Defendants' Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    lr

ir
'+iiir

IN THE UNTTED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGH DIVISION

li

RALPH GINGLES, et aI.
Plaint iffs ,

vs.

RUFUS EDMISTENT €t 81.1

'Defendants.

-and-

ALAN V. PUGH, €t Er1.1

PIaint iffs ,

vs.

JAMES B. HUNTT JR.1 et a1.,

Defendants.

No.81-803-CIV-5

No. 81-1055-CIv-5

)
)

)
)
)

)
)
)

)
)
)

)
)
)

)
)
)
)
)
)

)
)
)

DEFENDANTSI FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW



FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of
this action pursuant to 28 u.s.c. ss 133r and 1343(a)(g) and

(a)(4). (Stip.1.)

2.. A three-judge court is properly convened pursuant

to 28 ,.S.9. S 2284(a). (Stip. 2.)

3. The court has jurisdiction over arr parties to the

action. ( Stip. 3. )

4. On September 16, 1981, plaintiffs Gingles, et aI.
filed this action alleging that the apportionments of the

North carorina House of Representatives and senate violated
the one person one vote requirement of the equal protection

clause and i11ega1Iy and unconstitutionally diluted the voting
strength of brack citizens. rt was further alleged that
Article rr, ss 3(3) and 5(3) of the North carolina constitu-
tion were being enforced without having been precleared

pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1955, 42

U.9.C. S 1973. The Complaint further alleged that North

Carolina's congressional apportionment plan also violated
both constitutional and statutory provisions. Subsequent

amendments to the apportionment plans for the North carolina
House of Representatives and senate and the North carolina
congressional apportionment pIan, resulted in a narrowing

of the issues as shown by amendments to plaintiffsr Complaint,

Plaintiffsr statement of contentions and the evidence presented



-2-

at trial. This case was tried as a challenge only to North

Carolina redistricting plans for the North Carolina House

of Representatives and Senate on the issues primarily of

violation of the Egual Protection Clause of the Fourteenth

Amendment to the United States Constitution and a violation
of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965r ds amended,

42 U.S.C. S 1973. Thirteenth and Fifteenth Amendment claims

were also raised. (Complaint; Amendments to Complaint;

Pretrial Orderr pp. 43-44i Stip. 14.)

5. On November 25, 1981, Pugh v. Hunt was filed in

the Superior Court for Iredell County, North Carolina. It
was subsequently removed to this Court and consolidated with

Gingles v. Edmisten. Immediately preceding trial, pugh v.
Hunt was severed from Gingles v. Edmisten for trial. Those

Pugh Plaintiffs who were members of the Gingles class of all
black citizens in North Carolinar.however, were allowed to

intervene in the Gingles action within the scope of the issues

in Gingles v. Edmisten. (Stip. 2L.l

6. The original North Carolina legislative redistricting
plans adopted after the 1980 census hrere ratified by the General

Assembly of North Carolina on July 3, 198I. These plans were

submitted to the United States Department of Justice pursuant

to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. (40 of North Carolina's
100 counties must obtain preclearance of changes in voting

practices and procedures pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting



-3-

Rights Act. ) Prior to any determination by the united states
Department of Justice, the North carolina Generar Assembry

amended the plan for the North Carolina House of Representatives

in a bill ratified on October 30, 198I. The reapportionment

plan for the North Carolina Senate was objected to by the United

states Attorney General in a letter dated December 7, 1981. The

plan for the North Carolina House of Representatives was objected

to in a letter dated January 20,1982. (Stips. L2r 13r l5r 19,

23, 25.1

7. The North Carolina House Legislative Redistricting
Committee for the 1981-82 session consisted of 42 members,

including all three black members of the North Carolina House

of Representatives for that session, Representatives B1ue,

Creecyr dDd Spaulding. On February 2t 1982, that Committee

adopted Reapportionment Criteria for-the development of a new

legislative reapportionment plan. The 28-member Senate Committee

on Redistricting had adopted similar criteria on February 1,

1982. At that time, Senator Erye of Guilford County, the only

black member of the North Carolina Senate for the 1981-82

session, was a member of the Senate Committee. (Stips. 8-10,

16, 17 , 26.1



,l

-4-

8. The proceedings which surrounded the enactment of the
Staters current reapportionment plans were widely publicized and

oPen to the public. Every effort was made by the legislature to
al1ow public input into its deliberations.

on February 4r 1982, a joint pubric hearing was herd in
the State tegislative Building in Raleigh for public comment on

the proposed new apportionment plans for the North Carolina.House
and Senate and also for North Carolina Congressional Districts.

ZNotices were published in newspapers in *"j:poli!i_l__15grs or 3^Q--Ullorth carolina between January 3r and February 4, Lgg2, and were Ykxalso distributed to numerous state and local political officials !r-uu4
and associations, to most newspaper, radio and television stationsr {
and to numerous other civic organizations. llotices and copies of .)
the proposed plans were also distributed statewide by the State
Highway Patror to art r0o crerks of.court on January 29r 19g2.
(LILLEY, T. 1135, 2-6.1 The notices which were published in the
newspapers and distributed by mail to the various political,
civic, and media representatives stated that copies of the plans
vrere available in the office of the clerk of court in each

county and also could be obtained directly from the Legislative
services office of the General Assembly. (stip. 2g; stip. EX.

P, Q, Q-1.)



-5-

Numerous sessions of the House and Senate Redistricting
Committees were heldr and all vrere open to any interested

individual. (RAUCH, T. !Q70, 2-L0; LILLEY, T. 1134, 12-14.1

9. On February 11, 1982, the General Assembly enacted new

legislative apportionment plans for the North Carolina House of

Representatives and the North Carolina Senate. These plans $rere

promptly submitted to the United States Department of Justice.

In a letter dated April 19, L982, the United States Attorney

General interposed an objection to both p1ans. That letter

stated that each planr ds it affected the 40 covered counties,

continued to have a single objectionable feature under Section

5. The cnly change requested for the Senate plan was in the

area of Senate District 2t which then had a 51.7t black popula-

tion. The letter noted that, during the Senate Redistricting
Committeers deliberations, "it was widely recognized that at

least a 55t black population was necessary in this district if
black voters were to have a reasonable chance of electing a

candidate of their choic€....rr The objection to the House plan

related to the drawing of one single-member majority black

district in Cumberland County while leaving the majority of the

black community in the City of Fayetteville submerged in the

.>
/-\/at.

'o
e 'nL
1-rq \-z

t)

tl



-6-

remaining four-member district. The General Assembly of North

carolina then reconvened and ratified new prans for both the

House and senate on April 27, 1982. The House plan amended two

districts in order to meet the United States Attorney Generalrs

objection regarding the Cumberland County districts. The revised
Senate plan required changes in seven Senate districts in order
to increase the black population of Senate District 2 to 55t as

suggested by the earlier objection letter. These prans yrere

approved by the United States Attorney General in a letter dated

April 30,1982. (Stips.33r 34r 37r 42r 43r 45; Stip. Ex. y, GG.)

10. The plans ratified by the Generar Assembly on Apri1

27r 1982, and precreared pursuant to section 5 of the voting
Rights Act on April 30 , 1982, remain in effect and are the plans

at .issue in this action. Each of those plans has a total deviation
of less than 108, and each district for both the House and Senate

has a deviation of ress than 5t above or below the norm. The

districts are contiguous and as compact as practicabre. (stip.
Ex. AA, DD. )

11. According to the 1980 census, 22.4* of the people in
North Carolina are black. (Stip. 62.1

12. The final reapportionment plans adopted by the General

Assembly do not guarantee that black candidates will be el.ected to
the General Assembly in numbers proportional to the presence of
black citizens in the total popuration. Neither do the plans

attempt to maximize the number of "safe seats" for the election
of brack candidates. However, the plans do not prevent the



-7-

election of blacks in numbers equar to or even greater than the
maximum number of trsafe seatsr which courd be drawn. (see Finding
of Fact 53. ) The record fairs to support any notion that regis_
lators intended to adopt or maintain any erection practices,
procedures, or methods designed to deny the minority citizens of
the state the same opportunity to participate in the political
process as other citizens of the state enjoy or otherwise to
invidiousry discriminate against those minority citizens. rn
addition to the factors contained in the reapportionment criteria
used by the House and senate Redistricting committees (stip. Ex.
0-1 and 0-2) t of which avoidance of the fracturing of minority
voting strength was one, other predictable factors, including
Preservation--of ,ircumbenglel and party stlength, influenced the--- -- -J 

=-- --- _/t 
....-----\.- 

_--__ ./
adoption of the 

"urt"nl plans. -rr,"-Eilt product of the General
Assemblyrs decennial ordeal reflects the determination of legis-
lators to enact plans which embodied..and balanced all of the
myriad considerations to which legislators were advertent.
(RAUCH, T.1119,7-loi 1119, 17 to rr21r 13; tr2g, r-zl; LrLLEy,
T' LL37, 2 to 1139, 22i 114r, 1-10 i D44, 1 to 1145 , !6i rr4g, 5-
25i 1L52, l-Ai BRENNAN, T. 1162, 1g to 1163, 7i 11G3, 23 to 1164,
l2i ADAMS, T. 132L, I to 1323, 17i 1343_, 25 to 1344, 19; 1350,
15-25; 1355, 18 to 1356, 10; LrrrtE, T. 639, 11-r7i 644, r0-r6;
BALLANCE, T. 868, 22 to 969, 6; DX 43 and 56.)

13' North Carolina does not have a majority vote requirement
in general elections. rt has had a majority vote requirement for

7 '(a -t
"l/ E'-r.- g\

-((- -f

t .-. 1
l)--- I,- ,-_ ,?

\->_r'.- -r

a)
--P ^\f"- 7>-x

-z
-1>



-8-

party primaries since 1915. The majority vote requirement was

enacted at.the same time as the initial adoption of the primary

election method of nomination of candidates, allowing North Carolina
voters for the first time to vote on party nominees. (stip. gg;

Dx 48. ) Retention of the primary majority vote requirement is
largely due to the Staters continued characterization as a one-

party state, whg;e victorlr iq_ the oemog=riatic-gr*ary= !1yirapr1_
tantamount to el_eqtion_jn_Uglt c_-o_q!S1:-s_. (wATsoN, T. U, 18 to
240, 3.) Because of the particular political circumstances which

continue to prevail in the State, (Stip. Ex. KK), there appears

to be littre, if dDy, sentiment in support of eliminating the

majority vote requirement. (LANIER, T. !..1[9, tL-22.) Indeed,

even a legislative proposal introduced by Representative Kenneth

Spaulding, a black representative from Durham, would have served

only to lower the percentage of votes needed for election to 4Ot.

(ADAllS, T. EE, L9 to 1340, 6i Stip. 90.) The proposal was

defeated, but an examination of all legislative races in the

State since 1964 shows that such a proposal would have served to
elect no additional brack candidates to the General Assembly

during that time. ( LANTER, T. E, 9-15, Dx 48. ) plaintif f s

adduced nothing to show that the existence of the majority vote

requirement has served as a significant impediment to the election
of brack candidates to the regisrature. Therefore, in view of
the political realities which exist in the State, the State's use

of the majority vote requirement embodies a rational and

rt
I



-9-

nondiscriminatory state policy which was neither conceived,

operated, nor maintained as a purposeful device to further racial
d iscrimination.

