Correspondence from Chambers to Jones

    .--,-
?.

U.S.Ihpertman,*Q*

CivilRights DvisionI ffi EXHIBIT Y

OfJicc ol thc Arcbrcni Attorncy Gcncml l,oshlnrtoa, D.C. 205 r0

19 APR 1382

Jerris Leonard, Esguire
Jerris Leonard & Associates; P.C.
900 Seventeenth Street, NW

Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Mr. Leonard:

This is in reference to your submission on behalf
of the state of North carolina of the redistricting
plans for the North carolina senate (senate Bill 1) and
the State House of ,Representatives (House Bill 1), and a
i"* changing the cdnaiAate filing period and primary
election-dales for 1982 (House Bilf 3). Your subnission,
pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
ls amended, 42 U.S.C. I9?3c, was received on February
23, 1982, and was supplemented with requested additional
iniormation received 6n April 6, 1981. As requested, lre
have given your sub.missioir expedited consideration.

AttheoutsetrwebelieveitisapProPriate-to
review recent section 5 objections interposed by_lhe
Attorney General to voting changes. in North Caro1ina,
inasmuclr as the bases for those objections provide a
relevant context for our review of the submitted Senate
and House redistricting plans. As you knowr oD November
30, 1981r Btl objection-wls interposed to a 1957 amendment
to the North caiolina constitution that prohibited !h"
state from dividing counties during redistricting of the
House and Senate. Our analysis of that amendment showed
that adherenc" to the prohi[ition necessarily- required
the use of large multi--member districts, which in turn
h;e ine preaiclable ef fect of submerging the .votiltg
strength of cognizable concentrations of black citizens
throughout the State.



2-

On December 7, 1981, objections were interposed to
the Seriate reapportionment plan and to the Congressional
redistricting plan. With respect to the Senate plan,
our analysis showed that the Staters reliance on the
constitutional prohibition against dividing counties
had resulted in a submergence of black voting strength
in several covered areas of the State. Subsequentlyr oll
January 20, 1982r dD objection was interposed to the
House plan because it, too, would have resulted in a
submergence of black voting strength. Both the Senate
and House plans had employed large rnulti-member districtsr
a forseeable ionsequence of the State I s adherence during
redistricting .to the 1967 constitutional amendment.

Following these objections to the L967 constitutional
amendment, and to the earlier reapportionment plansr the
State of North Carolina formulated the neu, redistricting
plans under submission here. fn contrast to the earlier
obiectea-to pIans, the plans developed in 1982 by !h"
State divide numerous counties. Consequently, a simple
comparison of the racial statistics in the 'old' and the
newly-proposed plans does little to shed light on whether
the iubmitted plans "fairly reflect the strength of black
voting power as it exists." State of MississiPPi v. .Unitg0
state6r 490 F. suPP. at 581.

The submitted plans are a substantial improve-
ment over the objected-to plans because, in several
covered areas, the State has endeavored to create dis-
tricts in which black voters are now given a reasonable
opportunity to elect candidates of their choice where
tiiy hacl n6ne before. The Senate and House plans in
Cuiiford County create such districts, for example.
On the other hlnd, each plan continues to have a single
objectionable feature under Section 5r as those plans
afiect some of the covered counties. We briefl'y describe
below the bases for these objections.

i

i



I

I,'

I

i

3-

.With respect to the submitted Senate plan, t!"
State proposes to create a najoTity black district in
the noitnlast area. This district, No. 2t contains ?
ii.Zt black population. Our analysis shows that during
the Senate nedistricting Comnittee t s consideration of
this district it was widely recognized that at least a

Sit black population was necessary in this district if
black voters were to have a reasonable chance -of electing
a candidate of their choice and the record before us
contains substantial evidence that such a conPactT IloD-

;;;;y,";"dered district easily could be drawn in this
ir""'. Notwithstanding these facts, however, the State
eni"iea a plan whichr BS noted above, provides for only
a 51.?t black population Percentage'

RespectingtheHousepl?n,theStateProposesto
create on"- 

"ingle-rnember 
district in Cumberland County,

with the remaiider of the countyrs population to elect 4

;;;;";;;tiii"es in a multi-member districr. while rhe

"i'.,gi"-rember 
district appears to be overwhelmingly

Uiu"f in its aciuaf votiir-g population (due to the inclusion
oi-iiaaitionaily non-voting- population from Fort Bragg),
the Statets plair leaves nearly three-fourths of
ii,"it""ille-r s black community with their voting strength

"16*"ig"a 
in in" white majoriEy multi-member district.

Several reasonable alternltivei to the State I s proposal are
.""iiable, incirairrg the drawing 9! -a second single-member
district wherein blick voters w5u1d have a fair opportunity
;;;-;i-i minimum, strongly inftuencing the outcome of the
election in that district.

In light Of the above, I am unable to conclude, as I
must under S""tion 5 of the Voting Rights Act, that the
Senate and ff"u""-t"ippottionment plans are free of a racially
discriminatory-puip"'"L ind ef fect. Accordinglyr.oll behalf of
the Attorney L"ierifr I must interpose an objection to both
pIans.



Finally,theStatehasproposedtochangethg.
candidale fifiirg-period and to-change the date on which

;;I;;;t-.r""tioi"'wiII be held. rhose changes are-contin-
oent upon the iiate obtaining preclearance of the Senate
i".i-n"i;" i"ai"tricting plansr dD event which has not
;;r t;i;n pr""".- accoiainglyr it_is our view that these
changes are not ripe for _section 5 review. seel €.$.7
2B-a:F.R. 5I.t. wL stand ready to. examlne these changes

;; "n-e*peaitei 
basis together-with any modifications to

the Senate .na-Hor=e plais that the State may wish to
nake. .

ofcourserEsprovidedbySection5oftheVoting
Rights Act, yor-fr"r" ihe right to.seel.< a declaratory
judgment from-ine United Stites District Court for the
District ot coiumbia that these voting changes _have
neirher rhe p;;;;;;-.;;-rirr have rhe effect of denvine
or abridging ah; right to vote on account of race, color,
or membership-in " ianguage ninority grgup' In addition'
the procedur""-ioi the-Ad;inistration- of Section 5 ( 28

C.F.R. 51.21tIf-ina-i"t, 51'23' and 51'24) permit.you to
request the Atiorney General to reconsider the objection'
However, untii-tnii-|Ujection is withdrawn or the judgment

from the pistiilt-oi-6olumbia court is obtained' the
effect of the ;;i";Ilon by the Attorney General is to
i-"i"-tr,"-r"ai=Iii;ii;g plins for the senate and state
House of n"pr"."niiii""i legally unenforceabLe in the
covered .counties.

Ifyouhaveanyquestionsconcerningthis.letter,
pleasefeelfreetocallMr.J.GeraldHebert,theattorney
i;=;;; i;ii";-iI"iion-iioz-tza-52e2) who is assisned to
this matter.

S incerelY,

Wm.
As s i stant

CiviI
AttorneY General

Rights Division

i

I
I

,I

ln
-T€yTi