Brief for Appellees

     

 

TONY HARRISON From! 0 JULIUS L. CHAMBERS. PIS! Presto-m

MARY FRANCES DERFNER. VtcoPresudom I STEVE SUITTS. Executive Omelet o JOSEPH HMS. Counsel

 

75 MARIETTA STREET. MW. ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30303 (40‘) 522-8764

 

MEMORANDUM'
TO: North Carolina Reapportionment Working Group
FROM: Steve Suitts
RE: A Review of Our Status ,

DATE: October 5, 1981

 

I thought it would be helpful for each of us to have a common
document which reviews the status of our challenge of the North
Carolina legislative reapportionment before the Justice Department
and Federal District Court.

At the meeting on Wednesday, September 23, in New York at the
offices of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, we reviewed the events to
date and attempted to project a budget and a schedule now that the ‘
complaint in federal court has been filed. At that meeting we
set the following timetable: -

October 9: Suitts circulates a draft of the analysis to be
- submitted to the Justice Department urging disap-
proval of the reapportionment plan under Section 5;

October 16-20: Filing of the letter urging the Justice Depart-
ment to disapprove the reapportionment plan;

October 16: Completion of the review of newspaper clippings
concerning the 1981 reapportionment in the General
Assembly;

October 15 - November 15: Depositions for the federal action;

November 6: Completion of historian's work on the history of
the state constitutional provisions.

Since our meeting, we have begun to redirect some of our
discussions about a computer analysis of the present reapportionment
plans and a new plan which would best avoid the dilution of black
voting strength. Leslie Winner has had discussions with a professor
at the University of Washington and Raymond Wheeler has had further
discussions with folks at Chapel Hill. By last word, no firm arrange-
ments had been made.

 

 

.3

A *N

Also, since September 23, the state of North Carolina has
submitted the 1976 amendments to the state constitution which we
alleged in our federal complaint had not been submitted as required
by law under Section 5. This action by North Carolina requires us
to expedite the historical research on these provisions in the
state constitution. Since securing arrangments for work on historical
research has fallen in Julius' bailiwick, I trust he has read this
sentence carefully.

Although it now appears that the issue will not be raised in
court, I am putting under cover for Napoleon and Leslie copies of
briefs which were filed in the case surrounding Edgefield County,
South Carolina, on the issue of whether a filing under Section 5
which implies a preceding change which has not been filed does in
fact constitute a filing of both changes. While North Carolina has
complied and apparently will not raise this issue, we should remember
that it is within the range of possible for the Justice Department
to declare that the issue has already been submitted.

For Raymond, I am including here a copy of the complaint which
was filed in federal court. I hope he doesn't mind the circuitous
route of Charlotte to Atlanta to Charlotte.

We set no future date for a meeting although when Leslie
returns from Raleigh, I expect that we'll want to have a meeting
in late October.

I think this brings us up to date.