Plaintiff's Memorandum in Support of Plaintiff's Motion to Certify Class, Motion to Certify Class, Motion to Certify Class Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P., and Affidavits of Ralph Gingles, Fred Belfield, Sippio Burton and Joseph Moody

    CHAMBERS.

JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS
JAMES E. FERGUSON. ||
MELVIN L, WATT
JONATHAN WALLAS
KARL ADKINS

JAMES C. FULLER. JR.
C. YVONNE MIMS

JOHN W. GRESHAM
RONALD L. GIBSON
GILDA F GLAZER
LESLIE J WINNER

Mr. J. Rich Leonard
U.S. District Court
Eastern District of

Post Office Box 1336

FERGUSON, WATT. WALLAS. ADKINS 8: FULLER. P.A.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 730 EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA

951 SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD

CHARLOTTE. NORTH CAROLINA 28202
TELEPHONE (704) 375-8461

March 16, 1982

, Clerk

North Carolina

New Bern, North Carolina 28560

Dear Mr. Leonard:

Re: Ralph Gingles, et al. v.
Rufus Edmisten, et al.
No. 81—803-CIV-5

 

Enclosed please find four copies of plaintiffs Memorandum in
Support of Plaintiffs' Motion to Certify Class, Motion to Certify
Class Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P., and Affidavits of Ralph Gingles, Fred
Belfield, Sippio Burton and Joseph Moody for filing in the above

referenced matter.

Please return a "filed” stamped copy to me.

Thank you for your usual cooperation.

LJW:ddb
Enclosures

Sincerely,
9;; éZfiéZé bééatux\

Leslie J. Winner

 
   

cc: Mr. James C. Wallace, Jr.
Mr. Jerris Leonard
Mr. Robert N. Hunter, Jr.
Mr. Arthur J. Donaldson

k)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
NO. 81-803—CIV—5

RALPH GINGLES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT

OF PLAINTIFFS' MOTION
TO CERTIFY CLASS

V.

 

RUFUS EDMISTEN, et a1.,

Defendants.

I. Nature of Case

The named plaintiffs in this action are black residents of
the State of Nortt Carolina who are eligible to and are registered
to vote. The Complaint buthiszunfion alleges that the provisions of
the North Carolina Constitution which prohibit dividing counties
in the apportionment of districts for the North Carolina House of
Representatives ard the North Carolina Senate have the purpose
and effect of dilLting the voting strength of black citizens in
violation of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, 42 U.S.C.
§§1973 and 1973c, the Fourteenth and,Fifteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution, and A2.U.S.C. §l981. The COmplaint also
alleges that the apportionment of the North Carolina General Assembly
violates the ”one person—one vote” mandate of the equal protection
clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and that the apportionment of
the North Carolina General Assembly and North Carolina's Congres—
sional districts cilute black voting strength in violation of the
Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to
the UnitedStatesConstitution. On November 19, 1981 plaintiffs
filed a Supplement to their Complaint to reflect changes in the
apportionment of the North Carolina House of Representatives enacted
after this action was filed.

On February E, 1982, the General Assembly convened for the
purpose of enactirg new apportionments and enacted new apportion-
ments of the North Carolina General Assembly and of the North
Carolina districts for the United States House of Representatives.
See Stipulations filed in this action on February 22, 1982. Plain—

tiffs have moved for leave to file a Second Supplement to the

 

Complaint to alleg
the purpose and ei
and that the defen
gation to assure t
elect representati
II.
The facts re]
to the Motion, a ]
Carolina by race,
North Carolina Boa
named plaintiffs,
the Stipulations d

22, 1982. In sumn
there wre 384,467
to vote, and the a
each named plainti
eligible to and re
ent county. Each
black community, a
citizens, and a hi
citizens in the po
about the lack of
Carolina legislatL
United States Cong
cern with other b1

retained counsel 6

plaintiff is willi

This motion i

the Federal Rules
(a) Pre

more members
sentative par

class is so

impracticable

 

requisites to a Class Action.

e that these apportionments continue to have

fect of diluting the vote of black citizens

dantshave failed to perform their affirmative obli-

hat black citizens have a fair opportunity to
ves of their choosing.

