in the primary. 

163. John W. Winters, who is black, was elected as a 
Senator from Wake County for the 1975-76 and 1977-78 
General Assemblies. Upon Winters' resignation, to accept 
an appointment as a member of the North Carolina Utili­
ties Commission, Clarence E. Lightner, who is black, and 
is from Wake County, was appointed to replace Winters 
in the North Carolina Senate. Except for the period from 
1975-78, Wake County has never had a black Senator. 

164. Wake County has a seven-member Board of County 
Commissioners, who must reside in districts, but who are 
nominated and elected-at-large. Elizabeth B. Cofield, who 
is black, is a member of the Wake County Board of Coun-

• Each district would be contiguous, reasonably compact, and 
have a population deviation o£ less than plus or minus 5%. 



JA-113 

ty Commissioners. Cofield was first elected in 1972 and 
has been re-elected to successive four year terms since 
then. She is the only black person to serve on the Wake 
County Board of County Commissioners. 

165. Wake County is a single-county Judicial District with 
eight District Court Judges of whom currently 2, Stafford 
Bullock and George Greene, are black. Judge Bullock was 
appointed by the Governor in 1974 and was elected in 
1976 and re-elected in 1980 and has been serving continu­
ously since 197 4. Judge Greene was elected in 197 4, 1978 
and 1982. In addition, Acie Ward was appointed by the 
Governor to the District Court bench in 1982. She was 
defeated in her bid for election in 1982. The person who 
defeated her is white. 

166. The Sheriff of Wake County, John J. Baker, Jr., 
is black. In ·1982, Sheriff Baker was elected to his second 
consecutive term. Baker received 45,775 votes (63.5%) 
in the general election November 2, 1982, while his Repub­
lican opponent Clyde Cook, received 25,646 votes (36.5·% ). 
In the Democratic primary held June 29, 1982 Baker re­
ceived 26,329 votes, Tracy Bowling received 12,218 votes, 
and Ira C. Fuller received 4,162 votes. Cook, Bowling and 
Fuller are all white. On November 2, 1982, 77.6% of the 
registered voters in Wake County were Democrats and 
22.4% of the registered voters were Republicans. 

167. When John Baker first ran for Sheriff in 1978, he 
received 15,250 votes in the Democratic primary compared 
to 15,102 for Lestor Kelly and 7,409 for Robert Decatsye 
both of whom are white. In the second primary Baker 
got 22,415 votes to 18,925 for Kelly. In the General elec­
tion Baker got 32,882 votes compared to 31,882 for Cook, 
the Republican who is white. Baker was the first black 
sheriff in North Carolina this century. 

168. Wake County has a nine-member Board of Educa­
tion, all of whom are elected from districts. Currently, 



JA-114 

one of those nine members, Vernon Malone, is black. 
Malone was elected from a majority black district. 

169. The Wake County Board of Elections consists of 
three members. J. J. Sansom, Jr. served from March 2, 
1970 until December of 1977, when he resigned. Rosa Gill 
has been a member since December 6, 1977, and has been 
Chairperson since April 19, 1979. Sansom and Gill are 
both black. 

170. There has never been a black chairman of the 
Wake County Democratic Party. 

171. The City of Raleigh, located in Wake County, has 
a total population of 150,255 according to 1980 census 
figures. 27.43% of the population and 18.1% of the regis­
tered voters in Raleigh are black. 

172. Clarence E. Lightner, who is black, was elected as 
and served as Mayor of Raleigh from 1973 to 1975. Ra­
leigh is located in Wake County and is the capital of 
North Carolina. Lightner is the only black Mayor Raleigh 
has ever had. 

173. The Raleigh City Council has 7 members, two 
elected at large and five elected from wards, plus the 
mayor serving ex-officio. Since 1979, Arthur Calloway, 
who is black, has represented a majority black ward on 
the City Council. Calloway ini;tially defeated William 
Knight, also black, who served from 1973 until 1979. No 
other members of the Raleigh City Council are black. 

17 4. House District 8 (Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash 
Counties) can be divided into four single-member districts 
with one and only one over 60% black in population! 

• Each district would be contiguous, reasonably compact, and 
have a population deviation of less than plus or minus 5% . 



JA-115 

175. House District #8 is not changed from the 1971 
apportionment. There has never been a black representa­
tive from this district. 

176. Edgecombe County has a five-member Board of 
County Commissioners, all of whom are elected at large. 
Currently, two of those County Commissioners, Thomas 
Walker and J. 0. Thorne, are black. 43% of the registered 
voters in Edgecombe County are black. Walker and 
Thorne are the first blacks to serve on the Edgecombe 
County Board of Commissioners. Wilson County and Nash 
County have never had a black county commissioner. 

177. Wilson County, Edgecombe County, and Nash 
County have not had a black sheriff in this century. The 
voting age population of Wilson County is 32.4% black, 
The voting age population of Nash County is 29.4% black. 
The voting age population of Edgecombe County is 46.7% 
black. The Supervisor of Elections of Nash County re­
calls no black candidate for sheriff over the last 20 years. 
Over the last twenty years, only one black has filed for 
and run for the office of sheriff in Wilson County. Frank 
Jones, who is black, ran in 197 4. Out of the field of four 
candidates, the incumbent, W. Robinson Pridgen, received 
3,586 votes in the first primary. Jones, the black candidate 
received 2,480 votes in the first primary. Two other white 
candidates received, respectively, 1,662 and 1,270 votes, 
respectively, in the first primary. Pridgen defeated Jones 
in the second primary by a vote of 6,321 to 3,414. Over 
the last ten years only one black is known to have filed 
for and run for office of sheriff in Edgecombe County. 

178. The Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash County Demo­
cratic parties have never had a black chairman. 

179. It is not possible to draw more than two single­
member majority black House districts in Guilford County. 
One majority black district currently exists. 



JA-116 

180. It is not possible to draw more than one single­
member majority black Senate district in Guilford County. 
There is now a single-member Senate district in Guilford 
County which is 54.9% black in population. 

181. On December 31, 1971, Alfreda Webb, who is black, 
was appointed to replace MeN eil Smith, who is white, as 
a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives 
from Guilford County. Webb ran for re-election in 1972 
and lost in the primary. 

182. Henry E. Frye, who was appointed to the North 
Carolina Supreme Court in 1983 and who is black, 
was elected to the North Carolina General Assembly 
as a Representative from Guilford County for the 
1969-70, 1971-72, 1973-74, 1975-76, 1977-78 and 1979-80 
General Assemblies and was elected as a Senator from 
Guilford County for the 1981-82 General Assembly. Frye 
did not run in 1982. Frye is one of seven Supreme Court 
Justices and is the first black to serve on the North Caro­
lina Supreme Court this century. 

183. In the 1982 elections for members of the 1983 Gen­
eral Assembly, William M. Martin, who is black, was 
elected from the 31st Senate District, consisting of J e:ffer­
son Township, Greensboro Precincts 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 
11, 19, 25, 29, and 30, High Point Precincts 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 
and 19, James town Precincts 1, 2, and 3, Sumner Town­
ship and Block 921 of Census Tract 166 in High Point 
Township, all in Guilford County. The 31st Senate District 
is 54.9% black i.-·1 population. In 1980 William Martin had 
run for the House of Representatives from Guilford Coun­
ty in a countywide at large election and lost. He was the 
only black candidate in that election. 

184. In the 1982 elections for members of the 1983 
General Assembly, Herman C. Gist, who is black, and who 
is from Guilford County, was elected from the 26th House 
District consisting of Providence Township of Randolph 



JA-117 

County, Greensboro Precincts 5, 6, 7, 8, 19, 29, and 30 
and Fentress Township of Guilford County, as a member 
of the North Carolina House of Representatives for the 
1983-84 General Assembly. The 26th House District is 
66.9% black in population. Gist had run for city council 
for Greensboro in an at-large election in 1980 and lost. 

185. Guilford County has five Commissioners elected at 
large for four year staggered terms. Guilford County has 
not had a black County Commissioner since 1978. At that 
time B. A. Hall, who had served since 1974, was defeated 
in his bid for re-election. There has been no black County 
Commissioner in Guilford County prior to 1974. 

186. Guilford County is in a single-county judicial dis­
trict electing eight District Court Judges of whom cur­
rently one, William Hunter, is black. Hunter ran for judge 
in a countywide single seat election in 1980 and lost. He­
was appointed by the Governor in 1981. 

187. Guilford County has never had a black sheriff. 

188. In February, 1982, and in April, 1982, the Senate 
Redistricting Committee was informed that a Senate dis­
trict could be drawn in the area of Senate District 2 
which was 59.4% black in population. 

189. In February, 1982, the Senate Redistricting Com­
mittee had before it the proposal of the Black Lawyers 
Association which contained a proposed single-member 
district in the general area of current Senate District 
which was 60.7% black in population.• 

190. In February 1982, Senate District #2 was 51.7% 
black. In response to the objection letter of the Attorney 
General of the United States dated April 19, 1982 (Ex­
hibit Y), in April, 1982, the General Assembly amended 

• Each district would be contiguous, reasonably compact, and 
have a population deviation of less than plus or minus 5%. 



.JA-118 

the apportionment of the Senate such that Senate District 
#2 became a 55.1% black district. It is only possible to 
draw a Senate district with a 60% or more black majority 
in the area of Senate District #2 in part by decreasing 
the 49.3% black percentage in the area of Senate District 
#6. It is not possible to draw two majority black Senate 
districts in these areas with both of them over 55% black 
in population. 

191. None of the counties in Senate District #2 had 
a black sheriff. 

192. There are currently four black sheriffs in North 
Carolina. They serve in Wake, Pender, New Hanover, and 
Warren Counties. There is currently one black Clerk of 
Court, in Gates County. 



JA-119 

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS 
(EXCERPTS) 

[19] FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 10:26 A.M. 

(Whereupon, 

Bernard N. Grofman 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as fol­
lows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[30] There are several points to be made about the 
North Carolina House Map. First of all, in the covered 
jurisdictions-the 40 counties covered under Section 5 of 
the Voting Rights Act-there are 11 counties which have . 
been divided. They include District 17, which includes part 
of Cumberland; District 5, Bertie, Gates, Hertford and 
Northampton; District Number 7, Halifax and Martin 
and also Warren, which is not a Section 5 covered county; 
District Number 26, Guilford-and also part of Guilford, 
Randolph, which is again not a Section 5 covered county. 
But in any case, a total of 11 counties have been divided. 
And I repeat that counties which have been divided are 
indicated by placing in those counties the township bound­
ary demarcation lines as a signal that these counties have 
been divided in the House reapportionment. 

In the non-covered portions of the State, 15 counties 
have been divided. They are Henderson, Watauga, Avery, 
Burke, Iredell, Alexander, Catawba, Stokes, Forsyth, 
Randolph, Chatham, Warren, Pender, Graham and New 
Hanover. I have deliberately gone over this perhaps too 
fast. But since this information is available in the stipu­
lation, it seems appropriate to proceed on . 
• • • • • • • • • • 



JA-120 

[31] Ms. Winner: At this point I move plaintiff's ex­
hibits 2 and 3 into evidence, as well as *' * * 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. Dr. Grofman, are you familiar with the literature 

concerning multi-member districts~ 

A. Yes; I am. 

Q. Would you describe to the Court or compare for the 
Court the features of multi-member districts with the 
features of single-member districts~ 

A. There are several-there are five basic features of 
multi-member districts which I would wish to contrast 
with features of single-member districts. First, except un­
der the unlikely circumstance that districts are perfectly 
homogeneous in their population, [32] multi-member dis­
tricts tend to submerge racial or other minorities. Related­
ly, large multi-member districts reduce political competi­
tion and incentives to voter turnout because of the winner 
take all nature feature of multi-member districts. The 
majority of voters in a multi-member district can and 
usually does elect all of the representatives to that dis­
trict. 

Voters who see no chance of a candidate of their 
choice being elected are less likely to vote. Minority voters 
who may compromise portions of a competitive single­
member district or a majority black single-member dis­
trict are also likely to be submerged by multi-member 
districts, especially large multi-member districts. 

Q. Would you describe for the Court or define for the 
Court what you mean by "submerged"~ 

A. Yes. As I define submergencE:, there are three com­
ponents to submergence in a multi-member district. First, 
there must be a sufficient concentration of black voting 
strength sufficiently concentrated so as to form a majority 
of a potential single-member district. 



JA-121 

Secondly, the present black voting strength must con­
stitute a minority of the voters in the existing multi­
member district. Thirdly, voting within the multi-member 
district must be racially polarized. 

[33] Thank you. Are there other comparisons between 
the features of multi-member districts and single-member 
districts! 

A. Yes. So far I have indicated only the first of such 
comparisons, the issue of submergence and impact on 
turnout. The second comparison is one having to do with 
the base of geographic representation. Multi-member dis­
tricts almost never give equal representation to all of the 
geographic areas within the larger multi-member district. 
And large sets of voters-and in particular, black voters­
may have no representative or less than equal opportunity 
to elect representatives who reside in their neighborhood. 

Q. Are there further features of multi-member districts 
as compared to single-member districts T 

A. The third feature is that in a multi-member district 
the link between a constituent and his or her representa­
tive is weakened relative to what it would be in a single­
member district. 

In a multi-member district, common sensically it is less 
clear who a voter ought to go to to deal with neighbor­
hood-related problems. There does not exist a one-to-one 
linkage between voter and representatives. 

Multi-member districts are particularly pernicious in 
their effects when the multi-member [34] representatives 
-that is, when those elected from the multi-member dis­
trict-live in only some sections of the multi-member dis­
trict. And whole large populations, including minority 
populations, have no representative who lives in their 
neighborhood or only limited representation from their 
neighborhood; and thus have no individual representing 
them who could be expected to be familiar with special 



JA-122 

1ssues that arise on a neighborhood basis or portion of 
city basis. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[36] The witness: And I have now completed Item Num­
ber 3, which dealt with a link between a constituent and 
his representative, comparing that link in single-member 
versus multi-member districts. 

The fourth point that I would make is that campaigns 
in multi-member districts cost considerably more to run 
than campaigns in single-member districts, which are, of 
course, going to be smaller in size. Thus, minorities in 
other less wealthy segments of the society are going to 
find it difficult to run successful campaigns in large, multi­
member districts because of the barriers imposed by ad­
ditional costs. 

The fifth point I would make-which I believe is point 
Number 6 in the text. There are some minor points which 
I am skipping over simply for sake of brevity. The fifth 
point I would make is that multi-member districts fail to 
satisfy a criterion which political scientists have proposed 
it important for any election system to satisfy. That is a 
criterion called consistency. 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 10:54 A.M. 
(Resumed) 

By Ms. Winner : 

[37] Q. What is consistencyT 

A. Well, it is easier to define inconsistency, if I may. 
An election system is inconsistent if it is possible for a 
candidate to win in every precinct or every county, say, 
in a multi-county, multi-member district-if it is possible 
to win in every precinct or in every county and still 
lose the election. 



JA-123 

Multi-member districts as they operate in North Caro­
lina are theoretically inconsistent; whereas single-member 
districts always satisfy the consistency requirement. 

Q. Dr. Grofman, have you examined the North Carolina 
apportionment plan to determine whether or not these 
theoretical problems exist in North Carolina t 

A. Yes; I have. 

Q. Calling your attention to the first feature that you 
pointed out-that of submergence-have you found that 
submergence occurs in North Carolina t 

A. I have indeed found that submergence occurs in 
North Carolina. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[ 48] Would you compare these illustrative single-member 
districts with the single-member districts which the state 
has enacted in the Section 5 covered counties? 

A. In shape and in nature, these districts are compar­
able to the district which were created in the covered 
counties of the state. I might note, however, that the pro­
posed single-member districts in Mecklenburg replacing 
the Mecklenburg-Cabarrus combined district; in Durham, 
in Forsyth. in Wake and in Mecklenburg for the House 
seats-all have the property that they do not require the 
crossing of county lines. Each single-member district can 
be composed solely within a given county . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[50] Q. Would you define for the Court what racially 
polarized voting is T 

A. Quite simply, racial polarization occurs when white 
voters and black voters vote differently from one another. 

Q. Is that in any way different from racial bloc voting? 

A. No; it is not. Racial polarization and racial block 
voting are used in the literature and in the court cases-



JA-124 

at least the court cases with which I am familiar- syn­
onymously. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[51] The elections which I analyzed were all of the elec­
tions in the period 1978 to 1982 in these counties involv­
ing races in which at least one black was a candidate for 
either the House or Senate. And those included both pri­
mary and general races. 

In addition, I analyzed county board primaries in Edge­
combe, Wilson and Nash and a county board general elec­
tion in Edgecombe. And I analyzed the patterns of voting 
jn Edgecombe, Wilson and Nash for the Michaux-Va:len­
tine :first and second congressional primary as it applied 
to those three counties. 

Q. What were the criteria--

A. (Interposing) I am sorry. That was a 1982 election. 

Q. What were the criteria which you used to pick the 
elections which you analyzed T 

A. There were six factors which I took into account 
before deciding what elections to analyze and before con­
ducting any analysis. First, since we are concerned with 
polarization in House and Senate elections, it made most 
sense to me to examine to the extent possible races in 
the House and in the Senate. 

Secondly, since we are concerned with racial polariza­
tion it was easiest and most appropriate to look at that 
in the context of black-white contests, although [52] racial 
polarization can occur even in elections in which there 
are no black candidates. 

Third, it seemed absolutely essential to have a com­
plete set of elections so as not to be misled by idiosyn­
cratic features of a particular, perhaps unrepresentative, 
election sample. Fourth, I felt it important to have an 
adequate representation in terms of the total number of 



JA-125 

elections per each county so that we again would not be 
misled by features of a particular election. And I de­
termined that at least three elections in each county would 
be sufficient and indeed necessary. 

Fifth, I determined it important that there be an ade­
quate representation of different election years, since no 
single election year can be representative, especially since 
there will be important differences between-in general, 
there will be important differences-between elections in 
which there is a presidential contest or election years in 
which there is a presidential contest and election years in 
which there is not a presidential contest; or perhaps be­
tween years in which there is a Republican incumbent 
running for a statewide or national office and years in 
which there is not a Republican incumbent running for 
statewide or national office. 

Sixth, however, it was important not to go [53] back 
too far in time lest we obtain elections which did not 
reflect current patterns of polarization. In balancing the 
need for an adequate sample of election years and the 
need for a representative sample of election years, I con­
cluded that three election years-1978, 1980 and 1982, 
totaling five calendar years-came closest to the ideal. 

Finally, if it is impossible to get enough elections of 
the type we want within a given county or within a given 
specified range of years, then we should look for addi­
tional elections involving black candidates which are as 
similar as possible to legislative races-for example, ones 
like county board elections, which also involve a county­
wide race. And that was the selection criteria I used in 
the case of Edgecombe, Wilson and Nash, where there 
was not an adequate sample of three elections or three 
contests involving black-white contests from the North 
Carolina House or the North Carolina Senate in the 
period 1978 to 1982-or indeed, from any period in recent 
North Carolina electoral history. 



JA-126 

And in those counties, in addition to looking at the one 
primary which did involve-House primary in the coun­
ties-which did involve a black candidate, I also looked 
at county board elections in each and at a [54] congres­
sional race involving a black-white contest which resulted 
in two primaries and in a congressional district which 
encompassed all three of these counties-that is to say, 
which included as part of the congressional district Edge­
combe, Wilson and Nash. 

Q. What methods have you used to analyze the data 1 

A. There are two basic methods which I made use of 
which are methods standard in the literature fo r the 
analysis of racial polarization. The first of these is a 
method called ecological regression. And the second is a 
method called extreme case analysis. 

Q. What is an extreme case analysis T 

A. Extreme case analysis is when in order to under­
stand the voting behavior of white voters and black voters, 
one looks at precincts which are overwhelmingly composed 
of members of one race. Thus, if one were interested in 
the voting behavior of white voters, one would look at 
voting precincts which had at least 95 percent white pop­
ulation. To understand the voting behavior of black voters, 
one would look at precincts which had at least, say, 95 
percent black population. That is called in the literature 
extreme case analysis. 

Q. What is the purpose of an ecological [55] regression 
analysis to determine racially polarized voting? 

A. The purpose of an ecological regression analysis is 
to determine if there is racial polarization-that is to say, 
to determine whether or not white voters and black voters 
vote differently from one another. 

Q. What comparisons are performed in an ecological 
regression analysis 1 



JA-127 

A. The basic comparison is a comparison of the pro­
portion of vote received by black or white candidates in 
each precinct with the proportion of black/white voters 
in each precinct. That is to say, we look at-for a given 
black or a given white candidate, we look at the vote 
received by that candidate or candidates. And we com­
pare that vote in the precinct with the racial proportion 
in that precinct. 

Q. Is there an additional comparison that you makeT 

A. There are two related comparisons. We may either 
look at candidates individually and ask for the compari­
son between the proportion of the vote for a given candi­
date and the proportion of the district which is of a 
given race ; or we may combine-and this is, again, a 
standard technique in literature. We may combine all 
candidates of a given race and examine the [56] votes­
the combined votes-for candidates of a given race within 
each precinct, looking at the comparison of the votes for 
candidates of a given race versus the racial composition 
of each of the precincts. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[57] FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 11 :45 A.M . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. Dr. Grofman, if you made a graph _of the compari­

son that you performed in the ecological regression an­
alysis and if race was not a factor in the-if the race of 
the voter were not a factor in who he or she voted for, 
what would that graph look likeT 

A. If we looked at a graph which compared vote pro­
portions received by particular candidates with the racial 
composition of each of the precincts and race wasn't a 
factor related to how voters voted, what you would expect 
to find is that the points on this graph basically would 
be randomly scattered all over the place; or possibly they 



JA-128 

might fall on a flat line like indicating essentially that all 
voters voted alike regardless of race. But most often, 
you would expect that they would be randomly scattered. 

[58] Q. And if you graph the comparison and the race 
of the voter is a factor in determining who they vote for, 
then what does the graph look like T 

A. Well, if voting were racially polarized and you 
looked at such a graph, what you would expect to :find is 
that in comparing the proportion of votes for a given 
candidate or candidates with, say, the proportion white 
voters in each precinct, you would expect to see these 
points that show these proportions fall on something very 
much like a straight line which will slope either up or 
down. 

Q. And what would it mean if the line sloped up T 

A. If the line sloped up, that would mean that as the 
proportion of whites increased-that is, as the proportion 
of white voters in each precinct increased-the propor­
tion of votes received by that candidate also increased. 

Q. What does it mean if the line slopes down T 

A. If the line slopes down, that would mean that as 
the proportion of whites in the precinct increased the 
candidate would get fewer votes. 

Q. What do you do if the points don't fall exactly on 
the straight line T 

A. Well, points never fall-just in my experience­
never fall exactly on a straight line, even when [59] voting 
was racially polarized. So when the points look like they 
might be a straight line, you would try to determine 
whether in fact the points were close enough to forming 
a straight line to act as if they actually were a straight 
line. 



JA-129 

Q. How do you decide if they are close enough to a 
straight line for them to be considered a straight line! 

A. Well, there are two tests that social scientists and 
statisticians apply. One is the interocular test. You look 
at the graph and say, "Is this a straight line?" and if 
it sort of jumps up and hits you between the eyes, then 
you decide, "Yes. That is really a straight line. " And 
then if you really want to--

Judge Britt: (Interposing) Do you call that eyeballing 
itT 

The witness: Well, it depends on what state you are in. 
Social scientists manage to have fancy terms for some 
unfancy things. And in social science, partly tongue in 
cheek, it is called the interocular test-i-n-t-e-r-o-c-u-1-a-r. 

However, there is also a standard statistic to look at. 
And that is the statistic which is called correlation or the 
correlation coefficient, or also [60] called "R" or "Pear­
son's R" after a gentleman named Pearson, who was the 
first to propose it. 

By Ms. Winner : 

Q. What is the range of possible correlation coefficients! 

A. The range of possible correlation coefficients is 
from -1 to +1; +1 indicating lines or positive numbers 
indicating lines which slope up, negative numbers indi­
cating lines which slope down. 

Usually political scientists will talk about the absolute 
value of the correlation coefficient. That is, they will pay 
no attention to the sign. So if something has, say, an 
absolute value above .5, that would mean that either it 
was greater than .5 or it was less than -.5. 

In political science I think it would be fair to say that 
values of correlations-at least in the kinds of regressions 
we are dealing with here, one variable versus another 



JA-130 

variable--values of correlations above .5 are relatively 
rare . .And certainly most political scientists would treat 
any value of a correlation above .5 as a situation in which 
they would act, in effect, as if the points fell on a straight 
line. 

Q. Have you done other ecological regression analyses T 
[61] A. I have done some other ecological regressions 
and of course, many, many other kinds of regression an­
alyses-thousands of regression analyses over the last 
decade. 

Q. What is the normal range of correlation coefficients 
that you have found in those past analyses T 

A. In most of the analyses I have done, one finds corre­
lation- one is happy when one finds correlation coefficients 
above .3. The only time-the highest correlation coefficient 
that I can remember occurred when you look at how a 
person said he was going to vote in an election that was 
going to take place tomorrow and you compared that with 
how the person actually voted tomorrow in that ' case, 
you got a correlation of around .91. 

Q. How do you determine whether or not--

A. (Interposing) There were some people who just didn't 
know their own minds. 

Q. How do you determine whether the correlation co­
efficient is statistically significantT 

A. Again, there is a standard statistical test for the 
statistical significance of the value of the correlation 
coefficient. And in the computer programs that I used, 
that standard measure of statistical significance is re­
ported. 

Usually in social science, the rule is that [ 62] is the 
statistical significance is less than .01, then certainly we 
would regard something as statistically signifieance .. 01 



JA-131 

would mean that there is less than a 1 in 100 chance that 
this observed pattern of line likeness could have, in fact, 
occurred just by chance. 

Q. Once you determine the statistical significance of the 
information, who other factors do you determine in an 
ecological regression analysis T 

A. Well, there are a number of things that can be done 
with the information from an ecological regression analy­
sis and also from extreme case analysis. You can, for 
example, determine whether or not voting is racially 
polarized. You can determine the proportion of the white 
or the black vote which goes to white or black candidates. 
You can determine the proportion of white or black 
voters who vote for particular white or black candidates. 

You can determine the ranking of black or white can­
didates among white or black voters. And you can also 
determine turnout figures in the election, including the turn­
out of the white voters and the turnout of the black voters 
estimated from the regression. And you can also determine 
the average number of ballots cast in the election by 
white voters and by black voters. In North Carolina in a 
multi-member district election, r63] voters may have up 
to eight ballots or up to eight votes that they could cast. 
Voters, however, may not choose to make use of the full 
electoral opt:!_on. And they may cast less than eight votes. 

