Elam v. Dalton Plaintiffs' Trial Memorandum of Law Statement of the Case
Public Court Documents
July 17, 1981

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Elam v. Dalton Plaintiffs' Trial Memorandum of Law Statement of the Case, 1981. c0c2b3eb-dc92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/612db832-c91e-4184-a9d7-3f218a070cdc/elam-v-dalton-plaintiffs-trial-memorandum-of-law-statement-of-the-case. Accessed April 27, 2025.
Copied!
a n-*.F i:\: Tfr=t er?r: mF a a: ct?= ?rrF ^ n i"DF:.t -:f- Ur\::!y iiAA!9 Z-9-lr4e- VVVI'.- 9OF. Ti= =ESTEPJi DIS?R.JC? OF VTRGiN=E R.:CHMOND DTV:SiON TIMTq TJ' =?-lM 6+ , ve ?1a:n3:-i:s v. ;OEN' Ii. DAISCN r €-- tsl. , aa 3an.i = n- e a?tt?? ! ^F- Aa-\-i v J! l{u.L r \rl\ i{o. 81-0515-?. P].A=NT!!'PS' EF.;AL M3I,{OR-P}TDUI'1 O!' LlI^' eFlnFMr\Tr"r ntr m-FrF ateE rr'. ia=CCeeClnqs . Pl-alrt:-lfs, seven black =egls:erec vo&-€is of --he Comaonweal:.a oi V!:Ei::ia, 7/ illed '-h:s action as a c:-ass ac::-c:1 on iuae 1, 1981, aileg:i-nE that t,he l-981, virgi:iia llouse o: )eJ-egates 1eg.:-s1a:ive reappo=:ionmert pl-ar. 2/ :s excessiveJ.lz mal-apportioned in vicl-a--icn o: --he cne-pe=son, one-vo:= principie ani also 1:nccnsl,itu',i onaI1y Ciscrj-n',!-a?es aqair,st. ani c:Iu'-es b;,ack voting s:rength. Plain:j-iis al-so aiJ.eged t-r3t' the 1981 Vl:gir.:.a Sena:e 1eg:sJ-a--ave =eaPPor-ur-onrl€u'- Plan 3,/ unccns:itu',ionaiJ-12 i'ifui'es biack vo-*ing st,rength ::r '..he Ci:12 ci No=fo]k. ?l-aintlfis a"! Legei '-hat tne llcuse ari. Sena-'e pians vlola;e '.heir rigi:ts secu:eC b1r 'the Fou:teenth anc Fi-i--een'-h Amend:nent,s :c the iinited St,ates Constitu'.ion ano b1z 42 U.S.C. SS !977, !973, anC 1983. Dejendant,s aCnit in their i-nswe: t;la'i. ''.nis Cou=', has jurisCic-,-ion cf --hj-s action pu=suant:o 23 U.S.C. SS L33i anC 1343 and 42 Ll.S.C. S 1971 (i) ane 1973,- (f ) (Conpia:n:, ',i2 i }-nswer , ',12) . Dejeniants are John N. Da1:on, Gcrre=:or oi Vi=gi-r!a, -.:le three menbers o: the V:=qinia Sta"e Scarc of Elect.ions, the _L,, St:-pulatior, f:-lee July B, :.981. 2/ Vi=ginia Laws, L981 Special Session, Chapte= J / Vi:E:.nia Laws , 19 81 Special Session , Chapte= ) ) P:es:ien'- of the Vi=g:n!a Senate, and :he Speake: of the V:=girla liouse of Delega--es, }'il, t:re de jenoan:s are suec in the j.: of iicial capacit:-es. On June ?2 , d.ef end.an--s f ile{ '-heir Answer denying 3he ccnstl'-utional ani sr-a:utro=}2 violat.icns ailegeC .in rha rraqnl=iri- -aag 9Vlllv-g--. e . Cn June l-1, 1981, --h:s Cou=: ente=ed an Oroer consol,lcat- lrg '-i:-s case wlt,h Cosner v. s!g, Civj-i No. 81-0492-?,, @ Cause v. Dal-ton, Civl1 No. 8L-0530-R, GraveLy v. Da1ton, Clv:-I Nc. 81-0552-8., and 3Lv v. Anderson, Crv11 No. 81-0L4S-Roanoke. 3he Court, also o=dereC expeCited, proeeeClngrs, and ordereC that, thls case would be hearC cn st.ipula'-ions, oe bene esse oeposi- --:cns , ani, exa:bi--s. Pu=suani to -,hj.s Court's Crie: expecl''ing proceeCingrs , depos:-t,j-ons ani, ci-scoverl' proceei.ings concrrenceC on Jr:ne 23 ane were completed on Ju11z 5. The deposi'-:-ons and other exhibrts of --he pa*j-es in the va=ious act,j.ons were frled with the Clerk anC serzed oa the members cf t,he i,hree-judge Dist,rict Ccurt on July 10. ts. Sia=emen-, cf -,ire F'accs. 1. Leqislati-ve Proeeei.inqs. we=e wh:-ch Both the 1981 House and Senate plans challengeC be=e passed b1z "he 1981 Special Sesslon of '-he Vlrgin:a Assembly, began on March 30, 198i. In February, L981,, the Chai=nan of the llouse Privileges a::c Electi,ons Comcni.t:ee (herelnafter P ani, E Cornmi',:ee) announcei. a series of public hearlngs on llouse anC Congressional redis- '-rict,:-ng to be hel-d in Ma:ch.. 4,/ Se'ren public hearingrs were heLd in NorfoLk, South Boston, AbingCon, Roanoke, liarrisonbu=g, 3ai=fax, and RichmonC. The Ccrr6naE'.ee heard f=om inc'.:reben'- nembers of the llouse and -sena:e, public o:fi,ciaIs oi count,:-es anC ci'-ies, leaders of various orgraniza-rions, int,eresteC menbers 1/ The legisla--ive his:or1, of --he 1981 House plan of iicial-Eocum€rr-us are ccntained in Virqinj-a's S 5 , voting' Act, submission tc the U.S. Departnent of Just.lce, EIam Piaint:.'fs' Ex. P-3, Att,achraent 17 . a-nC Richts -3- of '-he pu-blic, and f ron a numbe= o! black Leaoe=s anc black ccrununity' =epresencaiives._!/ Fc11cw{ng the pub3.:.c hea:ing in R:chmonc on March 20, the licuse P arc E Conrni:+.ee heLC its f irs-- mee:ing t.c consider possible C=ait proposals. A subconu::rit',ee ox, ilouse =ei.ist=iciing was appoin--ed, ani va=ious plans anC proposals we=e cons:,ierec1. Ac-.:.ng on '-ire recomrnenoat:,ons oi tne suDconmi:tee, --he P anc E Conunit:ee adopted a plan (the "?aj-rfax L2'' pian, subcomrittee subrnission) t.o ses/e as a p=opcsai f or C:scussion, whj-ch was pref:-led on March 30. A publtc hearing was hel-C in RichmonC on Ma=ch 31 oD this Hcuse bali, anC f oI!.ow:-ng thrs hearing, the Eouse P and E Conmr'ittee heLc. addj.tionaL meet:.ngs. on Mond.ay, Aprrl 6, the Conm,i+-tee was presented with acCi-.ional pians, anC afte= comirtlt:ee deLibe=ations, which incluoeo a closei execut,j,ve sessicn from which the Press anC mernbers of '-he public we=e excluoee 6,/, app=cved a plan labeLled "tsL Fairfax L2" U bv a vote of 18 to I without anlz written suppo=t,{ ng statistical data describlng the d.ist=ic*-s or stating 5/ Transcripts of the pubLic hearings are incluoed in Eiam Piailntijis' Ex. i-:. 6/ Deposition oi Del. Ei:-se B. Iieinz, July 3, 198L (hereinaEer Hej.nz dep.), p. 58. 1/ Heinz dep. , Exhibit 16. AceorCing to press reporL-s, two pianlwere considereC. One was calLeC the "Fairfax !2" plan "because it cedes L2 seats to heavily popuLated Fairfax County. " The other was the "8.L.' p1an, "wj.th the 'B.L.' standing for 'Brctherly Love' because no incumbents seeking re-elect,ion thrs year will be harmed by 1t." Richmond News Leader, April 7,1981, p. 5 (Deposltion of ..]uay CcLd.b s' ix. P-1, Deposj-t,j,on Exhibit, 2). The Richmcnd Times-Dispatch =eport,eC:"wiren a prelininary B.!. pfa coirmit,tee Sundalz, the initials were sa:-d to mean bro-,-herI1z love. Yest,erd,alr some cormlit:ee members were salzing that B.L. means 'barelf iegaI.' RicirmonC Timel:liEp@, April 7, i.981, p. B-3 (id. ) . The use of confi:::ned by !,1s. Jane l"lorriss, Executive Director of Conrnon Cause of Virginla, who was an observer of the commit:ee deliberat,ions. Depositi.on of .fane Morriss, July 3 and 1, 198I (herej.nafter Mor=j.ss dep. ) , p. 26. -a- :he popuLation va=lances.3/ Ait,e= '-his vote, Dei. Ellse ts. Iieinz, a rneraber of --he House P anC I Ccnru.t-.ee, ccnuaitt,ee st.aii, and one otier oelecat,e CiscovereC that this plan had 101, delegaies !n violaticn of state Law._!/ Del-. He:.nz reported :n!s :o '-he Comrniitee Chairrran, anC ihe nex'- day, Apr:-i 1 , the Ccmri:.'---ee ccnsiderei new plans. At, that mee'-ing the Comrnir:ee report.ec o1:+- 7 by a vote oi l-5 tc 5 , a new plan known as -.ne "Mod.:.iieC Bunny Rabbit P1an"g/ which was an amendrnent in the natu=e of a subst:.tute fo= the p=eviously j-ntroduced llouse bili .L!/ No wrict,en supporiing statlstical anallzsis of the Plan was p=esented :o the corrnittee at the tjJne of its act,ion.g/ On Ap=il I the Couun:ttee sr:bstitute was debat.eC on '-h€ floor of the House of Delegat.es , a series of 51oor amenCment,s were of f erei, some of which were aocpteC and others rejeeteC , and the amended Comrnittee subs',itute was adopteC b1t the House of De]-egates. The nexi d.y, April 9 , the House biJ-I was reported by the Senat.e Conrnittee on Prlvileges and Elections aad passed by '-he Senate. The 198i Eouse pJ-an bill was then signed by Governor John N. Dalton on April 10. In f'ebruary, the Chai:-rran of the Senate Privileges and Elections Ccurnit'-ee aLso announceC a series of prrct-ic hearings to be hel-C in March on Senate and Cong=essiona3. reaPpor'-ion- men'- , &' anc ouring March pr:bLic hearings were held in Roanoke, Northern V!-rginia (DulLes Airport Marriott Hotel) , Richmond,, _g / Ileinz dep . , pp. 59-5 0 . 2/ Ig. , PP . 5 o-5l- ' !0/ Ig., p. 61 . See District, 29, EIy dep., Dep. Ex. 3. g/ ELam Plaj-ntiiSs' Ex. P-3, Att,achlnent li . L2/ Hej-nz Cep., F. 65. 13/ The 1eg:-sJ.ative hls:ory of ',-he Senat,e bili. anC, _--offj,ciaL-documents record,ingr this legislat,ive history are con- taineC in Virginia's S 5, Voting Rights Act, sr:.linisslon to the U.S. Department, of iustj-ce, Elan Plaint,iffs' Ex. ?-4, A--tachment, t7. -5- ani Norfolk. Y/ A =lfth public hea=ing was helc in Echrncni, on !"ta=ch 3 0. Draft pians were preparei by a subcommi--tee on Senate =eCis'u=ictlng, ani ai--e= Ccnrn:-it.ee de1:cerE+;LonS the Sena:e P ani E Cornr:it.ee =eport.ed ou-- a bali.. Co:rrnit--ee sub- sticutes were reccru:11'-'-ei' r1r lhe Senate to the Ccrnmit.-ee on Ma=ch 31 and ApriJ- 1. Af-.€r i'a:'-her deliberations, t.he Cc:mrit--ee report.ed out a biil. After f Loor debat.e on April 6 , tbe Senat,e adcpted a fl-oor subst,i:ut,e with iloor amendrnents and def eated an alte-ra;e ilcor substitute ano floor arnend.ment,s. The Senate bill was referreC to the Eouse P and E Committee on April 8 , which reported :-t out with an amendment, on Apnl 9. The Eouse passed the cormj.ttee amenCment, w:th floor amenCments, cn April 9 , and ihe Senaie agreeC *-o tire House amencments the same day. The Senat,e bi.ll was t,hen signed by the Governor on April i-0, The guidelines adopt.ed by the llouse and Senate for legrslative =eCistric:ing \/ we=e set out in 1ega1 memo=anda written by Ms . M.ary Spain, 1ega1 counseL f or the llouse and Senate P anC E Conrn:-ttees, dateo April 21, 1980 Y-/ and, May 2, 1980, y/ and Cistrlbu',€C to llouse ani. Senate P anC E Cornmitt,ee rnernbe=s. in Ciscussing the guidelines app!