Correspondence from Winner to Wallace
Correspondence
April 21, 1982

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Correspondence from Winner to Wallace, 1982. 0fcadc85-de92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/475e1d62-6715-4cc8-8230-7091cfcf4bd6/correspondence-from-winner-to-wallace. Accessed October 10, 2025.
Copied!
CHAMBERS. FERGUSON. WATT, WALLAS, ADKINS 8c FULLER. P.A ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUITE 730 EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA 951 SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS JAMES E. FERGUSON. II MELVIN L. WATT JONATHAN WALLAS KARL ADKINS JAMES C FULLER. JR. YVONNE MIMS EVANS JOHN W GRESHAM RONALD L. GIBSON GILDA F GLAZER LESLIE J. WINNER JOHN T. NOCKLEBY' ' OF D C BAR ONLY CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202 TELEPHONE (704) 375-8461 April 21, 1982 Mr. James C. Wallace, Jr. Deputy Attorney General for Legal Affairs N.C. Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Re: Gingles v. Edmisten Dear Mr. Wallace: This letter is in response to your letter of April 20, 1982, and in confirmation of our telephone conversation of earlier today. With regard to your second set of interrogatories, which con- cern Congressional reapportionment, I have mailed today under separate cover,plaintiffs'Request for Voluntary Dismissal of the claims concerning the Congressional plan. If the Court approves this dismissal, then I assume that you will withdraw those interrogatories, and you agreed that there is no point in plaintiffs' answering your second set of interrogatories at this time. Your first set of interrogatories concern the current appor— tionment of the North Carolina General Assembly. As you know, the United States Department of Justice entered an objection to those apportionments on April 19, 1982. Thus, unless the State files suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia, and gets a declaratory judgment approving the plans, they cannot be enforced. Thus those questions which relate to the particular apportionments are, or may be, irrelevant. I have enclosed our stipulation that plaintiffs will answer these interrogatories by May 13, 1982, as we agreed today on the telephone. I am also mailing three copiestKJthe Clerk. Mr. James C. Wallace, Jr. April 21, 1982 Page 2 However, I reiterate that I have signed the stipulation Without waiving our right to object to questions about the particular apportionments which are, or become irrelevant. As we discussed earlier, I have appreciated our ability to cooperate in the past, and I believe that we will both be better off if we continue our past rational, level headed, approachwhichhas,forthenwstpart,savedbothofim, as well as the Court, needless work. After this afternoon's dis— cussion, I am confident that this small dispute is resolved and that we will continue to cooperate as we have in the past. Sincerely, :1 ,2 [II/- [I Leslie J. Winner JLW: ddb Enclosure cc: Judge James Dickson Phillips, Jr. Judge F. T. Dupree, Jr. Judge W. Earl Britt All Attorneys of Record