Facts Relevant to this Motion

 

evant to this motion are contained in Exhibit A
ist of the number of registered voters in North
as certified by Alex Brock, Secretary of the

rd of Elections, the Affidavits of each of the
filed contemporaneously with this motion, and

f the parties filed in this action on February
ary, Exhibit A shows that as of May 29, 1981,
black residents of North Carolina registered
ffidavits of the named plaintiffs show that

ff is a black citizen of North Carolina who is
gistered to vote. Each one resides in a differ—
has a history of leadership in his respective
history of protecting the civil rights of black
story of encouraging the involvement of black
litical process.

Each plaintiff is concerned

representation of black citizens in the North

re and in the North Carolina delegates to the

ress and each plaintiff has discussed this con—

ack leaders around North Carolina. They have

xperienced in civil rights litigation and each

ng to participate as necessary in the litigation.

III. Argument

3 made pursuant to.Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of

of Civil Procedure with provide:

One or

of a class may sue or be sued as repre—

ties on behalf of all only if (I) the

numerous that joinder of all members is

(2) there are questions of law or fact

)

_2_

common to the
the represen1
or defenses <
parties will
of the class

(b) Cl.
be maintainec
of subdivisié
(2) the

refused to ac

3

,

ass Actions Maintainable.

)n (a) are satisfied,

\
,

class, (3) the claims or defenses of

ative parties are typical of the claims

5f the class, and (4) the representative

fairly and adequately protect the interest

-An action may

1 as a class action if the prerequisites

and in addition:

a party opposing the class has acted or

t on grounds generally applicable to the

class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive

relief or co:
pect to the c

Subdivision

make it clear that

tory relief can be

uniquely approprie
erally involve an
as well as the vic
Wright & Miller,

This general

cases apparently with little debate or discussion.

example, Kirksey

V

K .

responding declaratory relief with res—

1ass as a whole; or‘...

b)(2) was added to Rule 23 in 1966 in part to
civil rights suits for injunctive or declara—

brought as classactions."The class suit is a

Lte procedure in civil rights cases, which gen—

allegation of discrimination against a group
lation of rights of particular individuals.”
Federal Practice and Procedures §§1773, 1776.
principle has been applied to voting rights
for

See,

Board of Supervisors oinndsCounty, Miss.

 

402 F.Supp. 658, 6

C

grounds 528 F.2d
on rehearing 554 F
968 (1977). Kirk;
court certified a
are registered vot
James v. Humphrys
117 n.1 (D.Miss. 1

tered voters certi

v. Town of Gibslan

60 and 675 (D.Miss. 1975), aff'd on other
36 (5th Cir. 1976), rev'd on other grounds

.2d 139 (5th Cir. 1977), cert. den. 434 U.S.

Ex is a reapportionment case in which the

class actioncnibehalf of all black citizens who
ers qualified to vote hnHindsCounty. See also
County Board of Elections, 384 F.Supp. 114,

974) (Class of all black qualified and regis—

fied to challenge election process); Van Cleave

d, La., 380 F. Supp. 135 (D. La. 1974) (Class of

 

white voters who a

at large apportion

 

re residents of the Town certified to challenge

ment of town council).

-3-

The appropria
as a class action
rights cases becau
the claims of the
claims of all othe
apportionment of t
districts, this ca
injunctive relief
priate. If indivi
tive relief, then
patible or mutuall
Defendants' Motion
27, 1982.

The only rema
and these particul
cality and adequat

Since the Sta
citizens registere
impracticable to j
would serve no use

The named pla
fied have claims U
class in that eact
concentrations of
tion districts don
diluting black vot
dividually of a fa
choosing, and depr
a state legislatur
tives chosen by tf
of any black citiz
black voters.

Furthermore,
will be adequate U

a history of conce

and the opportunit

 

teness of certifying a reapportionment case
is even stronger than in many other civil

se the Court cannot devise relief to remedy

named plaintiffs without also affecting the

r black voters. Since there can be only one
he state legislature and of the Congressional

se is the epitome of a cause in which final

with respect to the class as a whole is appro—

dual plaintiff's each sought individual injunc—
defendants risk being ordered to enforce incom—
y exclusive representation districts. See

to Consolidate filed in this action on January

ining question is whether this proposed class
ar named plaintiffs meet-the numerosity, typi—
e representationstandardsof Rule 23(a).

