J. Daniel Long Affidavit (Exhibit F)

    a
F::'-'+

AFFIDAVI i

a--l/tY

J. Daniel Long, being duly sworn, deposes and says:'

l. I am ar attorney licensed in the State of tlorth Carolina and an employed

by the General Research Division of the Legislative Services 0ffice. I have provided

legal and technical asslstance to the senate Redistricting connrittee since January

1981.

2, The General Assembly enacted a redistricting plan for the Senate in Ju'ly

1ggl, that did not contravene the North carolina constitutional provisions

prohibiting the division of counties in the formation of districts and that had an

overa'll range of deviation from the ideal population for senatorial districts of

22.7%. This plan was submitted to the united States Department of Justice for

preclearance pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of ldOS, as anended'

(42 U.S.C. S1973, et seq.).

3. pursuant to the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 40 of the 100 counties in the

State of North Caroljna are covered by the Act, which requires the counties to sub-

mit any change in voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard'

practice, or procedure to the United States Attorney General for preclearance prior

to any such change becoming effective as law. (Approval of such changes may also

be obtained by seeking a declaratory judgment in the united States District Court

for the District of Columbia,) In 1968, Article II, $3(3) and 55(3) of the North

Carolina constitution had been amended to prohibit the divislon of counties in the

format-ion of Senate and Representative districts, Although these amendments Y{ere

subject to the preclearance provisions of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act' they

were not submitted to the United States Department of Justice until September 1981.

The Attorney General interposed an objection, by letter dated 30 November 1981' to

the constitut.ional amendments insofar as they affected the covered counties. The

objection retter noted that the prohibition against dividing the 40 covered

counties in the formation of Senate and House districts predictably required, and

had led to the use of, large multi-member districts' The letter noted further'

that the use of such multi-member districts necessarily submerges cognizable

minority popu'lation concentrations into larger wtrite electorates.

4, By letter dated December 7, 1981, the Attorney Genera'l interposed an

objection to the proposed senate redistricting plan because in several counties

covered by the special provisions of the Voting Rights Act there Y{ere cognizable

concentrations of minority persons whose lrolitir:at strenqth was di.lrtted as a result

of the use of multi-member districts. The objection letter noted that understand-

ably,. these effects of the proposed Senate plan may well have been the result of
I

I



[.
the State's adherence to the 1968 constitutional anendment rtrich necessarily requires

a submerging of sizeable black conrnunities into large multi-member districts. In

determining not only wtrether the Senate plan would lead to retrogression in the
posit'ion of racial ninoritfes rith respect to t}eir effectfve exercise of the

electoral franchise, but also rhether the plan reflected minority voting strength as

it exists today, the Attorney General in the objection letter pointed specifically
to the counties of Guilford, tlilson, Nash, Bertie, Edgecombe and Martin as areas

with cognizable concentrations of minority persons rhose political strength was

diluted as a result of large multi+nember districts. similarly, it was pointed out
that in wilson, Nash, Edgecombe, Martin and several counties in proposed District I
(comprising the covered counties of Beaufort, Bertie, Camden, Chowan, Gates,

Hertford, Northampton, Pasquotank, Perquimans and Uashington, and the uncovered

counties of Currituck' Dare, Hyde, and Tyrrell) the multi-member districts seemed to
give black voters no opportunity to elect candidates of their choice; however,

fairly-drawn single-member districts in these areas would likely result in a plan
that would not minimize the voting potential of black voters,

5' The Senate Redistricting Committee (hereinafter the Committee) on Januar ! ?g,
1982, adopted a set of criteria, based on.federal. and State redistricting require-
ments' to guide them in creating senatorial districts for the North Carolina General

Assembly. (A copy of these criteria is attached hereto as Long Affidavit Exhibit A

and is hereby incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.)
6' In addition to the difficulties of redistricting the State to comply with

the Voting Rights Act, the overall range of deviation for the original Senate plan

was in excess of ?0%, wtrich did not meet the Committee criteria. In attempting to
draw maps for the Conmittee wtrich did not cross county lines, but at the same time
maintained an overall range of deviation within the Committee guidelines, I was

repeatedly forced to draw large, more unwieldy multi-member districts. Such

districts would of course be suspect pursuant to the Attorney General.s objection
I etter

