Attorney Notes; Envelope to Guinier

    h-*Jd Sfuu *B^r^- k

ttrp^nt- + t t^-'"^l 9*fr" /fu
+o

I

lJi*Arl
I

ILTI
,l

I

I

I

I
I

o'6-*4
i

I

4 DLLL. "J Ar4^^-

*'*'I'- P r.,\

/. M* @ .fu.,a
lrrp^^rJ/, )L A,,r- tA W a- ,ry
wfu'

LT I-0,6,**-
LT

n*,/J A 4/,r*,y rk*d
/-fr'-b a^L unqU ^^Y"- m'1t:^-fu-- fr."^ "Zr-/ /) @r 4^q ,*Mffi

tutA
I

tu7:
W(,-r



LT

An-rr-,',|".-

ln) ta"' - /r/.,
L T , - arL(,/'-,(r.

' ,-/r^ht4^/ L/4-/ 4a^h*t aa\.t' no
, a-- _ ,r4rr-b^A- U

ib,tu J'v%
l,/r4]"4

ffi
T
%

Dtr;tz, .- -u*KnA .^A * -ot\-,;.-yr-Lr - D^m*ffi-rru
,

,--J- /
c.fl-<*Ur-'zl $ffifu



bJ u,t-

bT
D d oL.U-*fra+:^o

v 0 fu 'o tuti d,l^-/
D

€t"LJCRblL ?,,if
i 'frt̂-yva-<.> *Mry/.

-Li\/{-e-A-41,_,

Ww C.1nYl-<'/\--+v

fu* @Z*J
@uu^i

J44//ru ffi - 4ffi th^- fft tn\
+ a'<'c<"aj

.t-r\ 3 /-a*";n /

ryfuN,*.er^-\

)kw,ry

/r% fi ru AA,\/c,<-<-4r4 fu-
fr^^+f -4., A,

h\i,1/ J,/an eA OJ*-/ ,% fu



ry'#-ffiru t/, +;
ca-r*z^r-0,

lt4r*-lw^z t/t-
J<* l1S u

t1 t>

{n- 3 abrt^^,./a sG

i

+7w 1fr1,1-

lil*"4-
..-4

31 ,

3 u --t-

?s,zl
4 A/*^

i, q@
W@1",-*
W frr^^t"/- fu fr

't1r'"/^4 h M
f P, - ,*rdr/ h ".4-T /r"", k/-, *,,il^b,
I u ^,rrh ,

/"r /4



-r.U

"+%
Lr-- T ''*T4

%@(
M v7_s

wd WV t{:1 n

wy^T-ry*% &
ryW'k hl M' ru

V%)
*-/*""r,/

,L'.*r' n quu ry-W %
@ r*y nL'ry ry

'*"+ * ffiry%"WWr,**.+tu ryf fry *
wwryv'-v1-a"tr

ry
1"ffi)4:-





Lesa,E&renseH. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE ANO EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013o(212) 21$,1900

DRAFT rOR APPROVAL: LL/27/85
FROU: FREDA EISENBERG/BRAD RODNEY

PUBLIC IMEREST PUBLIC RELATIONS
225 West 34th Street, Suite 1500
New York, New York 10001
2t2/736-soso

FOR IUITIEDIATE RELEASE

ST,PREI{E COURT EEARS TEORNBTIRG V. GITIGLBS,

gt*_?) !o((As
Arques for Eefcadaate Aqainst Discriuinatory, At-Larqe Election Districts

WASHINGTON, D.C., Decenber 4r 1985 -- The Supreme Court today heard oral

argument in Thornburq yr Ginqles, the first major voting rights case te-as*-9

(x-
Minte,p."f?mendmentsmadein1982totheVotingRightsAct.

decision will affect how the 1982 Act is applied in Iower court cases

ruling on a variety of election practices around the country.