te Board of Elections showed over 380,000 black

d to vote in North as of May 1981, it is clearly

oin each of them as a party plaintiff, and it

ful purpose to do so.
intiffs who are moving to have the class certi-
ypical of the claims of the remainder of the
claims to live in a state in which substantial
black citizens are submerged into representa-
inated by the larger white electorate thus
ing strength, depriving each black citizen in-
ir opportunity to elect a representative of his
iving all black citizens collectively of having
e influenced by a fair number of representa-
Thus the claim

e black citizens of the state.

en and voter is typical of the claims of all

plaintiffs' affidavits demonstrate that they
0 protect the interests of the class. Each has
rn about the civil rights of black citizens

y of members of the black community to parti—

-4-

cipate effectively

in electoral politics, and each is in com—

munication with other black leaders so that he can express the

views of the black

community. Finally, they have retained

attorneys experienced in civil rights litigation.

Since each of

Conclusion

the requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(2),

F.R.Civ.P., is met, plaintiffs request that the Court enter an

order certifying this action to be a class action on behalf of

all black residents of the State of North Carolina who are

registered to vote.

This /4 clay of mated”, ,1982.

 

,’ If ,' /
/:;Qtdtktd/ (¢/;brg_
JI/LEVONNE CHAMBERS
JAMES E. FERGUSON, II
LESLIE J. WINNER
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas,
Adkins & Fuller, P.A.
951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202
704/375—8461

JACK GREENBERG

NAPOLEON WILLIAMS

LANI GUINIER

Suite 2030

10 Columbus Circle

New York, New York 10019

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

in Support of Plaint
other parties by pla
prepaid properly adc
depository under the

States Postal Servic

_Ra1eigh, North

I certify that

Mr. James C. Wa
Deputy Attorney

Legal Affairs
N.C. Department
Post Office Box

Mr. Jerris Leon
900 17th Street
Suite 1020

Washington, DC

This /<~ day

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I have served the foregoing Memorandum

iffs' Motion to Certify Class on all

cing a copy thereof enclosed in a postage

ressed wrapper in a post office or official

exclusive care and custody of the United

e, addressed to:

11ace, Jr.
General for

of Justice
629
Carolina 27602

ard
, NW

20006

of March 1982.

Mr. Robert N. Hunter, Jr.
Attorney at Law

Post Office Box 3245

201 West Market Street
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

Mr. Arthur J. Donaldson
Burk, Donaldson, Holshouser
& Kerely
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28144

 

II
FOR TI

RALPH GINGLES,
P
V.
RUFUS EDMISTEN,

E

De

Pursuant to
the named plaint.
this to be a clas
State of North Ce

In support c

1. Rule 23
requires the cour
tained as a class
commencement of t

2. This act
23(a).

(1) TP

members is 1

384,467 blac

tered to vot

(2) T1”

class. The
of the appox
entire class
(3) Ti
typical of t
plaintiffs,

tered to vot

in North Car
(4) TH

quately prot

et

Q THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
{E EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION

 

NO. 81-803-CIV—5
- al. )
)
laintiff, )
)
) MOTION TO CERTIFY CLASS
) RULE 23, F.R.CiV.P.
at al., )
)
afendants. )

Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
LffS in this action move that the Court certify
ss action on behalf of all black residents of the
trolina who are registered to vote.

>f this motion, plaintiffs say:

c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

't to determine whether an action is to be main—
; action as soon as practicable after the

.he action.

.ion meets the prerequisites set out in Rule

1e class is so numerous that joinder of all

mpracticable. As of May 29, 1981, there were

I

.

k residents of North Carolina who were regis—
e. See Exhibit A to this Motion.
Iere are questions of law and fact common to the
law and facts concerning the purpose and effect
'tionment in question are identical for the

e claims of the representative parties are

.he claims of the class. The claims of the named
each of whom is a black citizen who is regis—
e, are typical of the claims of all black voters
“olina.

e representative parties will fairly and ade-

ect the interest of the class. Each named

 

plaintiff is

eligible to

different county.

and registered to vote.

a black citizen of North Carolina who is
Each one resides in a

Each has a history of leadership in his

respective black community, a history of protecting the

civil rights

of black citizens and a history of encouraging

the involvement of black citizens in the political process.

Each plaintiff is concerned about the lack of representation

of black citizens in the North Carolina legislature and in

the North Carolina delegates to the United States Congress,

and each plaintiff has discussed this concern with other

black leaders around North Carolina.