14. North Carolina has never had an anti-single shot

provision for elections to legislative seats or statewide offices.
An anti-singre shot Iaw did apply to some erections for local
offices in some counties and municipalities between 1955 and

1972. There has been no anti-single shot provision for any

elections in North Carolina since 1972. (Stip. 9I.)
15. There is no candidate slating process in North

Carolina. (Stip. 94.)

15. A number of socio-economic factors relating to income,

education, housing, job classificationsr and death rates indicate
that blacks genera.I ly ale__l!j=.l.oq:-r_ pe ig-_e cgnomi 9 _S_!-1tus lnd
live under poorer housing and health conditions than whites.
However, it also appears that the gap between blacks and whites
in North carorina is no greater thanr oE is even less than, the

gap between blacks and whites nationally for some of these indi-
cators. statistics also indicate that bracks are improving

their status in such areas as housing, education and health at a

more rapid rate than whites. There is no.persuasive evidence to
connect these socio-economic factors with the ability of blacks

to participate in the electoral process or to elect candidates

of their choice. (Stips. 53-83.)

q.?

e\.:tu-

a=.r.
-?r--, \atq



-1 0-

17. Although Plaintiffs attempted to adduce evidence of
social and residential segregation in certain counties, it is
equally signficant to note that numerous examples of both social
(GREENE, T. !241,7 to 1242,19; HAUSER Dep., g-9) and residential
(GREENE, T. 1250, 1-9; 1255, 15-20i 126!,24 to L262, 24i LyNcH,

T. 469, 3-11; LOVETf , T. 6Dr 8-16; LITTLE, T. 596, g-1.1; HAUSER

Dep., 45i IvtALoNE, T. 122L, 10-1g; BELFTELD, T. @, g-1g) integra_
tion vrere shown to exist. E_1p_9gl4jrin- tt" soc1aI_ ?.="!1 raciar .,;

,r"n"J}, *g:{'. ,'-_?9llll""k":nd whites' (BELFTELD, T. Jfl, 14 to 753, 22i .REENE , ^'nr'-d4. t.. or-

T. 1232, 5-12.) -?. 2
18. Plaintiffs introduced numerous articles, political -;6

cartoonsr dnd political advertisements pubrished in the juris- \
diction in an attempt to show that racial appeals have been used

extensively in erectorar campaigns in North carolina. That
evidence lacks significant probative force with respect to the
issues before the court in that many of the exhibits were of
such age as to be admissible under the "ancient documents"
exception to the rure against hearsay testimony and bear no

reasonable rerationship to the state of political affairs in
North Carolina today. others reflected practices and contained
statements freguently used by politicians in a clearly non-racial
context and do not necessarily reflect an intention to exploit
the issue of race on behalf of any candidate. Reasonable minds

could easily differ on the issue of whether racial inferences of
any kind could be drawn from them. (GREENE, T. 12il, 15 to
\240, 8. )



-11-

For other reasons, Plaintiffsr evidence on racial appeals

is of little probative value. For example, the witness Leubke

rras unconvincing when he testified that racism was embodied in
such commonly employed campaign slogans as nEddie Knox will
serve all the people of charlotten; and nKnox can unify this
city." (LUEBKE, T. 311, l7-2L, cx 47.1 He maintained that racial
overtones could consistently be found in political advertisements

showing pictures of brack candidates (LUEBKE, T. 3s2, 4 to 353,

lli Gx 51), and insisted that what mi.ght be raciar appears in the

nind of one Person could not be construed as a political comment

in the mind of another. (LUEBKE, T. !gl, IO to 397, Li !S-, I0

to 417,5; GX 53c.) However, the practice of running one,s own

picture or the picture of oners opponent in political advertise-
ments is commonly employed in North carolina politics (ADAMS, T.

13311 4 to l332r 9i DX 55), as is the practice of coalition
advertising which uses pictures of white and black candidates

who are campaigning together. (ADAI'IS, T. 133I, 4 to t332, 3;

BRENNAN, T. 1173, 22 to 1175, 4; DX 24.1

Further, to the Iimited extent that plaintiffs may have

adduced evidence of racial appeals in political ads, they have

failed to show that they are anything but aberrations, occurring

onry in isolated instances and in association with a limited
number of campaigns. There is no evidence of any raciar appeal

in any camPaign for the General Assembly. As reflected in Finding

of Fact No. 38, political campaigning throughout the State is
oPen and interracial, and racial appeals are uncommon. Moreover,

t,



(

_L2_

Plaintiffs have failed to show that any racial appeals have been

effective in recent years for candidates employing them. To the
contrary, Defendants have proved instances of ineffectiveness and

even counterproductiveness resulting from the use of alleged
racial appeals. (LEUBKE, T. 422,7 to 424,15; GREENE, l. ],z3gl
14-24. )

19. North Carolina has a long-standing history of drawing
legisrative districts arong county 1ines. From 1776 through
1981r Do legislative district crossed county lines. Except for a

handful of borough town districts existing between L776 and 1g35,
all legislative districts between 1776 and I98l consisted of one

or more whole counties. Iwo 1968 amendments to the North Carolina
constitution, Article rr, sections 3(3) and 5(3), prohibited the
division of counties in the formation of either senatorial or
representative districts. These provisions were objected to by

the united states Attorney General o.n November 30, 19g1r ES they
affected the 40 counties subject to the Section 5 preclearance
requirements of the voting Rights Act of 19G5. Both the House

and Senate Iegislative redistricting committees included in their
Reapportionment Criteria that no county would be subdivided, nor
would a county rine be broken, unless necessary to meet other
criteria. Those other criteria required compliance with the one

Person one vote constitutional provision; prohibited dilution,
submergence or fracturing of minorities in violation of the Voting
Rights Act of 1955 or the United States Constitution; specified

,i
I



-1 3-

that legislative districts be contiguous and as compact as prac-
ticabre; required recognition of the staters historic communities

and commonalities of interest to the extent possible; and directed
that past legislative district Iines be preserved to the extent

Possible in tight of the prior requirements. In fact, in the enact-
ment of the existing plans, the General Assembly divided counties
only when necessary to meet the one person one vote requirements,

to bring population deviation within plus or minus 5$, or to
obtain Section 5 preclearance from the United States Department

of Justice. (Stips. 15, 22, 5I-53; Stip. Ex. M, 0-1, O-2.1

20. The use of whole counties in the creation of legislative
districts in North Caro1ina, and the resultant scheme of at-Iarge,
multimember legislative elections, is rooted in a strong traditional
state policy, divorced from the creation or maintenance of any

racia11.y discriminatory device. (SANDERS, T. gt2, 4-9i Dx 52.)

Throughout the early part of.North carolinars history,
counties vrere the only substate units with established boundary

l ines . ( SANDERS , T. &, 5-8 . ) county rines in North caror ina
h,ere originally drawn to define specific geographical areas which

were, in varying degrees, identifiable and distinguishable because

of their peculiar social, economic, and geographic characteristics.
Since the initial drawing of the lines, the lines themselves have

served in many ways to foster further development of those charac-

teristics. (FERRELL, T. 105, 1g to 10I0, 11.)

The use of whole counties or groups of whole counties as

the buirding blocks for legislative districts pre-dates by a

t'
I



-1 4-

hundred years the adoption of the State's first constitution in
1776. (SANDERS, T. 90'l , 10-14; WATSON, T. 2N, 2-7, DX S2.l The

policy has continued since that date, and official policy in the
jurisdiction has never seriously strayed from the strong preference

for maintaining the tradition. (wATsoN, T. 2gg, g-22; sANDERS,

T. 907, 16-25, Dx 52.1 The policy is a rational one. rt is based',

not only on tradition, but on practical governmental considerations
as well. Counties have always been important as units of local
government in the state, and they continue today to perform many

of the historic functions for which they were originally created.
(SANDERS, T. 908, L2-22i FERRELL, T. 1011, lO-lG.) In many ways,

their importance has expanded. counties spend more money, hire
more peopler and render more services to their citizens than they

have at any prev,j:ous'time in the staters history. (SANDERS, T.

912, 17-23i 913, 17-19.) In addition, they are the main units
for the administration of state pol-icies and programs and con-

stitute the primary mechanism for the delivery of State services
in such areas as education, health, social services, land records,
law enforcement, and mentar health programs. (tERRELL, T. rol1,
l7 to 1012, 14.) If counties ceased to perform these functions,
some other tyPe of substate administrative units would have to be

created. (SANDERS, T.910, 17-23'i 9I3t l7-19.)
The counties also continue to serve an important social

function. rn North carolina, 57.39 of the population, the highest
percentage in the nation, resides in unincorporated areasr dDd

the population growth in the State is still heaviest outside of



jr5-

the cities and towns. (FERRELL, T. 1014, 2l-24; 1018, 2-10.)

There are counties in the state with no incorporated areas and

many have only one or two small incorporated municipalities. Of

the staters 474 existing incorporated municipalities, 357 have

populations under 2 t500, and only eight have populations over

50,000. ( FERRELL, T. 1014 , 16-20 i 1016, 20 to 1017, 23,1 F.or

this reason, counties provide many peopre with their onry geo-

graphical identity and sense of community. In addition, such

associations as religious denominations, civic cIubs, and business

franchises tend to be organized on a county-by-county basis. rn

short, the county is more than a purely poriticar subdivision;

it is a sociological phenomenon that permeates the way people

organize themselves in North Carolina. (FERRELL, T. 1017, 16 to

1020, I1. )

21. Counties play a critical role in the conduct of the

General Assemblyts business. lt
or ggllele_l-y_r9s_trict locaI bi1Is. fn North Caro1ina, however,

loca1 bills are used "*t"r,ri.r"fy to provide local government units
with individualized }egislation accommodating their peculiar needs

and circumstances. (SANDERS, T. 909, 3-9; FERRELL, T. L029, 6-15;

1031, 10 to 1032, 4). In 1983, roughly 20 percent of the bills
introduced, and a higher percentage of the bills enacted, were

local bilIs. This large volume of local bil1s could not be

handled without certain understandings which enable the legis-
lature to process them expeditiously. First, loca1 bil1s are

introduced by }egislators representing the affected areas,

Ni,
L,r/A 

^_- L=r1tr
._€-



'n:: 
.