fn Thorgburq y- Ginqlgs, North Carolina is appealing the ruling of a

federal three-judge panel that held the staters 1982 redisrrfft;:i/
discriminated against blac-ks in seven districts. The State ++s++Oe++*

I-6y 0a1t^
A

Ce r h
J++

.by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, fnc. (fpf

t, .64^1". -^;*t-"-o ^*^ NntA
./.t

ntribul ioi
Advancement ol Colored People although it
iIeBoerf:prograe-slalLqlfice a nd budget

inc 1 ude

Committee

the

andRepubl ican Party of North

Senators DoIe (R.-KS) and

Carolina, the Rep

Grassley (R.-Ir.X.

-- t{oRE --

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL F

was lounded by it and shares ils commitment to equal rights. LDF has had lor over 25 years a separ



-2

The District Court panel ruled the districtsr six of which conducted

at-large electionsr unlawful because they violated Section 2 of the

L982 Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits practices that afford minorities

'less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the

political process and to elect representatives of their choice.n

North Carolina maintains that blacks have W{ el.ectoral oppi_.tfr.Hjn
Pr"1five of the at-Iarge districtsr citing as conclusive evidence their 1982f

election results where f ive of 30 seats were lron by blacks. migu:re -i-s---

0
The State is urging the high court to rule that

lvz-$ olsfrc-rJ p/-t/<.r,,,
such automatically precludes the

possibility of a Voting Rights Act violation.

fn defense of the District Courtrs finding, Julius LeVonne Chambers,

director-counseL of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, argued that

the Staters approach 'disregards the rtotality of circumstances testr that
must be used when deLermining whether or not blacks are able to participate

equally in the political process. The test requires the courts to consider a

variety of factors, not just one election. The 1982 election results in the
#rr- ,/^,/-r

challenged districts are clearly an aberration. North Carolinats sestdrn-/
District Court found that, in several instances, blacks lrere able to win

ftl*,

f,because of support by whites who hoped to effect the outcome of this
litigation, initiaLed 14 months earlier.'

-- MORE --



-3

Mr. Chambers cited severaL circumstances which put black voters at a

distinct disadvantage in elections held within the five majority-white
districts, reducing their opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

These include:

Polarized Voting: The proportion of white voters who ever voted

for blacks vras extremely Iow, and those who did ranked them last or

next to last on their at-large ba1lots. This is due in part to the

common practice of white candidates in North Carolina of urging

whites to vote on racial lines. In addition, black candidates

receiving the largest number of black votes ordinarily received the

smallest number of white votes;

Lou llinority Registration Rates: The lingering effects of a

century of virulent official hostility toward blacks who sought to

register have resulted in substantially lower registration figures

for blacks than whites; and

Poverty and Loy Education Levels Anong Blacks: These factors harm

the ability of candidates fielded by the black cornmunity to wage a

successful campaign. An at-large campaign must reach eight times

as many voters as one waged in a single-member distri"f o) ^," '4/*
fl'r^ Irr,,-r-<9 a-o fit'+e*v^Z '

-- I.{ORE --



4

Despite these conditions , "in."oWblack candidates have been elected

to North Carolinars State Legislature for the districts in question.
ltq4tfc"lr"^

TheStatehopestheCourtwi11read@asproofofequa1
Mfu* ear+a lil#,

opportunity. the dbieaeelbel ieveQ that, €€-id€--+ronl the 1982 results, the
d^rear,*,,-z \

numbers are not i+g$i+i€ant:-

Part of the NAACP Legal Defense Fundrs argument here is the issue of

'single-shootingr'a voting practice where minority voters in an at-1arge

election forfeit most of the ballots on their slate in order to weight their
vote for one candidate. Although the system has been effective in allowing

minorities1@e1ect43necandidateoftheirchoice,LDFcontends'\.
that it forc'es them to abnegate their right to cast a complete ballot and

thus p
LuQr\

es b.lagks. wit! Less, electoral-opportunity than whites who can cast*uWl"ffi^ff,n?.\ 
-r-l'-l^- /e^A //"''L P^4s'

a fuII

Lani Guinierr drr assistant counsel with the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and

counsel of record for the appellees, said their position on single-shot
voting'is on the cutting edge of 1aw. Previously, courts favored laws

allowing blacks to single-shoot because it gave them a chance of electoral
successr and that was better than none. [Iere werre challenging Iaws and

practices that, though they may be partially successful, do not provide fu11

and equal opportunity.'