We can calculate how many ballots on average each 
voter casts. And we can determine that also separately 
by the race of the voter . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[77] Judge Phillips : You are being clear. I wonder if 
it might be appropriate to ask Mr. Leonard if there is any 
substantial question about the accuracy of these particular 
exhibits as they reflect or if they reflect the sheer mathe­
matics of the situation? We seem to be spending an awful 



JA-132 

lot of time to develop a point that, while not within the 
range, I suppose, of judicial notice, is almost there. 

Mr. Leonard: If the court please, we don't disagree 
with Dr. Grofman 's arithmetic~ just his conclusions. The 
methodology that he has used is a methodology that Dr. 
Hofler will, in fact, rely on and [78] will be using some 
of D:r. Grofman 's exhibits to rebut the conclusions that 
he comes to. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[79] Dr. Grofman, from the results of your analyses of 
these 55--

A. (Interposing) 53. 

Q. 53-excuse me-elections, did you reach any general 
conclusions 1 

A. Yes. I reached a number of general conclusions. 

Q. What are those conclusions 1 

A. The first general conclusion that I reached about 
polarization in all of the eight counties in question is that 
in each and every one of the 53 elections which I analyzed, 
these elections were racially polarized. Indeed, there was 
racial polarization even in elections with black incumbents 
and even in elections [80] with blacks running in which 
there was no contest. 

The correlations ranged from .7 to .98 with most well 
above .9. Again, I can give an illustration from Durham. 
But I won't bother. The court can see quite clearly that 
in Durham all but one of the correlations are quite high. 
And even that one is at the .7 level, which is still well 
above the range which would be considered significant. 
And moreover, the statistical significance test of all the 
regression analyses found a statistical significance level 
of .00001-that is to say, a likelihood that the results 
could have occurred by chance alone of less than 1 in 
100,000. 



JA-133 

The second general conclusion-actually, I am going to 
give it in three parts. First, in North Carolina general 
elections no black candidate ever got a majority of whites 
to vote for him or her. And this was true even for black 
incumbents and even for candidates running in races 
which were uncontested. Even such individuals-such black 
candidates-did not receive the votes of a majority of 
white voters. 

Indeed, on average over these elections more than 60 
percent of the white voters did not vote for the black 
candidate. 

The second part of my second conclusion deals with 
primaries. On average in the eight counties in the [81] pri­
maries, less than 20 percent of white voters voted for 
the black candidate. Except in unusual cases-3 out of 
25- in all the primary elections, 60 percent or more of 
whites did not vote for the black candidate. I might note 
the three exceptions. 

In the three exceptions the votes for the black candi­
date given by white voters ranged between 47 percent 
and 50 percent in the primary. But then in the general 
election the candidate went on to get less than a majority 
of the votes of white voters in all three of these cases. 

The third part of my general conclusion 2 is that in 
general elections black candidates almost always rank 
last or next to last among white voters except in general 
elections in heavily Democratic areas where black candi­
dates sometimes rank last overall, but almost always rank 
last or next to last among Democrats. 

And similarly, in primaries-again, with a handful of 
exceptions-white voters give fewest votes to black can­
didates of any candidates in the race. 

Turning now to my third conclusion-third general con­
clusion-looking at primaries and general elections as a 



JA-134 

two-stage process which candidates must overcome if they 
are to be elected, since it does no good to be potentially 
capable of winning a general [82] election if one has lost 
the primary or to be potentially of winning a primary 
if one is certain not to lose the general election, I would 
conclude that in North Carolina in the eight counties I 
have studied black candidates cannot get a majority of 
whites to vote for them, no mattRr what these black can­
didates do and no matter who these black candidates are. 
In short, racial polarization is severe and persistent. 

My fourth general conclusion is that although black 
incumbency-that is, the presence of a black incumbent 
in a race-moderates the amount of racial polarization, 
it does not eliminate it, since as I indicated earlier, all 
of the races I analyzed did involve racial polarization 
including those with black incumbents. 

Moreover, if we look not at black elected incumbents 
but at black appointed incumbents, we find that being a 
black appointed incumbent is no great help to electoral 
success. There were three black appointed incumbents in 
these races, 1978 to 1982. All three lost, either in the 
primary or the general election. 

Actually, just as a footnote, there were potentially-one 
might count there being four appointed incumbents. A black 
candidate, Motley, was appointed to replace Alexander, 
who died. Alexander held the position [83] of Senator 
from Mecklenburg and Cabarrus. However, the election 
took place before Motley's name or anyone else's name 
that appear on the ballot. And in that race, Alexander­
who was not alive-lost. But nonetheless, in that race, 
Alexander received thE> clear, overwhelming support of the 
black community. And Alexander received less than one 
third of the votes in the white community. 



JA-135 

I might note in general, that the appointed black in­
cumbents got less than one third of the white voters to 
vote for them in earh of these three cases. 

My fifth general conclusion is as follows: even though 
a. constituency has dected a black candidate in the past, 
this does not provide a guarantee that it will do so in 
the future, especially if the black incumbent who is the 
present occupant of that position does not run in the future 
in subsequent races, 

My sixth conclusion: in general elections, wherever there 
is a black Democrat running and wherever a Democrat 
loses, it will be the black Democrat who loses. For all 
practical purposes, Republicans never vote for black Demo­
crats. But, Republicans do sometimes vote for white Demo­
crats. 

Judge Dupree: How do you find out who anybody votes 
for? 

[84] The witness: The techniques in question here are to 
look at, again, ecological regressions, looking at now the 
proportion Republican in each district rather than the 
proportion black in a district and comparing the vote 
patterns as districts change in their proportion Repub­
lican. 

What we find when we do that is that as the Republican 
proportion increases, the likelihood of a vote for the black 
candidate decreases; and indeed, decreases so dramatically 
that one can have confidence in the conclusion that for all 
practical purposes, Republicans simply do not vote for 
black Democrats. But they do vote for white Democrats. 

There is another form of analysis I have performed if 
you wish me to go into it, which also supports that con­
clusion. That is to be found in Appendix 5 to Exhibit 11. 

By Ms. Winner: 



JA-136 

Q. Dr. Grofman, in explaining that you used the word 
''districts. '' 

A. I am sorry-precincts, I think. Whenever I am 
talking, I will distinguish-=-precincts are the areas in 
voters register. Districts are the constituencies from which 
candidates run. 

Q. Do you have any further general conclusions T 

f85] A. Yes. I have two further general conclusions. My 
seventh general conclusion is with respect to single shot 
·voting. For a non-incumbent black to win an election in 
which it was realistically possible to elect an aE-white 
slate-that is to say, it might not be realistically possible 
to elect an all-white slate if, in fact, there are no candi­
dates running in opposition to the nominees, as in Dur­
bam, for example, in 1980. 

If you have a non-incumbent black trying to win an 
election in which it was realistically possible to elect an 
all-white slate, the black community has to vote almost 
exclusi·vely for the black candidate in order to provide any 
reasonable chance for that black candidate to be ~lected, 
given the degree of racial polarization in these counties. 

And my eighth and final general conclusion about all of 
the counties as a whole is that even though blacks must 
often concentrate-black voters must often concentrate 
their votes on black candidates in order to give these black 
eandidates a chance at winning, on balance whites-that is 
to say, white voters-are less willing to vote for black 
candidates than black voters are willing to vote for white 
candidates. 

And again, I can provide, if the court wishes, exact 
calculations to support that conclusion. 

[86] Do these general conclusions also apply to the indi­
vidual CJunties T 



JA-137 

A. Yes. These general conclusions apply to each of the 
counties singly as well. 

• 

Q. Have you conducted your analysis county by countyt 

A. Yes; I have. 

• • • • • • • • • 
Q. What are your conclusion about Forsyth County! 

A. In Forsyth, blacks will lose unless Republicans­
black candidates will lose in the general election unless Re­
publicans do poorly, since if there is a [87] Republican 
winner in the general election, that Republican winner will 
knock off the black Democrats, since as I previously indi­
cated, Republicans do not vote for black Democrats al­
though they do vote for some white Democrats. 

Moreover, in Forsyth County examining the pattern of 
racial polarization over the three election years, there 
is no consistent trend to suggest that racial polarization 
is declining over time in this county. 

Q. Have you examined in particular the results of the 
1982 House election in Forsyth county? 

A. Yes; I have. 

Q. In that election, how many black candidates wonT 

A. In that election, two black candidates won. 

Q. In your opinion, what is the likelihood of that result 
repeating itsel£1 

A. I think the likelihood of that result repeating itself 
is very close to zero. 

Q. What is the basis of that opinion T 

A. The basis for that opinion is severalfold. First of 
all, the racial polarization in Forsyth in 1982 was exactly 
identical to what it was in 1980 in the primary. VThat was 
different between 1980 and 1982 was [88] that in 1980 there 



JA-138 

were five white candidates running for five seats. In 1982, 
there were nine white candidates running for five seats in 
the primary. 

In both cases, 1980 and 1982, there were two black can­
didates running in the primary. In 1982 there were more 
white candidates than white voters could vote for. And 
moreover, there were not white incumbents in the race, 
because four out of five white incumbents had declined to 
run for re-election. 

So the white vote was split nine ways in the primary, 
while the black vote was concentrated among two black 
candidates. Absent a situation in which whites will once 
again so split their vote, there is no reason to anticipate 
that two black candidates would emerge from a primary in 
Forsyth, even though two of those blacks are now in­
cumbents. 

The reason for that, as indicated, is that the degree of 
racial polarization in Forsyth, particularly in the primary, 
does not lead one to believe that white voters will vote 
for black candidates. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[90] Another difference between 1980 and 1982 which 
cannot be expected to reoccur in 1984 is that in Forsyth 
from 1980 to 1982 black turnout in the primary stayed 
constant. But white turnout in the primary decreased. I 
note, as I have previously noted, that 1980 was a general 
presidential election year. One might also take note of 
the fact that 1984 is a general presidential year. It also 
is a year in which there in the state of North Carolina 
is an incumbent Republican candidate for the United 
States Senate who is likely to be running. 

Insofar as portions of this decline in voter turnout can 
be attributed to a decline in Republican voters, certainly 
one would expect those Republican vo~ers who are white 
and who do not vote for black candidates would be more 
likely to turn out in 1984; and secondly, that in general 



JA-139 

the discrepancies between white voter turnout and black 
voter turnout which manifests itself in 1980 election would 
again emerge in 1984. 

In 1980 there was a considerable discrepancy in the 
general election between the turnout figures for whites 
and for blacks. In 1982, black turnout declined slightly, but 
only slightly from what it had been in 1980. White turn­
out in the general election in Forsyth in 1982 declined 
substantially-20 percentage [91] points-from what it 
had been in 1982. 

Clearly, 1982 is not a representative year, nor are the 
circumstances-multiplicy of white candidates, low white 
turnout, off presidential year-which occurred in 1982 
likely to repeat themselves in the future. And certainly 
at worst one cart say there is no guarantee that they would 
repeat themselves in the future. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[94] Q. Dr. Grofman, did you reach any conclusions as 
a result of your analysis about Mecklenburg CountyT 

A. Yes. I reached some conclusions about Mecklenburg 
County specifically in addition to the general conclusions 
applicable to all of the districts that I looked at. 

Q. What were the specific conclusions that you reached 
about Mecklenburg County1 

A. My clear conclusions about Mecklenburg were very 
similar to my conclusions about Forsyth. In Mecklenburg, 
blacks will lose unless Republicans do poorly since, as I 
noted before, if there is a Republican winner he or she 
will be most likely to knock off the black Democrat rather 
than a white Democrat because of the racial polarization 
that exists in the election. 

This also implies that one can expect a difference in 
election outcomes in years in which there are special in­
centives for Republican turnout than in other years- in 



JA-140 

particular, years in which there is a Republican incumbent 
or a popular Republican candidate running either for a 
national or a statewide ticket. 

Judge Phillips : Do you tliink you could summarize the 
conclusions that you have reached in general with respect 
to all of these and simply devote your--

[95] The witness: (Interposing) No. With respect, your 
honor, I could not. The conclusions do, in fact, differ from 
county to county. 

Judge Phillips: Very well. 

By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Do you have any other conclusions about Mecklen­
burg County~ 

A. Yes. In Mecklenburg-and this is, indeed, a general 
conclusion which applies to all of the counties. I indicated 
this conclusion previously for Forsyth. In Mecklenburg 
and Forsyth and in the other districts which I looked at, 
there are no consistent trends over the course of the three 
elections which would suggest that racial polarization is 
declining ov~r time in these counties or in these districts. 

Q. Do you have further conclusions specifically about 
Mecklenburg County~ 

A. No ; I do not. 

Q. Did you examine the 1982 House race in Mecklen­
burg County? 

A. Yes; I did. 

Q. Were you present in Dr. Hofler's deposition where 
he gave an explanation for why candidate Richardson 
lost~ 

A. Yes; I was. 

[96] Q. Do you recall what that explanation was~ 



JA-141 

A. Dr. Hofler indicated as a factor in the defeat of Mr. 
Richardson the fact that he received inadequate support 
from the black community. 

Q. Do you agree with that analysis f 

A. No ; I do not. 

Q. Whynot7 

A. If one looks at the data which is to be found in 
Appendix 3, Table 1, you will see that Mr. Richardson 
received the votes of 88 percent of the black voters and 
the votes of only 29 percent of the white voters-this 
in a county which is over-and lost to a Republican in 
in a county which is overwhelmingly Democrat. 

Given that 88 percent of the black voters voted for him 
and 21 percent of the white majority population of the 
district voted for him, it seems to me rather absurd to 
blame his lack of success on a failure of adequate support 
from the black community. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[98] Q. Do you have any particular conclusions about 
Durham County? 

A. Yes. I have some general conclusions about Durham 
County. In Durham I would conclude that winning the 
Democratic nomination is tantamount to election. And thus 
this means that given the incumbency advantage, [99] it 
is likely that present black incumbents would have a rea­
sonable probability, while certainly not a certainty, of 
re-election. 

However, if these incumbents do not run, the observed 
levels of racial polarization in the primary make very 
problematic the selection of a black candidate to supersede 
a retiring black incumbent. 

• • • • • • • • 



.JA-142 

[100] The witness: To repeat, if I may, briefly and 
clearly, the candidates in 1978, Mr. Spaulding and Mr. 
Clements-one received 10 percent or ten percent of white 
voters voted for one of the-se candidates. 16 percent of 
white voters for the other. 89 percent of black voters voted 
for one of these candidates. 92 percent of black voters 
voted for the other. The data in question are to be found 
on the first page of Appendix 3 to Exhibit 11, Table I. 

Okay. Turning to the 1982 election, since one would 
not wish to be accused of not looking at 1982, 37 percent 
of the white voters voted for the incumbent black candi­
date. And that is to say, 73 percent of the white voters 
didn 't-I am sorry-63 percent of the white voters did 
not vote for the incumbent black candidate in the primary. 
And on the other hand, 90 percent of the black voters 
did vote for the incumbent black candidate, [101] Mr. 
Spaulding. 

By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Dr. Grofman, how many candidates were there in the 
Durham County primary in 1982? 

A. There were four candidates in the Durham primary 
in 1982, two of them black and two of them white. 

Q. How many seats were there? 

A. There were three seats to be filled. 

Q. Does that influence your analysis of that county­
that election? 

A. That makes it even more patently obvious to the 
extent of racial polarization, insofar as the primary elec­
tion is one in which it is mathematically certain that a 
black candidate must be elected. That is to say, there are 
two whites, two blacks, three individuals being selected. 
One of the individuals selected-at least one of the indi­
viduals selected-must be a black. At least one of the in-
dividuals selected must be a white. . 



JA-143 

What this implies is that white voters in such a primary 
might be inclined-knowing that a black candidate is guar­
anteed of election in that primary-might be inclined to 
cast votes for a particular black candidate as opposed to 
another black candidate in order [102] to have the black 
candidate whom they would regard as the lesser of two 
evils elected. Thus, there would be an additional incentive 
for white voters, even those who might not normally vote 
for a black candidate, to vote for a black candidate in an 
election where it was a certainty that one black candidate 
would win and the question was which one it was going 
to be. 

• • • • • • • • 

[147] FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 3:36P.M. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION 3:56P.M. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[159] Q. If I understand that definition as you have 

used it-please correct me if I am wrong. If the white 
population in a particular election district does not vote 
for or [160] support black candidates in the same per­
centage that the black population of that election district 
supports the black candidates, then it is your opinion that 
there is racial bloc voting or racial polarization in that 
election; is that correct? 

A. That is correct. 

Q. Now, with respect to that definition, do you quantify 
at all-do you find that there is in some elections some 
racial bloc voting in other elections a significant amount 
of racial bloc voting or do you quantify it in some other 
·;vay? 



JA-144 

A. There are two ways to distinguish among levels of 
racial bloch voting for the absence or presence of racial 
bloc voting. The first question is is there racial bloc vot­
ingT The answer to that is based on the relationship be­
tween the race of voters and their votes. If there is a con­
sistent relationship between race of the voter and the 
way in which the voter votes, then there is indeed racial 
polarization. 

Having established that initial fact, one may then ask 
is the observed racial polarization at a level which is 
statistically significant? In answering that question, one 
may look at the correlation coefficients. One may look at 
in particular the level of statistical significance of the 
correlation coefficient. 

[161] I have previously testified that I have done so for 
each and every one of the 53 elections I have examined 
and have found each and every one of them to be statis­
tically significant. 

Q. When you say "statistically significant"--

A. (Interposing) I am sorry. I have not finished my 
answer. 

Q. Go ahead. 

A. One may also wish to consider "whether or not there 
is substantively major important substantively significant 
racial polarization.'' There is no consensus as to what 
such a term would mean, though as I have testified, in 
my view a situation in which a majority of the white 
voters are unwilling to vote for any black candidate 
would certainly constitute such substantively significant 
racial polarization . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[175] Q. And specifically candidate two was Charlie 
Grady Houser, now Representative Houser 1 



JA-145 

A. Yes. 

Q. And candidate three was Annie Kennedy! 

A. Yes. 

Q. And they were the two black candidates! 

A. Yes. 

Q. And they were successful m the election; 1s that 
correct! 

A. Yes. 

Q. Now, did you specifically take this election into con­
sideration when you formed your conclusion with respect 
to the 53 elections that you looked at, that in Forsyth 
County and in North Carolina generally, there is sub­
stantially significant racially polarized votingT 

A. Yes ; this is one of the 53 elections I analyzed. 

Q. And so the record is clear, in that election C. G. 
Houser received-and I am only going to use the regres­
sion estimates and not the extreme case estimates-re­
ceived .87 percent-I'm sorry-received 87 percent of the 
black vote and 42 percent of the white vote T 

[176] A. That is correct. 

Q. And Representative Kennedy received 94 percent of 
the black vote and 46 percent of the white vote 1 

A. That is correct. 

Q. And is it correct, Dr. Grofman, to state that your 
conclusion with respect to substantially significant racial 
polarization in voting with respect to Forsyth County as­
sumes race to be the predominant factor in that election T 

A. No; that is not correct. 

Q. What other factors did you consider! 



JA-146 

A. Did I consider in asking the question whether there 
is racial polarization! 

Q. Correct. 

A. The only question which I considered in answering-'­
the only data I considered in answering the question of 
racial polarization is the voting behavior of whites and 
blacks. 

Q. Listen carefully to my question again. With respect 
to your conclusion that there is substantially significant 
racial polarization in voting in Forsyth County, did you 
assume that race was the predominant factor in the elec­
tion T 

A. No, I did not. I can only repeat the answer I gave 
previously. 

[177] Q. Do you know what I mean by "factor"! 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is race a factor in an election T 

A. Yes. 

Q. What other factors did you consider with respect to 
Forsyth County to come to your conclusion which is that 
there is racial polarization-I'm sorry-that there is sub­
stantially significant racial polarization in voting in For­
syth County? 

A. None; that is to say racial polarization as I have 
defined it deals with the voting patterns of the white 
voters versus the voting patterns of black voters. There­
fore, I look at the voting patterns of white voters versus 
the voting patterns of black voters to determine racial 
polarization. 

Q. Then you considered only the factor of voting in 
your conc1.usion T 



JA-147 

A. Yes; since the definition of racial polarization I 
have given is the definition having to do with voting. 

Q. Let me strike that question and re-ask it. You there­
fore considered only the voting patterns that you found 
in the statistical data that you looked at in order to reach 
your conclusion T 

A. Yes; that is correct with the exception of [178] the 
fact that I did have knowledge of which candidates­
which black candidates were incumbents. 

Q. And you knew which ones were black and whiteT 

A. That is correct. 

Q. I believe you testified that-I don't want to change 
the words and I don't remember them specifically so 
please correct me if I am wrong-that you could prac­
tically guarantee that the election results in Forsyth 
County in 1984 with respect to the two blacks would not 
be repeated as they were in '82; is that correctT 

A. That is my belief; yes. 

Q. Can you tell the court any instance in which a 
black incumbent in the General Assembly has lost an 
election when that incumbent sought re-election T 

A. There are no such examples in which-in counties 
in which-there are no such examples. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[181] Q. Now, if you would for me, let's move on to the 
Durham House primary in June of 1982 which is Gingles 
Exhibit 16(D) . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. First of all, Dr. Grofman, what do you conclude 

from this exhibit with respect to the ability of the black 
community to single-shot vote T 



JA-148 

A. The black community in this exhibit did give the 
bulk of its vote to candidate number four. 

Q. Well, the bulk by approximately three to one; 
[182] isn't that right T 

A. That's right. 

Q. Would you agree, Dr. Grofman, that single-shot vot­
ing by the black community in Durham County at least 
from the results of this election shows a high degree o.f 
political sophistication T 

A. It either shows a high degree of political sophistica­
tion or a high degree of racial polarization. 

Q. With respect to the conclusion that you drew, look­
ing at the fact that Clement received 32 percent of the 
black vote and 27 percent of the white vote, Spaulding 
received 90 percent of the black vote and 42 percent of 
the white vote, does this election form part of your con­
clusion that there is substantially significant racially polar­
ized voting in Durham CountyT 

A. Yes. In this election, I have not concluded that there 
is substantially significant racially polarized voting. 

Q. I'm sorry. I didn't hear that. 

A. In this election-the question you specifically asked 
was: Is this one of the elections that I took into account 
in deciding whether or not, in the county as a whole, there 
was substantially significant polarization. The answer to 
that question is, ''Yes.'' 

Unless I be misinterpreted, let me be clear [183] that I 
am not concluding that in this election there was substan­
tially significant racial polarization. There was statistically 
significant racial polarization. There was racial polariza­
tion. 

Mr. Leonard: May I have just a momt:ntT 



JA-149 

(Pause.) 

By Mr. Leonard: 

Q. Now, Dr. Grofman, in that election-the one we were 
referring to-Representative Spaulding who is a black 

. was a winner and Mr. Clements who is black was a loser; 
is that right T 

A. Yes. 

Q. Now go wth me if you would to Gingles exhibit 
16(c) which is-I'm sorry-(E) which is the very next 
exhibit which is the summary sheet on Durham County 
in the House general election of November of 1982 to 
elect three candidates-I'm sorry-to elect three repre­
sentatives and there were three Democrats running and 
one Independent white; is that righU 

A. Yes; that's correct. 

Q. And Representative Spaulding was the black-one 
of the three black Democrats in that election; correct! 

A. Correct. 

Q. Looking again at the column which would be the 
[184] third column, "Regression estimate," Representa­
tive Spaulding received 89 percent of the black vote in 
that election and the next closest candidate who was 
white received 13 percent and the other two white candi­
dates received less than that; correcU 

A. Yes; that is correct. 

Q. Is that an example of single-shot voting by blacks T 

A. Yes. 

Q. And does that election indicate to you that there is 
a high degree of political sophistication by the blacks T 

A. There again, either n high degree of policial sophis­
tication or high racial polarization. 



JA-150 

Q. All right. Please note over in the regression esti­
mate column that Spaulding received 43 percent of the 
white vote. 

A. That is correct. 

Q. Do you conclude-do you consider this election as 
part of the overall information when you came to your 
conclusion that there is substantially significant racial 
polarization in voting in Durham County! 

A. Yes. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[186] Q. Looking at the column, "Regression Esti­
mates," would you draw any conclusion from the fact that. 
Senator Alexander received 87 percent of the vote and 
the next [187] highest vote among the blacks received by 
white candidates was 27 percent, the other three being 
lower, with respect to the political sophistication of blacks 
in Mecklenburg County to single-shot vote 7 

A. Again, blacks were concentrating their ballots on 
the black candidates. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[189] Q. Do you draw a conclusion, Dr. Grofman, from 
those statistics with respect to the sophistication of black 
voters to use single-shot voting! 

A. Yes; black voters are using single-shot or concen­
trated voting-casting fewer ballots than they are entitled 
to cast and concentrating those ballots on black candidates. 
[193] Q. Go with me, please, to Gingles Exhibit 17(D) 
which is the House primary in Wake County in June 
of 1982. 

[194] Mr. Leonard: June 1982, the House primary in 
Wake County. 

By M:r. Leonard: 



JA-151 

Q. There were 15 candidates to-15 Democratic candi-
dates to fill six nomineed positions; is that correct! 

A. Yes; that is correct. 

Q. Only one of those was a black T 

A. Yes; that is correct. 

Q. That is Representative Dan Blue wha IS listed as 
candidate number two on this exhibit! 

A. Yes. 

Q. Who was the highest vote-getter in that election T 

A. Candidate two, Mr. Blue. 

Q. And he received 82 percent of the black vote and 
39 percent of the white voteT 

A. That is correct. 

Q. And from this election do you conclude that there is 
substantially significant racial polarization in voting in 
Wake County! 

A. In Wake County, or in that particular election! 

Q. In that election. 

A. In that election; no, I do not. 

[195] Q. Tell me, what is it statistically that causes you 
to believe that this does not meet your definition of sub­
stantially significant racial polarization in voting! 

A. Substantially significant racial polarization in voting 
as I have defined it occurs when the differences in the 
voting pattern of black voters and white voters are such 
that the racial composition of the electorate will affect the 
election outcome, that is to say, such that if the election 
were held entirely within the members of one community 
as opposed to entirely within the members of the othf·r 



JA-152 

community, the set of candidates who would be elected 
would be different. 

• 

Q. And this is not such an example? 

A. That is correct. 

• • • • • • • 

[203] REDIRECT EXAMINATION 10:27 A.M. 

By Ms. Winner: 

• • 

Q. Dr. Grofman, Mr. Leonard has just taken you through 
some eight individual election contests. How do these eight 
contests compare to the other 45 contests which you have 
analyzed in terms of the degree of racial polarization T 

A. They are among the election contests with the least 
racial polarization and, indeed, they include the only elec­
tion contests in which I have concluded that there is not 
substantially significant racial polarization. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. Drawing your attention to plaintiff's exhibit number 

15(f) and I am going to briefly go over these in [204] the 
same order that Mr. Leonard did. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. Could you point out how white voters ranked the two 

black candidates, Kennedy and Houser, in that election T 

A. Yes; white voters of the eight candidates in that race 
for general election in Forsyth County in November 1982, 
white voters ranked the two black candidates seven and 
eight-last and next to last-for five seats to be filled. 

