General Assembly of North Carolina House Bill 3

    ,'/
,'t - .t

Oe It.S. I )t.p:rrtrrrcrrt r$rstice

Civil Ri1:lrtr l)ivision

€/4,/.f 8-

ltbthinxton. l, c. 205J0
Ollict ol the Ariilont Attoney Q2nlrol

? nEC l-cal

r lrlE

I.1r. ALex i(. Brock
Execu'. ive Secreta rY-Director
Stntc lloar<l of Elccuiorrs
suitc 801 Raleigh Builriinq
5 trlcs: tlargett Street
R.r le i<;h , North Caro l.ina 276OL

Dear llr. tsrock, 
'

I

This is in reference to Chapter: 894 (S'B' No' 87,
198I ) anrl Chapter 82I ( S.B. No. 3I3, tgBI ), providing
for tlre rcappgrtionment 6f Unitcrl St,rtos Cr)rlrlressional.
districts ctDd for Lhe reaPportionmetrt. of t-hc l'lorLh
CarOlinir Scnai-e. Your sul:miSsionr t)tlrstt;rnt to SeCtion 5

of t?re Vo:ing Rig'hts Act, 42 U.S.C. I973c, was initially
receivecl on July 16, l9Bl, ancl was supplcntcnLed trith
reqrrestcrl adclitional information otr Ocl-ol>ct: 6, I981.

tlt:der Sectir--n 5, the State trears Lhc burden of
provi ng the absence of both cli scr irnina Lo ry PurPose and
if fuct in proposed redistr icting plans. 9t$-g!Rome v '
Uniteri stales, 446 U.S. I56, IB3 n.18 (f 960); Beer v'
U,:ite,T-s[,:ltes , 425 U.S. l3o, 140-41 ( rc!76) ' rn order
Io;hbw1-ire iUsence of a raciaIl.y tli r;<-'ri.rninatory ef fect,
the St.at.e of North Carol i ner !ntls;L t'l'::rt'rll,it-raLe, ilt a nrittitttttnt,
thlt th,: propos ed reclistricting pIu rrs rvit I not Ie:rd to
"a retrogression irr tlle lrosition of racial triinorities
wi.t'h r.-sfrect to their et: fective (:!xcl:ci:;': ot the electr:raI
fra:tchi.se." Ileer v. Utrit.,-d States, $tlt)rtt, 4?'5 U'S' at J'4I'
t,;i.,i i" ir,,, srata-'is tr,a,ri 'rio' ori'ri.iat iqiii t-o trtaxitnize nritrority
vo: inrj s Erength, tlre statc must rf LrlllL)rtr; t-F;l Lc tl'rat the plan
,,fairIy ref16cts tl-re strength of Imit:ority] voting power

as it exists. " Mississip5'i v. !1t'i!"-1-statgs ' -49-? l' SuPP'

569, 581 (D.D.C;-I979-I;--i-ting Becf -v. Linited states,
_s_u_p-ra, 425 U.S. at I39 n.II ana--I.'ff, n,"i'-gi-!f oE-niltt*ond v'
Urritccl Stcrtes , 422 U.S. 358, 362 (f 975) '



/.tl. a
-2

!.le have given caref uI consirteration to aIl of the
forwardea materlals, as welI as Past legislative reaPPor-
tionment pfu"=r-comments from inlerested citizens, and

other information available to us' t'lith regard to t-tte

Senate PIan, *. note at the outset that the ProPosed
redistrictingplanwasclevelolreclby^theNorthCarolina
Leqislature puisuant. to a 196-8 amenrimetrt to the North
carorina constitution which provides that no county shaIl
be dividecl in ttre formation ;f a senate or Representative
district. As you know, oo November 30, I9BI, the Attorney
General interpisea an objection to that atnentllnent under
Scction S of itre Voting ilight" R.t rcf 1965 , 42 U ' S'C' 1973c'
fru"o""u "[o]ur ana]ysiI shJw[ed] that- the prohibitio-n against
riividing itre 40 covLrecl couniies in the formation of Senate