7. The problem of drawing Senate districts that did not cross county lines
betame especially acute in the wake of redrawing the districts in the northeastern
part of the State to comply with the objections raised by the Department of Justice.
The comparative underpopulation of the northeast, relative to the piedmont, combined

with the consideration given to the creation of districts wtrich recognized black
voting strength, led to a "ripple" effect westward. That ls, as you nfattenn

districts in the east with counties or townships from neiqhboring, more rvesterly
districtsr Jou become compelled to reach farther westward for population to brlng the

districts from which Jou have taken counties or toinships back lnto line for purposes

of one:man, one-vote. This sets up a chain reaction across the state.



E.
:i .

g. It has been my experience, within the context of the northeastern portion

of the state wtrere the constraints of the objections by the Department of Justlce

and of achieving an acceptable range of deviation are acute, that the peculiar

shapes and poprlations of ure comties to the rest of the northeast virtually compel

the drawing of Iarge multi-member districts if county lines are also maintained' For

examp.le, if 3ou tried to keep l,lake County boundaries'intact, because lt is not a

county covered by the voting Rights Act, tt is necessary in keeping the overall

deviation under 5l to create a large five-member district using Person' Durhan, tlake

Lee and Harnett counties, Because person, Lee and Harnett counties are covered by

the voting Rights Act, this would seem to contravene the obiections made by the

Department of Justice,

9. I also attempted to devise a map ntrich unuld leave Forsyth County' and other

.surround.ing counties not covered by the voting Rights Act, intact' The problems

that had to be solved were meeting the voting Rights Act objections and a'lso the

population requirements of the Guilford districts for purposes of one-man, one-vote'

In attempting to comply wit-h the obiections interposed by the Department of Justice'

Guilford,s three-member disirict was drawn as three sin91e-member districts' (The

three districts created in Guilford county were u'ltimately approved by the

Department of Justice in a letter dated Aprir 19,1982, as districts in r*rich black

voters are now given a reasonable opportunity to elect candidates of their choice')

However, in creating the Guilford districts, it is necessary to combine townships

from other counties with the Guilford Senate District 19 in order to bring the

rerative deviation under 5r, The onry counties contiguous to Guilford that are a'lso

covered by the voting Rights Act are Rockingham and caswell counties'

It is possible to bring the overall deviation of senate District 19 just within

a 5% deviat'ion if the townships of Huntsville, New Bethel, simpsonville and

rl|illiamsburg in Rockingham county, and the townships of Stony Creek and Locust Hill

in caswe.n county are put into the lgth District instead of the townships of Belews

creek and Kernersviile from Forsyth county. However, the 19th District has a predom-'

inatery wtrite popuration. In contrast, Rockingham and casweu counties have signifl-

cant brack concentrations. In the 1971 Senate pran, Rockingham and caswell counties

were part of the District 15, a two-member district comprising the western counties

of Ashe, Al'leghany, Surry, Stokes, Rockingham and Caswell Counties' That district'

under the 1970 census had a black population of !5.21. That same district using

19g0 census figures wourd have a brack popu'ration of 14r, Although because of the

prob.tems of keeping the rerative deviation of districts below 5r did not make lt

possible to move both Rockingham and caswell counties over into the districts formed

from..the northeastern counties, the Senate plan approved by the Department of Justice

Justice did move Caswell County lnto Dlstrlct 21 wlth Alamance County'



'lt .

which district has a brack popuration of 23.4/. lrith this pran the black voting

strength of caswer.r county was not dituted or submerged into the predominately *,tte

two_member district previousry in existence. However, if the tovrnships of Locust

Hilr and Stony cr.eer are taten from District 21 and praced in a ner predominately

white District 1g in order to preserve Forsyth county rines, the brack voters sf

those casweil county tomships wilr be submerged in a district with a black popula-

tion of onry r0.9r. (District 19 as now drawn has a brack popuration of 7-51.)