-16-

generally at the request of IocaI officials. secondry, arl
members rePresenting districts in which an affected county or
city is located are consurted. A third understanding is that
local bills are explained and debated in committee, not on the 

I

House or senate floor. Finarly, rocar legislation is normarly
not controversial from a statewide viewpoint, and the members who

introduce it take fuIl political responsibility if a bill turns
out to be unpopurar. Thus, local birls can be placed first on

the calendar and handred in a routine assembry-line fashion.
(FERRELt, T. 1022, 12 to.1025, 2i BRENNAN, T. rrGG, 20 to 1167,
2l). For a rocar bill to be enacted, the entire delegation
rePresenting that local unit must weigh competing interests and

reach some sort of agreement or compromise situation. This can

take place outside the formal processes of the General Assembly
and therefore consumes littre legisrative time. (FERRELL, T.
1032,21 to 1033, 10; 1051, 3-15i !052, g-24; ADAMS, T.1365,
18 to 1356, 10.) Dividing multimember district counties into
single-member districts would reduce or even eliminate the
incentive for a county delegation to reach some kind of consensus
before a local bill is introduced. (F,ERRELL, T. 1033, 14-1g,
105r, 20 to 1052 8; BRENNAN, T. 1L66, 20 to 1167, 2Li ADAMS, T. 

t,1365, L8 to 1365.) !g""1 controversies would armost inevitably, 
i ?r, _6

be brought to the 
_H3use :ld senate f1oor. The General essembry"'ol:i'o., '.\ ''

would not then be able to process the volume of local bil1s which '^"lu^'r.a

it has routinely handled in the past. consequentry, local govern- q,
ment would be unable to engage freely in innovative or experimental



-rz-

Programs or to adapt the structure of general legislation to its
own needs and circumstances. (FERRELL, T. 1025, g-13; I034, 3-t2i
BRENNAN, T. 1158 1 3-l7i DX 45.) Splitting parts of counties into
different districts also results in confusion as to who speaks

for the county, or who represents the peopre concerned, and

generally blurs or destroys lines of communication. (FERRELL, T.

M, zt to 1028, 25i Dx 50. ) Drawing legisrative boundaries

without regard to county rines disrupts North carorina's long-
established Iegislative patterns, resulting in less effective
representation for counties and other local governmental units.
(FERRELL, T. W, Zl to 1029, L9i IO3I, g-14.) There is no

structural way for the General Assembly to facilitate the resolu-
tion of potentially controversial local billsr So that the end

result would be fewer local bills (FERRELL, T. Lo34r 13-19) and a

drastic reduction of the legislaturers ability to meet the specific
needs of the counties and other 1ocal governmental units throughout
the State.

22. Despite the acknowledged attributes of single-member

legislative districts, there are also benefits which derive from

the use of at-Iarge, multimember districts. The vast majority
of North Carolinars multimember legislative districts serve the

Stater s traditional preference for creating legislative districts
from whole counties, or groups of whole counties. The use of
multimember districts also results in the election of legislative
delegations which can unite more effectivery in support of legis-
lation affecting their constituents, (LrLLEy, T. 1156, 13 to

li



'.::::.

-t 8-

]]57, 5; BRENNAN, T. 1155, 17 to 11G7, ZIi 1168, 2I to 1170, 3;
20L | 1-8; ADAMS , t. L332, 10-21, Dx 45) , especialry with respect

to the enactment of locaI legislation, a regislative tool upon

which the General Assembly heaviry relies. (BRENNAN, T. 11G2, 22

to 1158, 20i ADAMS, T. 1333, L2 to 1334, 8; SANDERS, T. EI, 6-2oi
FERRELL, T. L022, 10 to 1034, 19; MILLS Dep., {, 11 to 52r 9i
DX 45 and 50; Finding of Fact 2L.l

23. Plaintiffs adduced nothing to show that North Carolinar s
multimember legislative districts are unusually large vis-a-vis
the multimember districts used by its sister states (GROFMAN, T.
198r 18 to 2021 19)r or to show that such districts included in the
Staters most current reapportionment plans bear any geographical
characteristics that make them substantially different from legis-
lative districts previously created by the legislature. To the
extent that most multimember districts adhere largely to the
staters preference for using whore counties where possible in
the creation of legislative districts, they are in no way unusual
or unusualry large in the historical sense. (SANDERS, T. g9o

passim. )

24- Plaintiffs have adduced no credible evidence tending
to show that minority legislators elected from majority whiter 61t-

larger Illultimember districts are any less able or any less willing
to represent the interests of their minority constituents than
are their counterparts from majority black single-member districts.
(BALLANCE, f. 857r 9 to 859, 14; ADAMS, T. L325r 6 to 1326, 17. )



j19-

25. uinority citizens in North Caro1ina, including black

legislatorsr oE€ in a considerabre state of disagreement and

indecision over the desirability of creating majority black single-
member legislative districts in the State. (LOVETT, f . 67-?, g to
678, 4i LILLEY, T. 1135, 7 to 1137, 1; BRENNAN, T. 1160, 20 to
116r, 2i MALONE, T. 1207, L7 to 1208, 25i l2og, 15 to 1211, l7i
1222, 19 to L223, LAi GREENE, T. 1249, I to 1250, 9i 1266, g to
1269, 10; 1277, 8-17; CLEMENT, T. L85 , 24 to 1286, 15; I2Bg, 13

to 1290, 19; I296t 5 to 1297, rti ADAMS, T. 1319, 7 to 1320, g;

L322, 2L to 1323, L7i 1343, 25 to 1344, 19; 1350, L6-25, Dx 56.)
B1ack witnesses of considerable experience in the fields of both

civil rights and electoral poritics (MALONE, T. 120r, 25 to
L206, 14; GREENE, I. !223, 24 to !234, 4i CLEMENT, T. !292, 6 to
L285' 23;1285,16 to 1287,15), testified that they fear the

creation of single-member districts could result in a ross of
minority influence over those candidates who would be elected
from majority white districts, a ross of the general opportunity
to participate in the political process overallr and the possible,
ultimate elimination of the opportunity of minority candidates in
murtimember districts to be elected in numbers greater than

would be likery under a singre-member district plan. (MALONE,

L?.07, 20 to 1211, L7; GREENE, T. 127L, 4 to t273, 9i CLEITIENT, T.

1295, 15 to L296, 4. )

The record reflects that the actions, and in some cases

inactions, of black people during the statets reapportionment



. -.:i:*:.

-20-

process, and afterwards, left legislators with no distinct
impressions regarding either the preference of black people for
single-member districts or the effect that the creation of such

\districts would have. For example, Representative Dan Blue of a.....

Wake County met with Department of Justice officials in Washington,

D.C., in 198I and attempted to convince them that the creation of
single-member legislative districts in the State would hinder the
objective of increasing minority influence in politics. He recom-

mended instead Department approval of a House plan which he had

devised and which preserved the State's tradition of using at-Iarge,
multimember legislative districts. (ADAMS, T. 1319, 7 to 1320, B.)

Representative Kenneth Spaulding of Durham showed ambivalence

toward the creation of singre-member districts, supporting legis-
lation to create them in Mecklenburg, Forsyth and Wake Counties,

but not in his own county. (LILLEY, T. 1135r Z to 1137r 1;

BRENNAN, T. 1150, 20 to 116I, 2i ADAMS, T. l372r 2! to 1323,

17.) His proposar was killed on the floor upon motion by Repre-

sentative Blue, which motion was supported by the Housets third
black member, Representative Creecy. (ADAMS, T. 1322, 2L to
L323, 17.) Howard crementr who had previously served in the ,

./r

state House by appointment in t977 (CLEMENT, T. 1284, 2-71, and -'2,
who lost in subsequent attempts in 1978 and 1982, to be elected '', 'r

C ', ''a --to the House from Durhamrs at-large district (CLEMENT, T. L286r,i ? /''

16 to 1287, 16), made his staunch opposition to single-member ''. '--"

districts known to legislators. (CLEMENT, T. 1286, 4-15.)

4z:
I

^l('
/-/

-\J-/' G'--' /-
C

(?
continued disagreement over the issue is illustrated by the' a'

4 /,

(( (. .r?\
(r ,i\ '-., il

'- r_( _/

z\

.-r'i
Z



-2L-

recent stand taken by vernon Malone, black member of the wake

schoor Board, who has publicry maintained that his erection to
that board from a majority brack district serves to reave him

and his constituents without an effective voice in the formation

of poricy. (lvlALoNE, T. W, tl to 1208, 25.) virtually every

black leader in wake county has expressed agreement with his
views and, in r983, convinced the vlake legislative deregation

to introduce legislation designed to abolish the district method

of election to the school board in wake county. (ADAMS, T.1333,
12 to 1334, 8.) Malachi Greene, First Vice-Chair of the Charlotte-
Mecklenburg Black PoliticaI Caucus, testified in these proceedings

against the creation of single-member legislative districts in
Mecklenburg county. (GREENE, T. 1223 passim.) He had previously

done so at the February 4, LgSzr legislative public hearing.
(Stip. Ex. AAA, Znd Tape 3, pp. 7-10; See Finding of Fact B.)

26. It was not until late 198I or early 1982 that the

issue of single-member versus multimember districts arose in the

Generar Assembry. Even then, the legislators most intimatery
involved with the reapportionment process received de ninimis
input from their black constituents regarding the desirability of
single-member districts. (LYNCH, T. 457 | 2 to 460, 10; LITTLE,

T. 536, L7-23; LOVETTE, T. fit 1I-25i 673, 20-24; BUTTERFIELD,

T. 720,20 to 7211 15; 726t I to 727,23i RAUCH, T. 1075, 8 to
1076, 3; LILLEY, T. 1135, 7-23; 1140, 4-22; BRENNAN, T. 1162, 8-

14i GREENE, T. 1277, 8-17.) The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Black

PoIitical Caucus, for example, refrained from endorsing the



-22-

concept of singre-member districts until two days before the
trial of this case. At a special meeting held at the conclusion
of a voter registration workshop, only twenty-seven members voted
to pass a resolution which had been drafted by a partner in the
1aw firm representing the named praintiffs in this action.
(GREENE, T. !277, 8-l7i STEVENSON, T. 1477, B-23i t47Br l2-2Oi
TAYLOR, T. 1487, 1-6i 149L, 2-7i cX 88.)

The Record is devoid of evidence tending to show that most

black voters in the State do in fact wish to cast their votes in
singre-member districts and gives rise to the inference, if not
the suspicion, that the views exhibited by the plaintiffs in this
cause are not trury representative of the views herd by the
majority of the members of the class the plaintiffs purport to
represent.

27. Witness Arrington testified about the results of two

analyses he had completed based on ltatistics gleaned from certain
past elections. In the first study, he examined campaign contri-
bution reports of Mecklenburg candidates involved in city, county,
and legislative races, concluding generally that black candidates

received fewer and smaller contributions than white candidates and

were disadvantaged by having to run more expensive multimember

district campaigns. rn his second stucty, in which he used single-
member district plans which had been proposed in the General

Assembly for Mecklenburg, wake, Durham, and Forsyth counties, he

compared 1980 and L982 legislative election results to what he

maintained the results wourd have been had the single-member



-23-

district plans been in effect for those elections. (ARRfNGTON,

T. 796, 20-25.) He concluded that more black candidates would

have been eLected under the single-member district system and

that, therefore, blacks are submerged in the larger, mostly white
multimember districts. (ARRTNGTON, T. 7g7r r to 7ggr 2.)

