Court Order

    Arn en9 'Y,l

lr*,* 
//t'/uv1'4-4-

\J.t

ryb,tf" tu.s

Ol[tcc o[ thc Atsistont Attomcjt Generol WothinEton. D.C. 205J0

i u t{oy ,98r

r[" i

I,1r. Alex Brock
Executive SecreEarY - Director
State Board of Elections
Suite 801, Raleigh Building
5 WesE Hargett Street
Raleigh, N5rth Carolina 2760L

Dear Mr. Brock,

This is in reference to the 1968 amendment (H.B. No. 47L
(1967)), which provides that no county "!?11 P" divided in the
formation of a benate or Representat.ive district' and which was
i""""rfy submitred Eo Ehe Att911ey General pursYant Eo Section 5

of 
-tn" Voting Rights Act of 1965, -8s amended t -!? U.S.C. L973c.

your submissfon ilas completed on October 1, 1981.

l.Ie have made a careful review of the information that you
have provided, tirc events surrounding thc-cnactment of thc change,
if," aipficaiion of the amendmenE in Iast ]eqi-slative reaPPortion-
ments, and comments and informaEion provided by other interested
parties. On the.lbasis of Ehat analyll?, .19 are-unable to conclude
tt"t this amendment, prohibiting the division of counEies in
i""pportio"*encs.r doei not have-a discrirninaEory PurPose or effect.

6ur analysis shows that lhe prohibilig., against gividing
Ehe 40 covered tounties in the for.mation of Senate and House
districts predictably requires, and has led to the us9 of ,- 3.arge
multi-membLr districts. 'Our analycis-'chows further that the use
of such ,riii-rember districts netessarily subme-rges coqnizable
minority population concentrations into larger white elQgforates.
In the Loirtlxt of the racial bloc voting that seems t,o eitf sq, such

. a phenomenon operates and wouLd continue to_ oPerate "to minimize
or'cancel out ltat voEing strength of racial elements of the
voting population." ForEson v.-Dorsey, 379 U.S. 433, 439 (1965).



't-
i

Ttris determination with respect to the jurisdiction.s
'covered by Sectiori 5 of the Voting Rights Act lhouta in ""\way be regarded as.precluding the State from follow'ing a )policy of presenring county lines'whenever feasible in ./formulating its new disLricts. Indeed, this is the pol{cy in
many states, subject only to the preclearance requirements of
Section 5, wtrere applicable. In the present submission,
howeverr .w€ are evaluating a legal requirement that every
county must be'included in the plan as an undivided whol_e.
As noted above, the inescapabre effect of such a requirement
is to eubmerge sizeable black communities in large multi-
member districts.

Under these circumstances, and guided by the standards
established in eases such as Beer v. United States, 425 U.S.
130 (L9761 , we are unable to aaEtuaeffig amendment
requiring nondivision of counties in legislative redistricting
does not have a racialLy discriminatory purpose or effect.
Accordinglyr or1 behalf of the Attorney General , I must
interpose an objection to that amendment insofar as it. affects
the covered counties.

Of couFS€r as provided by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Actr 1lou have the right to seek a declaratory judgment
from the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia that this change has neither the purpose nor will
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race, color or membership in a language minority
group. In addition, the Procedures for the Administ.ration of
Section 5 (Section 5L.44, 46 Fed. Reg. 878) permit you to
request the Attorney General to reconsider the objection.
However, until .the objection is withdrawn or the judgment \from the District of Columhia is obtained, the effect of the \objection by the Attorney General is to make the 1968 amendment)
IegaIIy unenforceable. /

If you have any questions concerning this matter, .

please feel free to call CarI W. Gable (ZOZ-724-7439), Director
of the Section 5 Unit of the Voting Section.

SincereJ-y r

Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division