-icab!-e to J-egislative Cistrict,ing the April 21, 1980 memorandum notes -'he Supreme Ccurtrs decision in Mahan v. HoweLL, 410 U.S. 315, 93 S.Ct. 979, 35 l,.EC.2d 320 (1973) , sustaj-ning a total deviation of L6.4*, anC warns: "No 14/ Transc=ipt.s fo the public hearings are includeC in ELam Plaffitif fs' Ex. i-tr. U/ Deposi--ion of Robert J. .l-ustin, June 30-Ju1y 3, 1981, .-(hereinaf-,-er Austin dep.), pp. 332-33, 339-40. W Aust,in dep. , Deposi'-:.on Exhibit 2 . l7/ i\ustin dep., Deposition Exhib:t 3. This memorandum Ciscusseilthe Supreme Cou=t'i decisions in Clty of Mobile v. Bolden and City 6f_Rore r. United sta-.es anffirolina ffirati,ve@nt@ a +-hird memorandu:n, entl',-Ied "Memoralxd,um Re: Guidelines fcr Justif rcation of Districts" (Austin dep., Depositj-on Exhibit 4) \.ras Cistri- buted to iiouse P and E Corunj-i,tee merroers on April 2, L981. However, th:s Cocument was wri--:en in contenpldtion of litigataon, to build a reccrd to defend the liouse pLan against litigation (Austin dep. , pp . 322-25) , Dr. Aust.in CiC not even know who wro-.e t,he docr.:inent (id., p. 319), ani it, was not Cistr:-buted until- weLl af'-er the legiilative deliberaticns hao begiun. -5- case since Mahan has upheli, as g:eat a ior.-a1 naxj-mum precent,agre oeviat.ion."!8/ Afte= C.iscussing '-he va=j-ous cases =ai-sing the malappor--ioment :.ssue, the memorand,um concLud,es : "5'or '-he tiouse the g'oal, should also be the -.eD percent Lctal maxim'.rm percentagre oevia:ion. The iiouse then has the option of cont,inuing the poiicies uphelC in l4ahan and the use of multi- member Cist'.i.cts anffi5 result,ant presen/a-,ion ^3 :oLirical subd.ivision in--eErlty. The con-v;i +-inued appJ-ication of these pclicies can then be argued to just:-fy a possiSle oevlation of r.lp t,o L5 percent."y/ This mernorandum aLso listed the f ollow:.ng adCj.tional- guidelines: maintenance of political subd.ivision bounCaries, protection of inc'.mbents, Presenuation of balance amongf political parties or j-nteres', groups, compactness and contiguit]r of Cis-,ric:s, cgn- sj.dera'-ions based on population grow',h patterns and special census prcbj-ems, miscellaneous factors such as geographic featuses, conio:riiing Legislative and Cong=essj.onal Cist=ict,s, and avoidance of voter confusion, and avoid.ance of Cilution of minorJ.ty voting st=ength.20/ Dr. Robert J. Aust,!n, a staff membe= of '-he Division of iegislative Serv:-ces who himself Cid not Craft anlz plans for corrrnittee considera'-ion, but who testisiei. as the principal witness for the defendants in support of the llouse anC Senate plans, listeo the policies or guideiines which he thought were iollowed in ',he 1981 liouse reCistrictlng process: Cistricts should be as egual as praeticable i.n population, the prese=vatlon of loca1 subdivlsions.as entities, to create as many singJ-e- me:nber d.istricts as possible, retain exist.ing 3.egisJ-ative Cistrict,s, take lncr::nbency concerns into accoun+-, eonsider coruruniiies of iD'.€i€st anC natural bor:nda=ies, and nulti-nember g/ Ausiin dep. , D€p. Ex. 2, p. 14. 9/ Id. , p . 22 . The House P anc E Ccmnrj.t,tee also releasei. a press =elease in March, 1981, ccntaining the criteria to be used, in House red,istrictj.ng (Austin dep., p. 341) which stated: "State legislatlve redj.strieting plans in which t,he population deviations :ange frcm plus five percent tc ninus iive percent per dlst:ict (or per Senator or Delegate !n mul-ti- nember Cj.strict,s) have been hel-i, ccns'uituti-onal-." Aus--in ciep., Depos:-tion Exhabi+- 37 . 4_/ Austi:: oep., Dep. Ex. 2, pp. L5-L8. i.j.st,rj.c'-s, a::C especially in the ru=a1 a=eas , shouli not be r^^ l^i - 11 /L(Ju ta9.;L/ 2 . Malappor'-ionment--The House clan. The 19E1 llouse plan fa:l-s Eo comply wi'-h the Leeal guioelines gove=nlng equaJ-:.ty of popula!:,on among cisi,=iets set cu: in tne staff J,egal memo=andurr of April 2!, L980. Indeei., various J-egislat,irre leade=s, membe:s cf '.he House, and state oi5:.cia] s ad::ai-.t.ed at varicus Limes that the House P anC E Co:inmi--iee was not, complying with equal popula--ion requi=ements and that this planr o! plans with similar populat,ion variances, would not wi:hst,and a court test. Early in the Cornndttee deijSerat,ions, DeI. PorC Quillen, Chai:rnan of c'he House =eCist,rictlng subcomrnittee, was report,eC to have sa:-i of a proposea plan with a total deviat.ion of 20 percent,: "We're testing t:he cou,.u'r-ii"rri"g-$;":";; ;;;; think rre're pushrng the court as to whether '-his (folLows) the one-man 2 oD€-vote ccncept . " ?/ On Ma=ch 29 , DeI. l{ary Marshall was quoted as f ollows : "'Ehere are those who may propose plans that won ' t be uphe ld by the c ourt,s r s o that we could hol-d our elect,ions under the presen', pIan,' salzs Del. Mary l"larshaLl (D-Arlington). 'That. way they keep their seats for another session.'"23/ therwhe On March 31, Cefendant House Speaker A.L. to have been unhappy wj-th the variances in which were similar to the variances in the Philpo'.t was reporteC the !{arch 30 bill-- final plan: L/ Austin dep., pp. 28-30. 22/ Newpor', News Tlrnes-Herald, March 21 , 1981 , 9.4(colCberfldep lhe Virginia Genlral Assembt lz does not transc=ibe or keep minutes of conuni''tee oeLiberaticns or flocr debate on biLls (Austln dep., pF. 335, 337). In the absence of official records of legislati.ve i,eliberations, contemporaneous newspaper a=tj-cles are admissi5le to snow contertporaDeous statenents made b1z legislators. Hal1 v. St. Ilel.pna Pa=ish School tsoaro , L97 F. supp . 5i-9 , 652-53 (ffi La. 1951). (ci:-ree-3udge cour:)l aff ld, 358 U.S. 515 (1952); Lgewen v. Tui+ipseed, 488 F. Supp. ll:E-fTleg (N.D. Miss. 1980); Sffi v. Walle.r, 404 F. Supp. 206, 2!3 (N.D. ldiss. 1975) (three-juoge couiEFSee Fed. R. - Evid. , Rule 902 . D/ Washing.ton Post, March 29, 1981, p. c4 (id. ). -8- "!'leanrwi:i1e , Eouse Speake=, .l,. L. Phllpo--t saii. he ls ulhappl' w:-t'h a :enta"il'e Hcuse =e4ls-tr:c--!ng p)-an because he rnalnt.ained it migh: not meet va=iance guioel:-nes es--ablisheC by feqe=a1 cour',S."21/ Siril}ar st,at,ements \{ere attributed t,o House P anC E Comn:---tee Chai:=ran Joirn D. Gray: "In the 'ace cf alL this, House paneJ- Chaj--ran .ohn D. G=ay of Hampton conceded, :o r€por-u€rs that the plan approved bv the Conrni:t,ee Suncalz would have tc unde=go major surgery to rneet oD€-$tsD, one-vcte stanCari,."U The major archltec'- of t,he "brcthe=1y love" plan, DeL. C. liard,away Marics, inCicated that the plan haC a total d,evision o'- "about" 22 pe=cen:: "Although the vote vras 18-1 for the proposal, wlth one abstent,ion, cornrnittee members expressed concern about whether the pLan would stand up :-n court if challengeC. " 4/ On April i, the RichmonC Times Dispa:ch reported: n [House Speaker A.L.] Philpot', periodically has expresseC concern +-i:,at the conurn:lttee, which, until ]zes-,-erd.ay, had wrestled incon- cLusiveJ.y with a wide =ange of pIans, might not be paying enough atient,ion to one-man, one-vote rest,raint.s. " 27 / Phrlpott also specificaily cr:,ticized the varj.anees in the "Broeherly Love" plan, reported to be as much as 25*z " 'If you ccme out with such d.eviations as tha',-, it won't [su::v'ive a cou=', challenge] --that's for sure,' said tsouse Speaker A.L. Philpott, before he knew of the plan's other derect."28/ y/ Washinot.on Post, March 31, 19 81 (id. ) . ' 25/ RichmonC TrmeE:Dispatch., April 1, 1981, p. ts-4 (Goidberfldep l. U-/ Richmcnd News Leader, April 5 , Richmond Times-Dispatch, April 1981, p. i , l_981, 13 (id. ) . pp. B-1 ,)1 /-'/B-3 (id.): 28/ deP. , DeFT Washingt,on Post, April - Ex. 3. 7, 1981, p. CL (GolCberg -9- i:: the floor cela:e on '.he final plan, Delegat.es Elise 3. iieinz ani V. Ea=i Dickenson bcth criticized the plan ior populat.ion ieviat.lons too glreat, fcr ccurt app=oval.29/ Ai'-er the pJ-an was approveC by the iiouse of DeJ-eg;'at.es, Governor John N. Daiton was report.eC tc have s--ated a'. a meeting of Republican 1eg:-siators on Apr:-I I that ',he pLan wouli no-, wit,hstand a court chalienqe: "But, one lawmaker saiC, :he governor maoe cLear his belief that the liouse plan wiLl nct, withstanC a eourt chaIlenge. " "House speaker A.I.. PhiJ.pott saj-d he voted for the proposal d,espite serious tes€lva- tions because it was the onJ-1' plan that, could muster majoritlz supPort. 'If the court d.oesn 't approve the plan, I hope they | 11 Let us come back in session to consider it,' he said . " y/ On Apr:.I 11 the Washington Post reported that the Comnittee's plan was "so out of line wj.th S'-B'.€ populat,ion figures '-hat many irnmediate!.y conceded that it would fail- inevitable cou:t, challenges. It passeC the Bouse on WeCnesdalz, then the Senat,e. "Constitutional problems notwithstanCing, nc one apgeared reai,y to stop the plan. Not Iiouse Spe.aker A.I,. Philpott, even though he acknowleCged that some i,istricts felL far shy of princj-p1es of equal representation set by the Supreme Court. Nor Gov. John N. Dalton, who signed the bilL toCay despite his pr!.vate preCict,ion '-ha.- it would. fail a court test."L/ Given the Virgin:-a 1980 populatLon3?