The witness admitted, however, that his studies were purely
quantitative. No consideration was given to the qualities of ./i

-( \c-
individual candidates or to the issues involved in the variou" *t

1
elections. (ARRINGTON, T. 808, L7-24.1 Neither was the degree 6& Y-

3\t ' f'-of effort expended by individual candidates factored into his j. ,rao
equations. (ARRINGTON, T. 804, 9-20.1 The witness readily ?,., f
acknowledged that, in elections of the type he examined, candi- " ts;-

dates are prone to finance their campaigns largely from their ovrn

resources rather than contributions. (ARRTNGToN, T. !8, 9-Ig. )

with resPect to the witnessr comparison of multimember district
election results to the resurts which would have occurred in
hypothetical single-member district elections, there are too many

variables between the rear and the hypothetical for any sorid
inferences to be drawn. The comparison does not take into account

the differences in turnout between multimember and single-member

elections, the ability of voters to enhance their voting power by

single-shot and concentrated voting in at-large elections, the

residences of the candidates, whether different candidates would

have run in a single-member district, nor many other inherent
differences between the two types of districts. As the witness
himself admitted, such a study would at most serve as a starting

I

I

I

I



-24-

point in determining voter trends or in predicting the outcome
of future erections. (ARRTNGTON, T. gr7, 5 to g1g, g.)

28. Plaintiffs introduced some evidence tending to show

that black candidates are hampered in their campaign efforts by
nany practical challenges, i.e., the need to raise campaign funds,
to develop viable campaign strategies, to achieve name recogni_
tion, to project an image reflecting educational accomplishment
and social and professional success. (LyNcH, T. 437, 13 to 43g,
25i 442t 14 to 443, 25i 467, 13-19; LOVETT, T. 666,7_1g.)
These are, however, challenges faced by white candidates as well
and serve to place no special or exceptional burden on candidates
of a particular race. They represent obstacles which are inherent
in the democratic process and which any aspiring candidate to
public office must seek to overcome regardless of the type of
electorat district in which that candidate might run for office.
The black community has been able to produce candidates of con-
siderabre accomprishment. (LyNcH, T. Afrr 3 to 47or r; LovETT,
T. 665, 10-19; ADAMS, T. 1323, 1g_20.)

29. As is the case with white candidates, black candidates
often find it necessary to participate in politics over a consid-
erable period of time before successful election to the State
legislature. rn fact it is common for candidates of both races
to lose in their first bid for elective office. (LyNcH, T.433,
19 to 435, 11; 455, l2-L7i 467, 6-12; BRENNAN, T. 89, 24 to
1150, 2i 1184, 4-20; GREENE, T. 1243, I to 1245, 9i ADAMS, T.
1323, 2L to 1325, 5.) Plaintiffsr evidence showing unsuccessful



-25-

election attempts by black candidates who never previously ran
for pubric office, standing alone, is not particutarly probative
on the issues of whether the political process is open to black
candidates and voters or whether black candidates who possess the
requisite political experience can reasonably expect to be

successful in elections.

30. Bertha Maxwerl, a brack resident of charlotte, who

ran unsuccessfully in the 1980 General Election for election to
the House of Representatives, rr,as a f irst-time candidate with
little or no previous public exposure. (LyNcH, T. 467, 6-L2).
rn addition, due to the death of her mother, Maxwell cut back on

campaigning in the last several weeks prior to the election,
choosing to send surrogate campaigners to public gatherings.
(LYNCH, T. 460t 11 to 461, 1I; BRENNAN, T.- UqO, 4-L4.,

31. Both Jim Po1k, a black resident of Charlotte who lost
in his bid for election to the Senate in lg82r and Jim Richardson,
a black resident of Charlotte who lost in his bid for election to
the House of Representatives in L982, vrere first-time candidates
with little name recognition among the voters. (GREENE, T. !243r-
9 to 1244, 25.1 Still, Richardson came within 2SO votes of
winning (LYNCH, T. €1, 5--8); and the chances of both of tho.se 

-qcandidates to be elected in another future attempt seem excellen1.lQr-n4,-->
(GREENE, T. L244, !7 to 1245, 9.) 3*? 

"n-
,,,,,^*< q

32. Dan BIue, a black resident of Raleigh, lost in his 1978 'Q '\.
1)first-time bid for election to the State House of Representatives,



-26_

but won in 1980. In 1982, he was reelected with the highest vote
total in the Democratic primary and the second highest vote total
in the General Election. (ADAMS, T. !3z4r rl to 13211 5i stip.
162. )

33. Blacks can and do get elected to public office in
North Carolina by white majority constituencies. Among 202 known

black city council or town commission members in North Carolina
municipalities, 108 vrere elected at-large in municipalities with
a najority white voter registration, and four vrere elected from
wards or districts with a majority white voter registration. In
addition, seven black councir members were elected at large in
municipalities for which the voter registration was approximately
50t black and 50t white or is unknown. There are 19 black mayors

in North carolina, six in municipalities with a majority white
voter registration. Of those six municipalities, two blacks were

elected to the office of mayor, two-were erected to the council
and were chosen mayor by the council according to the regurar
method of selecting the mayor, and two were elected to the council
and became mayor when a vacancy occurred in that office. North
Carolina also has 36 black county commissioners , of whom 30 were

erected at-large in counties with a majority white voter regis-
tration, and one was elected in a ward with a majority white voter
registration. (Stips. 104, 109; Stip. Ex. MM, pp, ee.)

34. Three blacks have run for and been elected to statewide
judiciar offices. clifford Johnson was elected as a superior
court Judge in 1978; Richard Erwin was elected to the court of



has run for statewide judicial: 
Ttfice 

in North Carolina. Becton

is currentry serving on-ttre- c-odrt of Appears. Erwin has since

%:
*Y#;d

\r

-27-

Appears in 1978; charres Becton was elected to the court of
Appeals in 1982. There is no evidence that any other black person

been appointed as a United States oistrict Judge for the }liddle
District of North Carolina. Johnson has since been appointed to
the North Carolina Court of Appeals and has not yet been required

to run for erection to that office. rn addition, Henry E. Frye is
currently serving by appointment on the North Carolina supreme

court and has not yet had to run for erection to that office.
(Stips. 100, IzL, I33, 152, I82.)

35. Of the L2 black members of the 1983 General Assembly,

five were elected at-1arge in majority white, multimember districts
not covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. One was.

elected from a three-member district subject to section 5 of

the Voting Rights Act with substantiat concentrations of bIack,
whiter and rndian popurations and no majority race. (stip. 9G;

Stip. Ex. BB. )

36. North Carolina Governor James Hunt has aggressively

sought out and appointed black men and women to State boards and

commissions. BIacks have been appointed to positions of power

and influence in an impressive number of instances. The Governorrs

objective has been to place them in important, high profile
positions where their input into the affairs of government will
have a direct and lasting impact on the lives of all citizens
in the State. (BtrVACQUA, T. 925 passim, Dx L7r 18, and 19.)



-28-

37. Plaintiffs offered no probative evidence to indicate
lack of resPonsiveness to the particularized needs of minority
voters in single-member or multimember districts on the part of
black or white legislators. Responsiveness to minorities by the

members of the General Assembly is evident. In the 1983 session

of the legislature a1one, lawmakers enacted bills providing for
nore access to voter registration and voting. (Finding of Fact

43.) The Staters budget enacted in that session provided for an

allocation of $281r000 for sickle cell anemia research. (ADAMS,

T. 1335, 7-24.) The first enactment of the 1983 session declared

llartin Luther Kingrs birthday an official state holiday. (ADAMS,

T. 1338, 11-15.) Over objection of other elements in the district,
the Wake delegation introduced legislation to alter the method

of electj.on of school board members in the county. Siginificantly,
the legisration was introduced after the wake delegation met

with officials from such black organizations as the Raleigh-Wake

County Citizens Association, the BIack Womenr s PoIitical Caucus,

and the wake county Democratic Black caucusr and with nearly
every brack leader in wake county. These spokesmen voiced

unanimous objection to the district method of election to the

school board because of the dilutive effect on the influence

black voters under that method of election. (ADAMS, T. 1333,

to 1334, 8; Finding of Fact 25.)

of

t2

Black people are not without a

legislative process. Members of the

voice in the Stater s

legislature do indeed exhibit



-29-

good faith concerns for the political and other particularized
needs and aspirations of the black community. plaintiffs proved

nothing to the contrary.

38. White candidates for election to public office need

the support of the brack community (GREENE, T. L269, 7-]-ol , and

it is typical for them to actively seek the minority vote. They

routinely campaign among minority communities and organizations,
seeking and, in many instances, receiving minority endorsement

and support. (LYNCH, T. 441, 11-15i 454, 4-24i 464, lO to 465,

4i BALLANCE, T. 855, 9 to 85G, 1; BRENNAN, T. 1171, !7 to 1173,

2li 1175, 20-24i 1176, 15-17; ADAMS, T. Ej, tS to 1338, 19.)
Likewise, minority candidates actively seek and receive volunteer
support, contributions, and votes from white votersr and campaign

freely and openly in white communities without incurring racial
anrmosity or disapproval. (BALLANCE, T. 860, 13-rg; BRENNAN, T.

117I, 17 to 1173, 2li 1175, 20 to t+79, 2li GREENE, T. 1239, 11

to 1242, l9i HAUSER Dep. 11-18 and attached Exhibits 2 and 3.)
rt is quite common, also, for black and white candidates to
campaign together and to advertise together. (BRENNAN, T. Ir73,
22 to 1175, 4i 1175, 20 to 117g, 14; Dx 24i ADAMS, T. 1335, 15 to
1339, g. 

)

39. At every level of political organization, the Stater s

Democratic Party is open to and encourages the membership of
minority voters. Blacks actively participate in party affairs,
hold local and state positions of party leadership, and contribute

n-to-

"":3"*QA
"L



'--:.

-3 0-

in a meaningful and influential way to the formation and effectu-
ation of party policy. (LrrrLE, T. !3,1, 2t-2si CLEIIENT, T, l2%,
4-I4; ADAlrlS, T. E9i, ta to 1305, ].2i SPEARMAN, T. 540, 9 to
541, 23i DX 46 and 47.1

The Democratic Party Plan of Organization requires that
black peopre be represented in positions of readership at the
county and state 1evel (Dx 26 and 27li and the party's new Delegate
Selection PIan provides for virtual proportional representation
of the staters black people at the next Democratic National
convention. (Dx 28.1 Further, it is not unusuar for majority
white Democratic precinct organizations to have blacks hold the
office of chair or First vice-chair. (SPEARMAN, T. 540r 9 to 541,

16; LOVETT, T. 681, 9 to 682, I7.)
40. Because black voters in North Carolina are identified

almost excl,usively with the Democratic party, black candidates
who run as Republicans receive minimal support from black voters.
(GROFMAN, T. 185, 4-L2; BALLANCE, T. 862, 2L-23; g70, 1-I1.)

41. Prior to 1972, North carolina did not have any pro-
vision forthe regular purge of registered voters. Beginning
in 1973, after the 1972 presidential erection, locar county
boards of election were required to purge the names of aI1 persons

who failed to vote for a period of four years during the year

after each presidential election. Beginning in 199I, for the year

after the 1980 presidential election, and during the year after
each future Presidentiat election, 1oca1 boards of election may

not purge voters who have voted at either of the last two

tl



'( <.

-il-

Presidential elections or in any other election between those
two. (Stip. 58; N.C. Gen. Stat. I63-G9.)

42. The North Carolina State Board of Elections has five
nembers- At all times since 1969, the Board has had at least one

brack member. since october of 1981, two of the five members

have been black. (Stip. 109; SPEARMAN, T. 49g, I5-24.)
43. The most striking example of the State's determination

to further oPen and facilitate access to its political process

is exhibited by the registration efforts of the State Board of
Elections since 1981. Since the five new members of that Board

took office on November 9 , 19Br, noticeable improvements in
overall voter registration percentages have been achieved. Even

after the last registration books purge, the net black registration
had substantially increased, although the net white registration
level had decreased. (SPEARMAN, T. 595, 14-16.)