They have retained

counsel experienced in civil rights litigation and each

plaintiff is

litigation.

willing to participate as necessary in the

See Affidavits of Ralph Gingles, Sippio Burton,

Fred Belfield and Joseph Moody filed with this motion.

3. This action meets the requirements of Rule 23(b)(2)

in

that defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds applic—

able to all black

voters in North Carolina thereby making appro-

I

priate final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory

relief with respect to the class as a whole.

only one apportionment of the legislature,

Since there can be

having different

courts issue separate injunctions would put defendants in the

impossible situation of having to enforce mutually exclusive

apportionments.

this action on January 27,

Plaintiffs,

See Defendants'

therefore,

Motion to Consolidate filed in
1982.

request that the Court enter an order

allowing this action to be maintained as a class action on

behalf of all black residents of the State of North Carolina who

are registered to

This I6

 

vote.

day of March, 1982.

-n.

[3ZZEJ£IL.,L (L4,mii\_

J. LEVONNE CHAMBERS

JAMES E. FERGUSON

LESLIE J. WINNER

Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas,
Adkins & Fuller, P.A.

951 South Independence Boulevard

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

704/375—8461

 

JACK GREENBERG

NAPOLEON WILLIAMS

LANI GUINIER

Suite 2030

10 Columbus Circle

New York, New York 10019

"ERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I certify that

I have served the foregoing Motion to Certify

Class Rule 23, F.R.Civ.P on all other parties by placing a copy

thereof enclosed in

in a post office or

a postage prepaid properly addressed wrapper
official depository under the exclusive care

and custody of the United States Postal Service, addressed to:

Mr. James C. Wallh
Deputy Attorney Ge

Legal Affairs
N.C. Department of
Post Office Box 62
Raleigh, North Car

Mr. Jerris Leonard

ce, Jr. Mr. Robert Hunter
neral for Attorney at Law
Post Office Box 3245
Justice 201 West Market Street
9 Greensboro, North Carolina 27402
olina 27602
Mr. Arthur Donaldson
Burk, Donaldson, Holshouser

900 17th Street,_NW & Kerely

Suite 1020
Washington, DC 20(

This Hg day

 

309 North Main Street
06 Salisbury, North Carolina 28144

of March, 1982.

4 g .r ,1 _ I / ‘
/’,ix1.tt _i‘ // Q)I}LL\
/

‘ .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

S T A T E 0 F N 0 R T H C A R O L I N-A‘3 n, . ..
STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS ]-.
DEC 17 "‘
REGISTRATION STATISTICS PART II "V, . ”N, m, “
(Racial and Misceganeous Designations) LLIIiIIIEIIIISIIflIIIIIIINIEIILm,IIIAjI'IIUIs'
Compiled by: Alex K. Brock, O'K Report as Of: May 29, 1981
Executive Secretary-Director
Indian
No. Voting . OI‘
County Machines White Black Other
ALAMANCE 111 39,031 5 ,333 45
ALEXANDER — 12,502 759 8
ALLEGHANY - 5,578 83 l
ANSON - 6,531 3,099 l
ASHE ' - 13,357 78 '-
AVERY - 6,745 24 3
BEAUFORT - 12,590 3,218 -
BERTIE 22 4,432 3,564 l
BLADEN 33 9,452 4,746 43
BRUNSWICK 20 13,135 3,605 13
BUNCOMBE 160 63,040 4,161 38
BURKE - 29,985 1,725 16
CABARRUS 240 31,128 3,560 7
CALDWELL - 27,222 1,501 12
CAMDEN - 2,058 701 -
CARTERET '35 18,484 1,161 -
CASWELL - 4,985 2,862 1
CATAWBA - 44,023 2,854 21
CHATHAM - 13.163 3,697 5
CHEROKEE 22 ' 10,141 215 12
CHOWAN 10 3,957 1,609 3
CLAY - 4,443 26 l
CLEVELAND 13 27,025 4,160 9
COLUMBUS 166 18,063 6,074 g 394
CRAVEN 47 19,190 5,170 -
CUMBERLAND 57 44,049 13,574 2.69
CURRITUCK - 4,241 533 3
DARE - 7.291 197 7
DAVIDSON 400 ' 46,365 3,867 22
DAVIE - 11,327 926 ll
DUPLIN - 12,134 4,201 2
DURHAM 130 47,193 16,656 549
EDGECOMBE 10 12,492 6,139 6
FORSYTH 735 92,352 22,319 94
FRANKLIN - 8,182 3,552 ‘ -
GASTON 45 53,502 5,313 -,
GATES - 2,555 2,140 -
GRAHAM - 4,673 - 172
GRANVILLE — 8,535 4,279 -
GREENE - 4,443 2,415 l
GUILFORD 700 118 , 223 23 , 861 140
HALIFAX - 13,356 6,623 352
HARNETT 22 19, 534 3 ,837 40
HAYWOOD - 21,826 286 -
HENDERSON 70 28,930 829 -
HERTFORD 22 5,002 3,706 19
HOKE - . 3,481 ' 2,818 518
HYDE - 2,015 726 1
IREDELL - 31,855 3,135 11
JACKSON 26 11,779 168 ’ 609
JOHNSTON 47 25,741 3,448 26
JONES - 3,036 1,973 3
LEE 30 12,855 2,247 6
LENOIR - 17,399 5,672 17
EXHIBIT A