/ of 5,346,279 to be apport,ioned among 100 House seats, the popuJ-ation norm for ideaL-size House seat if absolute populaiion eguality were to 29/ Richmond News Leader, April 8, 1981, p. 1 (Goldbe=g !ta be dep., Deil e*dep. , Dep. Ex. 2) i Richmono Tames:Dis!@, ex. 3); ilashington , F. $, April 9,1981, (Dep. p. cl (ic. ) . 30/ Washington Post, April 9, L981, p. CL (Dep. Ex. 3). L/ April 11, l-981, p. 85 (iC.). 32/ U. S . Bureau of -,-he Census , L9I0 Census anC Housilnq, Advance Reoorts, Yiroinia, PHC80-V-48 (Austin dep., Deposi'r-iolr Exhibit 38). of Populat,ion I I 1 I - 10- ach:.eveC is 33,463. On the basis of --he p)-an as enac'-ed,33/ and conputing flote::,al Cj-st=icts acco=i.ingi t.o lhe alIoca--j,on oi I Ipcpulaticn me',hod,!!/ the 198i House of Delegaies reC:-st=ictj-ng I'l plan has a iot'al d.eviation--wit,h 51o-,-eria1 Cist=ic:s--of 55.45t.!f[, Exclucing f loter:.aI districts, :he plan has a tot,al deviati.on of 25.638. Inclui.inq f lote=ial C:-strj.cts calculated accorCinE to the allocaij-on of populatj.on methoC, "he largest va:iances are 5ouni, in Dis:rj.ct, 30 (+40.30t) anC Dis--rict 12 (-L1.15E). ExcIuC- ing floierial distr:cts, the largest. variances are found in D:stris-. 3 (+12 .47* ) and District 42 (-14.16t ) . wit,h floterial- C.lstricts cal-cul,ateC accoriing -.o the allocatlon of population method, 2! d,ist=icts have variances of 6t or over, six Crstricts have varj,ances of between 4* and 5t, ani 23 Cistricts have va=lanees under 4t. Exclud,ing fLoterial d.istricts, 1,7 districts }lave varlances of 6t or over, 6 cistricts have variances of between 4B and 5*, anC 23 qist,ric'-s i:ave variances under 4*. 33/ Althouqh the part.ies in the S-=otslzlvan:.a Countl' case, Cosner vl-DaL:on, have attempteC t.o stipulat,e a change in the Iffiativffit,ec plan affec'-ing Districts 30, 3L, anc 32, a f loterial Cistrict whj.ch includ.es iienrico, Caroline, tsanover, and Spot,sylvania Counties, the methoC by which this changre was approved by the mernbers of 'uhe General Assembly--a telephone poI1- fails to ccmply wj.th the Rules of t,he llouse anC Senate governing legisJ-ative enactments, see Virginia General Asssrnbly, I'lanuaL of the Senate and Eouse of pS-}g!g. (1980) , and therefore should be roPerlY enacteC legislative change. No evidentiary hearing was held in open court on this proposed change, anC the EIam plai.ntiffs have refuseC to agree io this stipulation. If EEIs ehange were approveC, District 30 (Henrico County, with three delegates) would have a total poPu- lation variance of +12.69t, which woulC make that district' Lhe nost underrepresented district in the entj-re Bouse plan (exclud,- ing floterial districts calculated according to the alLocation of populati-on method) . Presents arglxnent 34/ The proper aethod of calculat,i-ng floter:.a1 district,s -E' legal issue which will, be d.iscussed infra in the section of, '.his memorandun. 35/ The popuJ,at,ion statistics €or each of --he House i.istrictil and population variances from each district excePt f loteriaL distrj.et,s , are taken from the state's own calculations, Austin dep., Deposition Exhibit 5. VAi.IAI{CES a/ TN TIiE i961 IIOUSE PI,AN TO iOhES::- RANKSD TR,OM iTiGiIES? ,li c+*'i ar 30 (jIote=al Cist. ) 45 (fioterial Cist. ) !) 41 1 40 43 (floterial d,ist. ) 48 1L 10 ,)o 28 I l7 3i (fl,oteriaL d.ist. ) 26 36 L0 6 l_8 7 22 1( Variance +41.30t +20.72* -14.15r +L2.472 +t-2 . 19 t +11. 718 -t0.9:t -10.75* 9.55r + 9.458 + 9.44t + 7 .82* + 7.67* /. )J.t + 7 .4!Z 1 1?1 + 5.99* 6.89r + 5.83t 6.741 5.08t -+ 5.988 5.58r + 5.518 € 4.85r + 4.65t a / Variances in iloterial Cls',-rj.cts calculated accord.in!-to the alLocation of population rnethod. -L2- D'l =n -.an lrarl !=om Eighest. :o !owes--.Va:i.ances :n +-he i981 House ( cont:.::ueC) hi c+-.i aly-J b-*E j 2A ?? 34 43 2! 8 51 ,+ ?') Aq ?o 5 50 L3 38 L2 15 9 11 21 tt 37 Variance + 4.35* .l. ? OleI J . J L'b < /l* 3.688 3 .47? 3.28r 1 ??e + 3.20t + 2.83t + 2.5LB 2.36* 2.222 2.20* 2.088 2. 01r 1.988 1 ql e 1. 858 + 1.59t + 1.54t + 1.07t 0.92r 0.85r 0.13r The evid,ence shows ihat --he crit,e=icn of keeplng pot i'-ical subCivlsion bounda:ies intact. canno?- supporr, these high popula-,lon d.evi at.ions. In =es?onse to plalntlf f s' reques: f o: p=ocucticn of documen:s, def end.ant,s p=oouced, copies oi- all plans propcsed to o: considereC b1z both the House sr:bcornrr,it.tee on red:-si,=ict,ing ani '-he llouse ? ani' E Comlai--'-ee.36/ 1,1s. Juclz Gold,be=g, of the American Civj-l- Liberties Unj-on of Vlrgiria, analyzed those plans and found that caLculat.ing flcat,e=s accorClng io the allccation cf population method and inclui.ing the East,ern Shore, the House subconmittee and ccrmnit,tee con- sid,ered but rejecteC 24 plans anC alteraatives wj.th lowe= populat.ion deviat,ions, excluCing the East,e:=r Shore, consid,e=eC 24 plans, and excLuCing both the Easte:=r Shore ano floterial d:-s'-=icts, considereC but, re jected 15 plans with lower population deviatiots.3l/ In add.ition, bo'-h Cor:unon Cause and the NAACP have prepa=ed p14ns which keep aLI political subdivisions intact, and wh:.ch have lower populat:-on creviations.3Erl The Cornmon Cause Plan has a lower total d,eviation of 23.15t incJ.uding fLoterial Cistrict,s and the Eastern Shore, and d '.otal deviation of only L5.89t excl-uding the Easter:r Shore. {/ GolCberg dep. , Deposition Exhibit, 4. ?J_/ Goldberg dep. , Fp. 37-39. 38/ l,lorriss dep., Depositj,on Exhibit 13 (Cornmon Cause Exiribit ffi. il i Deposition o+ Michael G. Brown, Coord.inator of Branch and Field ac:ivities for the Virginia S-,ate Conference, NAACP, July 6, 198L, Deposition Exhibit 2. Mr. tsrown testified that the total devlation in the NAACP pian vras 17.87t (dep., p. 15). LiS? OF PLA}IS CCNSIDERED BY IICUSE W=TII LOhER !-AR.IANCES, COUNTING FLCTER.IAL DISTR.ICTS AND TiiE EASTER}{ SHORE (1981 Ilouse P & E Comri.i:t,ee File on Proposal-s for the llouse cf DeleEates, Go1Cberg dep., Dep. Ex.4). PIan Total Variance, llith Sho=e anc SLoaters L981 liouse Pl-an 55.45 i,llikins Com:rat.abiJ.ity 47.50 c2u:-ilen 1/2/81 3 5. 8 3 itil-kins (wlth Mioilesex) 35.58 iaster PLan 34.88 Easter Al-*-erna--:.rre +1 34.88 Subconurrittee +1 34.98 Subcornmi.tt,ee +2 34.88 '{orgran Plan 32.9G Alt.ernative 3 (Sub. +3) 27.51_ PLan -t 21 .06 Plan B 25.G3 Di-scussion Plan 25. G3 Subccmni----ee +3 (Basic) 2G.63 Alternat,ive A (Sub. +3) 25.63 ilte=native C (Sub. +3) 2G.63 ALternative D (Sub. #3) 25.C3 Aiternative H (Sub. #3) 26.G3 Iieinz FLoat,er 25.77 ALternative F (Sub. +3) 22.4L Alte=native F & !: (Sub. *3)22.4\ Alternati.ve c (Sub. +3 ) Z?.23 PLan C 22.13 Alternative E (-sub. #3) 19.98 ltil-Ler S:ng1e Menber plan L9.43 Alternative E & !' (Sub. +3) 15.40 Heinz 3/31/8t 15.14 ALternat.ive H, C & E (S.#3)15.04 Al,teraative c & E (Sub.*3) L4.81 Morgan Plan A1t.#1 26.63 -14- -15- iiST OT' PLANS CONSiDERED BY HOUSE WTTH TOWER, VARIANCES, EXCLUDiIiG FLOTEPJA;, D:STRiCTS (198L llouse Pile, GolCberc dep., Dep. Ex. 4). Pl-an Total r/ariance, r.Iith S'hore, urithout gloat.ers 198L llouse PLan 25 .63 -cubecEuxi'---ee +1 26.34 Quillen 4-2-81 23.40 Subcornrrittee *3, ALt.F 22.41 Subcornmittee #3, A1I,.F+H 22.41 Subcornrnittee *3, Al-t. G 22.23 Plan C 22.13 i'7i-1kins Compatabil-ity 2L. 13 l4,ilLer Single-rlecnber Plan 19. 43 i6ltQiiA=iA?irit. Subeom, #3, Alt. Ii+G+E L5.04 Subcom. *3, F-1t G+E 14.81 vtilklns Compat,. lti-dCleser( L4. 55 Subconcnj.t:ee #3, A1.-. E.r? 14.33 Heinz 3-3L-8L 8. SS -i5- 3. P,aclai Disc=l;n:nat.ion. 1=) Ear -'ea Dl=- Uslng i-980 Census figrures :o calcuia'-e the raciai con- position of Cis'.-ricts, ihe 197! House pJ-an had three majorj.ty black i,is'-r:cts electing a :ct,al cf se\ren Cirect deIegates.39/ The L981 House plan :educes the number of majori.tlz black Cistrict.s f rorn three ';o one, a-C the number of deiega'-es elee'.ed i=om maj cr:.t12 bLack c:s-.racts f=om seven "-o f our .10 / The majoritlz black iist,=rct,s in the 1971 PIan (basei on 1980 Census Cata) (Submission, At'.achment #5) were as ioliows: Distrlct Description t Black No. of Delecates 30 Ciry of Petersburg 51.09t Drnwrd,Cie County (pt) Prirce George Cor:nty (pt) 33 AC C:-ty of Fjcirmonc 51.25* Greensvrlle Countv 53.09t '! Caty of Emporia Sussex County Su=ry County Charles City Cor:nty New Kent Count;z The majori.ty blaek cistrict,s in -the 19Bl- plan (submission, Att,aci:ment * 7) are as follows: Disirj-ct Description B Black No. of DelecraLes 3 3 City of Rj.chmond 5I . 2 5t 4 Tbe House oi Delegates elininated these two majoritl' black d,istrict,s by unnecessarily combj.ning black population concen-'=ations with J,arge whit,e populat,ion concent=at,ions in new Di st=ict 28, qnd also b1, unnecessarillz fragmeniiag the black population concentratj-on in oLd District 45 among five new ma j ori',y whit,e i,is--rict,s Y_/ S 5 Submission, Elam Plaintiff ,s Ex. p-3, A--tachment #6. TheTescriptions of the d.is'.rict.s :.n -.h€ 1971 pian are --Eken from the Deposition of AIbe=-, Ely, June 25, L981, Deposj_t,ion Exhibit 7 . The racial sta'-i.stics are ccntained, in the state's S 5 Subnission. 40/ S 5 Submj-ssion, Elam Plaint,lffs' Ex. P-3, Att,achmen-- #7, containing ihe racj-al population stat.ist,ics lor the 1981 House pIan. -\7 - Dist=ict 2E. The Cl',y of Pe'-ersbBrg, which is 51.093 biaci:, has the hlghesr clack popuJ-a--ior, percen+,age cf an!' cit1, rn Vi=glnia.4!