Defendantsr Exhibits 1-14 generally reflect the lengths to
which the Board of Elections has gone in order to increase regis-
tration opportunities and percentages and to expand voter access

to the elections Processes. The Board's campaign took two primary
forms:

A comprehensive educational program, cal1ed citi.zens
Awareness Year, vras begun late in 1981 and continued

up to the close of registration books in October of
1982. (SPEARMAN, T. 5I3, 19 to 514 | 12.) In conjunc-

tion with the initiation of that program, the State
Board of Elections contacted each of North carolinars

A.



':32-

100 county boards of erections, encouraging registra-
tion drives in shopping centers, public high schools,

and residentiar neighborhoods where registration was

low, and called for increased availabirity of registrars
at civic, social, politicalr and religious gatherings.

(SPEARMAN, T. 515, 4-2L.) In January of t982, the

Governor of the state addressed an erections seminar

of the staters county erections officials in winston-
sarem, stressing the need for increased registration
and urging official cooperation in the effort.
(SPEARMAN, T. !E, 3-9.) A Voter Registration Day

was held in RaIeigh, where the Citizens Awareness

Year Campaign was announced to a gathering of elec-
tions officials and numerous civic, business, and

political leaders from across the State, including
representatives from predominantly black groups and

associations. (SPEARMAN, T. ![, I0 to 5IB, 14; DX

4t 5, and 6.) Some 21000 copies of the Citizens
Awareness Year Manual, containing information on

registration laws and opportunities, were distributed
statewide. (SPEARMAN, T. !!, 20 to 520, B; DX B.)

The Board of Elections, in conjunction with the public

Telecommunications Agency, prepared taped announce-

ments encouraging registration and distrib.uted
them statewide (SPEARIvIAN, T. 520, 9-241 , using in



B.

'<r'.:

-J J-

part young people and blacks as announcers, in an

effort to influence those particular groups to
register in greater numbers. (SPEARMAN, T. S2O,

25 to 52I, 6i DX 9.) The Board contacted businesses

across the State in support of its Work place Regis-
tration Effort and obtained their cooperation in
registering workers at their places of employment

(SPEARMAN, T. 528, 8-23; DX L2 and 13).
The Board of Elections was arso active in the General

Assembry and made requests and reconmendations for
legislation designed to maximize access to the political
process. (SPEARMAN, T. 526, 16 to 527, L9i 533, 22

to 537, 5; DX 15.) The legislature responded favorably

and, by the end of its 1983 session, enacted laws

providing that:
1. Any registrar, judge'of electionsr or special

registration commissioner in any of the Staters
100 counties was authorized to register voters

countywide. ( SPEARI{AII, T. 526, 19 to 527, 5. )

2. Each county board of elections was authorized

to appoint ten additional special registration
commissioners prior to the regular biennial date

for such appointments. (SPEARMAN, T. 527, 6-19;

DX 11. )

3. Motor Vehicles driver's license examiners

rtrere authorized to become special registra-



' "\-*,.

-34-

tion commissioners in order to register any

potential new voter $rho applies for a driverrs
Iicense, license renewalr oE duplicate license.

lOnly one other state in the country, Michigan,

has adopted such a far-reaching measure.I

(SPEARI4AN, T. 533, 22 to 535, 16.)

4. Voter registration at public high schools and

the appointment of high school employees as

registrars was authorized. ( SPEARIUAN, T. !!I,
19 to 536, 2.1

5. All public libraries were authorized to register
voters, and registration was made mandatory for
libraries with four or more employees. (SPEARMAN,

T. I19, 3-1I. )

By the close of registration books in October of Lg82, even prior
to the enactment of most of the legislation mentioned above,

North Carolina had experienced its largest increase in registered
voters in the staters history in a non-presidential election
year. (SPEARMAN, T. 530, 3-8.) Defendants' Exhibit r4 reflects
the improvement. Approximately 188r000 voters were registered,
among them over 58r000 black people. The increase in all regis-
tered voters vras 7.5t, with white registration increasing 5.7$

and black registration increasing 178. (SpEARIvlAN, T. 8, 9-24i

DX 14.) Notable accomplishments in the registration of black

people occurred, for example, in the counties of Edgecombe,

where the percentage of black registered voters rose from 348 to



-3s-

55$; Northampton, 51t to 72*i Nash, 3Ot to 42*i Caswel1, 4gt to
71t; Durhamr 43$ to 509; and Halifaxr 3gt to 53t. The overall
percentage of eligib istered voters in the State rose to
63.1S. (DX L4i 975, 17 to 976, 24.)

44. rn addition to the state's vigorous voter registration
and voter turnout effortsr rntsjor private volunteer registration
efforts by numerous grouPs, such as the Charlotte Vote Task Force
and the Halifax County Black Caucus, have been operating statewide.
These efforts, some of which were begun prior to the enactment of
the voting Rights Act, represent an aggressive and successful
attempt to maximize registration opportunities for black people

and to significantry increase the number of brack registered
voters. (LYNCH, T. 463r 2 to 464,9i REID, T. 472r G to 474,

25i 480, 4 to 481, 2li 486, 2! to 497, 2Si LITTLE, T. 6J.2, 15

to 634,20i BUTTERFTELD, T. 7lo, l7-2zi BALLANCE, T. B3Gr g to
837, l7i BRENNAN, T. 1.178, 15 to 117.9, 3; GREENE, r. 126, L5-2Li
CLEMENT, T. L298, 11-16; ADAMS, T. 1303, 23 to 1305, 13; 1306,

13 to 1307, 1. )

Indeed, largely because of previous successful efforts to
register black citizens in the counties of Mecklenburg and Wake,

along with early liberalization of registration policies there,
those counties, each of which has a Board of Elections chaired by

a black, showed large numerical increases but the lowest percentage

increases of eligible black citizens registered during the Staters
citizen Awareness year program. (SPEARMAN, T. 531, l-2]-i Dx 14.)
The outcome in Forsyth, for essentiarry the same reasons, was

similar. ( SPEARMAN, T. 533_ , 3-21.1

Itk:

J I'
e WHALEY,



-36-

45. The only significant governmental impediment to
registration by brack people which remains in Edgecombe county
has resulted from the insistence of the United States Department
of Justice that it be given the opportunity to preclear all
speciar registration drives participated in by the Edgecombe

County Board of Elections. (SpEARMAN, T. 537, 7 to S[, 4.)
46. Continued governmental and private volunteer efforts

to increase minority registration and to educate minority citizens
as to their electoral rights and privileges, along with new

legislative changes and the recent major accomplishments in this
area, should bear fruit in further narrowing the gap between

blacks and whites in both registration levels and voter turnout.
(BUTTERFTELD, T. 730, 3 to 733, 1.) These trends should further
enhance the opportunity for black candidates to be elected in
the future. (HOFELLER, T. 1412, Z to 1414, I0; DX 62.)

47 - Black participation in the Statet s elections processes

and in Democratic party politics is by no means depressed. To

the contrary, it is dynamic and has resulted in the statewide
election of brack candidates and in the formation of both party
and governmentar policies which are responsive to the black
electorate in a meaningful way. (Who1e Record).

48. While participation by black people in the

IBv
A-.k
\e i,

P.-
\\ qr

15

q11
V-

political processes is not depressed, -it is less than

be, largely due to the existence of politicar apathy
-=--"--

State I s

it might

and

and to vote,indifference, and the reluctance to register to vote



-37-

which can be found throughout all age groups of black people in
the State. (LYNCH, T. 432, I to 433, 3; 463, 2-lZ; REID, !. fit
1 to lft, 2i LITTLE, T. 6il, 15-24; LOVETT, T. 699 | 2-l}i 690, I-

HAUSER DeP., 32.) This factor has had, and continues to have,

a greater adverse impact on the ability of those citizens to
maximize their political influence and to exercise their fulI
potentiar in the political arena than does the aggregate of any

other factors which the plaintiffs have attempted to prove. only
black people as individuals can rectify that situation, for the

removal of no existing state practices, policiesr ot methods can

achieve that end for them

49. Regression anarysis and extreme case analysis are

statistical methods which can be used to estimate from election
returns the percentage of black voters voting for any given

candidate and the percentage of white voters voting for any given

cand idate .

While these statistical methods can be helpful in assessing

erection results, they alone cannot adequately indicate the

Presence and extent of racially polarized voting, for the following
reasons:

a) Regression and extreme case analyses dear only with
quantifiable data. No consideration is given to important non-

quantifiable factors, such as qualifications of candidates,

quality of a campaign, financing, position on the ballot, and

campaign issues. (HOFELLER, T. 1388, B-25.)



-38-

b) The regression model projects the turnout of white and

black voters in each precinct based on the turnout in extreme

case precincts. There is nothing in the record to support the

assumption that voters in mixed precincts turn out in the same

proportion as voters in alr-white or all-black precincts.
(HOFELLER, T. 1383, 1-8; 1386, 1-16.)

c) These analysesr ds used by plaintiffs' expert, give

too much weight to the correlation between two variables: the

percent of white registration in a precinct and the percent of
the totar votes which were cast for the brack candidate.
correlation is not causarity, nor does it prove causality. Even

a very high degree of correlation between these two variables
cannot be said to prove that race is the dominant determinant of
voter preference. (HOFELLER, T. 1387 | L2-25.,

d) The extreme case analysis draws conclusions

the total district popuration voted, based only on data

sma1l number of precincts. For example, the data base

Mecklenburg 1982 House primary analysis, which purports

determine how blacks voted in that election, represents

5S of the black voters. (HOFELLER, T. 1396, 1-lO.)

about how

from a

for the

to

less than

50. The 1982 election results do not reflect any significant
leve1 of polarized voting. To the extent that polarized voting
has existed in the past, the trend is clearly away from voting by

whites along racial lines. BIacks continue to effectively single-
shot and concentrate their votes for the candidates of their choice.



-3 9-,

As a general rule, while black candidates get considerably more

black vote than do white candidates, bla ?
less white vote than white candidates. Insofar as blacks exhibit
great political sophistication in the use of single-shot voting
and enjoy considerabre white support, racially polarized voting
is not a significant factor in legislative elections in North

Carol ina.

a) rn the L982 House general election for Meckrenburg

county, 42* of the white voters voted for Berry, who is black;
29* of the whites voted for Richardson, who is black. The white

candidate who received the highest number of white votes received

58s of that total. cx l4(d). rn a field of 18, 11 white candi-

dates received fewer white votes than Berry. rn that election
Berry finished second, and Richardson finished ninth, onry 2so

votes behind the eighth place runner. The voting in this election
was not racially polarized. GX 14(d).

b) fn the 1982 Mecklenburg House primary, Berry received

50t of the white vote and Richardson received 39t. The leading

white candidate received 74* of the white vote. Both black

candidates won the primary. The voting in this election was not

racially polarized. GX l4(c).

c) fn the L982 Senate general election for Durham County,

Barnes, a black Republican received 17t of the white vote and 5t

of the black vote. The voting in this election was not racially
polarized. cX 16(f).