Q. And how did black voters rank those two candidates 
in that election T 

A. First and second. 

Q. Moving on to plaintiff's exhibit number 16( d) which 
is the Durham County June 1982 primaryT 



JA-153 

A. Yes. 

[205] Q. Was it possible in that election for a black can­
didate not to be elected T 

A. No; it was not. 

Q. Why was that! 

A. There were four candidates in the race. Two of them 
were black. Two of them were white. There were three 
seats to be filled, therefore it is mathematically impossible 
to have elected fewer than one black candidate since there 
were only two white candidates in the race and three seats 
to be filled. 

Q. What is the percentage of white voters who did not 
vote for the black incumbent T 

A. Percentage of white voters who did not vote for the 
black incumbent is 63 percent. 

Q. And what is the percentage of white voters who did 
not vote for each of the white incumbents f 

A. 32 percent and 33 percent. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[214] Q. Now, I believe that yesterday afternoon you 
testified concerning plaintiff's exhibit number 19 on cross­
examination T 

A. Yes; that is correct. 

Q. And my recollection is that you testified or that you 
agreed with Mr. Leonard that Republicans are unable to 
defeat 67 percent of the black Democrats who made it to 
general election; is that rightT 

A. That is correct. 
Q. What is the percentage of white Democrats that Re­

publicans are unable to defeatT 

A. 88.2. 



JA-154 

(21~] Q. And do you consider that to be a significant dif­
ference! 

A. Given the sample size, that is the large number of 
cases looked at, yes. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[216] Q. Now, on cross-examination you calculated the 
average size of a North Carolina house district T 

A. Yes; I did. 

[217] Q. And that average included all the districts in 
the state? 

A. That is correct. 

Q. Does the fact that average size in North Carolina is 
not higher than some or all of those largest averages in 
the country change your opinion about whether Mecklen­
burg County is an unusually large house district! 

A. No, it does not. 

Q. Does it change your opinion about whether Forsyth 
County is an unusually large house district T 

A. No, it does not. 

Q. Does it change your opm10n about whether Wake 
County is an unusually large house district! 

A. No, it does not. 

Q. Does it change your opinion about whether the 
Wilson-Edgecombe-N ash district is an unusually large 
house district T 

A. No, it does not. 

Q. What is that opinion T 

A. That opinion is that all these districts are large house 
districts relative to either the average size of the states 
with the largest average size house districts or, even more 



JA-155 

particularly, with respect to North Carolina since North 
Carolina four, five, six and eight are higher than 2.91, the 
figure calculated for [218] North Carolina. 

Q. And drawing your attention to the senate, does the 
fact that North Carolina's average senate district--

Judge Phillips: (Interposing) Why don't you shortcut 
that and ask him the same question. This is just nails in 
the coffin. All of this is in the record and you are simply 
trying to emphasize that his conclusion is unchanged. 

By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Is your conclusion unchanged about the Mecklenburg­
Cabarrus senate district T 

A. It is not; it is both unchanged and reinforced since 
a within North Carolina comparison strengthens the point 
made yesterday. 

• • • • • • • • • • 

[219] EXAMINATION 

By Judge Dupree : 

Q. I would like to ask Dr. Grofman if the study of the 
kind you have made and on which you have based the con­
clusions given us assumes that all candidates, regardless 
of race, are equally qualified in al] of these elections T 

A. It makes no assumptions whatsoever about relative 
qualifications of candidates since those, I believe, that judg­
ment should be made by voters. 

Q. How can you be sure that the election results do not 
reflect judgment of the voters as to the relative qualifica­
tions of the candidates and not necessarily their racial 
preferences? 

A. I cannot read the minds of the voters, but when black 
voters consistently rank black candidates one or two in 



JA-156 

their preference ordering and white voters consistently 
rank black candidates at the bottom of their preference 
ordering in a society which has a history of racial discrimi­
nation and in which there~ is clear racial polarization, it 
seems to me a plausible, indeed, the most plausible explana­
tion is that race is what is determining the elections. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[224] (VVhereupon 

Harry Watson 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 11:01 A.M. 

By Ms. Winner: 

• • • • • • 
[276] Q. VVho won that election f 

A. Jesse Helms. 

• • • • 

Q. VVhat do you conclude about racial involvement in 
politics during this time period according to that election f 

A. That racial appeals were still a very important 
[277] part of the political climate of the state; that they 
could be used and were used by leading white candidates 
and that the political power of blacks was still so weak 
that they could not defeat candidates who took these kinds 
of positions . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[278] Q. Have you also examined the congressional race 
for the second congressional district that happened in 
1972T 

A. Yes. 

Q. VVho were the candidates in that race T 



JA-157 

A. In the Democratic primary the candidates were Rich­
ard L. Fountain and Howard Lee. 

Q. And have you examined the election occurring in that 
race by countyT 

A. Yes. 

Q. Where did you obtain those returns f 

A. I obtained them from the Durham Morning Herald 
coverage of the election after it was over. 

Q. Is that a source on which historians normally relyT 

A. Yes. 

Q. What did you conclude from that analysis of that 
election f Before that, what race is Mr. Lee f 

A. He is black. 

Q. And what race is Mr. Fountain T 

A. He is white. 

Q. And now what did you conclude from your analysis 
[279] of that election 'I 

A. I compared the percent voting for Lee with the per­
cent of non-white registered voters in each of the counties. 
There are 12 countieE in the District. With the exception 
of Mr. Lee's home county of Orange County, the propor­
tion voting for Lee did not differ from the proportion of 
non-white registered voters by more than nine percent and 
usually it was much, much closer than that-three per­
cent, four percent. 

Q. What were the counties in that district at that time f 

A. Caswell, Edgecombe, Franklin, Granville, Hanfax, 
Nash, Northampton, Orange, Person, Vance, Warren and 
Wilson. 



JA-158 

Q. In paticular, what were the results that you found in 
Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash counties 1 

A. In Edgecombe, the percent for Lee was 41.2; the 
percent of non-white registered voters was 35.6. 

In Nash, the percent for Lee was 33.9; the percent of 
none-white registered voters was 25.7. 

In Wilson, the percent for Lee was 32.4 and the percent 
of non-white registered voters was 24.7. 

• 

Q. And what about in Halifax and Northampton counties 1 

A. Sorry. In Halifax, the percent for Lee was [280] 

• • • • • • • • • 
[281] Q. What were the results of your study with regard 
to voter registration T 

A. Well, the percent of black voters registered in 1960 
was 39.1 percent. The percent of white voters was 92.1 
percent. For whites, that was the highest [282] proportion 
in the south. For blacks, it was not the highest proportion 
in the south . 

• • • • • • • • • 
[284] By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Do you have before you exhibit number 41 T 

A. Yes. 

(Plaintiff exhibit 41 was marked for identification.) 

Q. What is that! 

• 

A. This is a graph of the number of black officials elected 
in North Carolina between 1970 and 1981. 

Q. What do you conclude from that graph T 

A. Well, the number of black elected officials in 1970 
was very, very small. The figures here show that it was 
62, I believe. 



JA-159 

Over the next three years, it more than doubled [285] and 
then by 1975 it had quadrupled to something over 200 so 
that between 1970 and 1975, the number of black elected 
officials in North Carolina increased dramatically. 

Thereafter, growth almost stopped except for a jump 
between 1977 and 1978. The curve is almost flat thereafter. 

Q. And what does that tell you about the extent of elec­
tion of blacks in North Carolina T 

A. It is still very, very low. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[307] Q. Professor Watson, what is your overall conclu­
sion about the role of race in North Carolina politics dur­
ing the first 75 years of the century! 

A. It has been extremely important throughout that 
period. Whites continued to be very fearful of the exercise 
of political power by blacks and politicians [308] found 
that they could appeal to those white fears and win elec­
tions on the basis of those appeals. They found indeed that 
such appeals were essential to their successs. 

Blacks found that they did not have sufficient political 
power to counter those appeals or to punish, in effect, the 
officeholders or politicians who made them. 

Q. What is your overall conclusion about participation 
of black people in the political process in this century? 

A. Since disfranchisement, it has been very, very low 
and it has increased only as a result of the legislative and 
political court battles, struggles m Congress and in the 
neighborhoods. 

• • • • • • • • • 



JA-160 

[325] (VVhereupon 

Paul Luebke 

was called as a witness, . duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 3:01 P.M. 

By Ms. Guinier: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[344i] '' ... Helping to forge city policies of divergent and 

sometimes controversial views and ensure public sup­
port for them.'' 

(Pause.) 

They go on to say that Mr. Knox is best equipped for that. 

It is my professional judgment that the Charlotte Ob­
server concluded that a black person could not bring to­
gether black and white communities, that you must be white 
to bring together black and white communities, an extraor­
dinary conclusion in that they have acknowledged that the 
black candidate was, in fact, more qualified on the merits. 

Judge Phillips: Are you testifying that you think that 
that expression of editorial opinion communicates an idea 
to voters that has racial significance T 

The Witness : Yes, sir. 

Judge Phillips: That is your testimony! 

The Witness: Yes, sir. 

By Ms. Guinier :. 

Q. I direct your attention now to plaintiff's exhibit 47 
and ask you to describe that. 

A. This is an ad by the Knox campaign. The line to 
which I draw the court's attention is at the bottom of the 
text, 



JA-161 

[345] ". . . We urge you to vote for a mayor who is 
concerned for the total city, not just a few selected 
areas.'' 

These are sophisticated telegrams, I acknowledge, but they 
are codes that say, ''Harvey Gantt, a black person, could 
only represent a few selected black areas whereas Eddy 
Knox, a white man, can represent the total city." 

Q. I ask you to describe plaintiff's exhibit 48. 

A. 48 is another Knox campaign ad which has brought 
together a number of statements including the Charlotte 
Observer editorial which I alluded to a few minutes ago. 
What we see in this advertisement is that in example after 
example, the emphasis is upon all sections of the city, for 
example, the Charlotte Weekly Sunday, the third reference 
that Eddy Knox has a reputation in all sections of the city. 

Quoting from former mayors of Charlotte, the ad goes 
on, 

''. . . Eddy Knox will serve all the people of Char­
lotte.'' 

Editorial, ''Knox can unify this city.'' 

Charlotte Weekly Swnday-I 'm sorry. I've got two pages 
and I've repeated. 

Former city council members and city council commis­
sioners write, 

[346] " ... He has a compassion for all our citizens," 

Again, a sophisticated telegraph message, but the idea that 
to support all citizens, one must be a white. 

Judge Dupree : Doesn't every candidate for public office 
at any level in the governmental structure always make 
that claim? 



JA-162 

The Witness: Sir, I think not. I think that the emphasis 
on selected areas juxtaposed to all the city is a particular 
phenomenon of racial politics. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[350] Q. I direct your attention to plaintiff's exhibit 50. 
Do you have a copy of that in front of you T 

A. Yes. 

(Plaintiff exhibit 50 was marked for identification.) 

Q. Can you identify that document, pleasef 

A. Yes; this is a document from the Durham Morning 
Herald published in the month before the May, 1980 Demo­
cractic primary in which the newspaper reporter summar­
izes efforts to elect an all-white Durham County board of 
commissioners as well as an all-white Durham County 
board of education. 

The article takes note of the fact that the all-white elec­
toral attempt was in the wake of a successful all-white 
election slate elected for city council elections in November 
of 1979. This is noted in the third column of the article. 

[351] In that election, the "code," the telegraphed issue 
was progress and the issue was a low-income black com­
munity which was fighting the extension of a highway. 
This article links then both the November 1979 successful 
attempt to elect an all-white slate as well as a proposed 
all-white slate for May, 1980 . 

• • • • • • • • • 
[352] Ms. Guinier: That is correct, your honor. 

By Ms. Guinier: 

Q. May I direct your attention to plaintiff's exhibit 51 
and ask if you can identify thatT 

(Plaintiff's exhibit 51 was marked for identification.) 



JA-163 

A. It is an advertisement which appeared in the Durham 
M or'Yiling Herald on May 4, 1980, on the eve of the May 
1980 primary election. 

Q. Is this one of the research materials that you have 
used in forming your conclusion 1 

A. Yes ; it is a campaign advertisement. 

Q. And could yon describe this particular document for 
us? 

A. This is a document which shows a picture of :five 
white members of the all-white slate alluded to previously 
and urges people to vote for these five candidates. 

Q. And what conclusions do yon draw from this particu­
lar document? 

A. This is not particularly sophisticated. It is merely 
saying-it is showing the pictures of five white men and 
saying, if yon wish to vote white here is your slate. 

[353] Q. Did you also analyze any--

Judge Britt: Just a moment. I want to ask a question. 
Do I take it that you feel that the only way that racial 
telegraphing could be avoided would be to eliminate photo­
graphs from political ads? 

The Witness: Sir, I examine these elections in a political 
context. I do not mean to suggest that every time a picture 
of a white candidate appears that that is racial appeal and 
therefore I do not suggest as a remedy that pictures must 
be banned from political campaigns. But in the context of 
Durham County politics for May 1980, my analysis is that 
the use or purpose of placing :five white men's picture in 
the paper was to make a racial appeal to white voters. 

Judge Britt: You may proceed. 

Ms. Guinier: Thank you, your honor. 

By Ms. Guinier : 



JA-164 

Q. Did your analysis of plaintiff's exhibit 51 also include 
an analysis of the language that was used in that particular 
advertisement T 

A. Yes; at the bottom of the ad is a reference to "con­
tinued progress in Durham County." This refers to, for 
those who are familiar with the context of Durham County 
politics, the use of progress as the code word in the N ovem­
ber 1970 city council elections which I referred [354] to 
previously. So the words, "continued progress-" 

Q. (Interposing) What was the date of that election! 

A. November 1979. 

Q. I'm sorry. Would you repeat thaU 

A. November of 1979, and May 1980. "Continued prog­
ress," my interpretation of that is to remind voters of the 
issues in 1979-fall of 1979 . 

• • • • • • • • • 
[360] Q. Could you identify plaintiff's exhibit 52 T 

A. Yes, rna 'am; this is the letter which was mailed over 
the signature of candidate Valentine to "neighbors" in 
Wilson, Halifax, Nash and Edgecombe counties. The im­
portant points from the standpoint of racial telegraphing 
are at the bottom of the page, page one, final paragraph. 

The seemingly well-organized block vote-so much so, 
the point here, block is spelled correctly, b-1-o-c, the bloc 
vote, but for purposes of this letter, the word bloc has been 
misspelled b-1-o-c-k so that any kind of casual reading of 
this letter could, in fact, be seen as the well-organized 
black vote. That is the meaning of part one of that sentence . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[361] Judge Phillips: Do you have an opinion based upon 
your expertise as to any significance as bearing upon racial 
appeals of any of the material in plaintiff's exhibit 52! 



JA-165 

The Witness: Yes, sir. 

Judge Phillips: What is itT 

The Witness: If you and your white friends don't vote 
on July 27, my opponent's black vote will decide the elec­
tion for you. 

Judge Phillips: What particular parts of that exhibit do 
you point to that are supporting that opinionT 

[362] The Witness: I point to the top of page two of 
exhibit 52, and to the final paragraph on page one . 

• • • • • • • • • 
[365] By Ms. Guinier: 

Q. You have described a letter sent out by the Valentine 
for Congress campaign entitled "Dear Neighbor." Do you 
also have the letter which is attached to plaintiff's exhibit 
52 whieh was sent out by the Valentine for Congress cam­
paign that is addressed, "Dear Fellow Democrats"T 

A. Yes, I do. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[366] Judge Phillips: Will you identify it by reference 
to the exhibitT 

The Witness: Yes; I have it as number 52(b). 

" ... Dear Fellow Democrat: Tuesday, July 27 is 
an important date for Democrats in Durham County." 

The final two paragraphs of the first page of that exhibit, 
read: 

" ... Our polls indicate that the same well-organized 
block vote which was so obvious and influential in the 
first primary will turn out agarin on July 27. My oppo­
nent will again be busing his supporters to the polling 
places in record numbers. If you and your friends 
don't vote on July 27, my opponent's block vote will 
decide the election for you.'' 



JA-166 

By Ms. Guinier: 

Q. Dr. Luebke, can you interpret those particular pro­
tions that you have just read T 

Judge Phillips : Can you give an opinion as to their 
capacity to convey a racial appeal in the context! 

[367] The Witness: Yes; I can give an opinion. 

By Ms. Guinier: 

Q. Would you, please T 

A. Yes. My opinion is that this is urging white voters to 
take note of black voters' prior participation in the :first 
primary and that if you and your white friends don't vote 
on July 27, my opponent's black bloc vote will decide the 
election for you. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[385] Judge Phillips: (Interposing) Try to respond to 
the question. What, in your opinion1 in this particular ex­
hibit constitutes a racial appeal T 

The Witness: In context, sir, the picture and the three 
final sentences of the advertisement. 

By Ms. Guinier: 

Q. Can you describe the picture T 

[386] A. Yes. The picture is of Governor Hunt and Rev­
erend Jesse Jackson meeting in the executive mansion on 
March 11, 1983-on March 11th. 

Q. Can you or would you please read the three sentences 
that in your opinion are a racial appeal T 

A. " ... We must register at least 200,000 black voters 
in North Carolina in the next two motnhs (Jesse Jackson). 
Governor James B. Hunt, Jr. wants the state board of 
elections to boost minority voter registration in North 
Carolina,'' 



JA-167 

From the Chapel Hill newspaper. 

Third, the text of the ad: 

'' . . . Ask yourself, 'is this a proper use of taxpayers' 
funds¥'" 

Q. Why, in your opinion, is the picture a racial appeal f 

A. It is a racial appeal because it is drawing to the 
attention of the public that an opponent or likely opponent 
has a controversial black leader in his office. 

Q. In your opinion, what about the three sentences that 
you read is a racial appeal T 

A. The three sentences which I read draw attention to 
the fact that black voters are being registered. And it 
questions whether or not it is legitimate for a [387] Gover­
nor to support the voter registration of blacks . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. Can you compare the cartoons in plaintiffs ' exhibits 

22 and 23 with the political advertisement in plaintiffs' 
exhibit 53 (c) f 

A. Yes . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[388] The Witness : I compare exhibits 22 and 23 and 
53(c) and see in the two what I refer to as continuity in 
racial politics. 

By Ms. Guinier: 

Q. What do you mean by that T 

A. By "continuity," I mean that themes which were 
extremely overt in exhibits 22 and 23, which I recall to be 
1898, are subtl~more subtle-in 1983. And yet the content 
of the exhibit shows similarities. . 

That is, the question is being raise•l whether it is legiti­
mate for a Governor who is white to be meeting with a 



JA-168 

political leader-controversial political leader-who 1s 
black. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[ 402] Q. The significance in relation to the participation 
of blacks and whites in the State of North Carolina T 

A. There is a truism--

Judge Phillips: (Interposing) No; no. Just answer her 
question, Mr. Witness, if you will. It will go along much 
better. 

The Witness: Thank you. Could you repeat the question T 

By Ms. Guinier: 

Q. Yes. What is the significance between the data that 
you have examined regarding the demographic status of 
blacks and whites in the State of North Carolina and the 
participation by blacks and whites in the political process 
in this state T 

A. The significance is that for all the socioeconomic 
measures which I have reviewed, the socioeconomic status 
of blacks is lower than the socioeconomic status of whites. 

Q. What is the significance of that to the participation 
by blacks and whites in the political process in North 
Carolina! 

A. The significance of that is that a fundamental finding 
of political sociology for the United States is that the 
lower one's socioeconomic status the less [ 403] likely one 
is to participate in the political process . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[412] CROSS-EXAMINATION 9:55A.M. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[418] Q. Is it your testimony, Dr. Luebke, that two peo­
ple looking at a political ad which opposes the busing of 



JA-169 

school children-that no person could draw a reasonable 
inference that that is not a racial appeal! 

A. I have testified about racial appeal in the context of 
the definition which I use in my work. And your question 
is too vague for me because I don't have any examples to 
comment as to whether or not it is a racial appeal. 

Q. You have testified that you used quantitative method- . 
ologies in your professional experience! 

A. Uh-huh. 

Q. Tell the Court what quantitative methodologies you 
used in coming to your opinion with respect to the racial 
appeals in the various campaigns that you have testified toT 

A. The racial appeals which I have testified about are 
based on case study analysis. Those are not quantitative 
studies. 

Q. Have you interviewed specific individuals to deter­
mine the impact of the claimed racial appeal in those 
elections! 

[ 419] A. I have not relied on my interviews with anyone 
to draw my conclusions concerning specific documents 
which I have been discussing. 

Q. So the ans,.ver to my question is ''no'' 1 

A. Yes-yes, no. 

Q. Yes, the answer to my question is ''no'' ; is that 
correct! 

A. I will be 100 percent sure if you repeat that question. 
Then I will try to give you that straight "yes-no" that 
you are asking for. 

Q. Dr. Luebke, is the answer to the question I pro­
pounded to you "yes" or "no"! 



JA-170 

A. But I don't remember that question to which you 
want a "yes-no" answer. 

Q. Well, viewing the state of the record, I will leave that 
question where it is. 

(Pause.) 

Dr. Luebke, is it fair political comment for one candidate 
running for a public office to lay out in a political ad his 
background and political experience versus his opponent's! 

A. Yes. 

Q. And if he compares the public service of the two can­
didates, is that fair comment? · 

A. Yes. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[ 422] Q. Do those organizations or groups ordinarily put 
out a piece of literature in which they carry the pictures 
and some information about the slate they are supporting! 

A. Yes. It is common. 

Q. And is there anything in exhibit 51, which is the ad 
in Durham County for the county board of commissioners 
of the May 6, 1980, election, other than the pictures ot the 
five candidates that you found to be racially telegraphing 
or racial telegraphing! 

A. Yes. 

Q. What else! 

A. Based on my experience as a political sociologist re­
ferring to-

Q. (Interposing) We know what your experience is. Just 
tell me what else in the ad is a racial telegraph other than 
the pictures of the candidates, please. 



JA-171 

A. Yes. "Vote for continued progress in Durham Coun­
ty" had meaning in the context of 1970-1980 political con­
text of Durham County. 

Q. Were any of these candidates incumbents t 

A. Yes. 

Q. It is not likely that a candidate for public office seek­
ing re-election would use the terminology [ 423] "continue 
your progress by supporting me'' t 

A. In Durham County, the appearance of this ad on 
May 4, 1980, is no accident. 

Q. Dr. Luebke, I ask you: Is it not usual in politics for 
an incumbent seeking re-election to use terminology asking 
the electorate to support him for continued progress T 

A. Yes. The word "progress" can be used. 

Q. Now, do you know who Bill Bell is T 

A. Yes. 

Q. Who is he! 

A. He is the chairman of the county commissioners in 
Durham County. 

Q. The chairman of the county board of commissioners 
in Durham County! 

A. Yes. 

Q. And when was he elected last T 

A. He was last elected in 1982. 

Q. And when was he elected before thatt 

A. I believe Mr. Bell was first elected in 1972. 

Q. Was he elected in the election of 1980! 

A. Hewas. 



JA-172 

Q. Do you know Eleanor SpauldingT 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Is she a member of the county board of [ 424] com-
missioners of Durham CountyT 

A. She is. 

Q. Was she elected or re-elected in the election in 1980! 

A. She was. 

Q. Is it correct, Doctor Luebke, that in the election in 
which this ad was used as one of the tools for this slate 
that there were two black people elected to the county 
board of commissioners in Durham County! 

A. Yes. 

Judge Britt: What is your answer? 

The witness : Yes. 

Judge Britt: You have got to speak out so the reporter 
can get it down, Mr. Witness. 

The witness: I am sorry, sir-yes. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

Q. Now, how does one go about getting elected chairman 
of the county board in Durham County! 

A. It is a vote of the five incumbent commissioners when 
they convene the new county commission. 

Q. So if there is a contest, the winner has to have at 
least three votes; is that right T 

A. That is right. 

Q. And if Mr. Bell is the chairman of the county board, 
he had to have at least three votes to become [425] chair­
man; correct T 

A. That is correct. 



JA-173 

Q. Now, what is the mathematical possibility that he 
could have been elected chairman of the county board of 
Durham County without white support! 

A. Which question are you asking, sir-concerning the 
election or concerning his election of county commission­
to the chair of the county commission 1 Those are two 
separate votes. One is a vote of the county commission. 
One is a vote of the people. 

Q. What is the mathematical possrbility, Dr. Luebke, 
that Mr. Bill Bell could have been elected chairman of the 
county board of supervisors in Durham County without 
white support in the election for chairman 1 

A. Zero. 

Mr. Leonard: That is all I have . 

• • • • • • • • • 
REDIRECT EXAMINATION 10:16 A.M . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[ 426] By Ms. Guinier: 

Q. Is it usual for a candidate to put a picture of his 
opponent in his own political advertisement¥ 

A. It is highly unusual. It represents free publicity un­
der normal circumstances. 

Q. Now, directing your attention back to plaintiffs' Ex­
hibit 51 T 

A. Yes. 

Q. What was the significance in your opinion to the use 
of the word "progress" in that political advertisement! 

A. ''Continued progress'' is a statement in the context 
of the November 1979 city council election in which an 
all-white slate was elected to the Durham city council. The 
term "progress" was used consistently in [4271] that cam-



JA-174 

paign for public office-the city council campaign. And 
"continued progress" is a reference to that success-that 
electoral success by that all-white slate. 

• • • .. • • • • • • 
Phyllis D. Lynch 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 10:20 A.M. 

By Ms. Guinier : 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[ 429] Q. Are you involved in electoral politics in Char­
lotte-Mecklenburg! 

A. lam. 

Q. In what capacity T 

A. I am chairman of the Mecklenburg County Board of 
Elections. And I also serve as a member of the black polit­
ical caucus and belong to the caucus' issues and candidates 
committee. 

• 

Q. How long have you been involved in electoral politics! 

A. I have been involved approximately 18 years. 

Q. When did you first register to vote T 

A. When I was-in 1968 . 

• • • • • • • • • 
[431] Q. Now, have you encountered any problems as a 
member of the black political caucus or in your involve­
ment in electoral politics in getting out the black vote! 

A. Yes. 

Q. What are those problems T 



JA-175 

[ 432] A. Traditionally, the black community has not been 
encouraged to participate in the electoral process. Many 
people still feel that literacy test, poll tax-things that 
have been removed-are still in existence. And it is a 
very slow process to try to educate people that there need 
not be a fear of using the voting machine or going down 
to vote. 