/ In the 1971, pLan, ?ece=sburg was in a slnEle cls:rj.ct (Dlst:ic-- 30), and Cclonial- lieight.s, which is 98t wiri'-e ,12/ was rn a s€pdr?'ue cwo-mernber Cistrict w:th Ches'-e=irel-c Cou:rt_v (Dist=ict 36) . in its 1981, plan, the liouse cf Delegat,es compietely el:ninated these pr:o: Cis-.ric'.s, anC ccmblned the black population ccncen'Lrat,ion :n Petersburg w:-th the white populat.icn concen'-=atlon !n Colonial lieigh-.s t.c form new Dis'.ric+- 28, which :s 50.64t white,43/ ',hereby cancelling out black voting strength .,i i Dara -elr:t--- - '------, . This new configu=ation was u,nnecessarlz to fo:=r equat 1y populateC dis'-=icts. Colonial Height,s c oulC have been reta:ned with Ches',eriielC Co'rrntv !n a '-hree-menber dis',-ri-ct with a popula',ion varj-ance of only -I.56t .44/ Du=ing the public hea:ing in lUichmonC on March 20, the Mayor of Colonial Helghts presenteC a =esolution unanimously passeC b1t the Citlz Council. of ColonraL iieigh"s requesting that CoLonial Eeigh''s be placec in a sj-ngIe- menrber Cistric-, with por+-ions of the southe=n part. o: ChesterfielC Cour:'iy, anC p=esen'.ed testimonlz in support oi the resolut.t-on.a5/ The Mayor test.iiied that, "strict respect for ju=isdictional bor:nd,aries in our si'-uation Coes serious danage to our poteniial fo= representation eithe= as ind.iviCuaL cit.izens or as a 1l/ 1980 Census, Austin deP. , Dep. Ex. 38. 4?/ rd. 43_/ Elam Plaintiifs' Ex. P-3, Att,acirment 41/ Ausrin dep., Dep. Ex. 38. 45/ Elarn Plaintiffs' Ex. P-3, Transcript iieari:rg,Tarch 2l lsic: 20), 1981, transcript and of Richmond exhibi:. -: C- ]-9;i IIOUSE D:SfR;CT 3O 1981 IIOUSE DISTRICT 28 BIack pooulation 5l-.092 popuLation 43 .66* PETERStsURG Ffe[ht5 _10- ccnm'Jn:-.!."46/ Ti:e I{.}-ACP plan shows ti:at Pet.ersbu:g coulC have been pl-aced !n a '-wo-menber C!s'-=ict wi:n 'ihe Count.ies cf ts=u::swick, DinwidCie, GreensvlLle, Sussex, anC the Ci'-y of Empo=ia wj-th a population variance of onl1z -0.958, which would have been 558 llack in population.!_/ Dis-'r.lc-- 28 viclat.es manl, of the neutral c=iterla establishei, for ilouse red.istrict,ing. lt'rr,nnecessarillz breaks up :rrro exi.s'-ingi i.iscricts , it Cilutes black votj,nE streng:h, it, c=osses ..-he natural bor:noa:y of the Apporaat'-ox River whj-ch sepa=ates Petersbr:rg from Colonial lieights, and it joins :ogether 'uwo Cifferent areas with Ciffe=ent cor:ununitj-es of i::terest and wiin separate nunicipaL gove-rments and separate school C:-stric-.s.!!-/ Indeed, Dr. Austin concedeC in his oepo- si-.ion that. the only thing Petersburg and ColoniaL fleighcs have in common is tha-,- '.-hey are ccnt,igruous cities .49 / Dis--=icts 27, 35, 41, 46 ani 47. The black popuLa*-ion in Southslde Virginia is heavily concent=ated in :he four rnajorlty black counties of Charles Ci:y (i0.62? plack), Su=ry (52.50t bLack), Sussex (51.02t black), and Greensvil-l,e (55.548 black) .Y-/ fn the L97L plan, all fcur of these cor:nties were lncorporaieC withj-n Distrlc-- 45, which was 53.09t b1ack.3]r/ In '-he 1981 plan, Distric! 45 j,s spl-it, up anC fragrment,ed among fi'ze new majoritlz white i.istrict,s--Disirict 27 (55.34t whit,e) , District 35 (68.25* white), District 41 (50.928 white), District 46 (75.51t white) , anC D:-strict 47, a floter:-aI district, which 16/ Richmond hearing transcript, p. 4. y Brown oep., Dep. Ex. 2. 4A/ Austin dep., FF. 447-51. 49/ id. , ". 266. ; *ro census, Austin dep., DeF. Ex. 38. 5!/ Elanr P1a:ntj.ffs' Ex. P-3, Attachment #6. -20- 197] IiOUS: D:ST]t:CT 4-) NEW KEN? SUSSEX ,I ILI,E Total District 53t Rlack m 50-59? BIack pooulation 60-593 Blaek population 70-79t B1ack nonul-at,ion N ffi kl;;*iri'il;! I)IS'fRIC't' 46 27.3rrt Rlack NEUJ KF.NT FnANK LtNT Nllw I(IIN'[ UIS AMI} Ctrvrr FLOA'rntl [)ISTRIC'I' 47- 29.l7A Black POouosoN DI STRTCT 3 5 28 . B 5? Itl ack lt' I'1SI[.. \'.., ),.,wt _,r, o IGrti' o EOF GTII'.J r\ \ I -1 N I L"-"'HOPEttrELL (J pRnrcs G;CNG5,RINKN lltl$gna FETEN DIN"?IDDIE N counTt AND r,. I)rsTRIC'r 4I 48.80t Black i Ccrnr.lttee who act:,vel1z part.icipaf,ec in ihe de1:-bera'-i-cns of the I I Conrnr-r'-ee, acrn:-ttec that the 'ragrnen+.atj-on o! majo=i'-y black I I Dis:rict 15 was i.iscussed by P anC E Ccrmj.ttee rnembers in I I'I in'ornal- ccnversat.ions in raciaL !e=ms. She tes'-ii:ed. tha: I II membe=s acknowLeCqed ',hat the b=eakup of Lhat Cist=ic*- wouli i.ilu-,e black vctlng s:rength: "Il was ment.ioned in conversation, althougi: not. in conunittee d,iscussion, that open season on - Ray Ashworth's d.istrict, lDistrict, 45] would involve, anC woulC--disposing of the counties and c:.t]r, in that Cistrict, woul.d have the effect. of dilutrng the black vote because that t{as, other t}ran the City o'- S'-. Pete=sburcr [sic] , the blackest Cistrict o'. -,-he case. So, once we Cismani.led, j.t it wasn't, so bLack anlzmore. * * *"W "There were one or two occasions in which somebocy at the conmittee tabl-e remarked that, for instance, using one or more of the count,ies in Ray Ashwort,h's district to :iLl out some otae= dj.strict in the neighborhood certainly woulC not please the black folks, but that, ls as jar as i: ever went."54/ The new d.:.stricts viol-ace mos'- i :-'- not, a11,, of '-he neurral guideJ-ines establisheo b1t the Eouse P anC E Comrui:tee fcr redistricting. District 4L viol-ates the goal of achieving population variances of 5 percent plus or mlnus and has one of '.-he highest population variances in the entire P1an, with a variance of +9.458 from populati.on eguality.55/ District 27, which includes Greensville Cor:nty (55.54t black), j.s one of :he most uncompact dis-.ricts in --he ent-:-re PIan ,-*_/ and Greensville ,2/ }]. , A'ut,achment +7 . 53/ Iieinz dep., p. 83. 31/ Io., p. 88. y_/ Aus'-in oeP . , D€P. Ex. 5 . 55/ Austj.n dep. r p. 414. is contiguous w::h Drnwiooj-e Ccu::t1' at a srnail pcir:.: waich onLy about :wo nlIes wj.ie."7/ As a practical matzer, :he c.lst:ict !s noncontigucus: t!:ese two counties (Gree::svllle and DlnwiCdie) a=e sepa=ated by t.he naturaL bouncary icr:ireC by '-he Not;oway F,i're:, anC there is no higirwalz or b=idge ac=css the raver at rhat .nc!nt.s1/ Thus, one can no" grc frcrn one pa='- oj '-he d.:strict '.c another wi:hout, lea'"ring the iist,=:,c--. The result,ing cisir:.c'.s viol-ate the guidelines on preserving existing Cis:ricts anC avoiCing vol'er confusion, avoiClng Cilu-,-ion oi rninor:-t1z vocing st,rengt'h, elimraatiag floteriaL i:st,=icts (Dis-.=ic--s 45, 45, and 11 make uP only one oi two floterial Cistricts in the L98l- plan), and. resPect,ing ccrnmunites of inceres -u .'>9 / The J,:"" n ani E Ccnrai:tee rejec',-ed alteraatives which would have avoideC this dilutj-on of black voting srulerlgth. The Commi:tee's Pj-Ie on Proposals f or the Eiouse of Delegat,es 60 / cont,ains a draft plan ccnsidereC by the Eouse reCist=ict.lng subconunitiee (Subccmnittee Plan *2,t which_ proposei. a single- mernber tsouse Clstrict ior Southside Virglnia which wouLd. have kept aL1 cor:nties anC cities intact, and wirich was comprised of --he Corrnties of Greensvil-l-e, Sussex, and Southframp',-orl7 and the Cities of Enporia anC Pranklin. Thj-s proposeC Cist=:.ct woulC have had a total population of 52,636, a population variance of only -1.51t, and a black population majori-ty of 52.81*,6L/ which closely app=oximates the black pereentage in old Dist=ict 45. -fl Morriss dep. , p. 32 .. 3,8/ Austin dep., FP. 444-43; DeP. Ex. 14. ,9/ Austin cep., PP. 432-37. 60/ GoJ.oberg deP., DeP. Ex. 4. 6L/ 1980 Census, Austin aep., DeP. Ex. 38. -24- SxisilnE LeveLs of biack votirg s:reng--h, wh:le not ccDS+-l'-ut.rng a major:.t:t, also a:e s:-g:':.lij,cantLlu rei,uced, in '-h=ee ai,citlonal areas . Disirict \2. OLd Distric-- 13, ccmposei o! Patrick, itei:=y, ani P1::slzLvan:-a Coun'-ies and the Ci:y cj Ma=t.insviile, was 25.1\Z black (L980 Censusl .62/ Thls C:st,:ict was =estructureC in the 1981 p1an., and Patrick.lf *"rr* Counties aec the C:.'-y of Ma:tiasvilLe were jo:.ned with Floyd Cor:nty, which is only 3.328 bLack.63/ This realignnent Cilutes bLack votj-ng s-.r€Dgth !n thj-s area, and result,s in ner's Dis',-=ict L2, whj-ch is onlY 19.958 cl-ack . 64 / The notes mad,e of the floor debate cn the L9B1 PIan by t'Is. Mary Spatn, legal. ccunsel for the Eouse P and E Conunittee, :-nc.icate '-hat Del-. lI. Ward, Teel of Chr:stiansburg argueC --hat purt,ing Floyd Cor:nt1z w:.th Patrick and lienrlz Cor:ni.j.es dil-utes m,i:rority voting strength in Distr:.ct L2.65_/ Dei. Heinz also recalled cf DanvilLe, vras 29.i4* black.9J_/ In the l98L plan Danville and Pitislzlvania Cor:nt1z, which a].so is 30t black, a=e combined w:.th Campbell Coranty, which is oniy 15.10t bIack.68/ This combination reCuces the black percentage of the Danville Cistrict from 29.74* to 25.718.69/ the point being made.66/ Distr:cL 13. District 14 in the L97l- plan, composed 62-/ ELam Plaintif f s' Ex. P-3, 63/ 1980 Census, Aust,in deP., 54/ id. , At,tacirment *7.' 65/ Aus'.-ia oep., DeP. Ex. 43. 66/ Helnz dep., p. 93. 