Hith this particu.tar configuration, the Rockingham townships wtrich rould have to be

moved from District 24 to District 1g wou'td go from a black population percentage of

g,7l to lo.g5I, a de minimus increase. Hence, it wou'ld appear that to avoid

dilution of minority voting strength to the best extent possible, it is not possible

to merery cut county rines in counties covered by the voting Rights Act; especially

where the townships of a covered county would be rnerged into a district with a

predominatelY white PoPu'l ation

10. But for the existence of the voting Rights Act and the necessity for approval

or preclearance by the Dep.artment of Justice, it would have been possible to draw

redistricting plans for the Senate wtrich d'id not cross county lines or divide any county'

It appears that it would not have been possible to gain approval by the Department of

Justice without drawing the senatoriar districts as they are now drawn, or drawing some

other plan wtrich would have also required crossing some county lines in uncovered as well

as covered counties.

J. Dqniel Long being dulY

subscribed bY him, and that

information and belief.

sworn, states that he has read

the contents thereof are true

the foregoing Affidavit

to the best of his knowledge,

Sworn to and subscribed before me

fits'll1'& dayor {, ,1e82'

My Conrnission ExPires:

i

l-4-



o
LONG

NEAPPORT IONHE!(r CRTTERIA

FIDAVIT EXHTBIT A

The co"-'lttee6 responsLble for redistrlctlng the [orth caroll.aa General .

Asseubly' assisted by the legislatlve staff, sball be gutded by the follonlng
etaadards I'a the &velopueat of the plan for the State House aad the Senate:

1' Each leglslatLve dlstrlct shall, la accordance l'lth the requlreDeDt6
of the 14th Anendroent to the coastltutlon of the united states and of Artlcle
rr, sectlons 3(1) and 5(1) of the constltutl.ou of North carollna, be drano so
aE to contaln as.nearly as posslble 1171635 for each senate uember and 491015 for
each Ilouse meriber I'n such legislatlve dl.strl.cts. Ttre popuratlon varlatlou
(relatlve deviati.on) of each dlstrlct shaIl fall between plus and mlnus fl.ve
percenr (!SZ)

2' rn order to avold the dllution of the votlng rights of racl.al
urlnorltJes as Protected by the Votlng Rtghts Act of 1965 and the l4th anct l5th
Anendnents to the unlted states constl.tution, concentrations of racl.al mlnoritles
sha1l not be fractured or divided.

3' All leglslative distrlcts shall. conslst of contlguous terrrtory as
required by the North carolina Constitution and shall be as compact as is
practicable consistent wlth reguirements 1 and 2 above.

4' To the extent consistent with all of the abgr-e requirements, dLstrlcts
should be constructed ao as to recognl.ze the atatets historic comnunltles and

coornonalities of interests with respect to the inhabitants and constl.tuencl.ee

wlqhln such distrlcts.

5. To the exteot not inconsistent Lrtth all of the above

Ln order to minLmize voter confuslon and maintain the interests
paragraph 4 above, present legislatlve distrlct ll.nes shall be

6. No county sha11 be subdivlded nor shall a county lr.ne

unless necessary to meet the require,ents of 1 through 5 above.

standards and

set out ln

preserved.

be broken

I

l
I

.isarg.---



E .J* -.--

it-. a'.- ?

a. a

aa
a

-'--- --=: -'-r--
,ott, ihg g6,'ra{tteeB shall consult rlth

General aad retalned counsel rlth respect

-o
-2-

7. Durf.ng the course 6f thelr

the leglslatlve 6taff, the Attoraey

to 8ny legel lssues.

8. Ihe comitcees sha1l corylete thelr uork to the end that a leglslatlve
proposal ls prepated for the couolttees to hold a publlc hearlng. on thelr
proposed plans the week of February 1, 1982. I'he coualttees sha11, in con- ,,

sultatlon ulth couusel, prepare naillngs notifylng interested lntllvlduals aad

organf.zatl.ons Ehrcughout the state of the date and tloe of the public

hearl'ng and shall also cause approprLate press releases to be prepared for
the rneclia. The cornmlttees shall also prepare Dotlces for publicatlon in the

legal Dotl.ces sectlon of appropriate newspapers.

g. A.fter the public hearlng has been held the consrlttees shall seek

such opinions froo. the Attorney General and retaLned counsel as they deeu

approprlate and to report a bt1l favorably to be acted upon by the Legislature

the ueek of Februa.ry 8, L982.
.:.

I

I

I

I

I

I
ll