-- II{ORE --



5

'If the Court decides in favor of the Stater'!ls. Guinier added,
iviolations of the Voting Rights Act wilI be easily avoidable. Whites could

throw their support to blacks for a single electionr or field black
candidates that support the positions of the white community. Such tactics
could create situations that, from the viewpoint of North Carolina and the

Justice Department, would preclude findings of a Section 2 violation.
But any aPpearance of equal electoral opportunity would be just that,
an appearance onlyr an i1lusion."

In addition to Ms. Guinier and !1r. Chambers, attorneys on the case

include Eric Schnapper at LDF and Les1ie J. I{inner, with the North Carolina

f irm of Ferguson, Watt, Iilallas a Adkins, P.A.

The UAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is the primary legaI
arm of the civil rights movement. Although founded by the National
Association for the Advancement of Colored People, LDF has had for over

25 years a separate Boardr program, staff, office and budget.

II275 ^ NAACPVR



TEORITBTIRG v. GIIIGLES

Fact Sheet

Black Representatlon in the North Carolina Legielature

o North Carolina has long had the smallest percentage of blacks in its state
legislature of any state with a substantial black population, according to
a report by the Joint Center for Political Studies.

o Though blacks are 22.4 percent of North Carolinars
never held more than 4 percent of the seats in
Carolinars legislature.

o The first black state senator in North Carolina was

o The first black was not elected to North
Representatives until 1968.

population, they have
either house of North

not elected until 1974.

Caro I inars House of

North Carolina Blection Districts
o North Carolina makes greater use of at large elections than most other

states: under the 1982 plan being challenged, 98 of the 120 representatives
and 30 of the 50 state senators h,ere to be chosen from multi-member
d ist r icts .

o 40 of North Carolinars 100 counties, including the districts under
consideration in Thorgburq y- Gingles, are covered by Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act which requires that proposed changes in election
procedures be approved by the Justice Department.

Eistory of Thornburg v. Ginqles

o In 1981 North Carolina submitted its redistricting plan to the Attorney
GeneralT who made objections, concluding that ithe use of large multi-
member (at-targe) districts effectively submerges cognLzable concentrations
of the black population into a majority white electorate.r

o In L982 a three-judge panel of the Federal District Court for Eastern North
Carolina unanimously ruled that six of the multi-member districts and one
single-member district effectively discriqated against the staters black
poputat ion. t,,

o North Carolina, supported by the current Justice Department, is nolr
challenging, before the Supreme Court, the correctness of the District
Court ruling with respect to five of the multi-member districts.

II275 ^ NAACPTG



I0 llost Pizzazzy Facts:

1. 82t of white voters on the average did not vote for black

candidates in primaries in a state in which most elections are

determined in the primary.

2. In general elections black dems lost 3 times as often as

whites.

3. A majority of whites never voted for a black candidate no

matter whether incumbent or w/o Democratic opposition (or no

opposition) or exceptionally gualified (e.g., Dr. Bertha lvla:nre1l),

see 7.

4" In Mecklenburg, Durham & Wake House districts over 6 years

analyzed, not a single representative lived in the black community.

5. Virtually all black voters over 30 went to educationally

inferior segregated schools making them less able to participate

effectively in the political process.