9J_/ Elam Plaintiifs' Ex. P-3, 68/ 1980 Census, Aus'uln dep., 59/ EIam Plarntiffsr Ex. P-3, Attachment +b. Dep. Ex. 38. Attachment +6. Dep. Ex. 38. Attacirnent +7 . -25- Dur:ng the floor oebate on lhe l98L Hcuse plan, De1. .jcseph ?. Crouch oi Lynci:burg "polnted ou-, that the cLack popuialion ci Danvilfe ani P:,cls1z1vania Counties Isic] is ccnsiderably larger than the black popuJ-ation of Campbell County, ihus adC:,ng Carnpbel!. Ccr:nty --o that district would iilu*-e ihe black voie in Pit:slrlvani.a anC Danvill.e."i0/ Dis--rict 30. C1d D:strict, 32, composed of '-he Ccunties of Louisa, Spotsylvanla, GoochlanC, and Powhatan, was 23.91* black unoe= :he 1971 plan (1980 Census fi6:res) .7L/ Tha-- cistrict. is broken up in the new p1an, and Spotslzlvania Countlz :s placeC wi--h Caroline anc Hancver in new D:-st=ict 30, which :-s onl1z 18.82? black.72/ Discriminatorv Multl-Member Drst=icts At the public hea.rings heLC across the state by the House P ani E Ccnonittee, prior to the 1981 special session, black wiinesses hrere. unani:nous tha-, multi-member Clstricts, Partiqrlarfy in the urban areas, denlz black voters =epresentation of their choice, and that single-member Cistrlc'-s should be c=eateo. At the lUlchmond hearing on March 20, MichaeL G. Brown, a staff menber of ',he Virginia NAACP Stat,e Conference, stat,ed a number of grounCs for preferring single-member Cis-,-rj.ct.s, l-nc1uc.rnc: "Minorities have a better opport,unity to be electeC wi.thin single-member d.istricts and larel l-ess l-ikeJ,y to have their voting strengt,h oiluteC. For example, states that have converted from muLti-member i.is'urlcts to s j-ngle-member Cistricts, Georgia, Louisiana, Ter'-nessee and Texas, have had sharp i::creases in bLack representation."T3/ 7 3_/ 11 /t a/ i l/ i3/ transcriiT, Heinz Elam p. 16. dep., p. 93. Plaintiifs' Ex. P-3, Attachment #5. Attachment *7. Plain--iffs' Ex. P-3, Richmond liearing -26- A'- the same pubJ-:c hea=ing, De1. B.J. Lanber-., Iif , a black oelega'-e i=om t,he Ci'-y of Rj.cirmcni, sta'uei,: "I :.ilink that si-ngle-membe= Cj-stricts in our urban areas t,hrcughout the entire stat.e wouLi, assu=e rep=esent,aticn from Lhe mincrity g=oups and bl-ack as welL. AnC I thrnk that if anlz way poss:.b1e, a: you couLC have some par'-s oi Richmond in a s:rgJ-e-membe: Cis',rict, o= aiL of RichrnonC, some part, of No=f olk --ha'. woulC make it ver], heipful. So I hope that you will keep :hat in minC for your p1an."j-!/ A: :he March L3 pubiic hea:ing in Fairfax Coun'-12, Professor Al-len Rosenbaum, Professor of Public Po1icy at, the University of Maryland and. a f o:-ner resideni of Virglnia, testified ',-hat mulii-member Cistricts "work to oenlz citizens their fair repre- seni,a',-i oa. " p/ lle stated,, "FinaJ.J.y, it seems 5uo rl€ ti:at muLt:,-nrember Cistricts do' make your =eappo=+-j.onment pLans much more vulnerable tc court challenge, par- ticularly given that, this State j-s under the coverage of t.he Voting Rights Act. Certainly in Ccnnor v. Finch, a Missj.ssippi case in L976, the@me c6Edeclarec quite clearly that where issues of race ccme into play, multi- menrber Cistricts are not acceptable. * * * But, cer',-ainly if lhere are guestions of race in- volved and guestions of more than modest d,eviations in che size of d,istricts, there is a-bsolutely no guest'ion in m1, mind that the Supreme Court, will rule against it."76/ Sinilar opposi*-:-on to multi-member dist=ict,s was voiced by =epresentatives of pubHc interest. groups and by interested citizens.Tl/ 74/ Id., DD. 23-24. 7J/ Id., Fairfax county hearing transcript, p. 55. 1-9/ I<1., PP- 55-68- 77/ See Plaintiff Graveley's Second Set of Reguests for AdmiFions and Second Set cf Inte=rogratories and girst, Reque for Proouction of Docrslent,s, fiLed June 30, 198L, Fp. 9-15. "] AccorCing t,o L980 Census cata, the 3.a=gest, black pcpulacicn ccncentra--ions :n Vlrgin:.a a=e l-ocated in the la=ge urban areas:18/ Ct-,]z Elack Populatlon ( 19 8 0 Census ) R:-cnmonC LLz ,357 No=foLk 93,987 Pc=t,smouth 17 , 18 5 Newport. News 45,584 Ilampton 42, A72 ?he House P anC E Corranitt,ee had aceess to this Census data rT2/ anC the Committee anC its staff were well aware that i.ividing these areas into sj-ng1e-member d.ist=ict,s would result in majo=it1z black Cj-stricts which.would be able to elect, black i.elegates tc the liouse of De!-egates: nQ. It is likely, D!. Austin, -Jrat if --he large r:rban areas of Virginia which have mu1*,-i-member d.is-'ricts now lrere sr:bd:.vided :-nto single-rnember Cistricts tlrat some of those single-member district,s would be majority black in population? A. Yes. O. And -.hat some of tbose singie-member cistricts would be able t,o el,ect bl-ack deJ.egates to the House of Delegates? A. P=esumably so r yes . "'W In the 1981 Eouse plan, except for Ricirmond which has a slight black population majority, the black populations of tirese cit,ies a:e placec in 1arge, majority white single-mernlcer i,ist=icts. A comparison of these la=gre urban Cist=icts in the l98L Eouse pian with the single-member district plan prepareC for the piaintiffs by the staff of the American CiviL Liberties L9/ Austin deP. , DeP. Ex. 3 I . 12/ Id. , p. 380. 80/ !i., p. 378. !r li -2E- Union of Virg:ri.a shcws --ha! j-: fal:ly-srawn singie-:llem5er i.!st.=ict.s had been enact,ec in these urban areas, bfack vcte=s woulc have had the opportr.rnity to elect candiCates of their alr ai aaV-aVaV9. St,a-.e House PIan 8L/ 45 llampton qt ?q1 35.208 45.12r 31.45r 34.313 AC],U Singie-t4ember District Plan 82,/ 59 Ri.chmond (Pt) 54-938 Dist,rict Desc=iption 33 Richmond 3i Noriolk 3 9 Port,smouth 48 Newport. News 50 Richmond (pt) i7 Norf olk (pt) 78 Norfolk (pt) B B1ack No. of Deleqat,es i 2 3 2 1 4 .56* 64.55r 57.81r 53 Portsmou'-h (pt) 7J-.792 4E Newport News (pt) 54.11* Hampton (pt) 44 Hampron (pt ) 50.08* (b) Senate Plan. fn the Sena',-e plan the Cistrict bound,ary Ij.ne between Dj.stric--s 5 anC 6 unnecessarily divj.des the heavy bLack populat!.on concentrat:on in Norrolk between the two districts, thus, d.ilutlng black votj-ng strength. The norm or i.deal-sj-ze populati-on ior a Senate Cj-s--ric+- L/ Elanr Plaintif f s' Ex. P-3, Attachment #7 . 82/ GolCberg oep., pp. 102-06, 115-40, Dep. Ex.'15; -\CLU Sinfre-Member District Plan, filed July g, L981 (ELam Plain+-iffs' Ex. P-8). -29- is L33,657 , ano the 93,98i black Persons res:-Cing :-n tio=fol-k 83 consti-,ute a suificlent popuLat.ion rcr a majority black Sena--e 't'r cr-ia& -he black population oi Norfolk is mos: hear,'iI}, concent,rateC rn the majoritl' black precincts :-n the sou:hern pa=t oi the ca:y. 84/ insteai, cf respec'-ingr this black popuJ,atj-cn corcent:ation, "he bounoary lines of Dls'-rict, 5 anc 5 r'.rn ln a jagged fashicn =igri:', through '.-he m:.,oiIe oi this clack population concentration, Clviding it almost, evenly between -.he two d,istrlcts. 8y Disirict. 5 :s 51.83t wh:'ue, arrd Dist:ic-. 5 !s 59.58t white . 8V Durj-ng the fioor debate in the Senate, Sen. L. Douglas trji,Ld,er of Richmond, the only black sena'-or in strongly critj.cized as raciaLllt motivat,ed this voti-ng strengith j.n Norfolk: -.he V!=ginia Senat,e rl i i,ivision of black i I "'I{hat we're t.a!.k5-ng about !s a sj,tuation that, d.ilut.es votes, ' Wilder saiC. He added that No=folk blacks who supgort single-menber d.istricts must be ':nvisi.SJe menr to tbe city's Senate delegation. And he saj.d, 'We haven't injectei racism into Virginia politics for a long tirne.'"9 Sen. WiLder offe=ed. a flco= amendment to the Senate biLl which woulC have eguaiizeC popuLation.between the two Norfolk Senate cistrists without d.ividing up this black population concen',-ra- ',icn, but the amendrnent was oefeat.eo by a vote of 35 to 3.33/ 3he proposeC floor amendment would have provided for a majori,ty black senatorial district which would have been over 52* bIack. 89/ 83/ 1980 Census, Austin deP., DeP. Ex. 38. Y Goldberg dep., pF. 84-91,, Depos!.tion Exhlbit LL. 8s/ Id. 86/ S 5, Voting Right,s Act, sr:bmission of ',he 198L Senate piEn, Eiam Plaintifis' Ex. P-4, A',-:aci:ment +7. E/ Richmond Ttmes-Dispatc.!., Apri-I 8, 1981r p. B-3, G o 1 cbe re-d e p . 7-56F:-Ex]-2. _g Id. ; Elam Plaintiff s' Ex. 9-4, Att,achment #L7. 8Y GoLcberg dep., p. 90. CI TY -30- oF I.toR.FOLI.: A B I 6 a ) ---a - aar!! Area of over 50t black popu Ia t ion ChaDter 2 Senate cristrict- i:ounclary .9enator I.,i1Cer i:roposed cl ist r i.ct bouncia r.,, 5 - .Senate District 5 Black nonulat ion i1 . 67 e,, 5 - Senate Distrlct, 6 Blacl:. oooulation 35. 8a-q A t.tiLrler ri-i. strict 5 BIack noou.l ation L6 . 7 4 e. B t,,:Icier d istricr, 5 9l.ack nonular-i.on i?. 85? -3 1- A^R'GUMES{T I. TIIE L981 HOUSE PLAN' IS UNCCNSTiTUTIONAL FOR EXCESSiVE VAT.iAI.]CE-E FROI{ POPUi,ATICN EQUALTTY. The Equal Protectj.cn Clause of the Four--eenth AmenCment "reguires that, a State make an honest and good faith effort to construct, Cistricts, in bot.h houses of its legislaturer is near]-1, of egual population as :-s practicable. " Relznol-Cs v. Sims, 337 U.S. 533, 57i, 84 S.Ct. !352, L2 L.Eo.2C 506 (1964). The goal is "ful1 and effect,ive part.ici-pation by alL citizens in s'-ate government .n Id,. at 555. The Virginia General Assembly has failed io compJ-y with constitutional =eguirements in j-t,s j-981, House reCistricting p1an, both as tc floterial d.:-str:-cts and as to non-f Lo--erial i,istricts. A. Malapportlonment in Floterial Disiricts ShouIC be CalcuLated AceorCing t,o the Allocatj.on of Popul-ation Method. Floterial d.lstrict,s are a form of urulti-rnember Cist=lcting in which one or more legislators are electeC from sr:bCistricts and one o= more legislators are elected Cistrictwide. Connor v. E},AE!