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REGISTRATION STATISTICS PART II
(Racial and Miscellaneous Designations) - page 2
Report as of: May 29, 1981
Indian
No. Voting or
County Machines White Black Other
LINCOLN 24 20,492 1,551 34
MACON - 10,790 119 -
MADISON 25 9,180 45 4
MARTIN 22 7,392 3,350 l
MCDOWELL 100 17,297 708 9
MECKLENBURG 411 153,121 32,289 156
MITCHELL - 8,365 8 4
MONTGOMERY - 8,323 1,771 -
MOORE - 19,749 2,994 29
NASH 26 20,544 4,332 25
NEW HANOVER 105 36,520 6,964 72
NORTHAMPTON. 27 4,712 4,563 3
ONSLOW 24 21,184 3,427 112
ORANGE - 32,947 4,719 -
PAMLICO - 3,318 1,423 2
PASQUOTANK 22 7,129 2,956 6
FENDER — 6,639 3,262 7
PERQUIMANS - 2,764 980 1
PERSON 30 8,181 2,625 42
PITT - 25,732 6,801 19
POLK 20 7,529 581 -
RANDOLPH 46 39,311 2,203 30
RICHMOND 18 13,223 3,888 36
ROCKINGHAM 32 25,971 6,899 -
ROBESON 40 18,278 9,302 12,076
ROWAN 263 36,452 4,149 49
RUTHERFORD 150 21,618 1,475 9
SAMPSON - 16,677 5,933 349
SCOTLAND 25 8,153 3,093 57
STANLY 26 21,388 1,944 -
STOKES 4 17,495 1,074 -
SURRY 55 25,542 1,017 12
WAIN 13 5 ,373 60 368
TRANSYINANIA , 28 11,961 599 3
TYRRELL - 1,226 515 -
UNION - 22,654 2,603 9
VANCE 16 9,748 4,758 8
WAKE 286 121,561 20,096 -
WARREN - 3,393 3,665 197
WASHINGTON - 4,394 2,221 5
WATAUGA 100 16,316 99 -
WAYNE 56 22,641 7,403 8
WILKES 157 29,623 1,189 -
WILSON 58 18,313 4,724 36
YADKIN - 14,585 580 5
YANCEY - 9,406 85 -
TOTALS: 5,382 2,081,836 384,467 17,495
December 14, 1981
This is to certify that the figures shown herein are true
and correct.
Executive Secretary-Director

 

IN THE

FOR THE EAS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
TERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
NO. 81-803-CIV-5

RALPH GINGLES, et a1., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) AFFIDAVIT OF
) RALPH GINGLES
RUFUS EDMISTEN, et 31., )
)
Defendants. )

Ralph Gingles,

1. That I am
action;
2. I am a bla

and I am eligible t)
North Carolina.