We encounter as we go to talk to individuals in various 
places about registration that older people tend to feel 
that they had in prior years been told by the whites that 
they work for that there was really no need to take an 
active involvement in local government; that they would 
take care of that for them; anything they needed, to con­
tact them. 

Many people feel that if the husband is registered to 
vote, the wife does not need to register to vote; and that 
their children should stay in their place and not try to 
cause any trouble. And there has been resistance by blacks 
to vote because they felt threatened in some degree. 

Q. When you say "threatened," what do you meanT 

A. Well, you weren't encouraged to participate. And to 
some people it is looked at that if you go out and try to get 
people elected to office, that they are not going to respond 
to you anyway if they are white; and if [ 433] they are 
black, that they are going to going to have conformed to 
the degree that they don't relate to you anyway. 

Q. You said that a low to medium number of whites 
would vote for a black candidate. What following does a 
black candidate need to get those white supporters 1 

A. The issues and candidates committee has looked at 
this very closely because everyone looks for success. Suc­
cess in politics is viewed as actually a victory in getting 
people elected. So in looJring at this and inquiring, we 
have found that whites tend to want blacks to be the pro-



JA-176 

fessions, high echelon, have high visibility. And that is 
very difficult to acquire. 

Blacks have not been in- traditional leadership roles in 
the community. So we have not had an opportunity to dem­
onstrate our ability to provide the kind of leadership that 
people feel that they want to vote for a person for . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[ 435] Q. In your opinion, how many times does a black 
candidate have to run before they are elected? 

A. Unless it is a very unusual circumstance or a person 
who has been extremely visible and successful in some 
capacity, generally at least two times. 

Q. Is this also true of a white candidate who is running 
for the state house or state senate T 

A. No. There have been white candidates who have at 
their first try been able to make it that would have had 
fairly equal credentials to blacks who have tried at the 
same time. 

Q. Have those blacks with the same credentials wonT 

A. No. They have not won. 

Q. How, in your experience, is a black candidate received 
in the white community! 

A. Very seldom. 

Q. What do you mean by that? 

A. Well, I mean that the opportunity-the city of [436] 
Charlotte, as can be seen by the exhibit that you had me 
point to originally, shows that the black community is still 
isolated. We are a progressive city working toward trying 
to improve that. But at this time, however, we still have 
approximately 90-plus percent of the black community re­
siding on the west side of town. 



JA-177 

So it is very difficult if you live on one side of town, go 
to a black church, socialize at a black club, to be invited 
over to the white side of town where the white church is, 
the white clubs, et cetera; so that it is very seldom. 

Q. Are there any other problems that a black candidate 
has in getting exposure in the white communityT 

A. Yes. The mere fact that, as I mentioned a minute ago, 
we are still somewhat a-the mere fact that I can sit here 
and say that there is a white side of town and a black side 
of town shows that there are some problems that are re­
lated specifically to race. 

Therefore, individuals who are black and who are seek­
ing exposure to get elected have to try to :figure out how 
to get invited to various affairs in the white community, 
have to :figure out how they can convince the white constit­
uent that they are indeed capable of providing leadership. 

Generally, there are no blacks that I know of [ 437] who 
have headed United Way campaign drives, airport bonds 
or things of this nature that would give them the exposure 
that the white community normally looks at from the stand­
point of leadership. Most whites who are running for office 
have been heads of different committees or have very active 
roles in leadership positions, demonstrating therefore to 
the community that they have the ability to sit on these 
elective bodies, make decisions and govern affairs. 

It is difficult for blacks to demonstrate that when they 
have not had the opportunity to have the same positions 
in the community. 

Q. Is there any problem in terms of raising moneyT 

A. There will be tremendous problems with raising 
money. This is one of the things that when we counsel 
blacks from the caucus' committee that we emphasize-that 
it will take a great deal of money and time and a comm£t­
ment on the candidate's part-the prospective candidate's 



JA-178 

part-to make several sacrifices and more than likely con­
tributing money on their own. 

Q. Is the problem limited to just raising money7 

A. No. Not only do you have to raise money, but you 
have to figure out U1e wisest way to expend that money 
from the standpoint of using effective publicity [ 438] about 
your candidacy and being able to get out into the respec­
tive community with your concerns. 

Q. Can you give me an example of what you are talking 
about in terms of trying to figure out the wisest way to 
spend the money? 

A. An example would be that in Dr. Bertha Maxwell's 
campaign, she was running for the first female-black 
female- to run for the North Carolina State House of 
Representatives. In the formulation of her strategy the 
idea was to use her as a test case to see whether or not we 
could bring together what was viewed as very successful 
in anybody's campaign-in talking with white public rela­
tions firms, what would she need to remove these barriers. 

We sought her to run. She had experience from the 
standpoint of being visible in the community, having worked 
with the school system, having been a professor at the 
University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Having the 
title of "doctor" to help legitimize her credentials. 

We raised with her assistance well over $20,000 that was 
used primarily to purchase large billboards to be put in 
the white community, the downtown community; to buy 
radio and newspaper advertisements; to present her as a 
first-class candidate. 

[440] FURTHER PROCEEDINGS 10:55 A.M . 

• • • • • • • • • 
Q. What was the outcome of Dr. Maxwell's candidacy? 



JA-179 

[441] A. Dr. Maxwell was victorious in the primary and 
defeated in the general election. 

Q. What year was thatT 

A. 1980-I am sorry-this past election, which was 1982 
or 1981, whenever the last general election. This is 1983. 
So it would probably be in 1981, I guess. 

Q. What has been your experience in getting white poli­
ticians to support thhe candidacy of a blackT 

A. It has been difficult over the years in trying to get 
white politicians to support black candidates. 

Q. In your experience with the issues and candidates 
committee, do you have a particular function 1 

A. Yes. I help to invite white candidates in and set up 
appointments for them to speak with the entire body. 

Q. What has been your experience in attempting to forge 
coalitions with white politicians T 

A. The coalitions have not been successful, because a 
number of blacks that we have tried to run have not won. 

Q. Why have the blacks that you have tried to elect 
not wonT 

A. They did not get white votes. 

Q. Are there any other factors that contribute to the 
difficulty in getting blacks elected to office in [ 442] Meck­
lenburg County in addition to those that you mentioned 1 

A. The biggest factor is getting exposure and convincing 
the white voter that there is nothing to fear from having 
blacks in elective office. 

Q. Is there any difficulty in creating a pool of available 
or willing candidates~ 

A. There is an awful lot of difficulty because, as I men­
tioned earlier, success is the factor through which you can 



JA-180 

get people encouraged to run. When black candidates­
when we are unable to point out to black candidates a num­
ber of victories, then they don't want to necessarily take 
the time. 

It is difficult because, number one, you have to identify 
a black who can financially go to serve in these respective 
offices. Because of the economic situations, many blacks 
are not in positions-they are not in jobs that they can be 
released from those jobs in order to serve. 

Because the positions in North Carolina as a whole pay 
really just expenses and a very small amount of money to 
those people who serve, you would have to be fairly well 
off to offer yourself as a candidate. Many blacks, not being 
in that situation-we have to figure out a way that they 
can be released from the positions [ 443] they hold and can 
financially subsidize their income. 

We also have to, because we have not had the experience 
of running different campaigns, get people in that can help 
them from that standpoint. 

Q. What about encouraging people who have sought of­
fice and have been defeated? 

A. Well, after you have run two or three times and have 
not won, you sort of lose your desire to serve. 

Q. Do you have any particular examples that you can 
point to1 

A. Dr. Bertha Maxwell will not run again. Jim Ross, 
who was a candidate for the House, will not run again. 
There are a number of other people who have indicated 
that they would not run for those reasons; or in the process 
of trying to win have gone to their heavenly father. 

Q. Now, when you say they have indicated that they 
would not run for those reasons, what reasons are you 
referring to 1 



JA-181 

A. ·The difficulty in attracting the white vote; the difficul­
ty in raising money; the difficulty in projecting yourself 
to be the type of individual that is acceptable, regardless of 
the credentials that you have and the status that you have 
tried to form. Getting out the black vote is a tremendous 

_ effort-getting people to register to vote and then follow 
up with that and actually vote . 

• • • • • • • • • 
[ 445] Q. Are these difficulties that you describe for blacks 
running for city and county races the same as for blacks 
running for the State House or the State Senate¥ 

A. It appears that it is more difficult to get blacks elected 
at the State House and Senate level than it is to get them 
elected at the local school board, city council and county 
commission level. 

Q. Why is thatt 

A. First of all, it is a countywide or districtwide elec­
tion. If you are running for the State Senate, you must 
not only capture the votes in Mecklenburg County, but you 
then must go into another county to capture-that sena­
torial district is divided. 

If you run for the State House, then you must not only 
win the city-you have to win the city and the county votes. 
An example would be in Dr. MaxwelPs case, she won enough 
votes in the city. She lost by same 2,000 votes in the county 
because it is very difficult the way the county is laid out. 
As you can see, it is rather densely populated. So a person 
who must go out in those areas must either have white con­
tacts-which the population is a larger white population 
than is concentrated in the city. 

So you must have contacts out in those areas. [ 446] And 
the rural population and their attitudes tend to be a little 
bit different than the urban area. 



JA-182 

Q. Given these problems, what must the black communi­
ty do to elect a candidate to represent their interest at the 
State House and State Senate level 1 

A. They have got to get more black votes to help coun­
teract the fact that they can't get white votes. 

Q. In your opinion, it is important to elect a black per-
son to represent the black community? 

A. I think it is. 

Q. Why is thaU 

A. First of all, I think that it helps from the standpoint 
of making people feel that they have got representation. 
Someone there is going to understand their issues and re­
late back to it. 

When you look at a state race with the candidates going 
to Raleigh, coming back only on the weekend, a person­
a constituent-not living in the white community may never 
see their elected official. A person living in the black com­
munity would have to come back to the black community. 
And therefore, the likelihood of them being able to relate 
to the concerns of the people and being able to even get in 
touch with them is going to be greater. 

We live in Mecklenburg County approximately [ 447] 
three hours from Raleigh. So the likelihood of blacks being 
able to go down to Raleigh during the course of the legis­
lature is very thin. 

Q. Now, looking again at plaintiffs' exhibit-I believe it 
is 4(A)-can you identify the area in which most of the 
white elected officials live in Mecklenburg County1 If you 
want to approach the map if you can't read it--

Judge Phillips: (Interposing) What repreF~entatives are 
you asking her to locate? 

Ms. Guinier : The State House. 



JA-183 

By Ms. Guinier: 

Q. Just give the name of the area. 

A. The majority of the delegation, all white, would tend 
to live in the southeast section of the city of Charlotte, 
known as the Silk Stocking or Myers Park area . 

• • • • • • • • • • 

[449] CROSS-EXAMINATION 11:08 A.M. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

Q. Ms. Lynch, as chairman of the-what is it-the issues 
and candidates committee of the political black caucus for 
Mecklenburg County? 

A. No. I serve as a member of that committee. I am not 
the chairman of that committee. 

Q. Do you from time to time call the Mecklenburg legis­
lative delegation to meetings in Charlotte on the weekends 
or when the legislature is not in session? 

A. I have had occasion to do that. Yes. 

Q. Do you know Representative Louise Brennan T 

A. Ido. 

Q. Do you know what her phone number is T 

A. I can find it, if that is what you mean. 

Q. How about the rest of the delegation? Did you have 
any trouble finding their phone numbers? 

A. No. As chairman of the bpard of elections, we put 
out a list that has all those numbers on it. So I could 
find it. 

Q. So you don't have any difficulty getting in touch with 
these members of the House T 



JA-184 

A. It is my role to get in touch with them. .So I don't 
have any difficulty. 

[ 450] Q. Does the political black caucus of Mecklenburg 
County have any problem getting in touch with these legis­
lators! 

A. From the standpoint of knowing the phone numbers 
and being able to call them-no. 

Q. Have they responded when you asked them to come 
to meetings of the black political caucus T 

Ms. Winner: We object to-

Judge Phillips : (Interposing) Overruled. 

The witness : We have not been able to get them to the 
degree that we would feel comfortable. We have had some 
who are more responsive than others. Yes. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

Q. Has Representative Brennan been responsive T 

A. Yes. 

Q. Tell us, in your opinion, of the eight members cur­
rently serving from the Mecklenburg delegation who you 
feel has been responsive to the black political caucus T 

Ms. Winner: Your honor, can we have a standing objec­
tion to the relevancy of questions on responsiveness so 
that we don't have to keep interrupting the testimony. 

Judge Phillips : Well, why don't you state [ 451] the basis T 
Do you take the position that there is no relevance to issues 
of responsiveness because there is a footnote in the report 
that says that unresponsiveness is sought to be proven and 
responsiveness can be shown in rebuttal T Is that the basis 
of your objection 1 

Ms. Winner : That is the general basis of the opinion. 
I think the Senate report makes clear that it is the objec-



JA-185 

tive rather than the more subjective factors of responsive­
ness that are being considered; and that only if the plaintiff 
is attempting to prove unresponsivenes may the defendant 
rebut by proving responsiveness. 

Judge Phillips: We will overrule the objection on that 
basis-that is, the objective that the evidence of responsive­
ness is not relevant, there being no evidence in the case of 
unresponsiveness from the plaintiffs' side. That objection 
is overruled and on a continuing basis. 

Ms. Winner: Thank you. 

Judge Phillips: Also, this is cross-examination. And it 
seems to me that the line of direct examination which in­
quired very specifically in matters of access to representa­
tives has opened this matter for cross-examination irre­
spective of responsiveness and unresponsiveness. You may 
proceed. 

[ 452] By Mr. Leonard: 

Q. So you find no difficulty-! am sorry. I forgot the 
question. Of the eight members of the Mecklenburg House 
delegation, tell us those whom you have no difficulty making 
contact with. Ms. Lynch, when I say "you," I mean not 
only you because of your position as chairman of the board 
of elections, but the black political caucus and those com­
mittes which involve themselves with state legislative 
matters. 

A. The black representative Phil Berry would be the 
most responsive in that he attends the black political cau­
cus meetings and on a regular basis updates us on legisla­
tion that he feels is relevant to the needs of the black com­
munity or issues that he feels that he: would like some input 
from us as to what our position would be. 

Q. Excuse me. Let me interrupt for just one moment. 
We will have you go on in just a minute. But in h~s role 
as a member of the caucus, does Representative Berry 



JA-186 

serve as a liaison between the black political caucus and 
the Mecklenburg delegation! 

A. Not in an official capacity. I am sure that he would 
be able to-if asked, I guess, by the delegation-do so. But 
we have not asked him to do so. 

Q. Well, does he ever indicate to you at your meetings 
that he discusses these issues on the agenda [ 453] of your 
committee with other members of the delegation! 

A. I would-I can remember a couple of incidents that I 
have heard him say that-I think they have delegation 
meetings. And I would assume that in some of those meet­
ings he has indicated concerns. 

Q. Tell us what other members of the delegation are 
available to you when you look for them or seek them out. 

A. In terms of trying to write them, I guess they would 
all be equal beyond his level, because generally if we do not 
call them we don't hear from them. 

Q. When you call them, do they respond to your requests T 

A. From the standpoint of being courteous and taking 
a telephone message-yes ; from the standpoint of neces­
sarily voting in the manner in which we have requested­
that could be debatable. And in fairness, we would have to 
look at each particular issue that we have asked them to 
consider. 

Q. Does the Mecklenburg County political caucus keep a 
roll call of the eight House members during a session to 
determine whether they vote for or against the interests of 
the black political caucus from the county? 

A. Not an official tally. We have several people that 
serve as-I guess you would call it monitors. And [ 454] 
they have the information. This information is then 
brought to the committee when we get ready to make en­
dorsements or whatever. 



JA-187 

Q. In the 1982 Democratic primary in Mecklenburg Coun­
ty, how many candidates that the black political caucus 
endorsed won in the primary! 

A. You mean the entire-every office t 

Q. For the House t 

A. Oh, for the House. I think all that we endorsed for 
the primary won. 

Q. Let me remind you that I believe Mr. Richardson 
ran well in 1982 ; didn't he T 

A. Well, he won the primary. He didn't win the general. 

Q. And in the general election, how many of the candi-
dates that were endorsed by the caucus won! 

A. All but Mr. Richardson. 

Q. Now, Ms. Lynch--

A. (Interposing) Might I state, too, for clarity: We en­
dorsed the Democratic ticket, which consisted of six whites 
and two blacks. So six whites won and one black for the 
House. 

Q. In the general election for the House? 

A. In the general election for the House. 

Q. And in the primary election for the House in [ 455] 
1982, you also endorsed six blacks and two whites; did 
you notf 

A. No. We endorsed the other way around. We endorsed 
six whites and two blacks. 

Q. Did I misstate thaU I am sorry. How many votes 
did Mr. Richardson lose by in the general election in 1982 f 

A. 250 votes. 

Q. Out of how manyT 



JA-188 

A. I think he got 12,000-14,000. I am not really sure. 

Q. How many times had he run for public office before! 

A. He had not run. This was his first try for public 
office. 

• 

Q. For any public office! 

A. For any public office. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[ 461] Q. In your experience as chairman of the Mecklen­
burg County board of elections, do you perceive, Ms. Lynch, 
that black people have any difficulty fully and completely 
participating in the political process in Mecklenburg 
County! 

A. Yes. I feel that black people do have some problems 
in participating fully in the electoral process. 

Q. Be very specific, if you would, with the court. And 
tell us what those are. 

A. Simply that history and tradition has not encouraged 
the black citizens of Mecklenburg County to register and 
vote; that many people, as I stated before, are still afraid 
of what they will have to face. The literacy rate in Meck­
lenburg County is about 50,000 [ 462] people that are illit­
erate. Many of those live in the black community. And 
many people still feel that they will be asked to read or 
write something in order to register to vote. The biggest 
problem we have to overcome is to assure them that that is 
not the case. And it is a slow process in doing that. But 
once it is done, then they tend to come out. 

Q. Did the State Board of Elections recently run a pro­
gram called a citizens awareness program relating to the 
registration of voters in the state! 

A. Did indeed. 



JA-189 

Q. Was Mecklenburg County a major focus of that cam­
paign! 

A. Mecklenburg County was a major focus of that cam­
paign. 

Q. Did that campaign result in a substantial increase in 
the number of black voters who were registered to vote in 
the county! 

A. It had-a number of people were registered. But in 
view of the fact that there are more unregistered--

Q. (Interposing) Excuse me. 

A. I will have to say no. It did not result in substantial, 
because there are over 35,000 unregistered. 

Q. So there are still 35,000 black people who are eligible 
to vote but who are not registered T 

[ 463] A. That is correct. 

Q. Did that campaign have any impact on your opinion 
with respect to the fears and the impediments to blacks 1in 
registering to vote T 

A. The campaign showed that there was going to be-in 
Mecklenburg County, we try to make voting or registration 
accessible to everyone. This is what makes it so frustrating 
that many people still hold these myths to be true, because 
it still makes it difficult to get people to register with a 
county that has well over 50 percent of its eligible popula­
tion which are black still unregistered. 

Q. Well, it is a myth; isn't iU 

A. Well, I know it to be a myth since the rule is a rule. 
But in trying to convince people who don't know it to be a 
myth and who are still questioning whether or not they will 
reap some reprisal as a result of that, we run into people 
that have served in pris0n or something. And they are con-

, cerned about how they can become full citizens again. 



JA-190 

Q. Certainly one of the things you have done, Ms. Lynch, 
with respect to getting greater black participation and reg­
istration is the vote task force! 

A. Correct. 

Q. And Mr. Reid, who I understand is the next [ 464] 
witness, is the chairman of that T 

A. That is correct. 

Q. Would you point to that as one of the major efforts 
that you have undertaken in Mecklenburg County! 

A. I would indeed. 

Q. Would you say overall that the effort by the State 
Board of Elections was one which was designed to try to 
improve the participation by blacks in the process? 

A. Certainly. 

Q. Incidentally, you actively supported representative 
Louise Brennan in the last election; didn't you t 

A. I supported the Democratic ticket, of which she was 
a part. 

Q. Did you support her in the primary! 

A. I supported the-yes ; I did. I supported all incum­
bents. 

Q. Did you support Susan Green for county ·commis­
sioned 

A. I did. 

Q. Did you support Pam Patterson for city council! 

A. She is my district councilperson. I did. 

Q. Did you support Ben Tyson for the State Senate 1 

A.. Ben Tyson-yes; I did. 



JA-191 

Q. I am sorry-Tyson. Did you support Betty [465] 
Chapin for the city council! 

A. Yes ; I did. 

Q. Are all those people white T 

A. All those people are white. 

Mr. Leonard: That is all. 

Ms. Guinier: We have no redirect, your honor. 

Judge Phillips : Thank you, Ms. Lynch. 

Judge Dupree: Let me ask a question. 

EXAMINATION 

By Judge Dupree: 

Q. You are chairman of the Mecklenburg County board 
of elections T 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. How long have you held a position on the board T 

A. I have been the chairman going into my third year . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[ 467] Q. Now, this candidate, Dr. Maxwell-she was a 
professor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte! 

A. She is. 

Q. Was this the first time that she had run for public 
office f 

A. It is the first time she had run for public office. 

Q. And you say that she does not plan to run again f 

A. She does not. 



JA-192 

Q. Do you know offhand about how her experience in 
losing the first time out compares with the candidates of 
the other race who lose the first time out! 

A. From the standpoint of money and visibility, as I 
stated earlier, we try to assess what a first-timer goes 
through-which is generally a hard time-getting visibility, 
raising money. 

We raised over $20,000, which is a very large amount for 
a State House race in a county like Mecklenburg, in order 
to give her the edge. In comparison, we have had whites 
who have had less visibility than Dr. Maxwell, live in other 
areas of the community and were still unable to-she was 
unable to get elected. And they [ 468] were elected. Repre­
sentative Black is one example. 

Q. Let me ask you this question: Have you ever known a 
white to get defeated the first time out! 

A. Not with the money and everything that she had-no. 
But I have known of whites who have lost. But it was gen­
erally because they didn't have money or visibility or in­
roads in the community. 

Q. I am just interested in whether or not it is normal for 
a person who runs in Mecklenburg County to get elected 
the first time out, regardless of race. 

A. Depending on the kind of campaign-there are serious 
candidates for office. And then there are people that just 
sort of want to get out there to get a little exposure. And 
maybe they intend to run for another office. 

We felt that in Dr. Maxwell's case she was sort of a test 
project; that many people have assessed for us why black 
candidates lose. Their assessment generally is, ''well, you 
all didn't raise enough money. You didn't let the person 
receive the kind of visibility they needed," et cetera, et 
cetera. 



JA-193 

So Dr. Maxwell was our test case. She was very well 
known in the Charlotte area. She was very well liked in the 
Charlotte community. We got the money. We got the 
publicity that they advised us. Maybe we just [ 469] had 
the wrong consultant. But we followed the advice that was 
outlined to aspire you to victory. 

Q. She sounds like a highly qualified candidate. 

A. She is. 

• • • • • • • 
[470] 

Samuel L. Reid 

• • 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 11:40 A.M. 

By Ms. Guinier: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[ 472] Q. Have you been involved in electoral politics in 
Charlotte? 

A. Yes; I have. 

Q. In what capacity? 

A. Last capacity as precinct chairman; second vice chair­
man of the Democratic party, Mecklenburg County; special 
registrar for the board of elections, Mecklenburg County; 
and at present, chairman of the vote task force. 

Q. What is the vote task force? 

A. The vote task force is an outgrowth of a committee 
of the black political caucus which is comprised of volun­
teer workers that are concerned about the participation of 
blacks in the political process. . 

Q. How long has the vote task force been in existence! 



JA-194 

A. As an official organization, since 1979-'78. 

Q. Prior to that time! 

A. It was a committee actively encouraging people to 
register and vote and trying to stimulate political involve­
ment. 

• • • • • • • • • • 

[479] CROSS EXAMINATION 11:52 A.M. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

Q. Mr. Reid, how long has your vote task force project 
been in existence! 

A. Since 1978. 

Q. Tell us specifically where you go to register voters 
and the procedure of going about doing it. 

A. We go all over the city at request. But we initiate 
drives primarily in the black community whereas there is a 
need for our type services of making voter registration 
more accessible to them. 

We are special registrars. We make requests on a two 
day or a one-day notice to the board in writing that we are 
going to be at a certain place at a certain time. Before the 
special registrars, you would have to make a written re­
quest 14 days prior to the drive. And therefore, a lot of 
people felt that-a lot of [ 480] organizations that we come 
in contact with plan tonight and want to execute the drive 
next week or tomorrow, which is under the guidelines. 

Q. Tell us some of the places that you have taken your 
vote task force. 

A. We work Memorial stadium at the soccer games. We 
have registered at gay rallies. We registered at the festival 
in the park- just about any and everywhere. And most of 



JA-195 

our requests come from the black community. But we are 
open and we initiate drives in all communities. 

Q. But for instance, if a black church is having a picnic 
on a Sunday, you make a request to send the vote task 
force to the picnic? And you can register people? 

A. They make the request. 

Q. They make the request to you or to the board T 

A. To me. At times they make it to the board. And the 
board referred them to me if it is not before 14 days. 

Q. Do you have any difficulty . when those requests are 
made getting approval from the board T 

A. No. 

Q. Did you have any difficulty getting members of your 
task force group to go those locations T · 

A. None. 

Q. How many members on your task force T 

[ 481] A. Approximately 15 to 20. Sometimes it swells 
up to 50. 

Q. Any of them white! 

A. Yes. 

Q. How many of the 50? 

A. Approximately 15. 

Q. Do you have any difficulty getting those white mem­
bers to go to the black functions to register people? 

A. No-not once we pair them off in communities. Are 
you talking community drives or clubs or whaU 

Q. Anybody! 

A. No. 



JA-196 

Q. Do you ever get any requests from white groups T 

A. Yes. 

Q. Give us some examples. 

A. We did one for the gay and lesbian liberation, UNCC 
campus. We done one for the gay, I think, liberation. It 
was a club request-the Odyssey club. And we done some 
for Sane. We have done a few for a couple other commu­
nity organizations. I can't think of the names right now. 

Q. How many blacks have been registered in Mecklen­
burg County since you started your-that is, new black 
voters have been registered-since you started your project 
a few years backT 

[ 482] A. I would say between 6,000 to 7,000. 

Q. I may have misunderstood you. But did you say 6,000 
to 7,000! 

A. Correct. 

Q. Did you take your vote task force into any of the 
businesses or industrial plants or work places in the county! 

A. No; we haven't. That is something we are working on. 

Q. That is part of the overall state board of elections 
commission program, though; isn't itt 

A. Yes. 

Q. Are you part of thaU 

A. No; I am not. I am a special registrar. I do not deal 
-the board initiates it. As far as high school registration 
and all those, those are the board of elections functions. 