-, 431 U.S. 407, ALZ n. 7, 9i S.Ct. 1828, 52 L.EC.2d 465 (L9i7 fn the 1981 Eouse plan, there are two flot,eriaL d.:strlcts, District 32, with Districts 30 and 3:- (subdistricts), and Dist=ict, 47, with Districts 45 and 46 (subd.istricts). Their fr:nct,ion i:t legislative reapportionment is to mask or conceal wide variances in popul-ation arrong d,istricts. Thus, if it is impossible to aLlocate legislative seats to political srrbdivisions wj.thin any acceptable range of population equality, several polit,ical subdj.visions which varl, from the norm in population may be assigned a float,er, and the argument is presented, that populat,ion eqrality among districts has been attained. (1) The State's MethoC of Caleulatinq Variances. The General Assembllt, in calculating variances in i',s f loterial d.ist,rj.cts, t=eats these districts as if thelz were orCinary multi-member Cistricts. Thus, in calculating the . popula+-ion va:Lances, the General Assembly add,s togrethe= the popul.a-,-ions cf =he en--j-re Cist:lct., anC civides by the nusrber cf delegates assignred to both the fl-oterial Cist=ic-- and the srrb- iist,=icts to calculate the variance. The floter:-al, Clstrict and subCis--=:-cts in Dlstrict 32 have the folLowing populations: Spot,syLvania 34 ,435 102,131 L delegate District 31, Benriec 180,735 3 delegates District 32 CaroLine 17,904 Hanover 50,398 Spot,sylvania 34 ,435 Henrico 180,735 ,8\ n, 1 delesate The Vj-rginia General Assombly si:nply aCdeC up the population cf the entj-re fl-oterial Cistrict, regarCless cf subCist=icts, and d,ivided by five to calcuLate the population varianee (norm of 53,463), and dete:ra.ined that the popula-,-lon varr.alrce in':these three Cist=icts vras onJ.y +5.04t.99/ This metbod of calculation , however, ls extrene j.y mis- leading . N District, 30 , with 102 ,737 people, has enough popu- lation for two delegrates, but g:a only one under the 1981 p1an. On purely arithmetic gror:nd.s, overpopulated (and underrepresenteC) District 30 is not conrpensateC by electing a share of the flcterial seat. Because of its population, District 30 is entj-tled to another whole delegate, but its population is only 36t of the floater district and will have only 35t of the influence :-n electing the floater. Obviously, vot,ers in Henrico Cor:nty, with a population of 180,735, will control the election of the floater delegate, and District, 30 suffers from cLear underrepresentatj.on in this plan whieh is not revealed by the traditional method of calculati.ng the population varj-ances. Dis"=ict 30 Carollne Hanover 17 ,904 50,398 t{orriss dep., pp. 154-60. ea/ ev Austj.n dep., Dep. Ex. EI]r deP., PP. 48-58; -3 3- in add:'-j.on, by i.iviCing the popuiatJ-on of --he lvtrole clst=ict by the total number of delegaies, this method treats the vot,ers of Dlstrict 30 as i: they participated in the election oi the th=ee CeJ.ega:es from lienrico Countlt, which they do no:. Shis me-,hod of calculation has been eondemned in the pol:.t.ical science }lierature, see, e.9., P.. Dixon, Ji., Democ=a'.ic Representation , pp. 508-12 (L958); E.D. Hanilton, Leqislative Constituencies: Sing1e-Member Districts, Multi-l{ember D:-striets, and Ploterial District,s, 20 western Po1itical Quarterly 321 (1967); C. Shube=t anc C. Press, Measuring Malappor'-ionment, 58 Ara. PoI. Sei. Rev. 302 (1954). The den-ial o! egual representation :-n malapportioneC floter:al, Cist=icts also is justiciable, and several coufr,s have ccndemned underrepresentation in mal-apportioneC anC unjus', fiote=iaI C:.stricts. Cf . Mann v. Davis, 254 8. Supp. 241, 246 (E.p. va. 1965), g!}!, 382 U.S. 42, 86 S.Ct. 181, 15 1,.Ed.2i (L955); Baker v. 9,3E, 247 F. Supp. 629, 640 (M.D. Tenn. 1955), rev'd. on othel-grc, 359 U.S. 185, 82 S.Ct,. 691, 7 I,.Ed,.2d 553 (L955); Stout v. Bottoroff , 246 F. Supp. 825 (s.D. Ini. 1955); Kilqarlj.n v. Martin , 252 F. Supp . 404 (S.D. Tex. 1956 ) , rev'd, 385 U.S. L20, 81 S.Ct. 920, L7 t.Ed.2d.17J. (1957) (2) The Allocation of Population llethod of Calculating Varianees . A more accurate method of calculating variances in floterial d:-st-ricts is 'r-o c?,Iculate each subCistrict's share in electing delegates. Shis method, more accurately measu:res any underrepresent,ation or overrepresentation in the floterj-al arrangement . See E. Hamilton , Legislative Constituences , g!pg: C. Shubert anC C. Press , Measuring Malapportionglen+-, gpg. This calculation is performed as follows z 92/ 92/ See Corrrron Cause Exhibit No. 1, E:q>lanatory Note. -34- 8irst, calculate the share each subdist,=ict has ir '-he elec'-ion of '-he floa',er. In the L981 House p1an, Dist,=ict 30 has the folJ-owing sha:e: Sr:bcistrict popul a'-ion FloteriaL dist. pop. - <I\ Second, add .Ln the C:rect representat,ive. In :his ca'S€ r the population of Dist,rict. 30 has 1.35 de!-egates, one Cirect delegrate plus .35 share in electing the fLoa'-er. Third, Civide the subdistrict population b1, the delegate figu=e to calculate the popula-.ion va:lance. Be=e , L02,737 oivioed by L.35 delegat,es equa3.s 75,542 popuJ-ation, whj-ch is +41.30t above the no=n of --he ideal-sized Cistrict,. fn this plar:, then, District 30 is underrepresented by _41.30t, and Dist=ict 31 is oveEepresented by a var:-ance o! -7.13t. Using this more acsurate method, of calcuLation, +lte fLote=ial Cistricts in the IgSL Eouse plan are malapportioned As a lega1 matter, resolving this j,ssue in favor of the plaintiffs is not foreclosed by the Supreme Courtrs decision in l,lahan v. Eowell, 410 U.S. 315, 93 S.Ct.919, 35 t.Ed.2d 320 (1973). In Mahan, the District Court refused, to resolve this issue because it concluded that a total devia'-ion of L6.4t without calculating the floterial d,istricts was "suffici.ent to condemn the plan." 330 F. Supp. 1138, 1L39-40. The Supreme Court simply saj,d that it would "decline to enter this irnbroglio of mathmatical manipulat,ion" and determined, to "confj-ne our consideration t,o the figures actua1ly found by the ld,istrict] Court and used to support its hold,ing of unconstitutionality." 410 U.S. at 319, n, 6. by the followlng population va:iances:3V District 30 District 31 District 45 Distriet 46 +41.30t 7.13r -10.75r +20.12* -g E1y dep. , Dep. Ex. 9. 3he matter cannot, be put asice he=e, because the mal-appo=tiorr:nent in ilot,eriaL Cis'-ricts severe].l, aifeets'-he euan-ul::ti of =epresentation to be aceordeC '-he populat,ions cf nlne ccuirt,ies and cit,ies !n the General Assembllz which a=e severeLy underrepresent,ed ir the 1981 Souse pJ-an. B. The Population Devialions in :he 1981 llouse PLan Exceed Constitutional L.i-mitaticns. =he popula+-ion oeviation with flo'-e=ia1 Cistrict.s of 55.16t exceed,s the hrghest population devia'.ion ever approved by'-he Supreme Court. (15.48 in Mahan v. ilowelL) by 39 Percentage poin--s , anC the populatj.on dev:-ation of 26. 63t excl-uCing floterlaf Cisi=icts exceed.s the highest popuJ.ation deviatj-on eve: approveC by '-he Supreme Court by 10 percentagre points. 3oth d.eviations exceeC the toial population deviati-ons hel-C uncons--itutional blz the Supreme Cou=t an G-193*i3 v. r:iLl, 385 u.s. Lza, 87 S.C--, 820, L7 L.Ed.2d.77:- (1967) (26.48t); Swann v. Adasrs, 385 U.S. 440, 81 S. Ct.. 569, L7 t.Ed.zC 501 (1957) (25.55t) ; Whitccnrb v. Chavis , 403 U.S. L24, 160-63, 91 S.C'.. 1,858, 29 L.Ec.2d 363 (1971) (24.79t); and $rc. v. f?i9i, Qa u,s. 1, 26, 95 S.Ci. 751 , 42 L.Ed.2d 766 (1975) (20.148). fn these cases ',.he Supreme Court aPPears to have adopted the p=incipJ.e that population deviations over 20t are per se trjilcoD- st,itu'.iona1, and no plan with population deviations that high can withstand constitutional challenge regardless of the just,ification #or the high deviation. Certainly none of the justifications advanced in those cases, includ,lng the goals of obse:rrj-ng geographical bor:nd.aries and exist,ing political sub- Civisions aCvanced in Chapman, supra, 420 U.S. at 24,W were held sufficient to sustaj.n such gross inegualit'ies of populat,J-cn among di-stricis. y/ Although Chapman involved a court-ordered plan, and, thus was evaLueted according to the strj.cter standard,s of PoPu- latj.on eguality applicabJ,e to such plans, the Suprerne Court held that the popula-,-ion deviation in that case did'not even meet '.he mcre liberaL stanCarCs applicable to legis j.atively-enact,ed pIans. (footnote continued next page) Fu=ther, it j-s clea= irom this record that the General Assernbly srraply has faiLei, to make the regui=ei "hones'- ani' grood laith efiort" to achieve egual:.--lu of population alnong the Ci.s--rict,s. Numerous plans with lowe= variances vrere 'i?rcDoseo which I I kept political subd,ivis:,cn bouniaries iniact,, but hrere rejecteq by rhe liouse P ani E Commi:tee. No member of the Bouse cf Delegates or the llouse P and R Cornnritt,ee has testifieC for the deienCan--s '-hat -'he policy of maintaining poJ.iticaj. subd,ivision lines Cictates the population inegual.ities present :-n this plan. The def endan'-s ' principal wi.tness on this issue , Dr. Austin, iest,:.fied that -.-his c=lterion is based on the lack of legisl,ative powe=s ent=usted to Virginia's ccr:nt.ies and, cities r:nder Virginia's system of i-nd,ependent cities , whose legisJ-ative neeCs must be met by reliance on locaL legislat.ion introCuced by members of '-he General, Asserobly. But this goal is virtualJ,y iropossiJcle tc accomplish irr a s'.