6. As of l0/L982 there was stilI a substantial gap in voter

registration, e.9., 22* gap. I"lecklenburg, 23t gap. Wake, 2L* gap

(gap = gap - t of VAP registered to Vote by race).
' 7. 8.g., Dr. Bertha t{axweII - Ph.D Prof. at IJNCC - defendantsr

witness conceded she was qualified, she raised $20rOOO for campaign, etc.

8. One of reasons disparity in poverty is so important is that

it costs more than 2x as much to run at-large - and because of black

segregation (social & residential) blacks must buy expensive media

to gain exposure in white community.

9. Racial appeals not thing of the past in 1983. Helms was

using same themes as was used 1898 e.9., white candidates depicted

as controlled by black political leaders.

I0. When lawsuit filed 4/170 members b1ack, Even after lawsuit

less than 10t of legislature b1ack. Not proportionate rep.



BASIC POINTS TO CONVEY (by Winner)

1. District Court weighed all the factors and found that

they interact with each other and the use of multimember

districts to produce a system of election in which black

citizens do not have an equal opportunity as whites to

elect candidates of their choice. That is, in districts

in which blacks are I5-30t of the registered voters and

in which 82* of whites donrt vote for blacks in primaries

and 2/3's don't in general elections, and black candidates are

almost always ranked last or next to last by white voters,

black candidates have an extreme uphill battle in getting

elected. When you add to that gross socio-economic dis-

parties that make black citizens less economically and

educationally able to participate in the election process

effectively, a history of discrimination in the election

process which not only has kept the registration rate low,

(by 252 gap Mechlenburg Co. ) but which deprives the black

of a pool of experienced candidates and a tradition of

participation, and the continued use of racial appeals which

perpetuate and legitimate the racial fears and prejudices

of the electorate, the trial courtrs determination of

unequal opportunity is clearly correct.



2. Because of the nature of the case the thousands

ofdiscrete detaits on which the trial court's
determination was based, it is particularly important

not only to apply the clearly erroneous rule but also

to give deference to the three local judges who heard

the evidence and interpreted it in light of their

own experience of the realities of the loca1e.

For appellants to win, the court must find either

that any electoral success defeats a plaintiffs I

claim as a matter of 1aw or that the district courtts

findings are clearly erroneous.

The level of election here does not defeat plaintiffs r

claim as a matter of law, especially because Congress

intended for post-litigation electoral success to be

viewed with scepticism and because election of blacks

to the general assembly prior to that time had been

minimal and erratic. For example, for the Mecklenburg

Co. Senate seats all black candidates since 1978 had

been defeated and for the It{echlenburg Co. House seats

aI1 black candidates prior to litigation had been

defeated.

As to history of discrimination and the effects of

socio-economic disparities, Congress intended the

burden of proof to be on defendants to show that the

3.

4.

5.

-2-



6.

effects of past discrimination no longer affect
the ability of black citizens to participate.,

I Congressional presumption]

Racially polarized voting is the propensity of

white and black voters to vote differently from

each other. The trial court used the methods

traditionally used by the courts and in social

science to determine the extent of racially polarized

voting. The effect of polarized voting has to be

considered in conjunction with the percentage of

registered voters who are black. For example, Lf

82-83t of registered voters are white, and an average

of 60-55t of them don't vote for black candidates

that is a substantial impediment.

A multivariate analysis of voting is irrelevant to

the question of the result of use of multimember

districts. There is no support in the legislative

history that Congress was concerned with the motiva-

tions of whites who do not vote for black candidates.

Even if a multivariate analysis were relevant, the

burden would be on defendants to introduce it in

rebuttal to plaintiffs' evidence of polarized voting

and defendants herei-n did not do so.

7.

-3-



p I p R 
PUBLIC INTEREST 
PUBLIC RELATIONS 

Lani Guinier 
NAACP Legal Defens e and 
Educational Fund, Inc. 

99 Hudson Street 
New York, NY 10013 

by hand 

A Division of M BOOTH & ASSOCIATES, INC. 

Suite 1500 225 West 34th Street New York, New York 10001 (212) 736-5050