Q. Are those separate functions from the vote task force? 

A. Yes. 

Q. So you are not familiar with those¥ 



JA-197 

A. I know the board has registration within the city 
concerning high schools and businesses . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[ 484] Q. I think everybody would agree you are doing a 
great job on a volunteer basis. And you have been regis­
tering blacks in Mecklenburg County at a faster rate than 
the whites have been registered; have you not 1 

A. Correct. That is due because the requests are coming 
in more readily now from the black community. 

Q. On election day what does the vote task force doT 

A. Basically we use the same technique we use in getting 
people to register. We go into communities, put on work­
shops, letting them know there is nothing to be afraid of to 
use the voting machine. 

We knock on doors and remind them to go vote, offer 
transportation if they need it in the elections community. 

Q. And specifically on election day you transport people 
to the polls; do you not f 

A. We help in that way. We offer rides. 

Q. And if I lived in Mecklenburg County and couldn't 
get to the polls and called the board of elections, they 
would give me your vote task force phone number; right T 

A. Right. 

[ 485] Q. And the newspaper publishes that numberT 

A. Correct. 

Q. So anybody in Mecklenburg County who doesn't have 
transportation can ·use the resources of the vote task forceT 

A. Correct. 

• • • • • • • • • • 



JA-198 

[ 494] (Whereupon, 

Robert W. Spearman 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 1'2 :15 P.M. 

By Mr. Leonard : 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[497] Q. Do you now hold a political appointment in the 
State of North Carolina T 

A. Yes. I am now chairman of the North Carolina state 
elections board. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[510] A. Well, I became a member of the state board of 
elections on November 9th, 1981. Shortly before that, I had 
been asked by Governor Hunt if I would be willing to serve 
in that position. And I had told him that I would be and 
I was interested in it. 

And I talked with him some at that point about what I 
perceived to be a need to try to increase voter registration 
levels in North Carolina. 

[511] Then the board members were sworn in on Novem­
ber 9th, 1981. And the topic of voter registration was one 
of the first items discussed at the first meeting on that day 
within the board meeting. 

Q. Do you recall what the voter registration statistics 
for whites and non-whites were in the state in November 
of 1981 T 

A. Well, of persons eligible to register, approximately 
58.6 percent were, in fact, registered at that time. And I 
believe some of the exhibits have that broken down by race. 
The percentage of eligible persons registered was higher 



JA-199 

among the white population than among the black popu­
lation. 

Approximately 63 percent of voting age whites were 
registered, whereas approximately 42.7 percent of voting 
age blacks were registered. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[543] CROSS-EXAMINATION 2:57 P.M. 

By Ms. Winner: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[551] Q. All right. Now, you have had complaints from 
black citizens around the state about problems they have 
had with their local boards of elections; have you notT 

A. I have had some. 

Q. And in fact, you have had some complaints out of 
Durham County; haven't you T 

A. Yes. 

Q. And the Durham county board is all white; isn't itT 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[571] Q. But there was a 20 percent gap between the 
black registered voters and the white registered voters in 
1982 ; wasn't there T 

A. There was a gap of approximately 20 percent when 
one compares the percentage of white persons of voting 
age who were registered with the percentage of black per­
sons of voting age who were registered. 

Q. At the beginning of 1982! 

A. As of February 1982; right. 

Q. So if you register 1 percent of those a year, it will 
take 20 years to close that gap; is that right! 



JA-200 

A. If you made up what you describe as-if you closed 
1/20th of the gap every year, it would take 20 years. Yes . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[584] REDIRECT EXAMINATION 

By Mr. Leonard: 

• • • • • • • • • 
[585] A. Well, according to the figures I am looking at, 
the total white registration on October 6, 1980, was 
2,313,722. 

Q. Correct. And what was it on--

A. (Interposing) On October 4, 1982, the total white reg­
istration was 2,201,189. 

Q. Now, would you subtract the-

A. (Interposing) Well, the difference is approximately · 
112,000, except it is 112,000 fewer whites registered in 
October '82 than October '80, according to these figures. 

Q. So while the black registration went up between 1980 
and '82 by 12,096, the white registration dropped by 
112,533; is that correct T 

A. That is correct . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[589] Q. So that is it correct to state that the actual sub­
stantive or proportional increase of registration for blacks 
is higher than it is for whitest 

A. Yes-of the increase. 

Q. Of the increase t 

[590] A. In other words; of the increase blacks registered 
in an amount greater than their proportion in the popu­
lation . 

• • • • • • • • • • 



JA-201 

(Whereupon, 

Larry Bunnell Little 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows :) 

• • • • • • • • • 
[592] Q. Do you currently hold any elective positions 7 

A. I am tne alderman of the north ward, Winston-Salem. 

Q. What is the racial composition of that ward T 

A. My ward is approximately 75 percent black. 

Q. Do you hold any special positions on the board of 
aldermen of Winston-Salem T 

A. I serve as chairman of the aldermen's public works 
committee and vice chairman of the aldermen's general 
committee. 

Q. How did you get selection for those positions 7 

A. Well, there were recommendations and votes by the 
committee members. The mayor made recommendations. 
Then the committee members and the full board had the 
final say-so in the adoption of those recommendations . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[593] Three members are black, one white. And the general 
committee is also three blacks and one white. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[595] Q. What is the level of interracial social mixing in 
Forsyth CountyT 

[596] A. I don't know how to really qualify that. I can 
only say my own personal experience from having been 
born and reared in Winston-Salem. Essentially we are a 
segregated town to the extent that the black community 
primarily lives in the east section of the city. And it is 



JA-202 

referred to not as the black community, but as East Win­
ston. 

And the living patterns for whites, of course, are in the 
western parts of the city. There are some exceptions be­
cause blacks do, in fact, live in the western part, but in 
very, very small and rare instances. 

Insofar as organizations or country clubs, they are still 
all white. And religiously probably-well, blacks attend 
black churches. And whites attend white churches with the 
rare exception perhaps being a few blacks attending the 
Catholic church. 

Social clubs-there are black social clubs. And there are 
white social clubs. And that is not a lot of interracial gath­
ering taking place there. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[617] Q. Did any of those people win in 1978! Did any of 
those black candidates win in 1978 T 

A. No, In 1978 all blacks running for office lost in For­
syth County . 

• • • • • • • • • 
Q. Did any other black citizens run for public [618] of­

fice in Forsyth County in 1980 besides Maizie WoodruffT 

A. Yes. In 1980 four black candidates sought office. Maizie 
Woodruff, of course, was seeking reelection to the board 
of county commissioners. Buford Bailey was seeking to 
get back on the school board in 1980. Jean Burkins was 
seeking to get elected to a judgeship. And Ann Brown 
Kennedy was seeking election to the state house of repre­
sentatives. She was presently sitting in the general assem­
bly as a result of an appointment to fulfill the unexpired 
term of Judson Deramus, who had been appointed to a 
judgeship. 

Q. And did a Mr. H. B. Goodson also run for office! 



JA-203 

A. Pardon me. In 1980, H. B. Goodson ran for the county 
commissioners. 

Q. What happened to Mr. Goodson's candidacy! 

A. In the primary-there were three seats available. And 
in the first primary Mr. Goodson ran fourth. He ran close 

. enough to call for a. runoff election. And he did not call for 
a runoff election to the county commissioners. 

If I may expound on that, I personally as well as a dele­
gation of black leaders in the community went to Mr. Good- _ 
son and asked him not to call for a runoff in the [619] '80 
county commissioners. Our thinking for that was that we 
had Jean Bur kens running for judge-district court judge. 
We have never in our history elected a black to a district 
court judgeship in Forsyth County. 

And Ms. Burkens led the first primary in a crowded field. 
There would certainly be a runoff, because anytime a black 
is in a second-if a white can qualify for a second runoff 
against a black, they certainly will. And usually it ends up 
being some sort of a racial contest. 

And the point I make is that we felt that we had the 
best time in our history to elect a black to the district court 
judgeship. Her opponent-the person who finished second, 
Mr. B. R. Browder-we felt could not muster the support 
necessary to overtake her in a runoff. We felt there was a 
serious credibility problem. And our own analysis showed 
us that many people voted for him thinking they were 
voting for his brother, who was more established in the 
community. 

So our thinking was that if Mr. Goodson called for a 
runoff in the county commissioners race, the person he 
would have to challenge-Mr. Neil Bettinger, the president 
of the Business League of Winston-Salem and a respected 
person in the community-could marshal his white sup­
porters to the polls. 



JA-204: 

[62Ql And they probably-being out there voting for Mr. 
Bettinger, would probably go along and vote for Browder. 
So our thinking to Mr. Goodson was it would be difficult 
to heat Mr. Bettinger. But the other risk involved is that 
if you bring Bettinger supporters to the poll, that will help 
Mr. Browder. And we begged him to consider foregoing 
the runoff election so that in the runoff we would just have 
two candidates out there. And that would be Ms. Jean 
Burkens as well as Mr. B. R. Browder for the district 
court judgeship. 

Q. And what happened--

Mr. Leonard: (Interposing) Excuse me, counsel. If the 
court please, I move to strike that testimony as being highly 
speculative, based on probabilities certainly beyond this 
witness' ability to predict probability. And the formal 
ground is that the testimony is incompetent, irrelevant and 
immaterial. 

Ms. Winner: May I respond to that! 

Judge Phillips: You may. 

Ms. Winner: The testimony just offered is not offered to 
show the accuracy of Mr. Little's prediction of what would 
have happened in that election. I think that that is not 
material. 

The reason that it is offered is to show the dilemma that 
black people are in in Forsyth County. That [621] is, they 
have to get a black person not to run in a runoff in order 
to protect another black candidate; and that that sort of 
dilemma of black candidates itself is material, whether or 
not their fear was accurate-or their prediction was ac­
curate. 

Judge Phillips: I think we understand the general pur­
pose for which it was offered. And we will overrule the 
objection and will not strike it. But we will consider it and 
make a determination of its probative force. 



JA-205 

Let me say now that it seems to me to be marching fairly 
close to the line of relevance. There is just so much in all 
of the nuances of every political campaign and the thinking 
that is running through the mind of every candidate and 
his supporters as it might bear upon the racial problem 
and the political scene that the court can absorb and try 
to disentangle. 

Ms. Winner: Yes, sir. I understand. 

By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Was Ms. Burkens successful in the primaryT 

A. She was successful in the primary. And she won the 
runoff. 

Q. Was she successful in the general election T 

A. No. She was defeated in the general election . 

• • • • • • 
[625] Q. If the city council had been elected at large, 
would you have won¥ 

A. No; I would not. 

Q. Why not? 

A. The reason I wouldn't have won is because, first of 
all, I don't think I could have run. And the reason I don't 
think I could have won is because I have [626] been in the 
forefront of a lot of community involvements for better 
housing, health conditions. And when you are a black leader 
in Winston-Salem, you are very outspoken. And as a result 
of being outspoken, you become controversial. 

And as a result, it becomes most difficult to receive the 
white vote. And so usually when we think of running some­
one at large, the first thing we have to look at is, is the 
person qualified. And then second, we have to think abo·1t 
someone that willnot offend the white citizens or someone 



JA-206 

who hasn't been in the forefront of community involvement 
for public housing and things of this sort. 

So we tend to try-when thinking of a county-wide race, 
we tend to look for someone who has been just marginally 
involved, so that-well, to coin a phrase, we want a moder­
ate or a lightweight. In past terms, quite frankly, we look 
for countywide races some that are perceived in many in­
stances in the black community as our competitors to run 
for office. 

Ms. Winner: I don't have any other questions. 

CROSS-EXAMINATION 9:37A.M. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

• • • • • • • • • • 

[628] By Mr. Leonard: 

Q. Mr. Little, the court record already shows that this 
legislative district-house district 39, which is composed 
of most of Forsyth County other than these two townships, 
which are Salem Chapel and Belews Creek-is 25.1 percent 
black. The entire district is 25.1 percent black; and that 
there are five members from the district, two of whom are 
blackT 

A. Yes. 

Q. That would indicate to you that the blacks have a 
greater proportion of the delegation from Forsyth County 
than is their voting strength; would it not T 

A. Yes ; that would . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[635] Q. So it was in 1982 that you became aware of the 
fact that there was an issue concerning multi-member ver­
sus single-member districts T 



JA-207 

A. Well, I have been aware of the issue. We have talked 
about the necessity to have single-member districts in the 
general assembly, on the county comissioners, on the school 
board and throughout for the last 10 to 15 years, because 
there is just very little possibility-or at times, we just 
can't elect anyone at large. 

So we have talked about it. Quite frankly, we just never 
thought it would happen. We just thought we would just 
never get beyond the talking stages of it. [636] And quite 
honestly, I was surprised to S'ee it get this far in the general 
assembly. 

When I found out about it, I said, "hey, it is great," 
because I had discussed it with a lot of black leaders, minis­
ters and others. And so when I found out about it, I imme­
diately called representative Spaulding and asked if there 
was anything I could do to facilitate the process. 

[637] Q. When was thaU 

A. It was while the debate was going on in the general 
assembly about proposed districts. I called the senator from 
our area-senator Dick Bond, who was serving on the com­
mittee to discuss that-and told him that the other black 
members of the board of aldermen as weli as the Tllack 
ministerial association in Winston-Salem strongly favored 
single-member districts for the state house. 

I sent a telegram to representative Spaulding. And we 
also called representative Margaret Tennille to let her know 
of our overwhelming sentiments for that. And I also 
called-well, he wasn't there at that time. But I called 
C. B. Houser about it. 

Q. C. B. wasn't a member of the legislature T 

A. No. He wasn't a member of the legislature. But I knew 
he was running for the legislature. And so I thought I 
would, you know, give him a call. 



JA-208 

Q. What position did C. B. Houser take! 

A. When I informed Mr. Houser of the sentiments from 
the blacks on the board of aldermen and the black ministers, 
he told me he had not looked at it properly; and that he 
could see some sentiments for the [638] single-member 
district. 

And I asked him, "well, why don't you make a statement 
to that effect!" And he said when he :first got a glimpse 
of the single-member district-and he told me in the con­
versation that he really hadn't studied it that far or thor­
oughly; but that he-with the information I had given him 
of the sentiments and how we felt in the community, Mr. 
Houser said that he agreed with that. But he didn't know 
how to take a position today that was contrary to what he 
had said yesterday. 

But he would try to :figure out a way that he could state 
his opposition-his preference-for single-member _dis­
tricts. That is what he told me. 

I may add, counsel, that after that-that conversation 
that representative Houser and I had and others talked to 
him about it-I think he later felt that it would be political­
ly bad for him to take a stand in favor of single-member 
districts because he said he thought it would cost him 
white votes. And he needed white votes to win. So he backed 
away from what he had agreed to do . 

• • • • • • • • • 
[642] By Judge Dupree : 

Q. You referred to a representative Tennille, is itT 

[643] A. Yes-Margaret Tennille. 

Q. What is her race! 

A. White. 

• 



JA-209 

Q. And she took the position on the single-member dis­
trict question that it .would be better not to adopt it, since 
it would enhance the chances of Republicans T 

A. Correct. 

Q. So as between enhancing the rights or the chances of 
the blacks and the Republicans, she chose to go with the 
system that would be against the Republicans T 

A. Against the Republicans and against the blacks. 

Q. Against the blacks, but instead of going for the blacks T -

A. Yes. And quite frankly, your honor, if I may ex-
pound, that was a dilemma that we all considered. And we 
looked at it and said, "we need representation. And we 
don't need in 1983 ''--

Q. (Interposing) You were willing to take your chances 
against the Republicans T 

A. Oh, yes. But we just wanted to be in the halls so that 
we could be a part of the debate . .And right now, it is a hit 
and miss proposition. And most of the times, we miss­
as with the school board, the county commissioners. Usual­
ly we-as I stated, until last year blacks were not elected 
to any office in [644] Forsyth County outside of the board 
of aldermen. 

Judge Phillips: Do you think the Democrats and Repub­
licans in Forsyth County might also say that in recent 
history it has been a hit or miss proposition for them as 
Democrats or Republicans? 

The Witness: Oh, for Republicans it has been less than 
a hit and miss. For Democrats, it has been almost a sure 
thing. 

• • • • • • • • • • 



JA-210 

[645] (VVhereupon, 

Willie Lovett 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 10:02 A.M. 

By Ms. Winner: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[646] Q. Can you describe for the Court your involvement 
in politics in Durham CountyT 

A. Presently I am chairman of the Durham Committee 
on the Affairs of Black People. And I have held that posi­
tion for two and a half or three years. Before that, I was 
co-chair of the political committee for a couple of years. 

I was also the chairman of the Democratic party from 
1977 to 1979 and the first vice chair from '79 to '81. 

Q. VVhat is the membership of the Durham Committee 
on the Affairs of Black PeopleT 

A. That is a number that I can't give you becaus·e I don't 
know. The way we operate is that any person who is inter­
ested can participate in the organization, can get on the 
mailing list by attending the meetings. So we don't have 
membership dues as such. So that is difficult to assess. 

The impact and the responsiveness in the community to 
the Durham committee and its recommendations and its 
programs is rather massive . 

• • • • • • • • • 
[652] Q. Do you think that it is important for black people 
to have black representatives T 

A. First of all, it is important for black people to have 
representation-what I call true representation, be that 
black or white. 



JA-211 

Q: What does that mean to you 1 

A. The tendency is that if an elected official does not feel 
accountable to that segment of the population, then the 
likelihood of the responsiveness to problems will be dimin­
ished as compared to a person who is truly represented by 
that community in the sense that that community could 
determine whether or not that person serves or not. 

Common sense and actual experience says that that re­
sponsiveness would be different. So from that point of view, 
the black community needs true representation. I think that 
a black person in most cases would [653] have more first­
hand knowledge and would be more accessible in that kind 
of situation than the typical white person, because the white 
person is not going to live generally within the inner area 
of that district. He may be on the fringes of that district. 

In addition to that, I think that the perception from the 
black community itself that "I have a representation. I 
have somebody that I can go to" is there if that person 
is black moreso that if that person is white. 

So these are realities that we have seen from experience. 
And I think they are true. And I think that they can be 
demonstrated. 

Q. Have you been involved in any voter registration ef­
forts in Durham CountyT 

A. I have been involved in many voter registration efforts 
from the days when I was precinct chair in Pearson town 
precinct, number 34, for about five years; as co-chair of 
the political committee. And even today we are constantly 
trying to increase registration and make registration more 
accessible; but more importantly, to convince citizens that 
reigstration is not the major problem that some of them 
perceive. And this comes as a result of a long history of 
problems in registration and the treatment that citizens 
receive when they attempt to [654] register. 



JA-212 

So it is two sides to that coin: accessibility in process 
and procedures and the perception on the part of the citi­
zens who are not registered that this is not that bad. It is 
not going to be a problem. You aren't going to be intimi­
dated. So we fight both battles in Durham. And we still do . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[655] Q. Can you describe the method or the way one had 
to-strike that. Can you describe when you were involved 
in voter registration in the late sixties and early seventies 
what was the method for registeringY 

A. Initially when I first became involved, the registra­
tion-there were two opportunities to register people : one 
at the board of elections office at any time, which is typi­
cally from 8 :00 to 5:00 or whatever. And then there were 
three Saturdays prior to an election where registrars :would 
be at each of the polling places to register people. 

That was basically-those were the two ways that you 
. could register. And tl1is was during the time between 1966 

and 1972, most of that time when I was precinct chair. 

Later the process was changed so that there could be 
special registration drives under certain circumstances. 

Q. Before you go on, let me ask you a question about the 
prior period. Did the system of elections and registration 
at the board of elections pose any particular problems for 
black people 1 

A. Well, generally, anytime you have registration being 
conducted during office hours and most people are working 
and don't get paid and don't have the opportunity 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[664] Q. How does at large voting in Durham County 
operate as a barrier to the election of black people 1 



JA-213 

A. At large voting-! guess I can describe that by de­
scribing the situation that exists today and try to relate 
how that ties back to at large voting. But first of all, there 
is a high degree of--there is a racial issue interjected 
in most elections in Durham County. 

"Where there is competition and where we have oppo­
nents, the media does a job in that regard that really adds 
to that situation. The record will show that only a certain 
percentage of whites tend to vote for black candidates. 
And that varies depending upon whether there is opposi­
tion of not and how well contested it is. But even when 
there is no opposition, you have a certain percentage of 
whites who don't vote for black candidates, even though 
there is no one else to vote for. 

Q. "When you said the media contributes, what did you 
mean by that T 

[665] A. They tend to build up the racial aspects. In fact, 
in every article where there is a black candidate running, 
the point is always made that "Mr. Lovett, who is black." 
really building up the racial identity of the candidate and 
really adding to the racial thrust that is already there. 
And Durham has had a long history of that-the Durham 
media. 

Q. Are there any other barriers that you perceive in an 
at large system T 

A. Well, first of all, you have to run citywide. And that 
requires more effort on the candidate who is running, more 
money, cover a broader area. We have some 100,000 people 
in the city of Durham-in excess of 100,000-108,000. And 
it covers quite an area. 

So from the standpoint of being able to cover the area, 
it is expensive and time consuming. In addition to that, 
because of what I said about the tendency for whites in 
large numbers-and I always say that chere are exceptions. 



JA-214 

And what I am really talking about is about 20 percent in 
the best situation would vote for a black candidate based 
upon the numbers I have seen. 

Because of that factor, the perception is that the only 
way you can win an election is to be able to appeal to a 
large segment of white voters in order to win. So therefore, 
you limit the number and types of [666] candidates that 
you can get to run. 

Just to cite the state house as an example, to my knowl­
edge we have only had three persons to run for that posi­
tion-three, maybe four-three that I know about. And all 
of those have had similar backgrounds. 

Q. What is the background 7 

A. Well, you need to be in business or you need to be 
a lawyer. You need to have-the distinction between black 
candidates and white candidates in that regard-in addition 
to those two, you have to have something else going for 
you like a naine, well-known, you know; contrasted to white 
candidates who are lawyers and who have the money and 
the time to get off, they don't always require that name 
recognition and the, you know, super kind of person. 

And I think the record will speak for that as well, if you 
look at people who are currently serving in the legislature. 

Q. Is there a method of election that you think will solve 
that problem 7 

A. Single-member districts, I think, would minimize the 
problem in the sense that you have a smaller area to deal 
with. You would have an opportunity-the perception of 
having to get so many white votes would be minimized to 
the extent that you would probably have more [667] candi­
dates running. 

For example, I would not run because I have-the per­
ception in my mind is because I am so outspoken and really 



JA-215 

involved that I couldn't get large numbers of white folk 
to vote for me. So I would not run for the state house today 
or tomorrow or any other time in the foreseeable future, 
as an example. 

Q. When you say you wouldn't run, do you mean you 
would not run in an at-large-

A. (Interposing) That is exactly right . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[694] REDIRECT EXAMINATION 11:28 A.M. 

By Ms. Winner: 

• • • • • • • • • • 

[695] (Whereupon, 

G. K. Butterfield, Jr. 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 11 :30 A.M. 

By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Will you state your name, please¥ 

A. G. K. Butterfield, Jr. 

Q. What is your address, Mr. Butterfield 7 

A. 1001 West Vance Street; Wilson, North Carolina. 

Q. How long have you lived in Wilson 7 

A. I have lived in Wilson all of my life with the excep­
tion of a period of time in which I was away for my higher 
education and when I was in the military. 

Q. What is your occupation T 



JA-216 

A . . I am an attorney. 

Q. For the record, what is your race! 

[696] A. I am black. 

Q. And your age! 

A. 36. 

Q. What is the racial composition of your clientele! 

A. In my law practice! 

Q. Yes! 

A. I would say 95 percent black. 

Q. Do you belong to any professional associations! 

A. Yes. I belong to the American Bar Association; the 
National Bar Association; the North Carolina Association 
of Black Lawyers, of which I am the president; the North 
Carolina State Bar. That is about it. 

Q. What is the National Bar Association! 

A. That is a predominantly black national organization 
of black attorneys. 

Q. Can you describe for the Court your involvement in 
politics in Wilson County! 

Mr. Leonard: If the Court please, so that the record is 
clear-! believe this issue has come up before. But the 
state is going to object to any testimony with respect to 
these covered counties, unless it is offered by the plaintiffs 
with respect to their 14th Amendment claim versus their 
statutory claim, on the ground that the statutory issue has 
been decided [697] pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act; and that this Court has no jurisdiction to retry 
the statutory issues. 

Judge Phillips: We will receive the evidence <;ubject to 
that objection. And we will give a clear indication in any-



JA-217 

thing that we say as to the way we considered the evi~ence. 
So you will be protected. 

Mr. Leonard: Thank you, your honor. 

Ms. Winner: Your honor, perhaps not now-but we were 
not aware of that issue until we received-actually until a 
day before we received the brief. May we have some oppor­
tunity at some time to address that issue! 

Judge Phillips: Before this Court says anything about 
this issue, there will be an opportunity for both sides to 
address it with memoranda. 

Ms. Winner: Thank you. 

By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Mr. Butterfield, will you describe your involvement 
in the electoral politics in Wilson County! 

A. I would say that my political involvement goes back 
to 1953. 

Q. How old were you at that timeT 

A. I was six years of age. 

Q. What was your involvement then 1 

[698] A. My father ran for the board of aldermen in 
Wilson as the first black to ever offer himself for that posi­
tion. And so I can probably with accuracy trace the political 
developments in Wilson from 1953 up to the current time. 

Q. What happened to your father's candidacy! 

A. In 1953 the city of Wilson utilized single-member dis­
tricts for the board of aldermen-a pure single-member 
district plan. We had six aldermen, each elected from a 
single district. 

And my father ran from district 3, which at the time had 
grown to a population or at least a voter registration of 



JA-218 

about 50 percent bla~k. And there was a tie vote for the 
board of aldermen. 

And to resolve the tie, the two names were deposited into 
a hat. And a child drew names. And my father's name was 
selected. And so he became a city a]derman in 1953. 

Q. How long was he a city alderman T 

A. They had two-year terms at that time. And of course, 
they still do have two-year terms. He ran again in 1955 and 
was re-elected in 1955 from the third ward. And after his 
second election, he was appointed the chairman of the 
budget committee for the city. This was in 1955. 

[699] Q. What happened to the form of government in 
the city of Wilson after thaU 

A. It was changed suddenly between the 1955 and the 
1957 election to an at-large system of elections, which is 
the current system we have today. And he was defeated in 
1957. 