-at€ where the population is unevenly Cistributed Ermong 9 5 cguniies and 4l independent c!:ies from which L00 oeJ-egat,es must be electeo. AccorCing to the 1980 Census, a total of 22 jurisdictions, 10 cities and L2 counties, have populations which exceeC the norm for a Bouse d,istrj.ct,, and 31 cj-ties and 83 counties have populations below this Dorm. "Tbe policy of maintaining the inviolability of county lines in such circumstances, if strictl-y adhered. to, must inevitably collide with the basic equal proteetion standard. of one person, one vote." Coruror v. Finch, supra, 431 U.S. at 419. - As the Suprerne Cour'- has made clear on Dumerous oceasions, "Recognit:-on that a State may ProperJ-y seek to protect the integrity of political subCj.visions or historical boundary lines permit,s no nore Footnote g eontinueC. "Examination of the asserted, justifications of the court-ordered plan thus plainly d.emonstrates that it fails to meet the standard,s established for evaluating variances in plans forrnulated by state legisj-atures or other state bodies. The pIan, hence, would fail even r:nder the criteria enun- ci.ated in Mahan v. Ilowell and Swann v. Ad,ams." 420 U.s. ailf _ .- r..i-i' -35- '-i1an 'minor devia--ions' Srom the bas:-c -o-li=ement tha',- Iec:-slati,ve iist=:.cis must, - -=--- b-..--- be 'as nea:ly of equal population as is pract,icable. "' Rornan v. Sincock, 377 U.S. 695, ilo, 84 s.cEIEca, ffi.za 520 (1955); Retrnold.s v. Sims, EgEIB, 377 U.S. at' Sji; Connor v. pinch, W,, 13L U.S. at 419. Ln Mahan v. @1I, !!Ei, the Supreme Court he1d, that. the goal of nalntaining poli'-icaI subc.ivisions as Cistricts in Vi=ginia sufficed to justify a L6.1t population deviation in the 1971 plan for '-he Virglnia House of Delegates. The holding in that case cannot be useC to support the gross population deviations present in this PIan, however. In Mahan, there was txlcontrad.icted evidence--wh:.ch is not Plesent here-that '-he legisla--Br€'s plan "produces the minimum deviation above and below the norm, keeping intact poJ-ilica1 boundaries. " 410 U.S. at 326 . By contrast, the alte:=rative plans submitteo in this case show that much smaller variances caD be achieved even keeping political boundaries in''BCt. The Cour'- also ind.icated that the 15.4t devj-ation sustained in that case "may well approach tolerable l-imits." Id. at 329. The 1981 Eouse plan should be declared, unconstitu'-iona1 for failure to meet the one-person, one-vote reguirements of ReynoLds v. Sims and its progeny. . :I. PR,OBECTTON OF TN9JI'{BEI{TS IS A!{ I!,1PERI,IISSTBI.E RACIA! CRITEP.IOI; T'OF. REDISSR.ICTiNG iN VIRGTNIA Robert, J. Austin, arr au--ho=it1z in Virginia reappor'-ion- ment and t,he pr:-ecipal witness fo= oefendants j.n this case, ind,icated that '-he p=otecticn of incumbents is a primary no--i.vatlcn for the retent:on cf urban mult.i-member Cist=i-c''s in :he House plan.9,/ This criterion was a primary factor in lhe development of the chal1enged House plan .96/ lhis cri-terion is a covert racial classif ication. That ',has c=i-.erion does not contaln an explicit racj-al classiflcation is of no consegueDce because the c=iterion is not neutral; it is analagous to the st,atut,e considereC in Personrrel Adm'r of Mass. v. @., 442 U.S. 256,99 S. C:. 2282, 60 i.EC.2i.870 (!979) where the Supreme Ccurt clearly ind,icated that: ' [i] f the lchallenged statu'-ory] classif ication itsel-f , cpverr or.ovefr,f .is not based upon gender, EEe second question is whether the icverse effect, reflEEffiicious gender-based Clsc=i"nination." IC. at 274 (emphasis adoed). In this instance,'.he record, shows bo',-h that the criterion is a coveri, racial cl-assification and that the ad,verse effeet, o! this criterion reflects invidious raciaL Ciscriminatlon. of course, the cove*, racial cLassificatioi alone is sufficient to find this criterion unconstitutional. Nevertheless, the aCverse effect of this c=iterion is Ciscussed at pp. 25-28, supra. The evid.ence in this case shows that this criterion creates a racial. classification prohibit,ed by the Supreme Cou=',: [T] he State may no mcre Cisadvantage any particular group by making it more difficult to enact legislat,ion in its behalf than it may dilute anlt personrs rzote or give any grouP a smaller represent,ation than another of com- parable size. Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U.S. 395, 393, 89 s.ffiz, zffia 61G (1969). As was true of the statute in Lee v. Nlzquiest, 318 F.Supp. 71,0 (W.D.N.Y. 191A), aff 'd, 402 U.S. 935, 91 S.Ct. 1618, 29 L.ed.2d L05 C1971), this criterion frustrates minority participatj.on; it -r 96/ Austin dep. , Austin dep. , p. p. 376. 29. -3 8- "operat,es to d.isadvantagre a m,inori:y, a raciaL :rninori:y in the poI:,t.icaI p=ccess . " 3 L8 P . Supp. E-r- i20 . The most recen'- decision applying t.his 1ega1 st,andard is Seatt,le School Dist. No. i \'. St,at,e of Wash., 633 F.zC 1338 (9ti: Cir. 1980) , af!'9, 173 F.Supp. 995 (w.D.D.C 1979) . Thai Ccur-- held that, a stat,e statute was unconstitutionaL because it c=eated an impe:-nissible legisJ-atlve classification baseC on rac:al crite=:.a even though the s'-atute Cid. no-u cont,ain atl explicit =acial classificaticn. 633 P.2d at L342. The challengeC statute enumerat,ed pu:poses for which school d,istrlcts may assignn s--udent,s to schools and omitted from that enrtrneration the assignment, cf students in order t,o achieve =acial balance. Emphasizing the importance of protect,lngi agai-nst eovert racial classifj-catj.ons, the Court said: "Unless this Court affirms the relevancy of the constitutional analysis in Bunter and Lee to this case, the guaranteel6ffiual, lFot,ection of laws will become a hollow shell." 633 F.2d. at, L344. Applying these principles, it is manifest that proiection of incr:mbents creates a constitu',-lonal1y-suspect, racial classi- fj,cation. The incr:rnbents benefitt,ed by tbj.s criterion are ove:mhelmingly white. Of 100 delegates, onJ,y four are black; of 40 senat,ors, only one is black. The primacy of this criterion contributed to the creation of Cistricts for both the House or Delegat,es and the Senate which ope=ate to disadvantage minority voters in the poJ-itical proeess. The evidence shows that when prot,ectj,on of incumbents is not a prirnary factor, i" is possible to create districts without diluting mj-nority voting streng-,-h anC thus without making it more difficult for minority voters to elect candidates of their choice through which to enaet legislation on their behalf. The singJ-e-member Cis:rict, House plan offered in evidence by the Elam plaintiffs shows the exrent, to which minority participation is frustrated by the -39- opera--ion of th:s c:ite=lon "protect,lon of inc',.unbents. " This =aci.aI classif:.cat,ion is invaliC uniess it !s the least Crastic means regui=ei tc achieve a ccurpelllng s:ate int,erest.. See, Hunter v. Srickson, 393 U.S. at 391-93; Seatt,le SchooL Dist,. No. 1. 1'. Sta'-e of Wash., 533 f .2C. at 1344. Deiendants have iailed +-o and cannc+- ai,vance any cornpelling state j-nte=es', se=.,red by the protect.ion of incumceDts. The state interest, served, by this criter:.on is desc:ibed by d,ef endants ' w:.tnes s Robert J . Austin : Nlzguist, "llaint,aining exist,ing Cis--ricts does help to provide legislative contj-nuity. It means that eveta, ten 1tears you do not have a hun- Cred new legisla',ols; --hat lzou maiatain the experience and the general n-ix within the J-egislature, and reCistricting does not become a complete turnover."y/ Under the standard,s of Hunter v. Eriekson and i,ee v. this st,ate interest mus'- iall to the ca=amount sta''€ interes-, in a constitu'-ional =edistricting plan. These standarCs were properly apPlied b1' the Seat-,le School Dist. Court which eonsidered d,efendantsr asserti.on that the chal.lengeC statute was supported by a state interes'- in mandating a state-wide poliey of neigrhborhood schools. This stat.e int,erest was carefully scrutlnized by --he Cou,rt and was found not to be compelilng when compared. to ',he interest of local representative bocies and their constj-tuencies in the political process. 533 P.2d at 1346. In so finding, the Court cited Lee v. II$II*, a case in whicb majoritarian political processes were used to frustrate minority part,icipation, in whj.ch the three-judge panel held.: "The . Legislature has aeted to make it more d.ifficulc for racial minorities to achieve qoals that, are in their interest. The statute thus operates to disadvantage a minority, a racial minority, in the political process. There can be no sufficient justification." supporting the necessity of such a course of action. 318 F.Supp. at 710-20. L7/ Austin dep. , F. 42. rt -4 0- The state's interest in a Cons'-i'-ut,ional =ei.istricting pIan a plan which is noi maLapportioned anC wh:,ch does :lot unnecessariJ-y dilute mincrj-ty voting st=ength is '-he paranount consti'-utional anC State interest to whlch defend,an+-s t criteri.on of pro--ect,ing incr:mbents raust fall. The EIam pla:.ntiffs' plan g=aphicai-Iy proves that this paramcunt interest is achieveC by its single-member Cistricts Crawn without :egari, to protect:.ng incr:mbents. Thus, the criterion of prot,ect,ing j,ncr:mbents is txrconstitutional as a violation of the egual protection clause of the Forst,eenth Amendment. a -11,- i:I. TITE EOUSE AND SE}'iAEE PL{NS AEE UNCONSTITUTION}.i, FOP. DILUTiON OF BI,,ACK VOT=NG STRENGEH. The Pourteenth Amendmen'- proh:.bits 1egi.s1at,:.ve reCis- t,ricting wh:.ch Ciiutes black voting st,reng'-h and denies bLack vo--e=s ihe oppor'-unity tc eLect canCidates of. their choice to the st,ate iegisJ.ature. See Connor v. Finch, ayg., 431 U.S. ai 122 anc cases citeC. Black voting st=eng:h is CiIuteC, minj-mized, and cancelLed out when hearry bl-ack popuJ.at.lon ccncen- trations are u:nnecessarillz fragrmented ani CisperseC, and, when black population coneentrations a=e jo:.neC with hearry white population concentrations t,o deny black voters the opport'::nity to elect cancid,ates o f their chcice . See Connor v . Finch , !!EE, 431 U.S. at 42!