'.*:,

-4 0-

d ) In the 1982 House general election for Durham County,

black candidate spaulding received 47t of the white vote. rn
addition, the degree of single-shot voting for Spaulding by blacks
shows a high level of political organization and sophistication.
The voting in this erection was not raciarly polarized. Gx 16(e).

e ) In the L982 Mecklenburg-Cabarrus Senate general elec-
tion, Polk, a black candidate received 33t of the white vote. The

leading white candidate received 59t of the white vote. The

voting in this erection was not racialry polarized. Gx 13(o).
f) rn the L982 Forsyth House primary, the two black

candidates, Hauser and Kennedy, received 25* and 358, respectively,
of the vote. In a field of 11, Kennedy received more white votes

than six of those candidates. The leading white candidate received

70t of the white vote. Both black candidates won the primary.

The voting in this election was not racialry polarized. Gx 15(e).
g) In the L982 House general election for Forsyth County,

Hauser and Kennedy received 42* and 462 respectively, of the

white vote. The leading white candidate received G3g of the

white vote. The successful white candidates received substantially
equal support from black and white voters--all within a range

between 43t and 63t. Both black candidates were successful. The

voting in this erection was not raciarly porarized. Gx 15(f).
h) rn the 1982 senate primary election for Mecklenburg

and cabarrus counties, the black candidate, po1k, received 32$ of
the white vote. The leading white candidate received 50t of the



-ar-

white vote. The degree of single-shot and concentrated voting by

blacks displays a high lever of poritical organization and

sophistication. PoIk was successful in the primary. The voting
in this election was not racially polarized. GX 13(n).

i) In the L982 House primary election for Wake County,

the only black candidate running, Dan Brue, received more total
votes than any other of the 15 candidates. BIue received more

white votes than 1r of the other candidates. The degree of
single-shot voting by bracks disprays a high level or foritical
organization and sophistication. The voting in this election was

not racially polarized. cX 17(d).

j ) In the 1982 House general election for Vlake County,

Blue ran second out of a field of l7 candidates. Blue arso

received the second highest number of white votes. The voting in
this election was not polarized. GX I7(e).

k) In the L982 House primary election for Durham County,

one black candidate, clement, received 32s of the black vote and

26* of the white vote. The black candidate Spaulding received

90t of the black vote and 37t of the white vote. The degree of
single-shot voting by blacks displays a high-Ievel of political
organization and sophistication. Of the two black candidates,

only Spaulding was successful in the primary. Had the black

voters wanted to elect Clement, they could have cast double-sho

votes. The voting in this election was not racially polarized. -_--.\
cx rc(d). Q.4<q

lt-

lr



-42:-

51. of the 11 elected black incumbents who have sought

reelection to the General Assembly in recent years, all 11 have

won reelection. (GROFMAN, T. 187.)

52. Racial bloc voting is not the principle cause of
candidatesr defeat in the challenged multimember districts.
(HOFELLER, T. 1409, 10-13.)

53. rn some instances, the presence of murtimember

districts can enhance black success. That is, a combination of
substantial white support and doubre-shot voting by blacks may

#*i
ry {u->
4r{...y

4-/ Uq
produce representation which exceeds proportionality. (HOFELLER,

T. 1409, 9-15.) For example, in the Forsyth County House district,
which is 25* black in population, two of five House Representatives
are black. (Stips. 57, 132.) A.J. Howard Clement, IfI, a black
resident of Durham who lost in his bid for election to the State
House of Representatives in L982, was not endorsed by the Durham

Committee on the Affairs of Black People. Had Clement received
the endorsement of that organization, it is tikely he would have

been elected to the House of Representatives and that two out of
three Durham Representatives would now be black. (CLEMENT, T.

1297, 15 to L296,4.)

54. Plaintiffs have targeted Mecklenburg County, for both

House and senate districts, as one of the primary areas which

they contend should be divided into single-member districts for
election of legislators. yet bracks have clearly been abre to
participate in and influence the political and electoral processes

there. They have been successful in electing candidates of their



'{+

-4 3-

choice, including brack candidates. Although the black voting
age population of Mecklenburg is only 24*, black candidates have

been very successful in erections. currentry one of the eight
House members from Mecklenburg County is black. James D. Richardson,
who is also black and was running in his first election for public
office in 1982r GEIII€ in ninth in a race for eight seats, with only
250 votes less than the eighth successful candidate. This was in
a field of 18 candidates. while there is currently no black
senator from the Mecklenburg-Cabarrus County Senate District,
James Po1k, a first time candidate for public office, ran fifth
in a race for four seats in the Lg82 election. The Mecklenburg-

cabarrus county senate District did have a black senator for
three terms from 1975 through 1990, until his death before the

1980 elections. rn additior,, one of the five Mecklenburg County

commissioners, two of the nine charrotte-Mecklenburg Board of
Education members, and one of the ten Mecklenburg County District
court judges, arl of whom are black, vrere elected at-large. rn
addition, another black was appointed to a vacant district court
judgeship in Mecklenburg county, but has not yet had to run for
election. rn other positions significantry affecting blacksr
ability to participate in and influence the political and electoral
Processes, one of the three Mecklenburg County Board of Elections
members, the current chair, and the immediate past chair of the

Mecklenburg County Democratic Executive Committee, are also b1ack.
(Stips. 115-120, L22, 123, I25, l26i GROFMAN, T. !g2t 6-g.)



-44-

55' The City of charlotte, located in Mecklenburg County,
has a population which is only 318 black and a voter registration
which is only 20.6t black. Harvey Gantt, who is bIack, currently
serves as Mayor pro-Tem of that city as a result of having run
at-rarge in 1981 for one of the cityts eleven city council seats
and having received the highest vote totar of any candidate in
that election. Charlotte also has two brack city council members

elected from majority black districts. (BRENNAN, T. rr70, 6-L2i
Stips . l2'1 , 128. )

55. The five-member House District 39, including most of
Forsyth county, has been targeted by praintiffs as one of the
districts which they contend should be divided into single-member
districts, with one of those districts being G5g black in
population. Yet blacks in Forsyth County have demonstrated the
ability to participate in and influence the political and electoral
Processes. They have been successful in electing candidates of
their choice, including black candidates. House District 39

currently has two black rePresentatives as a result of the I9g2
erections. Forsyth county has previously elected a black
rePresentative for the 1975-76 and l.g77-78 General Assemblies.
Blacks have also been appointed by the Governor on two occasions
to represent Forsyth county in the North carolina House upon

nomination by the Forsyth County Democratic Executive Committee.
This occurred in 1977 when a black representative resigned and

again in 1979 when a white representative resigned. one of the



-4 5-

five Forsyth county commissioners and one of the eight Forsyth
County School Board members are black. Both Boards are elected
at-Iarge. rn addition, one of the three members of the Forsyth
county Board of Elections is b1ack. Forsyth countyrs voting age

population is only 22* brack. (stips. L2g, 132-37, r39, 14r.)
57 - The City of Winston-Salem, located in Forsyth County,

has a brack popuration of slightry more than 4og and a black
voter registration of slightly less than 32t. The Winston-Salem

city council has eight members erected from wards. currentry,
there are three black members elected from majority black wards

and one black member elected from a ward with slightly less than
398 black voter registration. The black member defeated a white
Democratic incumbent in the primary and a white Republican in
the general election. (Stips. !42, 143.)

58. The Durham County three-member House District 23 is
one of the districts targeted by Plaintiffs for division into
single-member districts, with one of those districts being over
65t black in population. Yet blacks in Durham County have clearly
demonstrated an ability to participate in and influence the
political and electoral processes. They have been successful in
electing candidates of their choice, including black candidates.
Durham County currently has one black representative and has had

one black representative continuously since 1973. Durham County,

with a black voting age population of onry 33.69, has had two

black county commissioners on its five-member Board of county



46-

Commissioners at all times since 1973. The current chairman of
the Durham county Board of county commissioners is b1ack. rwo

of Durhan countyrs four district court judges are black. AII
the black county commissioners and judges were elected at-Iarge,
although both judges initiarly took office by appointment. The

Durham County Board of Elections had a black member from 1970

until 1981. The chairmanship of the Durham County Democratic

Party was held by a black from 1959 through the L977-79 term and

is currently held by a black for the 1983-85 term. (stips. !44,
I48, 150, I51, r53-55. )

59. The Wake County six-member House District 2L is one

of those districts targeted by plaintiffs for division into
single-member districts with one district over 65t black in
population. Bracks in wake county have clearly demonstrated

an ability to participate in and influence the political and

electoral processes. They have been successful in electing
candidates of their choice, including black candidates. The

current Wake House delegation includes a black member, Dan BIue,

who is serving his second term. fn the last election, BIue

received the highest vote total of the 15 Democrats running in
the primary and the second highest vote total of the l7 candidates

running for the six seats in the general election. Although no

single-member majority black Senate district could be drawn in

Wake County or including substantial parts of Wake County, Wake

County elected a black Senator for the L975-75 and 1977-78

General Assemblies. Upon his resignation, the Wake County



ttt''a-*,.

_47_

Democratic Executive Committee recommended, and the Governor

appointed, another brack to serve the remainder of his term.
one of the seven wake county commissioners is black. Two of
the eight wake county District court Judges are black. The

sheriff of wake county, John Baker, is black and is currently
serving his second term. rn the ]gg2 erection for his second

term, Baker received 63.5t of the votes in the general election
over a white opponent. In the Democratic Primary, Baker received
over 619 of the vote in defeating two white opponents. wake

county commissioners, District court Judges, and, of course, the
sheriff are ar1 elected at-rarge. According to l9g0 figures,
only 21.7s of the wake county population and only 20.5t of the

wake county voting age popuration are brack. The nine-member

Wake County Board of Educacion, elected from districts, currently
has one black member, vernon Malone, elected from a majority
black district. Mr. Malone was fir6t elected to the Raleigh Board

of Education in an at-large city election. He favors the at-large
system for eledtion of Board of Education members and also for
election of the l'Iake County legislative delegation. Wake County

has arso had a black member continuousry on its three-member

Board of Elections since 1977, and the current chair is black.
(Stips. 59, 158, 151-G5, 168 , 169 i IIALONE, T. 1& , 22 to 120g,

25i 1210, 16 to 1211, 17.)



,,.,{:::.

-48-

60. The city of Raleigh, rocated in wake county, has a

black population of only 27.3* and a black voter registration of
only 18-lt. Raleigh elected a black mayor for the Lg73-75 term.
(Stips. I71, 172.1

51. House District 8, a four-member district consisting
of wilson, Edgecombe, and Nash counties, is one of the districts
targeted by Plaintiffs for division into four singre-member

districts with one of those districts over 6os black in popu-

lation. wilson, Edgecombe, and Nash counties are alr subject to
the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act. The United States Department of Justice never interposed
an objection relating to House District g, even though it twice
objected to plans for the apportionment of the North Carolina
House of Representatives and required the North Carolina General
Assembly to submit amended plans in order to obtain preclearance.
(Stips. 25t 37, 45, 174. ) ft is not possible to dra$, a 60t black
district within the House District g without gerrymandering.
(HOFELLER, T. L414, 15 to 14IG, 17i 1456, 20 to I45g, 5.)