Q. Did he run at large in 19571 

A. He ran at large in 1957 and came in last place. 

Q. When was the next time somebody black was elected 
to the city council or the board of aldermen of the city of 
Wilson1 

A. 1975 . 

"' • • • • • • • • • 
[701] Q. How many members does the Wilson County 
people--

A. (Interposing) For progress. 

Q. How many members does that have T 

A. We have unlimited membership. It is open to any 
person who has an interest in the affairs of black people 



JA-219 

in the city and county of Wilson. It is not restricted to race. 
However, the organization at the present time is all black 
and has been in existence now for about four years. I do 
not hold an office at the present time except to serve on 
the political action committee. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[702] Q. What is the level of social integration in Wilson 
CountyT 

A. I would say it is practically non-existent. There are 
exceptions. But essentially there is no social integration of 
clubs and other organizations that exist in the community. 

Q. Are churches in Wilson County integrated T 

A. No. I know one person who belongs to an all-white 
church. But except for that one exception, the churches are 
segregated, as well as many other phases of community 
life. 

Q. Are there country clubs in Wilson County! 

A. There are ; yes. 

Q. What is their level of integration f 

A. To my knowledge, there are nQ black members of any 
of the country clubs in Wilson. 

[703] Q. Can you describe the residential-the racial 
segregation or integration of residences in Wilson County! 

A. We primarily have two communities, one black and 
one white. In rec~mt years, there has been some tendency to 
integrate some of the formerly segregated communities. 
But to put it on the map and to look at it, there are two 
distinct communities, one black and one white, divided by 
a railroad track. 

• • • • • • • • • • 



JA-220 

[704] Q. Have you been involved in any efforts to get 
black citizens to register to vote t 

A. I have. I have been very active in the voter registra­
tion arena and have been for some time. 

Q. How early did you begin those efforts t 

A. I would say around 1968, when a group of us walked 
from Raleigh to Wilson in an effort to stimulate voter 
registration-not only in Wilson, but in eastern North 
Carolina. That was my first major involvement in voter 
registration. 

Q. How were you allowed to register in 1968 in Wilson 
County! 

A. In 1968 and up until recently, I might say, the philos­
ophy of the Wilson County Board of Elections was not to 
allow voter registration outside of the courthouse--the 
county courthouse. We tried on many occasions to persuade 
the County Board of Elections to decentralize the voter 
registration process and to allow registration on weekends 
and after hours and by deputy registrars. 

[705] And we were met with resistance for years and 
years. And we were told that the officials did not believe in 
registration outside of the courthouse. They felt as though 
that if black people were unwilling to make the sacrifice 
and come to the courthouse for 15 minutes in order to regis­
ter, then the board of elections should not make that process 
more available. 

Q. Now, what particular problems for black people did 
courthouse registration presenU 

A. I know of three problems. There may be others. But 
I know of three directly. One is that many black people 
work 9 :00 to 5 :00-8 :00 to 5 :00-and are unable to get off 
to come to the courthouse for the purpose of registration. 
That would be one reason. 



JA-221 

A second reason is the matter of transportation. We 
have a very large county. And Stantonsburg, for example, 
is about 20 minutes from the courthouse. And transporta­
tion is a problem. Many people do not have cars and do 
not have access to other means of transportation. And so 
it becomes a very difficult task to get to the courthouse. 

The third reason, which I think is as important as any 
of the others that have been stated, is that many people­
black people, particularly elderly black people-are afraid 
of the courthouse. That may sound [706] absurd. But in 
dealing with illiterate, elderly black people, we find this 
awful fear of the courthouse because, you know-some of 
the reasons that I have heard, they say that they remember 
all white juries. They remember when black people had to 
sit on one side of the courtroom. And white people had to 
sit on the other side of the courtroom. 

The sheriff is white-always has been-the clerk of court, 
register of deeds, tax collector, tax supervisor. And so there 
is an equation made by elderly black-and I see this more 
in elderly than I do younger blacks-that there is some­
thing to fear about the courthouse. And so many people 
for that one reason do not make the trip to the courthouse. 

Judge Phillips: Are you describing a present situation 
or are you responding to the situation as it existed at the 
time you describe of courthouse registration onlyT 

The Witness: No, sir. Some of that exists today. But I 
did say that it is more prevalent among 55 year olds and 
older, I would say. 

By Ms. Winner: 

Q. When was voter registration first allowed outside of 
the courthouse T 

A. Several years ago-I would say in the late [707] sev­
enties-the general assmebly made it possible for registrars 
of the various precincts to be authorized to register persons 



JA-222 

to vote. And so our focus then became to get some black 
registrars in the various precincts who could register peo­
ple to vote. And so the first effort was, I would say, 1978. 

Q. What were the results of your effort to get black 
registrars t 

A. We were able to get two or three black registrars­
one in an all-black precinct and two others in 50-50 type 
precincts. But those registrars at that time were restricted 
to registration within their precinct. And so they could not 
cross the precinct boundaries. 

Q. What problem did that present! 

A. That meant that the registration by these officials had 
to be concentrated in their home community. And they 
could not go to large gatherings, such as churches and 
picnics and other places where people from all over came. 

Q. Did you or other members of the black community 
try to expand the registration opportunities of precinct 
registrars T 

A. Yes. We approached the board of elections and asked 
that the restriction be dropped so that registrars [708] and 
judges could travel throughout the county without restric­
tions. And we were opposed, because the officials felt as 
though the registration should only take place in the regis­
trar's precinct and should not be elsewhere. 

And that was the steadfast philosophy of the county 
board of elections-that they would not make registration 
any more convenient than they had to by law. And that 
continued up until the citizen awareness year came about 
from the state board of elections. That is when it began to 
change. 

Q. What year was thatT 

A. 1982-last year. 



JA-223 

Q. All right. Now, are there any special registrars in 
Wilson County! 

A. The 1981 general assembly mandated that each county 
with 15 or more precincts would have at least two regis­
trars, two deputy-well, special registration commission­
ers--one Democrat and one Republican. 

And that is what was appointed-one Democrat and one 
Republican-even though the black community had re­
quested that numerous special registration commissioners 
be appointed. They only did what the law required them to 
do. 

Q. Now, after the precinct registrars were allowed to 
register people outside of their precincts, have [709] there 
been some further efforts to register voters in Wilson 
CountyT 

A. In 1982 the Wilson County People for Progress em­
barked upon a massive voter registration drive. It was, 
I suggest, in response to the candidacy of Mr. Michaux, 
who was running for Congress. And the organization was 
very successful in registering, some say, 2,000 black people 
within a six-week span of time just prior to the 1982 
primary. 

Q. What was the response of the board of elections to 
that registration effort! 

A. Well, there was no response while it was in progress. 
But two days after the election, the board of elections at 
the canvass-after each election there is a canvass, two 
days after the election. At the canvass meeting of the board 
of elections, the board of elections changed the policy and 
the procedures for massive registration. 

And the new procedures to be followed in the future after 
that meeting were to be as follows. There had to be a six­
day notice before there was any mass registration. The 
notice had to contain the date, the time, the place and who 



JA-224 

was to be present for the mass registration. It also reduced 
the compensation that registrars and judges and special 
registration [710] commissioners were to receive from 50 
cents per voter to 25 cents per voter. 

And these new rules were promulgated two days after 
the Michaux election and were placed into effect. I might 
say, for fairness, they were not enforced because a com­
plaint was made to the Justice Department by the black 
community. And the Justice Department said to the board 
of elections that these changes were subject to pre-clear­
ance. And so they have not been enforced. 

Q. Have they been submitted T 

A. No. They have not been submitted. Now, in preparing 
the budget for '83-84, the compensation aspect of compen­
sating the registrars has been completely eliminated now. 
So registrars in the next :fiscal year will receive no com­
pensation whatsoever for registering persons to vote, 
whereas before it was 50 cents. 

Q. What are the current barriers to registration of black 
people that you perceive in Wilson County! 

A. There are no legal barriers existing in our community. 
Registration now is easier than it ever has been in our 
county. There are some psychological barriers to voter 
registration which still persist. 

Q. What are those psychological barriers t 

A. One psychological barrier is that there is ·a belief 
on the part of many people that politics will- [711] one's 
participation in politics will make no difference in their 
individual lives and in the lives of their families. And so 
it i1s a complete waste of time to get involved in the political 
process. 

That is a perception that is ill-founded. But many people 
believe that it will make no difference 1f they get involved. 
That is one. 



JA-225 

The second thing is that, as I alluded to earlier, the prob­
lem of the courthouse barrier. Many people simply don't 
want to go to the courthouse. In my precinct, precinct 3, 
not only is the board of elections housed in the courthouse, 
but we vote in the courthouse. That is the polling place for 
that precinct. 

And it is a large black precinct. And it is in the heart 
of the black community-not the courthouse. But the peo­
ple who vote reside in a very compact area. And many 
people have told me, "I don't want to go to the courthouse. 
I am 70 years old. I have never been to the courthouse be­
fore. And I am not going now." And that is a barrier. 

Another barrier is that most all the polling places are 
located in white communities. And so the black person has 
to travel long distances to get to the polling place. And in 
our city-you would have to see the precinct map to really 
understand it. But we have [712] what we call two-mile 
islands. You know, we have precincts that are two miles 
long and two blocks in width. And so it is liJ{e a cane. And 
so the furthest points in some of the precincts are two 
miles apart, which means that the person has to travel 
perhaps a mile to get to the polling place. And that is a 
barrier. 

Q. Do those precincts extend into the black community 
and into the white community? 

A. Yes. As I testified earlier, the railroad track divides 
the two communities. And the precinct boundaries, which 
were created back in the forties, I guess, run from east to 
west in the opposite direction than the railroad track. And 
so they extend throughout the city in a very narrow strip. 

And it has the effect of requiring persons who reside in 
those precincts to travel long distances to vote. And there 
is no commonality in those precincts. There is a very poor 



JA-226 

black area in the precinct and a very wealthy element in 
the white community. 

Q. In your opinion, what would help encourage black 
voter registration in Wilson County! 

-
A. One thing that would help improve is if we could see 

the presence of black office holders. That would be a stimu­
lus in creating the desire on the part of black people to get 
registered to vote, if they could [713] see persons who can 
be successful in the electoral process. 

Q. What is the extent of election of black people in 
Wilson County! 

A. There have been a few. They have been very limited. 
We have one black elected to the board of education who 
was elected in 1970 and was re-elected in 1982. And that 
sounds odd. But there was a reorganization in the process. 
And he did not have to run again until 1982. 

Q. How many members are on the Wilson County Board 
of Education T 

A. Nine. 

Q. What is the black population in Wilson CountyT 

A. 361;2 percent. 

Q. Are there any other black elected officials in Wilson 
County! 

A. We have one black on the city council. 

Q. Out of how many members T 

A. Out of six councilmembers-one out of six. 

Q. What is the black population of the city of Wilson T 

A. 40.27 percent. 

Q. Are there any other black elected officials in Wilson 
County! 



JA-227 

[714] A. No. We have never had a black elected in the 
history of the county to the board of commissioners. We 
have tried and have failed. We have never had a sheriff 
or any of the other elected positions, except the city coun­
cil and the board of education. 

Q. Have you been involved in any efforts to recruit black 
candidates T 

A. Every election we attempt to recruit black candidates 
to run for public office. And we have a tremendous amount 
of difficulty in doing this, because the more qualified­
and I use those words very carefully. But the more qualified 
black candidates who would be acceptable to the black com­
munity do not want to run. 

And the stated reason is that, "I can't win. Why should 
I - run if I can't win T '' That is always the response that we 
get. And so it is very difficult to encourage people to run 
for public office. 

Q. Are you familiar with the current house of represent-
atives district which contains Wilson County! 

A. Yes. We reside in the 8th district. 

Q. What else is in that districtt 

A. Wilson, Nash and Edgecombe counties. 

Q. Do you know whether there has ever been a black 
representative from that district T 

A. There has never been, to my knowledge. 

• • • • • • • • • • 

[715] By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Are you aware of the-do you think that there is a 
system or a method of electing the representatives from 
that district which would be better for the black com­
munityT 



JA-228 

A. Yes. 

[716] Q. What is that method f 

A. I have looked at the 8th district very carefully. And 
I have looked at it for some time, even before it became 
known as the 8th district. It was the 7th district, still com­
prised of the same three counties. 

And I have tried to figure out whether or not black candi­
dates for the state hm~se could be successful in this three­
county area. And while I am not prepared to say that abso­
lutely no black could ever be elected in this four-member 
district, I am willing to say that it would almost take a 
minor miracle for it to happen. 

It would have to take a combination of certain variables 
falling in place. One variable would have to be a low white 
turnout; a high black turnout; a solid, single-shot vote by 
the black community; and a very attractive black candidate 
to the white comunity; and the pre~ence of eight or ten or 
maybe twelve persons running for four seats. 

If all of those variables fell in place, it is my opinion 
that a black candidate would be able to, not win the election, 
but at least to place sufficient to be in a runoff. What would 
happen in the runoff, I don't know. But I don't believe a 
black person could get a clear majority, even assuming 
those variables to be in place, in a primary . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[737] (Whereupon, 

Fred Belfield, Jr. 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 :02 P.M . 
• • • • • • • • • • 

By Ms. Winner: 



JA-229 

[738] Q. Are you currently a member of any organiza­
tions! 

A. Well, I am a member of the NAACP, Y Men's Club. 
Those are the two civic groups I am a member of. 

Q. Have you held any positions in the NAACP! 

A. Yes; I have. 

Q. What position is thaU 

A. Well, I have held the position of president for ten 
years. 

Q. What branch is that 1 

A. That is the Rocky Mount branch of the NAACP. 

Q. What years were you presidenU 

A. I was president from '68 to '76 and then again from 
'78 to '80. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[747] Q. What are the current barriers to getting black 
people to register in Edgecombe County and in Rocky 
Mount? 

A. Well, transportation. Another barrier would be fear. 

Q. Fear of whaU 

A. Well, fear of the process. Obviously, people who have 
never registered, based on conversations with some of them 
and especially the older people-! would say people above 
50 who have been around and who can remember back in 
the forties and fifties how difficult it was to register to 
vote-still aren't sure that when they go down to register, 
even though you tell them that you don't have to worry 
about reading the constitution or a portion of the constitu­
tion or the literacy test-they are not sure that you are 
telling the truth; :hat I may have to do more than just sign 
the voter registration card after I have been asked the 
proper information. 



JA-230 

Another barrier is when you don't get full cooperation 
out of the registrars. 

Q. What do you mean by that? 

A. Well, registrars can be out of place. For example, 
if you are trying to register people when you don't have a 
specific, designated day, you may or may not find them. 
And that could be a barrier. 

[7 48] And another one is-well, I believe I said it. But 
I will say it again-lack of cooperation. 

Q. Lack of cooperation from whom T 

A. The registrar. 

Q. What is it that they do that is not cooperative? 

A. Not making themselves available; or-well, here is 
another one that you get sometime: "I am out of cards. 
I have to wait until the executive of the board of elections 
sends me some more cards.'' 

Q. Is there anyplace in Edgecombe County other than the 
city hall-any public place in Edgecombe County other 
than the city hall and the board of elections-that you can 
regularly register T 

A. Public places T 

Q. Yes, sir. 

A. Not that I know of. We do have floating registrars 
that they allow to-I am not sure of that total number. But 
I know in my precinct, which is probably the largest one 
in Edgecombe County~ we do have two floating registrars 
allowed to float anywhere in that precinct wherever people 
are concentrated. 

If there is an activity going on, they can go to this and 
register people. But county widespread-! am not sure 
that they do that. In fact, I would be [749] inclined to be-



JA-231 

lieve that they don't allow it, because complaints were filed 
in 1982 with the justice department in connection with lack 
of cooperation. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[750] Q. Are you familiar with how the media dealt with 
that election T 

A. Well, every time I picked up the paper and read any­
thing coming from the news media, it always emphasized 
Michaux as the black candidate who is seeking to become 
the first black elected congressman from North Carolina 
since reconstruction. 

Q. Was that limited to the newspapers? 

A. Well, all news media-radio and TV. 

Q. How does the media in those two counties treat white 
candidates t 

Well, they just list them as a candidate. They don't 
emphasize race. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[753] Q. Do you think it is important for black people 
to have black representatives T 

A. I think so. 

Q. WhyT 

A. For a number of reasons. Number one, I think it is 
a good role model for our young people growing up. It gives 
them some incentive to want to participate and get involved 
in local government, state government and national gov­
ernment. 

Another reason is I think that the black views need to be 
heard on all levels about all the issues involved. For ex­
ample, I can think of the ERA issue. Blacks were never 



JA-232 

consulted, to my knowledge-those that I have asked; nor 
have I :ever been consulted by any politician as to what are 
your views on that. That is an emotional issue. We were 
just bypassed. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. Do you think that white elected officials can represent 

the black community! 

[754] A. It is possible for some that are willing to closely 
align themselves with the black community. But most poli­
ticians tend to shy away from that because they don't 
want to be branded as a black lover, which another candi­
date with a more conservative view can use that to defeat 
him. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[763] I see. But whenever in eastern North Carolina the 
people have a choice about these matters, they usually are 
still lined up along racial lines ; aren't they-in club mem­
berships and things T 

A. Mostly. We organized a new 4-H club in Nash County 
this year that is integrated out there in the community. 
But it is a small-it is a slow process. 

Q. It is v:ery gradual; isn't it-the process of integrating 
all of these activities T 

A. Very slow; yeah . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[765] (Whereupon, 

Joe P. Moody 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 



JA-233 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 2 :45 P.M . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
By Ms. Guinier: 

[773] Q. Have you conducted any registration drives 
[774] or attempted to register any people who work as ten­
ant farmers T 

A. Yes; I have. 

Q. Have you had any problems registering those people! 

A. Some people live back on the farm and been farming 
all their life-not their farm, but they work for some white 
people. And they are skeptical about getting off and trying 
to register because they are scared that the man might get 
mad with them or might make them move or whatever­
she or he. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[781] A. No; he didn't. 

Q. What is the racial composition of the six-member 
county commission in HalifaxT 

A. All six of them are all white. 

Q. Has a black person ever been elected to the county 
commission in Halifax CountyT 

A. No; they have not. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[787] (Whereupon, 

Theodore Arrington 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 3 :30 P.M. 

By Mr. Hunter: 



JA-234 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[789] By Mr. Hunter : 

Q. Dr. Arrington, what studies have you done of cam­
paign costs and contributions in Mecklenburg County! 

A. I studied all of the official campaign reports of all the 
candidates for local office except for state senator from 
1975 through 1980. And I also studied in depth all of the 
contributors to all of the candidates in 1978 and 1979. 

Q. What elections would these be composed of? Would 
you explain that for the court, please! 

[790] A. These would be composed of the North Carolina 
House; Charlotte city council, both at large and district; 
county commission; and such single-member executive of­
fices as sheriff; and the school board. 

Q. Of the Charlotte city council elections that you studied 
-do they have both multi-member and single-member dis­
tricts in Mecklenburg County! 

A. Yes. 

Q. When I say "single-member districts," are these 
districts in which the candidates are nominated and elected 
from one district t 

A. Yes. 

Q. What data did you glean from these campaign costs 
and contribution lists f How did you organize the data f 

A. In organizing the data, what we did was look at the 
official campaign reports and record the name, address, 
party registration, sex, race of each contributor to each 
candidate during that time. And then we merged those 
files with the information on the candidates-how much 
they spent, whether they had run before for public office, 
and so forth. And when we merged those two, then we 
had an accurate picture of who gave how much to which 
candidates. 



JA-235 

Q. Is this methodology that you used in comparing [791] 
this data standardly recognized in the political science 
academic community! 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did you conduct this study for purposes of this law­
suit! 

A. No. I received a grant from the foundation of the 
University of North Carolina at Charlotte to do this study 
for academic purposes. 

Q. After comparing this data, what conclusions did you 
reach after you completed your study! 

A. I reached four basic conclusions. First of all, at large 
election campaigns cost candidates more than twice as 
much as do single-member district elections. Secondly, I 
found that giving to candidates tends to follow racial lines. 
That is, blacks tend to contribute to black candidates. And 
whites tend to contribute to white candidates. 

We discovered that only 2 percent of the money that 
white candidates received had come from black contribu­
tors; whereas, we discovered that about 30 percent of the 
money received by black candidates came from white con-. 
tributors. Third--

• • • • • • • • • • 
[793] By Mr. Hunter: 

Q. Dr. Arrington, is your first conclusion-that that the 
cost of running in a multi-member district being greater 
than twice the cost of running in a single-member district­
true for black candidates as well as for white candidates! 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is it also true that the cost of running in a multi-mem­
ber district is more than twice the cost of running in a 



JA-236 

single-member district-true for winners as well as losing 
candidates 7 

A. Yes. 

Q. What conclusion did you reach in regard to [794] the 
contributions that whites may make to black campaigns! 

A. When whites contributed to black candidates, they 
gave less than when they contributed to white candidates . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. Did black conrtibutors contribute on the average as 

much money to black candidates as white contributors con­
tributed to white candidates 1 

A. No. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[800] Q. How does the use of multi-member districts 
impede the election of blacks in North Carolina in these 
elections! 

A. It impedes them first of all because the black popu­
lation is substantially submerged in the larger, mostly 
white multi-member districts ; and secondly, because multi­
member districts require more money to [801] campaign. 
And blacks tend to have less money to spend on such cam­
paigns. 

Q. When the political science literature examines the 
relationship between the socioeconomic status of citizens 
and participation in the election process, what do their 
examinations find T 

A. The literature consistently shows that persons who 
have low socioeconomic status tend to participate in politics 
less than those who have high socioeconomic status. 

Q. Does this finding in the politi0al science literature in 
your experience and education apply to North Carolina elec­
tions in these multi-member districts? 



JA-237 

A. Yes. It is one of the factors which help to explain 
why blacks participate less-for example, vote less-than 
do whites. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[829] (Whereupon, 

Frank Winston Ballance, Jr. 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 9:05 A.M. 

By Ms. Guinier: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[830] Q. Have you been involved in politics? 

A. Yes; I have, 

Q. Could you describe what your present position is. 

A. I am presently a representative from the 7th House 
district to the North Carolina general assembly, having 
been elected in 1982, I guess . 

• • • • • • • • • 
[831] Q. What political organizations are you a mem­
ber of¥ 

A. I am a member-vice-president of the Warren County 
political action council. I am chairman of the second con­
gressional district black caucus. 

Q. ·What is the Warren County political action com­
mittee? 

[832] A. The Warren County political action council is an 
organization which involves itself in the political aspects 
of Warren County in terms of voter registration, support­
ing candidates for office, involving issues of political an,l 
non-political affecting the Warren County commission. 



JA-238 

It is an unorganized-unincorporated is what I meant to 
say-organization-informal organization. 

Q. What is the racial composition of its membership! 

A. As far as I know, it is all black. There may be some 
Indians who are members. 

• • • • • • • • .. • 
[833] Q. You testified that you are elected from a major­
ity black district. Is that a single House seat or a multi­
member district! 

A. That is a single House district seat. 

Q. Was that a single House district seat in 1980! 

A. No; it was not. I believe we were part of the-what 
is known as the 22nd district. I don't recall what number 
it was at that time. But it is the same district that primarily 
now is comprised of the 22nd House district, Vance, War­
ren, Person, Granville. 

Q. Did you ever consider running for the 22nd House 
district when Warren County was part of it! 

[834] A. I considered it, but not seriously. 

Q. Why is thaU 

A. I couldn't get elected. 

Q. Why is thatT 

A. Well, the history is that in the multi-member districts 
it is difficult for blacks to be elected, particularly in the 
district that I reside in. I know Mr. Clayton ran at least 
three times. The district was about 40 percent black, as I 
recall. He' never got elected. 

Floyd McKissick, Jr. ran one time, maybe twice. He did 
not get elected. And others have run for the same seat­
for a seat in that district. And the history is that those 



JA-239 

candidates have received tremendous support from the 
black communities in the district in the various counties, 
but they received very little support from the white com­
munities in tho:5e districts. As a result, they were not able 
to be elected. 

I therefore concluded that it would not be profitable or 
· wise for me to run for that office because I would be wasting 

my time and efforts in terms of not being able to get elected . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[838] Q. Where did you campaign in terms of the white 
community! 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[839] So that was basically my campaign in the white 
community because I felt that going into the residential 
areas would not be feasible. It was not traditional, and · 
I did not do it. I did campaign in the black community and 
of course in the black churches. 

Q. Did you campaign at any white churches! 

A. No. 

Q. Were you invited to any predominantly white civic 
clubs! 

A. None. I was a bit surprised. I am fairly well known 
in Warrenton, and I have been there for-since 1966. It is 
a small town. I know many of the people, but I did not get 
invited to a single what I would call a civic club in the 
white community. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[840] Q. What about in Warren County! 

A. Warren County-the black population was 59.9 per­
cent black. It is about 5 percent Indian. 

Q. Are you familiar with the housing patterns in those 
counties! 



JA-240 

A. Yes. 

Q. Would you describe those, please f 

A. Generally speaking, in the area housing patterns­
you can demonstrate that blacks live in certain areas and 
whites live in certain areas. And this is true even in the 
rural areas to a degree. For example, you have certain 
precincts that are predominantly black-heavily black. You 
have others that are predominantly white. 

In the rural areas you do have, of course, as 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[841] There are distinct housing patterns in the area­
black and white communities. 

Q. What is the level of social attraction between the 
races! 

A. It is very limited. There is some, but it is not very 
much. On the social level you don't have very much social 
racial intermingling. 

Q. Would you describe, please, the level of municipal 
services in the black community compared to the white com­
munities! 

A. There is again a distinct pattern of what I would call 
discrmination, or it might better be described I guess as a 
lower level of services in the black community than you 
find in the white community. 

[842] In the general area that I am talking about, you 
find that in the cities you can tell when you leave the white 
community and go to the black community by the quality 
of the streets, the street lights. Even we found in several 
situations you have less fire hydrants and you have smaller 
water lines in the black community. For example, you 
might have a two-inch line in the black community and a 
six-inch line in the white community. 



JA-241 

I think these patterns have persisted over a long period 
of time and still persists. There is some effort to correct 
that through lawsuits and through voluntary efforts to have 
these patterns changed. There is some change coming, but 
it is still distinctive . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[846] Q. How would you describe the voting patterns of 
people throughout these counties T 

A. Well, if I understand your question, what you have is 
this : When a black candidate runs for office, if he is a good 
candidate-and we like good candidates too-then you can 
count on getting the bla,ck vote. But you cannot count on 
getting support in the white community. 

And that has been true in race after race for [847] office 
after office. 

On the other hand, when white candidates run, again if 
they are good candidates, they can count on getting the 
white vote and the black vote. And we don't have the kind 
of resiprocity that we ought to have in my opinion. I don't 
know. I think whites for some reason, whatever, feel that 
they do not want-yet they refuse to-numbers. And I 
don't mean that is absolute; of course, it is not. But they 
do not vote to elect black candidates as a general principle. 
They vote against them. It doesn't make any difference 
how qualified they are. 

