Correspondence from Lani Guinier to Victor McTeer Re: Jackson v. Winter

    .-IrF

LesarE&,

December 13, I983

Victor llcTeer, Esg.
McTeer & Bailey
P. O. Box Drawer 1835
Greenville, MississiPPi 38701

Re: 'Jackson, et al. v. Winter

Dear Victor:

I am sorry I did not get to talk with you by telephone
today. No one ansl/tered when I called you back. I talked
briefly with Armand this morning about the complaint you
drafted. I will summarize our corunents in this letter.
In the meantime, I thought it made sense for me to send
you some fotms to fill out so we can start processing your
bitfs in this case. A total budget of $15,000.00 has
been approved for this case to cover exPenses and costs
through trial. If we need to renegotiate this sum, please
let me know. After you have reviewed the proposed agree-
ment (it is a standard form) please sign one of the copies
and return it to me.

Regarding the complaint, Armand and I discussed the following
changes:

1. Eliminate the DNC and RNC as defendants
(paras. 10 and 11, P. 5).

2. Cite the challenged statutes, but do not
quote verbatim; it is sufficient to sumntarize
relevant provisions (paras. 13-14).

3. Summarize in two or three paragraphs the historical
background of the enactment of the L902 primary

emphasizLng three Points :

a. that blacks were active partioipants
in the political process during
Reconstruction

b. that whites organized within the
Democrati.c Party to resist black

Contributions are ded.uctible for U.S. income tar purVoses

The NAAGp LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIoNAL FUND is not part ol the National Association lor lhe Advancement ol Colored People although it
was lounded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LoF has had lor over 25 years a separate Board. program, stall, otlice and budget.

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, ING.

99 Hudson Street, New york, N.y. 10013o (212) 21S.1900



Victor l,lcTeer, Esg - -2-
)

t-'

December 14, 1983

political ParticiPation
c. by 1890, whites brere ready to go all

the waY to disfranchise blacks
because blacks had been so successful
in electoral Politics

4. Eliminate paragrapls 18-34 from pp' L5-23'

5. Flesh out in para. 35 how the constitutional
convention of-1890 worked to disenfranchise blacks;
point out how this shows whites in the I890's were
Itiff scared of black political participation.

6. Eliminate second Paragraph of Para' 35

7. Describe primary scheme directly; if quote NoeI,
justpickoutkeyphrase;-statedirectlythat
irimaly scheme wls- enacted to solidity white domina-
tion-

8. Describe majority vote requirement as necessary part
of this scheme. Armand suggests a new theory for
adoption of MVR. Arnand says whites wanted to have a
contest and could not do it in the general election
and insure that blacks did not participate'

g. Leave out Paras. 46-55, PP. 30-36
Leave out subPara- 9 of Para. 56
Leave out para. 7 of Prayer for Relief
Leave out Paras- 57-59r PP. 39-40

There are some additional minor changes that can be made when we

get to the point of a final draft. When y9u have a moment, give
me a caII t,o. discuss these suggested revisions. I would still
Iike to have a conference call to map out a clearer conceptual
framework for proving discriminatory results'

By the way, have you considered as plaintiffs a class of registered
.r6t.r= (n-oi just Litizens) as well as specific candidates who were
unsuccessful in the second Primary?

eIy,

r,ahi Guini.er

LG/r
Erclosures

cc: Armand Derfner, Esg.