62- Senate District 2 has been targeted by plaintiffs as

a district which they contend shourd be changed in order to
comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Senate District
2 is a single-member district which currently has a 55.5t black
population. A district with over 6Ot black population could be

drawn in that general area. senate District 2 had previousry
been drawn with a 51.5t black population. The united states
Department of Justice interposed an objection to that senate



"l'a g-

redistricting plan specificarly because of the 5r.5g brack
majority. The letter of April 19, tg}2, from Assistant Attorney
General Bradford Reynolds, pointed out that at least a 55t black
district shourd be drawn in that area and that a compact, non_
gerrYmandered district with more than 55t black population could
easily be drawn. After the senate plan was amended again,
resulting in the 55.IE black Senate District 2, the un.ited States
Department of Justice precreared the planr no longer finding
that it had the result or effect of diluting minority votes in
the covered counties- rf the General Assembly had drawn a senate
district with a 50E black majority in the area of Senate District
2, it would have resulted in a decrease of the 49.3g brack
percentage in the area of senate District 6, also an area
composed of counties subject to the united states Attorney
General' s preclearance authority.

Plaintiffs own expert testified. that even a 6ot black district
in that area wourd remai-n only a',competitive" district, not a

"safe" minority dist,rict.
There is no evj-dence that not drawing a 60t black district

in the area of Senate District 2 had either the purpose or effect
of denying brack citizens in that area an equar opportunity to
participate in the electoral process or to elect candidates of
their choice- The evidence does not indicate that it abridged



-50-.

or diluted their right to vote in any manner whatsoever. This

is especially true because creating a 60t black Senate District
2 would require a decrease in the political inrpact of blacks in
adJoining District 6, adversely affecting black voter influence
there without significantly enhancing it in District 2. (stip.
Ex. Y; Stips.188-190; GROFMAN, T.1J5r 19 to 138, 24.l



CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

l. This court has jurisdiction to hear this case.

28 U.S.C. S 1331, 1334(a) (3) and 1334(a) (4).
2. This Court is properly convened as a court of

three judges. 28 U.S.C. S 2284.

3. The plaintiffs challenge the t9g2 reapportionment

of the North carolina senate and House of Representatives.
Specifically, the plaintiffs contended in their pre-trial order
and attempted to prove at trial that House District No.36
(Meckrenburg county), House District No. 39 (Forsyth county),
House District No . 23 (Durham county), House District No . 2l
(Wake County), House District No. 8 (Edgecombe, Nash, and

wilson counties), and senate Distrigt No. 22 (Mecklenburg

cabarrus counties) dilute minority voting strength in viola-
tion of section 2 of the voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth

Amendment. rn addition, the praintiffs contend that senate

Districts No. 2, No. 5 and No. 10 fracture minority voting
strength in violation of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and

Fifteenth Amendments to the united states constitution.



-2-

4. section 2 of the voting Rights Act provides that
no voting practice or procedure sharl be imposed or apptied
by any state in a manner which results in a denial or abridge-
ment of the right of any citizen to vote on account of race.
North carolina is a state within the meaning of section 2, and

the 1982 Reapportionment is a voting practice or procedure

within the meaning of the Act.
5. Legislative reapportionment is primarity a matter

for legislative consideration and determination. Revnolds

v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 586; g7 S.Ct. L362, 12 L.Ed. 2d 506

(1965). The intervention of this court becomes appropriate
only if it concludes that the Genepal Assembly has faired to
reapportion according to federal constitutional and statutory
requisites. White v. Weiser, 4],Z U..S. ?93, 37 L.Ed. 2d 335,

93 S.Ct. 2348 (1973) .

6. The scope of the remedial power of this court is
strictly circumscribed by the nature and extent of a violation
of section 2 or the Fourteenth Amendment. rn the absence of
any finding of a constitutional or statutory violation with
respect to the districts in questi-on, this court should defer
to the legislative judg,ment reflected in the General Assembly's
pIans. White v. Weiser, Supra.



'+ii.._s

-3-

7 - Details of districting are interrerated, and it is
not valid to look at isolated aspects of a statewide apportion-
ment plan in order to determine whether dilution of black
voting strength has occured. Districts that disadvantage
the minority group in one part of the state may be counter-
baranced by favorabre results elsewhere. A better approach
is to examine the overarl effect of a reapportionment pran
on the opportunities for representation of minority voters.
connor v. Finch, 431 u.s. 407, 4L4, 97 s.ct. 1g2g, s2 L.Ed.
2d 465 (t977).

8. To prevail in this action under section 2 of the
voting Rights Act, the plaintiffs must show that the political
processes leading to nomination or election in the state of
llorth Carolina are not equally open to members of the certified
crass in that its members have ress .opportunity than other
members of the electorate to participate in the political
process and to elect candidates of their choice. 42 u.s.c.
1973.

9. section 2 of the voting F.ights Act codifies the
holding in white v. Register, 4L2 u.s. 755, 93 s.ct. 23321

37 L.Ed. 2d 314 (1973), thus incorporating the extensive
case law which developed around it.

t;



..tt:*:.

-4-

r0. To sustain a craim under section 2 it is not enough

that the racial group allegedly discriminated against has not
had legisrative seats in proportion to its voting potential.
The plaintiffsr burden under Section 2 is to produce evidence to
support findings that the political processes leading to nomina-
tion and election are not equarly open to participation by the
black voters of North Carolina--that blacks have 1ess opportunity
than do other residents of the contested districts to participate
in the politicar processes and to elect legislators of their
choice. wh.ite v. Register, 412 u.s. 755, 766, 93 s.ct. 2332,

37 L.Ed. 2d 314 (1973). plaintiffs have failed to meet this
burden. Blacks in North Carolina participate fulIy and vigorously
in every aspect of the political process, and blacks are consist-
ently successfur in winning election to public office.

11. section 5 of the voting .Rights Act specificarry
Preserves a private plaintiffrs right to bring a constitutional
action after a section 5 preclearance has been granted. Thus

the 40 counties covered by section 5 are reviewable on r4th
Amendment grounds.

12. Section 5 does not preserve a cause of action under

section 2. under section s, the covered state or subdivision
has the burden of proving, either by a submission to the Attorney

:

lt



-5-

General or by an action for declaratory judgment, that the progrcsed

enactment does not have the purpose and will not have the effect

of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race. The

revised Section 2 places the burden on the plaintiff to Prove that

the challenged law has a discriminatory result. Insofar as Section

5 requires the State to meet the burden of proving the absence of

both discriminatory purpose and effect, Section 5 necessarily

presents a more stringent test for the covered jurisdiction than

Section 2. Thus, the April 30, 1982 letter of the Attorney

General which precleared the House and Senate plans precludes

the finding of a violation of Section 2 in the covered counties

(House District 8 and Senate District 21.

uoreoverr dn adminis;trat.ive preclearance and a declaratory

:iudgment are equal alternatives under Section 5, Morris v. Gressette,

432 U.S. 491, 97 S.Ct. 24LL, 53 L.Ed. 2d 505 (1977). The Attorney

General's approval, therefore, has the same legal force as a

judgment rendered by the District of Columbia federal courtr and

the granted preclearance has the same collateral estoppel effect

as a final judgment. Under the doctrine of collateral estoppel

the judgment of the Attorney General precludes relitigation of

the issues necessary to the outcome of the first statutory pro-

cedure. All facts necessary to a finding of discrimination in



' :'t{+'
tt - r

-6-

House District 8 and senate District 2 under section 2 were

at issue and necessarily determined by the Section 5 procedure.

13. To establish a violation of the Equal protection

CIause of the Fourteenth Amendmentr oE the Thirteenth and Fif-
teenth Amendments, the plaintiffs must show that the contested

district configurations have a disparate impact on black voters
and that the General Assembly enacted the redistricting plans

$rith the intent to discriminate against btack voters. Whitcomb

v. Chavisr 403 U.S. L24t 149r 91 S.Ct. l85Br 29 L.Ed.2d 363

(1971). The record is devoid of evidence of any intent to
discriminate harbored by the General Assembry, the Reapportio-

nment committeesr oE any individuar regislator, which is a

prerequisite to a finding of a constitutional violation.
14. Heither Section 2 nor the Constitution entitles any

minority group to an apportionment scheme designed to maximize

its political advantage. llo minoriFy group is entitred to safe
seats or majority districts simply because an apportionment

scheme could be drawn to reach this result. Turner v. McKeithen,

490 F.2d r91, L97 (5th cir. 1973); Nevett v. sides, s7l- F.2d zog,

211 (5th Cir. 1978). The plaintiffs are not entitted to single
member districts in the contested counties simply because majority
black districts could in fact be drawn.

15. Multimember districts violate the 14th Amendment

if conceived or operated as purposeful devices to further racial
discrimination by minimizing, cancerring out, or diruting the

voting strength of raciar elements in the voting population.



. i...,p...

-?-

Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U.S. L24, L49, 91 S.Ct 1858, 29 L.Ed 2d

363 (1971). Cases charging that multimember districts unconsti-

tutionally dilute the voting strength of racial minorities are

thus subject to the standard of proof generally applicable to

Equal Protection cases. Washington v. Davis, 425 U.S. 229. 96

S.Ct.2040,48 L.Ed 2d 597 (1975), and Village of Arlington

Heights v. ltetropolitan Housing Development Corp. , 429 U.S. 252,

97 S.Ct. 555, 50 L.Ed. 2d 450 (L9771, made it clear that in order

for the Equal Protection Clause to be violated, 'the invidious

quality of a Iaw must ultimately be traced to a racially discrim-

inatory purpose." The Legislature did not maintain multimember

districts in the contested counties with an intent to discriminate.

Rather the multimember districts were maintained to serve the

legitimate state policies of county-based rePresentation and

good government.

An unconstitutional discriminatory PurPose requires

proof that the decision maker selected a particular course of

action at least, in part, because of, not merely in spite of, its

adverse effects upon an identifiable group. Personnel Administra-

tor of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U.S. 256,279r 99 S.Ct.2282,

5O L.Ed 2d 870 (1981). Discriminatory purpose implies more than

intent as volition, or intent as awareness of consequencesr so that

the nforeseeability test" is not valid in voter dilution cases.

U.S. v. Dallas County Commissionersr 54S F.Supp.794 (S.D. Ala.1982).



. .o,.*=,.

8-

The plaintiffs have faired to establish that the Lgg2

Reapportionment, specifically House District 8 and Senate District
2 has been enacted, oPerated or maintained for discriminatory
purposes. Moreover, in designing House District g and senate

District 2, the Reapportionment committees relied oDr and had a

right to rely orlr the expertise and authority of the Attorney
General of the united states. House District g and senate

District 2 were drawn to the Attorney Generalrs specifications
and then approved by him under section 5 of the voting Rights
Act. Not onry were these districts drawn by the General

Assembly specifically to comply with the voting Rights Act,
the committee was assured by the u.s. Department of Justice
that these configurations would not have the effect of diluting
minority voting strength.