Q. How do these voting patterns affect participation by 
black voters T 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Because many people have been told-black people­

that your vote doesn't make any difference anyway. A lot 
of them want to believe that; a lot of them believe that. 

When you convince those folk that their vote does mean 
something, that they can go out and elect people of their 



JA-242 

choice and they go out and you get them excited [848] about 
the campaign and get them to participate and get them to 
come out and vote, you have a result which their candidate 
which everybody was enthused about is defeated-and this 
happens time and again-then you have very-have a very 
difficult time convincing those folk to come back again. 

What happens is that it convinces them that their vote 
doesn't make a difference; that it won't be any different 
whether they go out and vote or not. And so as a result of 
that, it makes it more difficult for candidates to get support. 

Q. Do black voters or black people participate in the 
political process at the same level as whites f 

A. No. In addition to what I have just said-and that is 
one of the things that is just the end result. You know, 
blacks-well, you have to go all the way back, I guess, to 
when we could not participate. And then you come up and 
you have some of the arti£cial barriers removed, but it is 
very difficult to remove some of the psychological barriers. 
And a lot of those barriers are still there, such as the feeling 
that "I work for Mr. Jones who is white, who owns the 
farm, and he really doesn't think that I ought to be par­
ticipating in voting and registration. And he is the one 
who pays my salary.'' You know, this is the kind of thought 
process that many blacks go through. And [849] they are 
not willing in many instances-this is a psychological bar­
rier, I would say. Many times it is a real barrier, because 
many of those folk that they work for don't want them to 
participate, and they will make it be known. 

For example, in Warren County, on primary day nor­
mally that is a day of setting tobacco from early in the 
morning until late at night. And you Iaiow, the particular 
farmer will make sure that everybody he has influence with 
is i,n the tobacco field. And of course, the farmer hims·elf­
the white farmer--can take off in his truck and go down and 
vote. But the people that are working for him are left in the 



JA-243 

field. And that happens more than you might think. And 
this might affect 10 or 12 voters on one particular place on 
that particular day. 

So you have the psychological barriers as I was talking 
about. You also have the actual barrier of the people being 
prevented in many instances from participating. And of 

. course, there is a carryover also. I think there is still some 
fear in black voters in the area I am talking about. Whether 
it is justified or not-it may well be justified, because I think 
the Klan-and if you go back in history far enough, the 
red shirts, may be the people who put the initial fear on 
blacks-that you don :t participate. 

Well, the Klan is still alive in North Carolina [850] as 
you well know. I don't know if the record shows it, but in 
the Greensboro situation where people were killed by the 
Klan or the Statesville situation where recently a cross 
was burned in the home of a minister-in the yard of a 
minister-and that comes out in the state press and I guess 
in the national press. People are aware that some of these 
situations still exist. · 

And of course, when you have this kind of intimidation, 
you do have an effect on the willingness of people to go out 
and get involved in politics. 

Now, obviously that is not the same extent that it used 
to be. But there is still some lingering effects from that. 

Q. Do you in your opinion-do blacks have an equal op­
portunity to elect representatives of their choice in districts 
where whites are a majority of the voters Y 

A. No. I think for the same reasons I have given you. 
In addition, I think there are probably some blacks that 
probably can get elected-and the record shows that some 
have been elected-in multi-member districts. But the 
answer to your question is no. Blacks do not have the same 
opportunity to elect people of their choice in multi-member 
districts. 



JA-244 

Q. In the legislature have you worked with any blacks 
who have been elected from multi-member districts in [851] 
which blacks were a minority of the total electorate? 

A. Yes. We have several in the general assembly. 

Q. Could you describe your experience working with 
some of those black legislators? 

A. Yeah. I would say first of all that they are good peo­
ple. But I guess they are like other people who get elected. 
And the problem is see is this: There is a degree of intimi­
dation on these blacks who are elected from the multi-· 
member districts. It goes like this: A white who is elected 
in the multi-member district can take a stand that is directly 
contrary to the minority black vote in that district and get 
reelected. 

A black cannot take a stand that is directly contrary to 
the majority white and feel that he can get reelected. And 
when I say "take a stand," I am talking about an issue 
that may be a racial issue, for example. And you have a 
black who is elected in a multi-member district-he does not 
feel the same freedom to take a stand on that issue knowing 
that when he goes back for reelection he has got to go down 
in the white community and stand for reelection, and the 
whites can throw him out of office, whether his stand was 
justified or not. 

And that has an effect in my opinion and in my experi­
ence on blacks who are elected in multi-member districts. 

[852] Q. Could you give us an example! 

A. Well, I do recall that during the time that we served 
this year that one or two issues came up, and being from 
a single-member district I was asked to take the lead on the 
issue. I think that may have been the reason for it. 

Q. You were asked to take the lead by whom! 



JA-245 

A. We have a black caucus in the general assembly-all 
the black members of the general assembly. And of course, 
the discussions were on that caucus meeting-there were 
several of us. And I think the reason was that probably 
the fact that I was elected from a single-member district, 
I was asked to take the lead. 

Q. In your opinion, or should say in your experience, 
have blacks who are not in your district come to you as a 
representative in the House with their problems? 

A. Yes, on more than one occasion. And I welcome them, 
some of whom knew me and some did not, but who knew 
that I had been elected from Warren County. And when 
they came to me-I am not sure for what reason-but they 
felt that-at least during my discussions I found they felt 
I would be responsive to the issues that they had at hand. 

And in some case I was able to be of help and some I was 
not. But I made an effort to. I feel like-well, I guess 
sometimes people read about what you say or what you do 
or hear about it and they feel like this is a [353] person 
that I can go to. I recall when I was younger-! guess I 
was not old enough to vote at that time. But I did have 
a congressman. But the way I perceived it in my mind­
my congressman was from New York. His name was Adam 
Powell. He spoke on the issues the way that I felt . 

• • • • • • • • • 
By Ms. Guinier: 

Q. Directing your attention to that map, do you believe 
that blacks in that district have an equal opportunity to 
elect a representative of their choice ? 

A. That is in the district as it now exists? 

Q. That is right. 

[854] A. No. That is Monk Harrington's district. He is 
from Bertie County. The district is less than 50 percent 



JA-246 

black as it now exists. And a black cannot be elected in 
my opinion in that district running against Mr. Harrington 
or running against anyone else who is a good white can­
didate. 

Q. And when you say the district is less than 50 percent 
black, are you referring to the voters or population T 

A. Voting age population, as I recall I believe it is 55 
percent black overall populationwise. 

Q. Do you have an opinion as to why some people do 
not want to enlarge that district T 

• • • • • • • • • • 
The witness: I know why Monk Harrington would not 

want to enlarge it, because if the district were enlarged 
to be a majority black population district, he might not be 
reelected. I think the same thing would apply to some 
white citizens who live in that district who may not want 
to have a black representative . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[855] CROSS-EXAMINATION 9:49 A.M. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

Q. Did the Warren County political action council en­
dorse a candidate for clerk of superior court in the last 
electionT 

A. Quite possibly so. If I recall correctly, it was Richard 
Hunter or we didn't endorse anybody. I don't recall. 

Q. Isn't it correct that Richard Hunter, the white incum­
bent, ran against a black person in that election T 

A. Well, yeah. 

Q. What was wrong with the black person that the coun­
cil didn't want to endorse him T 



JA-247 

A. Let me answer your first question. I think it is correct 
that Mr. Hunter ran against, again, Mr. Byrd, I believe 
who was the black candidate who ran. 

Q. What was there about the black person that caused 
your council to reject that black and support Mr. Hunter! 

A. Mr. Byrd was not a good candidate in the [856] col­
tective opinion of the political action council. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[866] Q. Have you been successful in getting any of those 
white leaders to openly support youf 

A. Going back to this last race, I don't believe that any­
one came out openly and notoriously supporting me in my 
race for the state House. 

Q. But you had to get some white votes T 

A. I did get some votes. When I say ''opening and no­
toriously," for example, there were some whites in Warren­
ton whom I have known for years and they have known 
me in my work as a lawyer, and I know that they supported 
me. But they didn't go out and campaign down the street. 

Q. Has anyone, for example, in Northampton County­
a white poltical leader who would feel free in the contem­
porary setting openly to support a good black candidate in 
your opinion f 

A. I would think yes, there would be some. I think there 
would he very few. That would be my opinion. 

[867] I think you will find, Judge, that there are some 
whites across the board in the following maybe two cate­
gories: Some will come to you privately and say, "Frank, 
I support you,'' and will give me a check. I got a couple 
of contributions. But you do not find very many who are 
willing to go out and get on the stump. When I say ''get 
on the stump," I mean just go out and say publicly that 



JA-248 

''I think Frank Ballenger is a candidate that you should. 
support." Maybe that day is coming, but it hasn't quite 
come around yet. 

Q. It is better than it wasT 

A. Yes; it is. 

Q. Ten years ago T 

A. Ten years T A lot better than it was 20 years ago. 

Q. But it is still, I take it in your opinion, from your 
own experience improbable in that region that a good black 
candidate can gain the open support of a significant influ­
ential white political figure! 

A. That is true. And of course, if a white political figure 
is also a candidate, then he is going to be very reluctant to 
risk his own political--

• • • • • • • • • • 
[925] (VVhereupon, 

Leslie Bevacqua 
was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 11:57 A.M. 

By Ms. Heenan: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[926] Q. VVhat is your present job, Ms. Bevacqua T 

A. I am the appointments aide for boards and commis­
sions to Governor James B. Hunt, Jr . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[937] Q. Can ~,·ou tell us by name who is serving on the 
inmate grievance board T 



JA-249 

A. Yes, I can. The black members on the inmate griev­
ance commission are Mr. J . G. Butterfield, Dr. [938] Eliza­
beth Stovall, and Reverend George Battle. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[1064] (VVhereupon, 

Marshall Rauch 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows :) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 3 :53 P .M. 

] 1065 [ By Mr. Leonard: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. Are you currently a member of the general assembly 

of North Carolina! 

A. lam. 

Q. VVhat position do you hold! 

A. I am presently co-chairman of the finance committee, 
and I am chairman of the legislative ethics committee. 

Q. In which House T 

A. In the Senate. 

Q. How long have you been a member of the state Senate, 
Senator Rauch! 

A. I have been in the Senate 17 years. This is my 17th 
year. 

Q. During your senatorial service, how many legislative 
redistrictings have you been involved in T 

A. I have been involved in two. 

Q. When was the first T 



JA-250 

A. I believe the first was in 1971. I was a member of the 
Senate redistricting committee. In 1981 I was chairman of 
the Senate redistricting committee. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1068] Q. How long have you known Ralph Gingles, Sr. f 

A. 30 years maybe. Ralph was on the Gaston County 
good neighbor council with me. That is when we came very 
close-30 years ago-20 years ago. 

Q. Has he ever been in your home f 

A. Sure. 

Q. Do you know his son T 

[1069] A. "Skipper"! 

Q. Ralph, Jr. T 

A. Yeah. I know his son very well. 

Q. And you know that "Skipper" or Ralph, Jr. is one of 
the named plaintiffs in this action T 

A. Yes. That was a surprise to both of us. 

Ms. Winner : Well, I object to what was a surprise to 
Mr. Gingles. 

Judge Phillips : Well, we won't consider that answer. 

By Mr. Leonard : 

Q. How long have you known the Ralph Gingles who is 
a plaintiff in this action T 

A. 25 years or so. When he was real little, I didn't know 
him. Let's say at least 10 or 15 years. 

Q. Now, did there come a time in the 1981 session of the 
legislature when you became involved in redistricting! 

A. I am sorry! 



JA-251 

Q. Yon had a role to play in the redistricting process this 
last timeT 

A. Oh, yes. 

Q. Tell the court what committee it was and what role 
yon played! 

A. Well, the redistricting-the Senate redistricting went 
to the Senate redistricting committee, and I was [1070] 
chairman of that committee. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1075] Q. Now, Senator Ranch, prior to February 9th of 
1982, had anyone from the State of Nortth Carolina ap­
proached yon to urge yon to support the concept of single­
member districts in the larger metropolitan counties T 

A. I don't think so. But there is a possibility that Sen­
ator Billy-Senator Bill Mills always wanted, I believe it 
was, numbered seats. I believe the first time I heard it was 
February 9th when Senator Frye asked that we vote on a 
single member district. And then Senator Mills made a mo­
tion for a subcommittee to study it. 

Q. When did Ralph Gingles, Jr., the plaintiff in this ac­
tion, first contact yon to urge yon to support single member 
districts for the larger metropolitan counties T 

A. He never did. 

Q. Do yon know whether or not Mr. Gingles is a con­
stituent-the plaintiff in this case is a constituent of yours T 

[1076] A. Sure, he is. 

• 

Q. Do yon know where he livesT 

A. Sure. 

• • • • • • • • • 



JA-252 

[1079] CROSS-EXAMINATION 4:17 P .M. 

By Ms. Guinier: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1085] Q. And in fact, as a result of the department of 
justice's objection to the North Carolina constitutional 
amendment, you were permitted to break county lines wher­
ever that was necessary to get predominantly black dis­
tricts! 

A. Right. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. The amendments that prohibited dividing counties were 

thrown out as far as you were concerned as a result of the 
department of justice's objection to those amendments t 

A. That is correct. We could break the lines . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. It was your understanding, Senator, that the legisla­

tive redistricting criteria that you referred to [1086] indi­
cated that you could cross county lines t 

A. That is correct. 

Q. And this legislative criteria was the basis on which 
you redistricted the Senate t 

A. That is correct . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. Now, after this lawsuit was filed and the department 

of justice had objected both to the North Carolina constitu­
tional provision as well as to the first [1087] Senate reap­
portionment plan, you told the staff to come up with good 
plans that would enable or enhance the election of minori­
ties ; is that correct t 

A. I>efinitely. 



JA-253 

Q. And this meant drawing single member districts where 
a majority of the people within what was previously a 
multi-member district were black if a single member district 
were drawn T · 

That is correct. 

Q. And you were not told of any legal reason why this 
could not be done across the entire state T 

A. That is right. 

Q. And you were not told, for example, that it could 
only be done if the plan were gerrymandered T 

A. No. 

Q. And you were advised by the staff or by the counsel 
who were retained that they were looking specifically at 
Mercklenburg County to see if a 65 percent majority black 
district could be drawn T 

A. We talked about that; yes. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1096] CROSS-EXAMINATION 

By Ms. Guinier: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1097] Q. I am handing you a copy of a deposit1on that 
you gave in this case. Could you please turn to page 90 
of that deposition 1 Y"l ould you please read aloud starting 
with line 2 to the top of page 91, line 21 

• • • • • • • • • • 
A. Okay. " ... Did you have any advice on the issue of 

whether or not to take Mecklenburg county as a covered 
county and treat it and g£ve it a separate district?" 

'' ... I don't think we wer ~ told to do that.'' 

" ... You were not told to do that?" 



JA-254 

" ... I don't think it was suggested." 

". . . But these are your decisions, aren't theyf These 
aren't legal decisions.'' 

'' ... We could have done it.'' 

" ... Right. But you neglected to do it!" 

" ... We chose not to do it." 

[1098] 
do iU" 

" So you made an affirmative decisi,on not to 

" ... Yes." 

" ... What was the basis upon which that affirmative 
decision not to do it was made T'' 

" ... It wasn't necessary." 

". . . It wasn't necessary to comply with the section 5 
requirement T '' 

'' ... That is correct.'' 

'' ... Was any discussion given to other sections of the 
voting rights or the fifteenth amendment at that timeT'' 

" ... No; but we were aware of the mandate." 

" ... You were aware of the submergence question?" 

'' ... Yes.'' 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1121] Q. Now haven't you also said that the primary 
reason that legislators are concerned about not breaking 
county line was because that's how their old districts were 
drawn and that's how they get elected T 

A. Yes, that's one of the main reasons. 

• • • • • • • • • • 



JA-255 

(1158] Whereupon, 

Louise S. Brennan 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 10:59 A.M. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1159.] Q. Are you a member of the North Carolina 
House! 

A. Yes, I am. 

Q. North Carolina House of Representatives t 

A. Yes. 

Q. What's your educational background! 

A. I have a B. A. in English and political science, and 
an M. A. in political science. 

Q. And what district to you represent in the House of 
Representatives 1 

A. 36th district. 

Q. And that's Mecklenburg county! 

A. Yes. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[1178] A. I believe that in campaigns that I've partici­
pated in jn the past 20 years, both black and white com­
munities open up their communities to candidates of the 
other race. And I have seen nothing to the contrary. 

Q. And have you, during the course of those years, sup­
ported black candidates! 



JA-256 

A. Yies, I have. 

Q. Just name a few for the court. 

A. Harvey Gantt, Arnie Shuford, Jim Pope, Bob Walton. 

Q. Have you contributed money to their campaigns! 

A. To at least 3 of those 4. 

Q. Have you helped and assisted them in their campaign 
activities 1 

A. Yes. Yes, I have. 

Q. Tell the court just briefly, Ms. Brennan, what your 
experience is with respect to the abmty of black people to 
register and have access to the political process in the 
county- and please, briefly. 

A. Briefly, during the past 20 years, I have participated 
in helping to open up the process for blacks and everyone 
else beginning in 1963 and '64 prior to the Voting Rights 
Act. We put on a substantial registration drive with the 
h-elp of Dr. Hawkins, who had a foundation grant to do 
that. 

I have consistently, in all my Democratic Party [1179] 
involvement, supported wide open registration and partici­
pation in the political process and continue to do so. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[1189;] Q. Now at the February 6 meeting which took 
place after the public hearing, Jim Richardson was present, 
is that correct! 

A. That's correct. 

Q. And Phil Berry was present! 

A. Uh-huh. 

Q. Harvey Gantt was preJent Y 



JA-257 

A. Yes. 

Q. And Sara Stephenson was present! 

A. Yes. 

Q. And Raleigh Bynum was present 7 

A. Yes. 

Q. And Arthur Griffin was present 7 

A. Yes. 

Q. And there were a number of black leaders present at 
that meeting 7 

A. Yes. 

Q. Almost to a person, the black people at that meeting 
spoke out in favor of single member districts, did they not 7 

• • • • • • • • • • 

[1190] Q. Do you remember my question 7 

A. Yes, I do. And I will say several people present didn't 
say anything. Several people did express support for single 
member districts. And at least one expressed support for 
the current at large district. 

Q. And who was that one person 7 

A. Malachi Greeu. 

Q. And is Malachi Green the only person you can recall 
who spoke out in favor of the districting syst~m as it pres­
ently existed T 

A. I believe at that meeting he's the only one. 

Q. Now the other people who spoke out in favor of single 
member districts specifically told you that they did not like 
the multi-member district scheme for Mecklenburg county, 
is that correct? 



JA-258 

A. Well, I'm not sure they told me they didn't like that, 
but they said they would rather have single member dis­
tricts. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1191] And they told you that one of the reasons that 
they were in favor of single member districts in Mecklen­
burg county is that in order to elect a candidate of their 
choice the way the system presently exists, blacks have to 
concentrate their votes? 

A. I doubt that concentration or single-shooting was ever 
mentioned in that particular meeting. 

Q. You don 't recall that a number of the people com­
plain-ed that blacks have to single-shoot in order to elect a 
black candidate? 

A. I don't believe that that was ever mentioned. 

Q. Were you present when Phyllis Lynch testified last 
week in this courtroom? 

A. Yes, I was. 

Q. Were you present when she said that blacks have to 
single-shoot in order to elect a candidate of their choice? 

A. Yes, I was present when she said that. 

Q. And you were present when Phyllis Lynch testified 
that the reason blacks have to single-shoot especially in the 
primaries is because there are some white people who are 
reluctant to vote for a black candidate? · 

A. I was present when she testified to that. 

Q. After Ms. Lyncl1 testified, did you talk to her? 

A. Y·es, I did. 

[1192] Q. When she came off the stand? 

A. Yes, I did. 



JA-259 

Q. And didn't you tell her that you would be doing the 
same thing if you were her T 

A. I said if my goals were hers. 

Q. Now in February of 1982, at the meeting that you had 
at the Charlotte Youth Council T 

A. Yes. 

Q. You told the black people who were speaking on be­
half of single member districts that you were opposed to 
changing the present plan, is that correct¥ 

A. Yes. 

Q. And you told them that the Justice Department has 
been working with the legislature and that thP. legislature's 
plan would probably be approved, is that correcU 

A. Yes. 

Q. And you told them that it was all over but the shout­
ing, is that correct 1 Words to that effect? 

A. Yes, I did, probably. I don't really recall saying that, 
but if they say I did, I probably did. 

Q. And you spoke very frankly T 

A. I always do. 

Q. And you told them, and I'm paraphrasing again, "We 
Democrats are not going to let Republicans get into the 
legislature.'' 

[1193,] A. No, well, paraphrasing, I would never have said 
it that way. It's quite likely that I said I would not will­
ingly relinquish seats to Republicans. 

Q. And you said, and I'm paraphrasing again, that single 
member districts would open the doors to Republicans 1 

A. Well, it depends on how the districts are drawn. I 
doubt that I said that, you know. But it would certainly 
depend on how the districts were drawn. 



JA-260 

Ms. Guinier: May I have a moment, please? 

(Pause.) 

By Ms. Guinier : 

Q. Now at the time of this meeting, one of the primary 
concerns of the black people who were assembled was they 
had been unable to elect a black person to the house of 
representatiiVes from Mecklenburg county, is that correct? 

A. I think that was their concern, but I'm not sure that 
it is well placed. 

Q. My question was that was one of the concerns they 
expressed to you 1 

A. Yes. 

Q. And again, paraphrasing, didn't you tell them, "We 
are going to get you a black candidate this time'' 1 

A. Oh, no. I certainly would never have said that. [1194] 
We had 2 black can<lidates present who I knew would be 
candidates. Phil Berry announced to me that date that he 
was going to be a candidate and Jim Richardson was al­
ready an announced candidate, at least to his personal 
friends. So I know that 2 candidates were running, so I 
never would have said that. 

Q. Did you say, again paraphrasing, that we're going 
to get a black person elected this timeT 

A. I thought we would get 2 elected this time-this past 
time. 

• 

Q. Did you say something to that effect 1 

A. Yes, I probably did . 

• • • • 
Q. Who was that candidate? 

A. Jim Ross. 

• • • • • 



JA-261 

Q. And when did he run 1 

A. He ran in 1970 with me, although I lost in the [1195] 
primary. He lost in the general election that year because 
it was in the middle of the busing controversy. 

Q. In your opinion, was he a qualified candidate 1 

A. Yes, he was. 

Q. Now you also described on direct examination your 
experience with Dr. Bertha Maxwell who ran for the house 
in 1980. And she was defeated in the general election 1 

A. Yes. 

Q. In your opinion, is she a qualified candidate! 

A. Yes, she was. 

Q. You've also mentioned Jim Richardson. And the fact 
that you were familiar with his run for the North Carolina 
house. He won the primary, did he not f 

A. Yes, he did. 

Q. And he lost the general election, is that correctf 

A. Yes. 

Q. And that was in 19821 

A. Yes. 

Q. In your opinion, was he a qualified candidate f 

A. Highly qualified. 

Q. You state you were also familiar with James Polk 
who ran for the senate. He ran from Mecklenburg county, 
is that correct. 

A. Yes. 

Q. And he was nominated in the primary, is that [1196] 
correct? 



JA-262 

A. Uh-huh. 

Q. And he lost the general electwn f 

A. Yes, he did. 

Q. In your opinion, was he a qualified candidate? 

A. He was. 

Q. Jim Black is a member of the delegation as it pres-
ently exists from Mecklenburg county, is that correct! 

A. Y·es. 

Q. And Jim Black was first elected in 1980, is that correct! 

A. Uh-huh. 

Q. And when Bertha Maxwell ran in 1980, Jim Black 
also ran for the house from Mecklenburg county in the 
general election! 

A. Yes. 

Q. And this was the first time that Jim Black had run 
for public office, 1s that correct f 

• 

A. Yes, it was. 

Q. .And Jim Black was elected! 

A. Yes, he was. 

Q. And Jim Black is white f 

A. Yes, he is. 

• • • • • • 
[1211] CROSS-EXAMINATION 

By Ms. Guinier: 

• • • • • • • 

• • 
12:10 P .M. 

• • • 



JA-263 

[1216] Q. And 1n fact, you believed-or, in fact, you testi­
fied that the school system in Wake county was integrated 
only as a result of litigation. 

A. That is correct, yes . . 

Q. And you testified that neighborhoods in Wake county 
are identifiable by race? 

A. They are, certainly. 

Q. And that ehurches in Wake county are segregated by 
race? 

A. Absolutely. 

Q. And that social clubs in W·ake county are racially 
identifiable 1 

A. As far as I know, they certainly are. 

Q. And that the black community in Raleigh tends to be 
poorer than the ·white community in Raleigh f 

A. That has been proven. 

Q. That blacks stil1 face problems with regard to em­
ployment discrimination in Wake county? 

A. I'm sure they do, yes. 

Q. And you testified in your deposition that in many 
instances when the housing authority has attempted to 
[1217] purchase land and locate public housing in the white 
community that they have faced opposition f 

A. That is correct. 

Q. And that some of this opposition was racially moti­
vated? 

A. I'm not sure I used that-if you say I said that, and 
it's in that deposition, then I did. But I don't recall saying 
it just that way. 

Q. Do you believe thaU 



JA-264 

A. I'm sure that race has something to do with that, cer­
tainly. 

Q. Now you testified that the southeastern part of 
Raleigh is where most black people live, is that correct 1 

A. That is correct. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
Q. Are municipal services in the black community [1218.] 

equal to those in the white community! 

A. Such as-give me-be very specific on that, if you 
will. ' 

Q. Such as the paving of streets in the black community 1 

A. Certainly more-there are probably more unpaved 
streets in the predominantly black areas of the city than 
there would be in the predominantly white areas. I'm fairly 
sure that that's an accu:r:ate statement. I don't know what 
they are. I can't be more specific than that. 

Q. Now do you believe that these problems with regard 
to housing segregation and employment discrimination and 
the other problems that you mentioned are part of the 
lingering effect of past discrimination? 

A. Oh, I am sure that they are. Yes . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1219.] Q. And you believe that a black office holder has 
more sensitivity and understanding to the needs of black 
people! 

A. I think that's a very, very good statement. 

Q. You've worked in campaigns for various black people 
who have run for office in Wake county? 

A. Almost all of them. 

Q. And worked in the campaign for .T ohn Baker when he 
ran for sheriff in 19781 



A. Yes, certainly did. 

Q. And in 1982 T 

A. Yes. 

JA-265 

Q. And you are familiar with John Baker's record! 

f 1220] A. Oh, yes. Record-you mean as sheriff or as 
what? 