anrl ltottse ciistricts prc<lictably requires' attcl has }ed to the
use of, large multi-rnenrber disiricis." Our review of the 1968

amen,-irnent also showecl "tlrat the use of such rnulti-membet'
clistricts necessarily o"ir,.orguo "ogniza'l>l.e 

ruinority poPulation
concentrations into Iarge wtrite electorates'" Accordinglyr w€

have reviewed the Senate pfan noL otrly to rletermine whether

the prol:osed plan woulci l-t:ad to A "re';::c:r;re:;sicn in the lnsition
of racial minorities wittr iuspect to their effective exercise
of the el.ectoral f ranchise, " g99I, sll1fa 425 U'S' at I4I' but
arso ro see whether it fairry-TETiezt.{-rninority votirrg strerrgth
as it exists toCay. State oi llississippi v. United States'
490 r:. Supp. 569 (o.o.c. r979).

our analysis of thc. senate pl;rrr sltows that in sr:veral
cot:niies covered by the Voting Rigirt.s AeL's special provisicns'
such ils in guiIfori, 1{iIsou, Naslt, l}r'rLi'-', Iirlgecotnb an<l l'lartin'
tllere ;rre cognizaU'ie concctrtr.rtions r:f rnirlority PerSons vr'iros9

politic.rl st-iengttr is <liluted as il resLllt of thc use of multi-
rnerrr't>er riiscrictl in the proposecl rcriisLrici:ing plan' In
GuiI for<1, for example, tire -State las prol>osccl t1e creation Of

a throe-rirL:mber tlistrict with a black PoPulation Percelltage of'

only ?.5 percent. Yet, ut:<1er a fairlyltlllwn system.of aingle-
rnc'ri>er tlistricts in that area r oDrt sirch <listrlct llkeIy would

be rna jority black an<l, therefore, wortlrl bctter recognize the i

1;otential of blacks to elect represL-lll-ation of their choice '

Likewise,inl.Iilsoll,Nash,lirlqer:otntl,Martinandseveral
ofthecountiesinproposedDistl.icLlvlric].tarecovered
jurisrlicLions, the State proPoscs to create multi-member

,.iistriccs in r"irich blacll -rotlr= sc(ln to'have no oPrDrtunity
to eIect. ..naia"ttt of thcir c'iroice ' llere again' fairly-
<]rawnsingre-.memueroistricts-,oui.i].ikclyresultinSenate
di sLr icts that woul<l not ' as the i>roposcrl Senate plan does'

rni.nir.iz.e thc votinq potcntiaf of irtalt: t"'t"t" in those covcred

c,)tlnLies.



, i{ ",
,' t. f I.t

i
I
I

I
3-

Unclerstandably, these ef fects of the proPosed Senate
ieapportionment PIan well may have been the result of the
Statl,s adherencl to the 1968 constitutional amendment which,
as we have already found, necessariLy rc'quires a submerging
of sizeable black communities into large multi-member 'distriets.
In view Of the cgncerns discussed abgve, howqver, I am unable
to conclude, 65 I must under the Voting Rights Actr that the
proposed Senate rerlistricting PIan is free of a racially
ii"lriminatory PurPose or effect. Accordingly, on behalf of
the ALEorney General, I tnust interposc an objection to the
Senate plan under Section 5 of thc Voting Riglrts Act of 1965
as it relates to the covered counties.

I{ith respect to the Congressional redistricting, }re
have also cotnPleted review of that sul-rrnission. During the
eoursc of our review, we were Prescnte(l brith allegations that
the decision to exclude Durham County from Congressional
District trto. 2 had the ef fect of rninimizing minority voting
strcngLli and in a<ldition was motivaLctl by racial considerations,
i.e., the desire to grcclude frorn thaL district the voting
ij?f uence of t'he po liticaIly-activc l:lack cornmunity in Durham-
On t'!re ba'sis of the information that h;rs bectr made available
to us, we renrain unable to concluiie Llrat tltc State's <lecision
to Crarv District No. 2 was wholly free from discriminatory
purpose and effect. In this connection we find particularly
trotrblesornc the " strangel y irrcAuIilr" sltape of Congressional
l)istrict I'lo. 2 (see ggllillio" ". llaLt-f:oo=t , _36! U 'S. 339, 34I
( Iq(,0) ), r,trich appaars- Ac-sfqT-ca to-e-xC[uEe Durham County frorn
t5a,L,listrict conCrary to the llouse Congressional Redistricting
Co:nnri. L tcc ' s recomme nda tion