-25; Li;p*. v. BoarC of Supe:rrisors of ilinds Countv, I'tississipoi, 554 F.2d 139, 149 (5ttr Cir.) (en banc), eert d.enied , 434 U.S. 958 (L977) ; Robinson v. Cornnrissioners Court, Anderson Counitz, Texas, 505 f .2C 574, 619 (sth Cir. L974); !'locre v. Leflore Cor::rty Board of Election Conun'rs, 502 F.2C 62!, 622-24 (5tfr Ci=. L974)i gliqe v. Basgett,241 f'. SuPP.96, 109 (!{.D. A].a. 1955) . llulti-member d,istrists, aJ-though not unconst,itutional per S€ r are unconstitutional when they sr:bmerge black population ccncent=ations :.n white voting majorities and deny black voters egual access to the political Process. White v. nggS5ter, 4L2 u.s. 735, 93 S.Ct. 2332, 37 L.Ed.2d 314 (1973) . Districting schemes are unconstitutional under the For:rt,eenth Amendnen',- when "conceived or operated as a purposefuL device to further racj.al discriminat,ion." City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55, 66, 100 S.Ct. 1490, 64 L.Ed.2d 47 (1980) (plurality opinion). To prevail, plaintiffs need not prove that a racial purpose was the so1e, dominant, or even the prima=y purpose for adopting or maintaining a d,iscriminatoql scheme, but only that it has been a mot,ivat,ing f actor in the decision. Village of Arlinqton Heiqh',s v. I"letropolitan Housinq -12- @'.,429U.S.232,255-66,97S.Cc.555,50L.Ed.2c450 (197i) . Plaintlffs neeC not prove overt, =acial. s--aEements or admissions of C:sc=rminatlon, alinough such s'-at,ements are proved in this record. "Proof oi discriminatory int,ent must, necessa=i11, re11z on objective factorsr" Personnel Adm'r of Massachusetts v. $s., 442 U. S. 256 , 277 , 99 S. Ct . 2282 , 60 LEC.2d 870 (1979), aaC reguires a "sensitive inguiry int.o such circumscarriial anC direc-. evidence of. iD',-€!lt as may be available, " A=Iinc'ton Eeiqhts, ggpg,, 429 U.S. at 266. . "!he impact of the official- action--whether it, 'bears more heavily on one =ace than a!:otherr' Washington v' Pg!g, 1426 U.S. 229, 242, 95 S.Ct,. 2A4A, 48 L.Ed,.2C 5971--may provi.de an important starting' point. " ltlobile , W., 446 U. S. at 7 0 . " [A] e-,ions having foreseeabl-e and anticipa'-Ed C.ispa.rate impac-. are relevant evid.ence to prove '-he ultimate iae'., forbid,den prupose. " Coh:mbus Bd. of Educ . v. $!gf, 443 U. S . 449 , 464-65 , 99 S.Ct,. 294L, 61 L.Ed-2d 666 (1979). "The legisLative or administrative hist,ory may be highJ-y relevant, especialll' where there are contemporary statements by members of the decision- maling boCy, minutes of its meetings, or reports." ArLinqton Heights, 5gg.t 429 U.S. at 268. "The historical background of --he declsion is one evidentiary source, Pa:iticularly if it reveals a series of official actions taken for invid.ious purl>oses." Id. at 267. The a-bsence of a J,egitimate non=acial, reason for the challenged act,ion is Probative, "particularLy if the factors usualJ.y considered importa;rt by ',-he decisionmaker strongly favor a decision contrary to the one reached. ". IC. Thus, unexplained departures from neutral =edistricting gui,de- lines support aD inference "that the departures are explicable only in terns of a purpose to rnininize the voting strength of a minority group. " Connor v. I$!, !983, 431 U- S - at 425. In this case, the evidence is strong that t'!re chailenged districts were crer',-Ed to mj-ninize anC i,iLute black -4 3- vo+.ing streng-,h. Each of the challengreC Cj-st=ic--s has a severe Cj,sc=j:rnina-,-ory impact, anC denies bLack voters the oppo=tunitl, t,o elec.- cancidates of their choice i,n rnajoritlz black Cistric:s. The legislat,ors who devised --hese Cist,ric-.s haC '.he Census Ca:a upon which the calcuLations contained herein a=e baseC, and therefore must, have foreseen, anC therefore lntendeC, the Cisc=iminatorl, ccnseguences of their actions. in each instance, .-he=e were reaiily avallabIe altenatives which would have equaily satisfied the GeneraL Assembllz's rei.ist=icting c=iieria without Ciluting black voting strength. The conversatioas =eporteC by Del-. Beinz provide C:-reet, evidence that the fragirnentatj.on of majorS.ty black District, 45 in --he L971 PIan was incentronal,, and d.eviseC f or i,he purpose of eliminating the majority black Cistrict,. In the other iistric--s !n which btack voting strength is Ciluted, 'uhe House of DeJ.ega'.-es anC the Senate we=e maoe awa=e of lhis Ciscrimina'-ion before vo',-ing. Nu:ne=ous w!'-nesses in the pr:b1rc hearings caLLed attention to the Clscriminatorlu features of the multi-member c.!stric+-s in the Eouse. Several delegates denouaceC other d.iscrininatory Cistrlcts on ''he floor of the House. Set:. Wilder strongJ.y conderuned the fragrnentation of the black precincts in Norf olk ' and offered an alieraative which met the Senate's guidelines which was rejected. In the challenged single-rnember distriets in the 5ouse, and in the Senate d,istrict, the discriminatory Cistricts violat,ed the neutral gu!.deI:-nes adopted for redistric:ing, including the most significant guideline against dilution of black votes. - Virginia has an extensive past, historl'of Ciscrimination against, black voters, a historl' which includes the discriminatoil' polJ. t,ax anC Cisc=iminatory voter registration reguirement,s . -ry -gEx. P-1) See Deposrtlon of Dr. Stuart Gj,Lman (Elan Plaintiffs ,-.d -l.r---r -44- Fc= these :easons, Congress has dete-dneC that V:.=gin:a nust remain ccvered b1z the Votlng Right,s Aet. At present, although Virginia is 20t b1ack,',-here are only four black delega:es !n the l00-member House of Delegates and one black senato= in the 40-member Senate. Devising multi-member dis'-=icts fcr the urban areas in the Eouse, and. fragrmenting and CiLut,ing black voting st=ength j-n Eouse and Senate d.is'-rict,s have rhe purpose aac e'feci of per?etuating this extensive histcry of disenfran- chisement of Virginia's black citizens and denyi.ng them an ef f ec'-rve voice in state government. Th? House and Senate plans should be enjoineC fcr unconstitut,ional, diLution of black voting strength. -45- rv. TEIS COURT SHOULD ORDEA. A STNGI.E-ME!{BER DISSRICT PLAN INTO ETT'ECT 3OR 3EE 1981 HOUSE ELECTIONS. Secause '-he 19EL llouse plan is unccnst,itu--ional for exeessive malapportiontrlen'- ani, Cilution of bLack voting s--rength, anC because the 198L House elect,ions a=e :-nm.inent, this Cou=t has the dutlz to orcer into effeet a ccurt,-ordered plan for the L981 House elec--lons. Wise v. Lipscomb , 431 U.S. 535, 98 S.C..'-. 2493, 57 L.Ed.2d 411 (1978) . A court-orCered plan of a state legisJ-ature must ord,inaril1, achieve the goal of population eguality with littl-e more than de minimis variation, and must avoid use of mul--i-member iist=ict,s. Connor v. E$!, EE,, 4 31 U . S . at 417-18 r Epggg v. Meier , *IE, 420 U. S. at 26-27 . Plaintj.ffs' Ex. ?-8, the ACLU single-member Cistrict. PIan, meet,s these requirements. The pLan is based on whole precincts, provi-oes de minj:nis populat.ion variances, contains single- member Cistricts throughout, and avoid,s the d.ilution of black voting strength. Thls Cor:rt should order Ex. P-8 lnto effect for the 1981 Eouse elections. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, and, on the basis of the authorities citeC, this Court should, declare the 1981 Eouse plan and Dj,stricts 5 and 6 in the 1981 Senate plan unconstj,- tutionaL, and order a court-ordereC single-meraber d.istrict plan i-nt,o effect for Virginia's i.981 Eouse elec--ions. * --- -a-,1-:J 'J-- -45- Respec'.fu!-J.y sr:bm: tt,eC, WII"LIAM L. ROBINSON FRANK R. PARKER BARBARA Y. PIIILTIPS Lawyersr Corurittee fo; Civ:-L rrulrdlqLOf Counsel: U\UGHLIN },IeDONALD American CiviL Liberties Right,s Under Law Union 733 15th Street, N.W., Southern Regional Office Suite 520 52 Pairlie St., N.W; . Washingrton, D.C. 20005 Room 355 At1anta, Georgia 30303 (404) 523-272t QAz) 628-6700 STEPEET{ W. BRICKER 701- East Sranklin Bldg. Suite 1505 IlichmonC, Vi-rginia 23219 (804) 644-1804 Attorneys for Plaintiffs lt! a??tt-:r--:t+=i a= a==rt:--? : ce--:.::r :5a-- : :a?e :::s i,ay :a:lei,. ios?age ;:=epa:i, a csFy cf -e i==egc-g ?1*.:::jjs ' T=:-al Memorandum of Law, to the fo1J-owing counsel: Rebe-- 3. ?a=:e=sc-, Esq. IcG*e, 'rfcoi,s g 3a:*e - 1n fi ?aee ?:..j I j.i 1_ ?. a'errJ- i7i --.i-. = ???- = l,ct-, i. 3-cks , Isq. Erl-:,--ga & ir-:iii.E:=s D l,1 Eru 1i?= -. V. -9aL -JJJ P.i r.oqari ?7.1 -.1 - i a i': - 'r ? = --E--= 3cw-i 3 - Ccpeia.=C, Isq . 529:- G=eesw:=- Rcae, Sr=:e ].rc "::;,r{ a 3eac:, V-;i.i =. a 234A2 I ;:-= lie-- tree ;---=ee= l- 31p2-i-.: 3 Fi oe.ir. = 11?' :- --=-- W:li:-e= ;. Sciasiq; , J=. , isq. .l-:.rit--:3 3a=1' W-i!, 3sq. i1=ae 3- ?4=as, 3sq. ',{:5e=, €::es, & ?:3kE=-g \A€6 3 Stseec r lI -?r-. ;{as-":EE,c=r i-C- 2.C006 -:-aSecaa ScEec::, 3sE . ' L1Z ]Tc-: l{-kac S*eet Safete, ?3t:*a .3.1i53 ?6,-- i,/!=.-G'i- ?e- , _r-' -tLc:aei Suss;:=a, isq. Seqlci ii- 3:c-ice=, 3sq. E' 'r 1, 3:c.tE= i -Yessh 509 !i. H:* Stsees : -----:t = q-o? Fe- i.1a3'S, '.7r1*?':e, !et'e=,?C-- g Y=c=e lrq '?'? ?'!JY.: ---- E' a.araq; iij --- -; -'')t -l.\Q \c::c:=e ?. 3e'z.lla , J3 . , isq -ie:- ? : e =- j ?:',r; - : a iav ''r:1 -9-L V=-:==r= -'.i --.j r.j r rar''t - th.4tyofJuly,1e81. ril-,an frul-This