15. contradictory testimony regarding the merit of and

desire for single-member districts precludes the conclusion that
the class here certified represents the interests of all black
voters in North carorina. Jordan v. winter, 54r F.supp. 1135,

1140 (N.D. Miss. 1982). Several black leaders and politicians
testified for the state that single member districts wourd

decrease the polrer and influence of black voters in their
respective counties. Throughout the reapportionment process

in the General Assembly, one of the most infruential black
rePresentatives argued against single member districts. Another

black rePresentative favored single member districts everywhere



. . ]t-,1 .

-9-

save his ovrn county. Thus, the issue before the court, whether

multimember districts dirute brack voting strength in the con-

tested areas, is a political question. The General Assembly was

the proper forum in which to address and resolve this political
question.

L7. Insofar as the challenged multimember districts
elected the same number or almost the same number of black repre-
sentatives as would the single member districts proposed by the

plaintiffs, the murtimember districts cannot be said to deny,

abridger oE dilute the right to vote on account of co1or.

Durham County elected one black representative and could

easily have elected two if the Durham Committee on the Affairs of
Black Peopre had endorsed Howard clement. The proposed single

member district would Iikely elect one bLack representative.

Forsyth County elected two black representatives. The

plaintiffsr single-member district would 1ikely elect one black

representative. ,

Mecklenburg County elected one black representative and

came within 250 votes of electing a second oD€. The plaintiffst
proposed plan would IikeIy elect two black representatives.

Wake County elected one black representative. The proposed

single member district would likeIy elect one black representative.

Mecklenburg-Cabarrus elected no black to the Senate,

although a first-time candidate came very close to winning. The

plaintiffs' single member district would likeIy elect one black

Senator.



-ro-.

The present multimember districts provide the black

citizens of North carorina with open access to the political
process and an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their
choice. By creating single member districts, the plaintiffs seek

to guarantee a certain number of safe seats for black candidates.

No minority group has a right protected by either the Constitution
or section 2 of the voting Rights Act, as amended, to guaranteed

safe seats. Turner v. McKeithen, 490 F.2d 191, tg7 (5th cir.
1973). Nor is any minority group entitled to representation
proportional to its numbers in the poputation. 42 u.s.c. S 1973.

18. Th""actual 
"u.""1= of blacks in electing black candi-

dates may bar the conclusion that there wa? a burden on the voting
rights of blacks t oE that tlgy lacked access to the political
process. velasquez_v. city of Abilene, No. cAl-90-57 (N.D. Tex.

Oct. 22, 1983). Th'e plaintiffsr claim that the political processes

leading to nomination and election are less open to black citizens
than to the electorate in general cannot be reconciled with the
plain reality that members of the plaintiff class have been elected
to the General Assembly in the challenged multimember districts
and are consistently gaining seats as county commissioners, town

and city councilmen, mayors, and judges across the state.
19. fnsofar as the black voters in each of the districts

in question register and vote without hindrance, play important

rores in Democratic party politics, freery run for office with
party supportr and hold responsibre offices in the party organi-

i
I

I

;

i



-11-

zation, blacks participate in the political process in a reliable
and meaningful manner. rn addition, where it is apparentr ds it
is here, that blacks are afforded the same opportunity as whites
to run for election, that candidates supported by the democratic

Party and elected provide representation responsive to minority
needsr dnd that the use of multimember districts is rooted in a

strong state poricy divorced from the maintenance of raciar
discrimination, there is no dilution of brack voting strength.
zimmer v. McKeithen, 495 F.2d r2g7 (5th cir. 1g73).

20. The legislative history identifies the forrowing
factors as examples of those which may be relevant to a review
of an election law under Section 2t

r. the extent of any history of officiar discrim-ination in the state or political subdivision thattouched the right of the members of the minoritygroup to register, to voter oE otherwise to parli-cipate in the democratic process.

2. the extent to which voting in the erections ofthe state or political subdivision is raciallypolarized;

3. the extent to which the state or political
subdivision has used unusually Iarge 6lectiondistricts, majority vote reguirements, anti-singleshot provisions t ot other voting praclices orprocedures that may enhance the-opportunity fordiscrimination against the minorily groupi

4. if there is a candidate slating process, whetherthe members of the minority group [ave been deniedaccess to that processi

5. the extent to which members of the minoritygroup in the state or potitical subdivision beirthe effects of discrimination in such areas aseducation, employment and health, which hinderth9-ir. ab_ility to participate ef fectively in thepolitical processi



c

-t2-

5. whether political campaigns have been character-
ized by overt or subtle racial appeals;

7. the extent to which members of the minority
group have been elected to public office in the
j uri sdiction.

Additional factors that in some cases have had
probative value as part of plaintiffs; evidence
to establish a violation ares

whether there is a significant lack of
responsiveness on the part of elected officials
to the particularized needs of the members of
the minority group.

whether the policy underlying the state or
political subdivisionrs use of such voting
qualification, prerequisite to voting, or
standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.

While these enumerated factors wiIl often
be the most relevant ones, in some cases
other factors will be indicative of the
alleged dilution.

Senate Report at 28-29; United States v. Dallas County Commission,

548 F.Supp. 875 (S.D. AIa. L982)i Velasquez v. City of Abilene,

No. C.A. 1-80-57 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 22, 1982).

2I. A violation of Section 2 is established only where

the plaintiff has proved an aggregate of the factors enunciated

in the Senate Report and demonstrated that these circumstances

result in unequal access to the political forum.

22. The plaintiffs have established the mere existence of
three factors among those listed in the Senate Report: 1) past

discrimination in voting i 2) the majority vote requirement; and

3) Iower economic status as a result of the residual effects of

discrimination. Plaintiffs, however, have failed to prove that

any of these circumstances have any actual racial impact on the

political process today.



e

-1 3-

The Staters exhaustive effort to increase black voter
registration and encourage participation have neutralized the

effects of former discrimination in the electoral process.

Likewise, the majority vote requirement has no racial impact on

elections to the General Assembly. Although Plaintiffs demon-

strated lower socio-economic status among blacks, they did not

prove that participation by blacks in the politicar process is
depressed. Proof of disparate socio-economic conditions is
relevant only insofar as it relates to a limited abirity to
participate in the democratic process. A plaintiff need not

Prove a nexus between the disparate economic circumstances and

the depressed level of political activity. Senate Report at

n.Il4. He must, however, prove both facts: disparate socio-

economic indicators and depressed leve1 of political partici-
pation. The leve1 of participation by blacks in the politics of
North Carolina is not depressed. Rather, blacks have the ability
to participate rigorousry in all aspects of state politics and

are, in fact, in the political mainstream. Thus plaintiffst
evidence of disparate socio-economic status is not relevant to
the ultimate question of dilution. On consideration of all the

evidence, the Court concludes that neither past discrimination
in voting nor the residual effects of discrinination in general

limit or impede effective participation by blacks in the electoral
system today.



-14-

23. Evidence introduced by the State which shows respon-

siveness on the part of elected officials to the particularized
needs of the black community is relevant and probative of the

validity of the redistricting under section 2. As long as the

political influence of a minority group compels an elected official
to be responsive to that group within his constituency, that
minority group cannot be said to have been excluded from the

poritical process. Thus, owing in part to the accountability of
legisrators, both white and black, to minority citizens in the

State, blacks in North Carolina are not shut out of or excluded

from the political process.

24. The appointment of blacks to influential, policy-
making statewide boards and commissions is relevant evidence

of egual opportunity to participate in the political process.

Mcl,li1lian v. Escambia County, Florida, 688 F .2d 960 , 968 ( 5th

Cir. 1982). The Governor's appointments of many blacks to
influential, poricy-making state Boards and commissions is
further persuasive evidence of the opportunity afforded ar1

people in the State to participate meaningfulty in the political

Process.

25. Redistricting does not cure all electoral i1ls. Where

voter apathy and concomitant lower registration among blacks and

not unequal access to the process inhibit the electoral success

of blacks, then sure-win, single-member districts may not be an

apProPriate remedy. United States v. Da11as County Commission,

548 F.Supp. 875, 901 (S.D. A1a. I982). Moreover, single-member



-15-

districts which segregate blacks from the rest of the electorate
and lock black electoral potential into a pre-determined number

of representative seats may have a discriminatory result as

compared to nultimember districts which allow the maximum black

voting potential to be realized.
26. Racially polarized votingr dS a factor to be considered

in evaluating a voting law or practice under Section 2 or the

14th Amendment, occurs when voting along racial lines allows

those elected to ignore black interests without fear of political
consequences. Without bloc voting minority candidates would not

lose elections so1ely because of their race. Rodgers v. Lodge,

U.S. L02 S.Ct.3722 (1982). Thus, racially polarized

voting is probative of the issue of vote dilution only insofar

as it is outcome determinative. Where "plaintiffs assert that

they are denied fair access to the political process, in part,

because of the racial bloc voting context within which the chal-

lenged election system works, they would have to prove it.n
(emphasis added). Senate Report at 34. Thus, evidenee of

bloc voting is probative of vote dilution only insofar as it
determines election outcomes and thereby excludes blacks from

the political process. Plaintiffs have not proved that bloc

voting accounts for defeat of blacks at the polls. On the

contrary, black candidates have enjoyed success because of

the combination of concentrated voting and substantial white

support. Black candidates in the challenged multimember dis-
tricts receive enough white votes to win elections. Consequently



a

-16-

voting along racial lines is neither pervasive nor substantial.
To the extent racially porarized voting does exist in North

carolina, it does not inhibit the ability of brack voters to
eLect candidates of their choice.

27. In instances where some bloc voting occurs but racial
politics does not Play an excessive role in the electoral process

"it would be exceedingly difficult for plaintiffs to show that
they vrere effectively excluded from fair access to the political
process under the resurts test.' senate Report at 33. Racia1

politics do not Play an excessive role in the electoral process

of North Carolina.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Attorney Generalrs Office
N.C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (9f91 733-3377

Norma Harrell
Tiare Smitey
Assistant Attorney General

Attorneys for Defendants

Of Counsel:

suite I020
Washington, D.C. 20005
(202) 872-r09s

Wallace , Jt.
Attorney Gflera:..

r Legal Affairs

Jer/f-s Leonard, Esqg/ir



,<Fp

f hereby certify that I have

going Defendants' Proposed Findings of
by placing a copy of same in the United
postage prepaid, addressed to:

t

CERTTF'TCATE OF SERVICE

this day served the fore-
Facts and Conclusions of Law

States post Office,

Ms. Leslie Winner
Charnbers , Ferguson, Vfatt, IIallas ,Adkins & Fu1ler, p.A.
951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, i,Iorth Carolina 29202

l1r. Jack Greenberg
l1r. James M. tJabritt IfI
Ms. Lani Guinier
10 Columbus Circle
New York, New york 10019

Mr. Arthur J. Donaldson
Burke, Donaldson, I{olshouser & Kenerly
309 North Main Street
Sa1isbury, North Carolina 29144

!1r. Robert N. Ilunter, Jr.
Attorney at lavr
Post Office Box 3245
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

l1r. Hamilton C. Horton, Jr.
Horton, Hendrick, and Kummer
450 NCNB Plaza
Winston-Salem, liorth Carolina 27l}J-

Mr. Ilayne T. Elliot
Southeastern Legal Foundation
1800 Century Boulevard, Suite 950
Atlanta, Georgia 30345

-This the 7 dayof F ,1983.

-hv/{rd