3. I am conce

in the North Carolin
any black represents
the United States CG

4. For many 3
of effective partic:
process of North Car
I served as a member
197 through 197 and
Gaston County Democr
who is black, ran fc
co-chairman of his c

5. I believe
Carolina has and con
for the General Asse

effect of depriving

of the opportunity 8

first duly sworn, says:

a named plaintiff in the above captioned

ck citizen of the State of North Carolina,

and registered to vote in Gaston County,

rned about the lact of black representation
a General Assembly and about the absence of
itives from the State of North Carolina in
)ngress.

rears I have been concerned about the lack
-pation of black citizens in the electoral
'olina. In an attempt to address these concerns
of the Gaston County Board of Elections from

I have served as second Vice Chairman of the

In addition, when Howard Lee,

atic Party.

r Lt. Governor of North Carolina, I was the
ampaign committee in Gaston County.

that the manner in which the State of North
tinues to apportion representative districts
mbly and for Congress has the purpose and
me and other black citizens of this state

0 select representatives of our choosing.

 

6.

Carolina legislature

in Gaston County whc

I have discussed the apportionment of the North

with other members of the black community

are actively concerned about the lack of

representation of black citizens. They share my belief that

the current apportionment has the purpose and effect of denying

black citizens the a

choosing.
7.

of Black Lawyers, I

Lbility to select a representative of their

As an active member of the North Carolina Association

am aware that other black citizens share my

concerns and the coficerns of the black citizens of Gaston County.

8.

all black citizens c

black citizens in g2

9.
months or years, ane
in cooperation with
rights of black cit:

10.

I have ret

represent me and otI

This the 25r§§

Sworn to and s1

. i“ .
this 35!: day of _:
£3aA¥k,KT\.'UJLLA

\

My Commission Expire

I have in:

I understi

NOTARY PUBLI

-tiated this action on behalf of myself and
4f this state because I want to assist all
lining the right to use our vote effectively.
1nd that this action may last for several

1 I am prepared to do whatever is necessary
my attorneys to protect and enforce the
_zens to use our vote effectively.

:ained experienced and competent counsel to
1er black voters iH this action.

day of February, 1982.

as.

I

L 6. £3ka
I Q \\J

Ibscribed before me

&g&fl!£efly , 1982.
ES: gay-131335; A

 

RALPH GINGLES,

Plaidtiffs,

V.

RUFUS EDMISTEN,

Defendants.

Fred Belfield,

1. That I am
action;
2. I am a blé

and I am eligible te
North Carolina.
3. I am conce
in the North Carolir
any black represent!
the United States Ce
4. For the p
working to protect
and to encourage th
tical system. I we
the NAACP from 1969
voter registration
register to vote an
black citizens to r
5. I believe
the State of North
sentative districts

to deprive me and o

tunity to select re

et al.,

et a1.,

IN'THE , .,
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGH DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION
NO. 81—803—CIV-5

AFFIDAVIT OF FRED BELFIELD

 

first duly sworn, says:

a named plaintiff in the above captioned

ICk citizen of the State of North Carolina,

> and registered to vote in Edgecombe County,

arned about the lack of black representation
1a General Assembly and about the absence of
Itives from the State of North Carolina in
>ngress.

ist 15 years I have been actively involved in

and enforce the civil rights of black citizens

3

participation of black citizens in the poli-

.‘

3

the president of the Rocky Mount chapter of
-1978 and from 1980-1981. I have worked in
irives designed to encourage black citizens to
i have consistently made efforts to encourage
sgister and to vote. I
that one of thepurposescfifthenmnnerzhiwhich
Sarolina has and continues to apportion repre—
for the General Assembly and for Congress is

ther black citizens of this state of the oppor—

presentatives of our choosing.

 

6. I have di
apportionment with
about the lack of b
These people ShareI
necessary to allow
of its choosing.
7. I have in
all black citizens c
black citizens in g.
8. I underst
months or years, an:
in cooperation with
rights of black cit
9.

represent me and otl

This 10th day

Sworn to and St

I have ret

scussed the current manner of legislative
pther black citizens who share my concern
Lack representation in the legislature.

ny belief that single member districts are

the black community to elect representatives

itiated this action on behalf of myself and
5f this state because I want to assist all
lining the right to use our vote effectively.
and that this action may last for several

1 I am prepared to do whatever is necessary

my attorneys to protect and enforce the

izens to use our vote effectively.

ained experienced and competent counsel to
Ier black voters in this action.

of March, 1982.

