Correspondence from Winner to Guinier, Suitts, and Wheeler; from Winner to Dupree
Correspondence
January 11, 1982 - January 12, 1982
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Correspondence from Winner to Guinier, Suitts, and Wheeler; from Winner to Dupree, 1982. c9ccfeae-d792-ee11-be37-6045bddb811f. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/54a4da1a-ee80-4d65-b312-afb890ae8835/correspondence-from-winner-to-guinier-suitts-and-wheeler-from-winner-to-dupree. Accessed November 01, 2025.
Copied!
o
CHAMBERS,
o
NS&FERGUSON. WATT. WALLAS. ADKI FULLER, P.A
ATTORNEYS AT LA\ru
SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENOENCE PLAZA
95T SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 2A2O2
TELEPHONE (704) 375.8461
January 12, L982
JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS
JAMES E. FERGUSON. II
MELVIN L, WATT
JONATHAN WALLAS
KARL ADKINS
JAMES C, FULLER, JR.
YVONNE MIMS EVANS
JOHN W. GRESHAM
RONALO L. GIBSON
GILOA F. GLAZER
LESLIE J. WINNER
JOHN T, NOCKLEBY'
. OF O, C. BAR ONLY
Ytrls. Lani Guinier
Mr. Napoleon Williams
NAACP Legal Defense Fund
10 Columbus Circle
Suite 2030
New York, New York 10019
Mr. Steve Suitts
Southern Regional Council
75 Marietta Street, NW
At1anta, Georgia 30303
Dr. Raymond Wheeler
3724 Warrington Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina
Re: Gingles, et al. v. Edmisten, et aI.
Dear Friends:
Rich Leonard, the Clerk, advised me to write the attached letter
to Judge Dupree.
Sincerely,
J. Winner
LJW: of h
Attachment
cc: J. LeVonne Chambers
CHAMBEQ, FERGUS.N, *ATT, *ALLAS, ADKI
o
NS&
JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS
JAMES E, FERGUSON. II
MELVIN L, WATT
JONATHAN WALLAS
KARL AOKINS
JAMES C. FULLER, JR.
YVONNE MIMS EVANS
JOHN W. GRESHAM
RONALO L. GIBSON
GILDA F. GLAZER
LESLIE J, WINNER
JOHN T, NOCKLEBY'
. OF O. C. BAR ONLY
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA
95I SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARO
CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 2A2O2
TELEPHONE t7041 375-A461
January 11, L982
Re: Gingles, €t
et al.; No.
FULLER, P.A
al. v. Edmisten,
81-803-CrV-5
-t
The Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr.
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court, Eastern DisErict
PosE Office Box 27585
Raleigh, North Carolina 276LL
Dear Judge Dupree:
Gingles v. Edmisten is an action challenging the North Carolina
apportionment of both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly
and the North Carolina disEricts for the United States Congress.
Since the Supplement to the Complaint was filed on 19 November 1981
the following relevent events have occurred:
1. 0n 30 November 1981 the United States Department of Justice
entered an objection to Article II, 53(3) and 55(3) which prohibit
dividing counties in apportioning the General- Assembly.
2. On 7 December 1981 the United States Department of Justice
entered an objection to Chapter 894 of the Session Laws of 1981, the
Congressional Redistricting Act, and to Chapter 82L of the Session
Laws of 1981, the Senate Redistricting Act.
,
3. The state submitted its revised North Carolina House of
Representatives Redistrieting Act to the United States Department
of Justice, and the deadline for a response to that submi-ssion is
20 January L982.
Thus, unless the state appeals the Department of Justice rulings
to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia,
The Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr.
January 11, L982
Page 2.
there are no enforcable Senate or Congressional reapportionments,
and we do not now know whether or not the House app6itionment wiit
be enforcable.
A-ccording to the best information available to the plaintiffs inthis action, the General Assembly plans to convene in special
session at the beginning of Februdty, L982 to enact new apportion-
ments and to postpone the date of the primary election fr6ir its
current date in t"tiy , L982.
)
The Court has set 19 February L982 as the date by which discovery
must be gompleted and by which the parEies shouid be ready for a
-pre-trial conference. However, dt this time it appears likely that
between now and then new apportionments will be enlcted. At ttristime it is, therefore, inefficient and wasteful of the time of thelegi-slators, the Court and the parties to proceed with discovery
on tlr. original apportionment acts or to have any hearing or trial
on the merits with regard to those acts.
r-, therefore, request that the court not schedule a hearing forthe three jduge panel or a final pre-trial conference untif it be-
comes aPparent whether or not the legislature will enact new appor-
tionment legislation and postpone the primary election. At thattime the Court will be able to set a schedulL which conforms totltu changes in the status of the apportionment legislation and inthe election schedule and which avoids unnecessary expenditures ofthe time of the Court and the parties.
Thank you for consideration of this matter.
'il;;ff
Attcrnei
ner
Plaintiffs
LJW: ddb
ccci J. Rich Leonard
James Wallace, Jr.
Jerris Leonard