Q. You're familiar with him personally! 

A. I know John Baker personally, yes. 

Q. And you !mow that John Baker played professi.onal 
football and was an all-pro prior to being elected, is that 
correct? 

A. Yes, millions of people know that. 

Q. And that prior to running for office, his name was well 
known in the white community? 

A. Yes, I'd have to say that he was very well known. 

Q. You are also familiar with Acie Ward? 

A. Y.es. 

Q. Is she a black woman lawyerT 

A. Yes. 

Q. She ran for district court judge in Wake county in 
1982T 

A. Yes, she did. 

Q. She ran as an incumbent! 

A. Yes. 

Q. She lostT 

A. Yeah, Acie Ward ran as an incumbent having sat or 
whatever the correct English is-having been appointed to 
the bench and served maybe 6 months and then was-maybe 



JA-266 

less than that and then had to run for election to the seat. 

[1221.;] Q. And you believe that race was one of the fac­
tors in her defeaU 

A. I'm fairly sure that that's not in. that deposition. No, 
I didn't say that. I think I believe I said to you that that 
may have been a contributing factor but there were some 
other things, too, that probably attributed to her defeat. 

Q. It was one of the factors Y 

A. Could very well have been one of the factors. I am 
fairly sure I told you that. 

Q. You're familiar with her. 

A. Very i:amiliar with her. 

Q. And she's the only black person who has ever been 
elected to the Wake county board of commissioners Y 

A. She certainly is, yes. 

Q. And she does not live in the black community? 

A. She does not. 

Q. In fact, she lives in an affiuent section of Raleigh 
that's predominantly whiteY 

A. You're quoting me accurately on that . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1223] Whereupon, 

Malachi J. Green 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows: 

• 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 

By Mr. Leonard: 

• • • • • • 

12:25 P .M. 

• • • 



JA-267 

[1234] Q. Did Knox and Gantt at one point in their politi­
cal careers contest one another for the mayor's position in 
Charlotte? 

A. Indeed, they did. 

Q. Is one of them black! 

A. Harvey Gantt is black. 

Q. Is one of them white! 

A. Eddie Knox is white. 

Q. Who did you support! 

A. I supported Eddie Knox. 

Q. There's been testimony here that the Knox campaign 
made overt racial ·appeals during the Knox-Gantt cam­
paign. Did you observe any of those appeals during that 
campaign by Knox! 

A. I did not, sir. 

Q. Or by anybody on. his behalf 7 

A. I did not observe such. 

Q. Let me show you what's been-may I approach the 
witness! 

Judge Phillips: You may. 

By Mr. Leonard: Let me show you what's been [1235] 
marked Gingles exhibit No. 46 which is in evidence and has 
been identified as an editorial from the-

A. The Charlotte Observer. 

Q. Charlotte Observer, and you '11 note I've marked the 
last two paragraphs. Would you just read those to yourself 
for the moment, pleaseT 

(Witness complies.) 



JA-268 

Now, Mr. Green, do you have ·an opinion as to whether 
or not those two paragraphs of that editorial constitute a 
racial appeal or a racial overtone with respect to the 
candidates in that race T 

Ms. Winner: Objection. 

Judge Phillips : Overruled. 

A. In my opinion, Mr. Leonard, they do not constitute 
any appeal to race because the divergent and sometimes 
controversial views that are referred to in the editorial 
have direct reference to two big issues that were the prin­
cipal campaign themes. 

Q. Did either of those issues have anything to do with 
race! 

A. No, only insofar as any issue has to. do with race­
public transportation, growth management. Those were the 
two big issues. 

Q. Would you have an opinion as to whether or not the 
black citizens of the city of Charlotte would have taken 
[1236] that editorial to be a reflection on the racial back­
ground of the two candidates! 

A. I can't speak, of course, for all the citizens of Char­
lotte, but no one ever raised that issue to me or I never 
heard it discussed during the campaign. 

Q. Prior to the time that you and I discussed this last 
night, had you ever heard it raised by anybody? 

A. No. 

Q. Was your support for Eddie Knox in that campaign 
open! 

A. Very. 

Q. Did people know you were. supporting him T 

A. Yes, sir. 



JA-269 

Q. Did your name at times appear in ads for Mr. Knox 1 

A. Endorsement ads and every other report. We spon­
sored all kinds of affairs for him. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1277] RECROSS-EXAMINATION 3:37P.M. 

By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Mr. Green, have you examined the election returns 
for the general assembly elections in Mecklenburg county 
for the last four or six years 1 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1278] Q. Do you think that race was a factor in defeat 
of: Bertha Maxwell from the general assembly f 

A. No. 

Q. Do you think that race was a factor in the defeat of 
Jim Polk when he ran for the senate? 

A. Ms. Winner, let me change the answer to that first 
question. Yeah. 

[1279] Q. Do you think that race is a factor in the defeat 
of Jim Polk when he ran for the Senate? 

A. Yeah. You said "a" factor. 

Q. A factor. Do yon think that race was a factor in the 
defeat of Jim Richardson when he ran for the house in 
19821 

A. Yeah. 

Ms. Winner: I don't have any other questions. 

EXAMINATION 3:37 P.M. 

By Judge Dupree: 



JA-270 

Q. I'm not sure that I understood your answer to a ques­
tion relating to the relative chance of a black candidate 
to be elected to the state senate from the Mecklenburg­
Cabarrus district as presently constituted. Let me put the 
question in this way: 

Let's assume that we have a Democratic primary in 
which there are two candidates, one black and one white. 
~ach of · them is qualified to represent the district in the 
senate. In your opinion, does either of those candidates, 
just on those facts alone, have a better chance to be elected 
than the other 1 

A. Yes. 

Q. Which one 1 

A. I think the white person would have a better [1280] 
chance. 

• • • • • • • • • • 

(Whereupon, 

Arthur John Howard Clement, ~' 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 3:40 P.M. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

Q. Would you state your full name and your address, 
pleaset 

A. I am Arthur John Howard Clement, ill. I'm at 2505 
Weaver Street, i.n Durham, North Carolina. 

• 

Q. And you are an American who is black and male f 

A. Obviously. 

• • • • • • • • • 



JA-271 

[1295] Q. Did you have whites actively participating in 
your campaign T 

A. Very much so. 

Q. Do you know any policy of the Durham County Demo­
cratic Party which impedes black people from participating 
in the process in that countyT 

A. No, I don't. 

Q. What's the makeup of the executive committee? 

A. The chairman-the cha1rperson of the executive com­
mittee is Mrs. Lucas. She's a black woman. The-most of 
the other offices-many of the offices-in fact, there's a 
good mix in the current Democratic party, black, white, 
women, young people, in the current leadership hierarchy 
of the Democratic party. 

Q. Do you know of any reason why blacks are not able 
to elect the candidates of their choice for the general as­
sembly in Durham county? 

A. Well, if I may, sir, if the Durham collliirittee had 
given me its endorsement, theoretically I think I could 
have been in the state legislature today, and Durham 
county would have had two blacks in the state legislature 
from Durham county. But the Durham committee did not 
see fit to give me its endorsement. Consequently I was 
denied a significant portion of the black vote. Consequently, 
I lost. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1300] (Whereupon, 

Allen Adams 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 



JA-272 

By Mr. Leonard: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1301] Q. Are you currently a member of the General 
Assembly! 

• 

A. I am. 

Q. And in the House of Representat1vest 

A. Yes. 

Q. From what county? 

A. Wake county. 

• • • • • • • • • 
[1306] Q. What about the formal election board process 
itself? What's your experience with respect to blacks' par­
ticipation in the board of elections? 

A. Well, I can remember 1960 we started a registration 
drive called a vote-mobile drive. And that was done in con­
junction with the Jaycees and the League of Women 
Voters. And the vote on the election board was two to one. 
We got John Duncan's vote, and one Democrat. And one 
Democrat voted against it. But anyway, we did that, and 
from then on we have-in the-through the elections proc­
ess-board process made every effort to make registration 
and voting available to all the citizens. 

At that time we had special emphasis on black [1307] 
registration because they were underregistered. 

Q. You mentioned the precinct level. Are you familiar 
with blacks holding precinct offices in the county! 

A. Yes. 

Q. Can you tell the court how long a history that has? 

A. Well, it's been ever since I've been in Wake County. 
There were a number of black precinct chairmen and vice 



( 

JA-273 

chairmen. Let me, if I may, Mr. Leonard-I digressed a 
little bit on the election process. The Wake county board 
of elections has had a black member since 1968 or '69. J. J . 
Sanson was appointed by me. And I think there has been 
continuously since then a black member on the Wake county 
board of eleetio:.us. The current chairman of the Wake 
county board of elections :Ls Rosa Guild, who is black . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1333] Q. Can you give examples of the Wake county 
delegation supporting legislation that was of specific in­
terest to the black community? 

A. Yes. When the blacks asked us to abolish the single­
member districts for the school board-as you heard Mr. 
Malone testify-on the grounds that that diluted the voting 
influence of black citizens, we introduced a bill over the 
objection of a number of other elements in the county to 
set up the mechanism to go to at-large elections for the 
school board: 

That was specifically at the request of the black organi­
.zations-the four black organizations: the Raleigh-Wake 
Citizens Association, the Black Women's Political Caucus, 
the Wake County Democratic Black Caucus [1334] and the 
fourth one, which met. together. Mr. Winley was presiding. 
Mr. Malone was there. Substantially every black leader in 
Wake county was there. And the purpose or the meeting 
was to ask us to do away with single-member districts in 
VIT ake county for the school board because it lessened the 
influence of the black voters. And we introduced that legis­
lation and have it pending. 

Q. Is there a black caucus in the house of representa­
tives 1 

A. Yes. 



JA-274 

Q. Do they at times generate proposals to the legisla~ 
ture out of that caucus 7 

A. Yes. 

Q. Can you recall any such issues in the last two ses­
sions! 

A. Yes. Their main program was the voter registration 
battles that chairman Spearman referred to that the legis­
lature passed. And I introduced one of those. And repre­
sentative Blue und I and Ballance worked on those in the 
house election la.ws committee. And we got all three of 
them passed. 

Wilma Woodard, our senator, was introducing them in 
the senate and handled the bills in the senate. There were 
three specific proposals. One was voter [1335] registration 
in public libraries. The second was to have a voter registrar 
at each hlgh school. And the third was the Department of 
Motor Vehicles license examiners giving an opportunity to 
people when they renew their driver's license to register 
to vote or change their registration. And all three of those 
passed. 

Q. Was there any legislation in the health field that came 
out of the caucus 7 

A. Well, I don't know that it was an official action of 
the caucus. But Repre!Sentative Lockes from Robeson coun­
ty introduced a bill on the sickle cell anemia funds-to 
have funds for sickle cell-which I understand is pecu­
liarly applicable to blacks. I think only blacks get sickle 
cell anemia. 

And they were intrested in that-the caucus was. And 
that was placed in the budget. In fact, we took the funds 
out of the governor's block grant funds and funded $281,000 
for sickle cell anemia. 



JA-275 

Q. Did all of this legislation which you referred to be­
come law in North Carolina 1 

A. Yes. It is law now. 

• • • • • • • • • 

[1369] (VVhereupon, 

Thomas Brooks Hofeller 

was called as a witness, duly sworn, and testified as 
follows:) 

DIRECT EXAMINATION 10:17 A.M. 

By Mr. Leonard: 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1387] Q. Is that information available from the voting 
records in Mecldenburg county¥ 

A. To the best of my belief, it is. 

Q. VVhat else did you observe¥ 

A. Dr. Grofman appears to give a very great weight to 
the correlation between two variables, where one variable 
is the percent of black registration and the other variable 
is the percent of performance by the black candidates¥ 

He went through the data. And he listed out that there 
were correlati,on coefficients that were extremely high .. And 
there were significances that were extremely low, which 
made them very good. And I don't argue that those corre­
lations and sigmficancfl represent the relationship of those 
two variables. 

I would just like to point out that my opinion is that 
one would find that sort of correlation between white and 
black voting behavior in other races where whi,tes and 
blacks were candidate~ and in other races in which other 



JA-276 

issues were at stake-that the presence of high degree of 
correlation and high significance does not really prove the. 
causality of his judgment that there is significant racially 
polarized bloc voting. 

[1388] It is very academicalli exciting to have that cor­
relate so well. But I am not sure that it would be f~ir to 
draw the conclusion that it proves his point, especially 
when evidence is not presented as to whether or not those 
kinds of voting behaviors are present anywhere else in 
the state or anywhere else in the nation. 

Q. What other observations did you makeT 

A. Again, in my opinion I think that it is very difficult 
from my experience in electoral analysis to use just the 
results of votes as a model for determining what hap­
pened in an election. There are a large number of fac­
tors-some of which are quantifiable, some of whicli are 
non-quantifiable-which are present in any election in any 
given year, such as the positions of the candidates on 
issues. After all, elections are decided by issues. 

I think it would be naive to assume that every election 
is decided upon the race of the candidate. Financing is an 
iEsue. The general approval rating of the candidate is an 
issue. The candidate's skill as a candidate and the skill of 
the persons wl.to are managing his or her campaign are 
Important. N arne I.D. is important. Ballot position is im­
portant. The general atmosphere in that campaign ·year 
is important. The same characteristics for the other candi­
rl.ates are also important. 

[1389] So I guess what I am trying to say here is that 
the correlation analy~is and the statistical significance and 
all that data in the printouts is only one factor in trying 
to lead to an evaluation of the election. And therefore, 
one should not uece&sarily give the weight that one might 
feel on the correlation over to the other factors when some­
body is making a determination. 



JA-277 

• • • • • • • • • 

[1419] CROSS-EXAMINATION 12:05 P .M. 

By Ms. Winner: 

• • • • • • • • • • 

[1430] A. 'Submergence with relation to multi-member 
districts takes place when there is a minority population 
which is sufficiently concentrated such that a district can 
be drawn to include that population-a reasonable dis­
trict-in which that minority would constitute a majority. -

But at the same time, the total of all the minority in­
habiants of that multi-member district do not constitute a 
majority of that multi-member district's population. 

Q. And when you say a reasonable district could be 
drawn, do you mean one that is intact and contiguous f 

A. Reasonably so. Reasonably so. 

Q. Using that definition-I think that you testified that 
you have examined the concentration of minority voters 
in Mecklenburg and Forsyth and Durham and Wake coun­
ties; is that correct? 

A. Along with several other counties in the state also. 

Q. But you have examined it in both counties f 

A. Yes. 

Q. Using that criterion, do you consider there to [1431] 
be submergence in the Mecklenburg county house district f 

A. The multi-member seat f 

Q. Yes-in Mecklenburg county? Would you like me to 
put the map upf 

A. I was just going to get the district numbers-dis­
trict 36? 



JA-278 

Q. Yes! 

A. Yes. The answer is yes-in accordance with that defi­
nition; yes. 

Q. Do you consider there to be submergence in .the Meck­
lenburg.:Cabarrus senate district, which is senate district 
number 22! 

A. Yes. 

Q. Do you consider there to be submergence in the Dur­
ham county house district-! can't recall the number! 

A. 23; yes. 

Q. And do you consider there to be submergence in the 
Wake county house district number 21 T 

A. Yes. 

Q. And do you consider there to be submergence in the 
Forsyth county house district number 39 T 

A. Yes. 

Q. Do you consider there to be submergence in the Wil­
son-Edgecombe-Nash bouse district number 8! 

A. Yes. 

• • • 

[1437] 

• • • • 

CROSS-EXAMINATION 
(Resumed) 

By Ms. Winner: 

• • • 

Q. Dr. Hofeller, have you analyzed the elections in Meck­
lenburg, Forsyth and Durham and Wake counties to deter­
mine whether black voters single-shot vote more than white 
voters doT 

A. Yes. 



JA-279 

Q. In your opinion, do black voters have to single-shot 
vote in order to be able to elect black candidates in those 
counties! 

A. I am not sure that I can say conclusively in every 
instance that they would have to have single shot. But I 
think as a general rule the answer would be yes . 

• • • • • • • • • 
r144l] Q. In looking at professor Grofman's results, is 
it correct that the extreme case analysis and the regres­
sion analysis correspond wi,thin ·a few percentage points in 
almost all of the cases? 

A. In many of the cases they do conform rather closely. 

Q. In most of the cases t 

A. Yes. 

Q. Now, you testified that professor Grofman did not 
have any turnout data or turnout estimate; is that what 
you saidt 

A. No. What I said was that I would like to have seen 
:figures on the numbei of blacks and the number of whites 
who turned out. Certainly I know that he had Democratic 
and Republican turnout in those primary elections and 
general turnout in the general election. 

Q. Is there any way to determine the exact number of 
blacks and whites who voted in each election in each pre­
cinct without going ana counting the registration cards T 

A. Not that I know of. 

[1442] Q. In the political science literature, is it standard 
for political scientists to count registration cards to deter-
mine black and white turnoutT -

A. I am not sure that it has ever been done. But that 
doesn't mean that it isn't a valid way to operate. I know 



JA-280 

that in terms of analyzing political data for vote analysis 
for trying to win elections and determine elections, there 
have been times when people have gone to the voter regis­
tration forms and affidavits. So it certainly isn't beyond 
the realm of things you could do. 

Q. But it is unusual 7 

A. If you were just dealing in an academic situation 
probably you wouldn't go to the trouble of getting that 
data. 

Q. And the reason is that it is extremely time-consuming 
to do that-and tedious 1 

A. Again, it is a matter of how extreme you think it i,s. 

Q. But it would be a matter of going through card by 
card? 

A. Yes; definitely. 

Q. And determining whether everybody voted and what 
race they were 7 

A. Yes. · 

Q. Have you ever done that in any analysis that [1443] 
you did? 

A. N 6--not for this kind of a study. Again, I have done 
it in terms of political analysis-practical politics dealing 
with real elections. Yes. 

Q. But you have not done it for this kind of study? 

A. It depends on what you characterize as "this kind of 
study." 

Q. Are you familiar with the method that Dr. Grofman 
used for estimating turnout? 

A. No. I can't say that I really am . 

• • • • • • • • • • 



JA-281 

[1445] Q. Now, do you agree that a standard methodology 
in political science for determming voting polarization is 
to look at correlations T 

A. Yes. 

Q. And that that would be at least one of the steps that 
should be performed in order to determine whether or not 
there is substantial significant polarized [1446] voting? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Would you agree that all of the correlations that Dr. 
Grofman arrived at or found in his studies were statis­
tically significant? 

A. I think I already stated that they were statistically 
significant. 

Q. All of them? 

A. He gave the significance factor of them. It was .00001, 
which was the best that the printout could show. 

Q. And you agree that that is statistically significant? 

A. I agree that his correlation between those two vari­
ables is statistically significant . 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1447] By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Looking at defendants' exhib1t 14(d), you have testi­
fied that Richardson's place on the ballot could have been 
one of the reasons why he lost; is that correct Y 

A. Yes. That is correct. 

Q. And he is candidate number 8? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is it correct that the person next to Richardson-that 
is, candidate number 7 -came in third in that electwn? 

A. Yes. 



JA-282 

Q. And that the candidate next to that person, candidate 
number 6, came in seGond in the election t 

[1448] A. I am not sure that he didn't come in first. 

Q. He came in first in the elect~on 1 

A. Yes. 

Q. And that way over on the other page, candidate num­
ber 15-who I believe would have been the seventh Repub­
lican-got 3,000 more votes than Mr. Richardson got? 

A. Yes. I think you have to note, though, of course, the 
Republicans and Democrats are on a different row in the 
ballot. And I think that you have to recall that my testi­
mony is that the ballot posit~on has an effect on the votes 
received. I didn't say it was going to be totally determinant. 

Obviously if it were, the top alphabetical candidate would 
always win every election. 

Q. At least m this election, while Mr. Richardson was in 
eighth place, the candidate who was number 7 in both the 
Democratic row and the Republican row did substantially 
better than he did t 

A. That is right. But I would s·ay that .3 of 1 percent of 
vote difference could be accounted for by position on ballot 
just as any other factor. It could have been that i,f candi­
date number 7 were higher on the ballot, he might have 
gotten more votes . 

• • • • • • • • • 
[1451] Q. Would you say that there was racially polarized 
voting in the general election in the Mecklenburg county 
for the senate in 19821 

A. Polarized voting~ 

Q. Yes. 

A. Yes. 



JA-283 

Q. In each of the elections contained m exhibits 13 
through 18, were there any that did not have racially 
polarized voting? 

A. I do not recall seeing one. 

• • 

[1454] 
totality 
you? 

• • • • • • • • 

Q. You did not conduct an investigation of the 
of the circumstances in any of these places; did 

A. Some of the factors which I mentioned as being neces­
sary to prove or to form an opinion of substantially [1455.] 
significant racially polarized voting are very difficult to 
obtain. And if one was indeed trying to prove a case on 
that, one would want to look at them all. And I did not 
look at them all. 

Q. And in fact, when I took your deposition a week and 
n half ago, you said that you hadn't looked at anything 
other than the voter returns at that time; isn't that right T 

A. That is correct. 

• • • • • • • • • • 
[1458] By Ms. Winner: 

Q. Prior to . your employment in this case, have you ever 
done an analysis of racially polarized voting? 

A. No. 








	NAACP0704
	NAACP0705
	NAACP0706
	NAACP0707
	NAACP0708
	NAACP0709
	NAACP0710
	NAACP0711
	NAACP0712
	NAACP0713
	NAACP0714
	NAACP0715
	NAACP0716
	NAACP0717
	NAACP0718
	NAACP0719
	NAACP0720
	NAACP0721
	NAACP0722
	NAACP0723
	NAACP0724
	NAACP0725
	NAACP0726
	NAACP0727
	NAACP0728
	NAACP0729
	NAACP0730
	NAACP0731
	NAACP0732
	NAACP0733
	NAACP0734
	NAACP0735
	NAACP0736
	NAACP0737
	NAACP0738
	NAACP0739
	NAACP0740
	NAACP0741
	NAACP0742
	NAACP0743
	NAACP0744
	NAACP0745
	NAACP0746
	NAACP0747
	NAACP0748
	NAACP0749
	NAACP0750
	NAACP0751
	NAACP0752
	NAACP0753
	NAACP0754
	NAACP0755
	NAACP0756
	NAACP0757
	NAACP0758
	NAACP0759
	NAACP0760
	NAACP0761
	NAACP0762
	NAACP0763
	NAACP0764
	NAACP0765
	NAACP0766
	NAACP0767
	NAACP0768
	NAACP0769
	NAACP0770
	NAACP0771
	NAACP0772
	NAACP0773
	NAACP0774
	NAACP0775
	NAACP0776
	NAACP0777
	NAACP0778
	NAACP0779
	NAACP0780
	NAACP0781
	NAACP0782
	NAACP0783
	NAACP0784
	NAACP0785
	NAACP0786
	NAACP0787
	NAACP0788
	NAACP0789
	NAACP0790
	NAACP0791
	NAACP0792
	NAACP0793
	NAACP0794
	NAACP0795
	NAACP0796
	NAACP0797
	NAACP0798
	NAACP0799
	NAACP0800
	NAACP0801
	NAACP0802
	NAACP0803
	NAACP0804
	NAACP0805
	NAACP0806
	NAACP0807
	NAACP0808
	NAACP0809
	NAACP0810
	NAACP0811
	NAACP0812
	NAACP0813
	NAACP0814
	NAACP0815
	NAACP0816
	NAACP0817
	NAACP0818
	NAACP0819
	NAACP0820
	NAACP0821
	NAACP0822
	NAACP0823
	NAACP0824
	NAACP0825
	NAACP0826
	NAACP0827
	NAACP0828
	NAACP0829
	NAACP0830
	NAACP0831
	NAACP0832
	NAACP0833
	NAACP0834
	NAACP0835
	NAACP0836
	NAACP0837
	NAACP0838
	NAACP0839
	NAACP0840
	NAACP0841
	NAACP0842
	NAACP0843
	NAACP0844
	NAACP0845
	NAACP0846
	NAACP0847
	NAACP0848
	NAACP0849
	NAACP0850
	NAACP0851
	NAACP0852
	NAACP0853
	NAACP0854
	NAACP0855
	NAACP0856
	NAACP0857
	NAACP0858
	NAACP0859
	NAACP0860
	NAACP0861
	NAACP0862
	NAACP0863
	NAACP0864
	NAACP0865
	NAACP0866
	NAACP0867
	NAACP0868
	NAACP0869
	NAACP0870
	NAACP0871
	NAACP0872
	NAACP0873
	NAACP0874
	NAACP0875
	NAACP0876
	NAACP0877
	NAACP0878
	NAACP0879
	NAACP0880
	NAACP0881
	NAACP0882
	NAACP0883
	NAACP0884
	NAACP0885
	NAACP0886
	NAACP0887
	NAACP0888
	NAACP0889
	NAACP0890
	NAACP0891
	NAACP0892
	NAACP0893
	NAACP0894
	NAACP0895
	NAACP0896
	NAACP0897
	NAACP0898
	NAACP0899
	NAACP0900
	NAACP0901
	NAACP0902
	NAACP0903
	NAACP0904
	NAACP0905
	NAACP0906
	NAACP0907
	NAACP0908
	NAACP0909
	NAACP0910
	NAACP0911
	NAACP0912
	NAACP0913
	NAACP0914
	NAACP0915
	NAACP0916
	NAACP0917
	NAACP0918
	NAACP0919
	NAACP0920
	NAACP0921
	NAACP0922
	NAACP0923
	NAACP0924
	NAACP0925
	NAACP0926
	NAACP0927
	NAACP0928
	NAACP0929
	NAACP0930
	NAACP0931
	NAACP0932
	NAACP0933
	NAACP0934
	NAACP0935
	NAACP0936
	NAACP0937
	NAACP0938
	NAACP0939
	NAACP0940
	NAACP0941
	NAACP0942
	NAACP0943
	NAACP0944
	NAACP0945
	NAACP0946
	NAACP0947
	NAACP0948
	NAACP0949
	NAACP0950
	NAACP0951
	NAACP0952
	NAACP0953
	NAACP0954
	NAACP0955
	NAACP0956
	NAACP0957
	NAACP0958
	NAACP0959
	NAACP0960
	NAACP0961
	NAACP0962
	NAACP0963
	NAACP0964
	NAACP0965
	NAACP0966
	NAACP0967
	NAACP0968
	NAACP0969
	NAACP0970
	NAACP0971
	NAACP0972
	NAACP0973
	NAACP0974
	NAACP0975
	NAACP0976
	NAACP0977
	NAACP0978
	NAACP0979
	NAACP0980
	NAACP0981
	NAACP0982
	NAACP0983
	NAACP0984
	NAACP0985
	NAACP0986
	NAACP0987
	NAACP0988
	NAACP0989
	NAACP0990
	NAACP0991
	NAACP0992
	NAACP0993
	NAACP0994
	NAACP0995