W/gfiz/Ixfl/

FRED BELFIELD ‘

 

 

1bscribed before me

 

this 10th day of __ March , 1982.
, / ‘ /- .
fifgflthAQ, C/, %V%/JAI/7(—7%o
NOTARY PUILIC a?
My Commission Expires: Dec- 06' 1984

 

 

UN

EASTE

IN THE
ITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
RN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION
NO. 81—803-CIV-5

RALPH GINGLES, et al. )
Plaintiffs, ;
V. ‘ ; AFFIDAVIT OF
RUFUS EDMISTEN, et al., 3 .JQSEPHP' ‘MOQD‘Y‘
Defendants. ;
‘Josepth._Moody first duly sworn, says:
1. That I fim a named plaintiff in the above captioned
action;
2. I‘am a black citizen of the State of North Carolina,

and I am eligible
County, North Caro
3. I am con
in the North Carol
any black represen
the United States
4. I believ
Carolina has and c
for the General As
black citizens of
sentatives of our
5. I have i
all black citizens
black citizens in
6. I unders
months or years, a
in cooperation wit
rights of black ci
7.

I have r

represent me and o

 

to and registered to vote in /%Q£I/TQ¥

lina.

cerned about the lack of black representation
ina General Assembly and about the absence of
tatives from the State of North Carolina in
Congress.

e that the manner in which the State of North
ontinues to apportion representative districts
sembly and for Congress deprives me and other
this state of the opportunity to select repre—
choosing.

nitiated this action on behalf of myself and
of this state because I want to assist all
gaining the right to use our vote effectively.
tand that this action may last for several

nd I am prepared to do whatever is necessary

h my attorneys to protect and enforce the
tizens to use our vote effectively.
etainedexperienced.and competent counsel to

ther black voters in this action.

L—

This the 435

: day of December, 1981

V /

Sworn to and subscribed before me

this 514 day of 354' 2.: {1981.

mezé

NOTARSWPUBLIC

My Commis 5 ion Exp ires:

 

g/zg/fé

 

It‘d“

.‘
.4
.1

RALPH GINGLES, et al.

Plain
v.

RUFUS EDMISTEN, et a

Defendants.

Sippio Burton,

1. That I am
action;

2. I am a bla
and I am eligible to
North Carolina.

3. I am concé
in the North Carolin

any black representa

IN THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE
ASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION

I

tiffs,

CIVIL ACTION
No. 81—803-CIV—5
l.,

VVVVVVVVV

AFFIDAVIT OF SIPPIO BURTON

 

first duly sworn, says:

a named plaintiff in the above captioned

ck citizen of the State of North Carolina,

and registered to vote in Cumberland County,

rned about the lack of black representation
a General Assembly and about the absence of

tives from the State of North Carolina in

the United States Congress.

4. For many y
of black participat;
have been consistent
that members of the
citizens. In this r
chapter from 1959-19
member of the North
NAACP.

I am current

I have previously wc

ears I have been concerned about the lack

on and representation in government. I

1y active in working to improve and assure
black community are afforded their rights as
egard, I was president of my local NAACP_
66. Since then I have remained an active
Carolina state and the local branch of the

ly chairman of the local Freedom Fund, and

rked in voter registration projects to assist

black citizens of Cumberland County in registering to vote.

5. I believe

Carolina has and con

that the manner in which the State of North

tinues to apportion representative districts

for the General Assembly has the intent and effect of depriving

 

me and other black citizens of this state of the opportunity to

select representatives of our choosing.

6. I have discussed the current apportionment of the North

Carolina General Assembly with other leaders of the black community

in Cumberland County.

representation of b

They share my concern that the lack of

lack citizens in the General Assembly and my

belief that the curient plan does not give the members of the

black community a fair opportunity to elect a representative of its

choosing.

devised with the pur

7. I have in

Many shar

e my belief that the current apportionment was

pose of diluting minority vote.

itiated this action on behalf of myself and

all black citizens of this state because I want to assist all

black citizens in gaining the right to use our vote effectively.

8. I understand that this action may last for several

months or years,

in cooperation with

and I am prepared to do whatever is necessary

my attorneys to protect and enforce the

rights of black citizens to use our vote effectively.

9. I have ret

ained experienced and competent counsel to

represent me and other black voters in this action.

This gé’ day

,/
of fi/J/hfk , 1982.

    

42AM / 32 [/1 47C

0 SIPPIO BURTON

 

- Sworn to and subscribed before me

this. {Q day of
K
at.” / /44

I‘7

My Commission Expire

 

/NOTARY’(PU/BLI '

_ #24115; //7 1982.