hJc noLe also that, over t)rt: p;r st several rerlistrictings,
the blai:)-. population percentage in l)ir;Er:ict 2 has been rlecreased.
prior i-o the Statc's Iq71 redistri.ctinn l)i:;trict No. 2 was
apFroxirrirtely 43 pereent 1:Iack. Itrl(l'l): Llte I97I reapPortionment
pii", Di.strict 2 rlecreased to 40.2 perccnt bl.ack poPulat'ion.
i"fre IqSI submittecl 1:Ian rvould rerlttcc f'.trl-her the blac);, poptllation
irr tl':e tlist.rict to 36.7 percent. This rer'luction in black
popul.etion percentdge, occurring rJespi.te a statewide increase in
tf,L )rtack population, is cspecial ly r:rucial in District 2,
trecause .i t occurs in the only distr lct- r"'here hrlack voters coulrl
have L'he potential for electing ('t catr<lirlate of tlreir choice.

I

I

ri



t

!t
I

o
4

WcrecognizethattheStatetllaywanttoreslnnd
f urther to ttre 

-cIa ims that. a racially tliscriminaCory
purpose and .f f"tt "tt 

in-volved in thc Legislaturers
.ecision to "ii""*"""L 

Durham. Ilowcver, because of the

;;;;-;;n!;traints imposerl on Lhe Attorney cetreral by

Section 5, and the unanswered quesLi'ons stilI -remaininS '
Icanttotconcludethatthcburtjenitnp..>serlotrthestateby
section 5 hastu""n-sustained. Accordingry, r 1us! interpose
an objec.-ion also to tt. co.gressional- iedistricting insofar
as it af fects the coverecl coJnties. lloweverr should the
state clesire to present to us itlfor:nat j.on relating to the

;;;;i.3uration of 'District 2 which would aridress the 'aIlega-

tiorrs nrentioned above, wc stand ready Lo reconsider this
dctcr:rrination as- prorid.,t in the section 5 guiderines.

Of cours€, BS provided by Sectiorr 5 of the Voting
Righrs Act, you trave tt't. riqht to.scck a <leclaratory judg-
mentfrolnt.heUnitedStatesDistrictcourtfortheDistiict
of columbia tnat the congressional rerlistricting plan has

neithr:r Llre PurPosc ne; wrII have tire ef fecL of denying or
abridgirrg the riglrt to vote on account of race' color or

tnc.rn'lt.:r:;lrip in a Iangtt;rr;e rninority grotlp' Itow':ver' until
:he o5jection is wilSarawn "i 

tf',1 jtrc'lgr.ent from the Dist'rict
of colurrr'ni.a coirt i= obt.ei";4, 

-the- 
ef iect of the olr jection

]>y rhe Atror;;;-i"n.r"r is to make rhe c,)ngressionar redis-
tric',:rrrj PIan legaIIy tlnenfoiceaut'e itr ttre covered counEies'

1: you have ally qtlestions conec:'ning this matter'
p,oas,: f eeI irou to "-r i carl t.t. Ga',-'l ( ?o ?.1724-7439),

l)j.r'(,cr.()r ,rf ai't; Sectir>n 5 Unit of tlt': \")Li nq :;ectiotr' As

(-lIwa\r'sr v.'c stattd rcadv to assist yorl itr;r:ly \{ay Possible
i rr ),,)ttt' l'r:ili)[x) rl- ionrnr:ttt ':f fo f L '

c j. nC (l I',?'t :/ ,

Assistant Atl:orncy Gencra)'
CiviI Rig'hts; l)ivision