Memorandum from Suitts to North Carolina Reapportionment Group; Correspondence from Bradford Reynolds to McLeod; Proposed House Districts Within Cumberland County Populations

    fo.lY HARRISON, Prrsid.fll

lAnt FRAIICES DEFFNEn. vi.+rr.d.ol a

a JULIUSL.CHAMBERS,PTSIPTcai(bnl

SIEVE SUITTS. Erccutivc Oir.clo? . JOSEPH HA S. Cdrnt l

TO:

FROM:

RE:

,5 TARIETTA STREET, N.W. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 (.oa) 522-E7G4

MEI-IORANDUM

The North Carolina Reapportionment Working Group

Steve Suitts

Meeting of January 9 DATE: December 28, 1981

While there have been some discouraging rumblings from the
other side of the Mason-Dixon, I think that it is quite clear
that Saturday, January 9, is the best time for a meeting, if we
are to have one before late January or February. As an alterna-
tive to using all of Saturdayr w€ could plan to start at an
early hour -: around 8:00 A.M. so that the neeting could end
by nbon, so that people could leave by mid'day. With this
alternative, those of us who are coming from out of town could
arrive very early on Saturday morning or on Friday evening.

I gather that the folks in Charlotte would permit the folks
from out of town to decide if we want to start early or late morn-
ing on the 9th.

Under this cover f'm also placing a copy of the departmentfs
opinion in the South Carolina case where in mid-November it held
that the reapportionment of the South Carolina House violated the
Voting Rights Act.

I look to see you on the gth.

t

S. S.

ENCL: letter of November 18, 1981



r.'&
. i.li. I )t'll:rrirrirlri oi' Jusiiu'

Civil Righrs Csion

0l[icc ol thc Assiilunl Altotttc), Ccncrol llashinpon. D.C. 205J0

t B llov 19Bt

Honorable Daniel R. McLeod
AttorncY Gencral
Wade tlampton Office Building
Post Office Box 11549
Columbiar South Carolina 292LL

Dear l-1r. Mcl,eod:

This is in reference to Act No. R249 (1981), providing
for the reapportiontnent of the Souttr Carolina Eouse of Repre-
sentativ€s. Your submission, pursuant to Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, uras received on Septernber 19,
198I, and supplemented thereafter with additional. materials
forwirrdcd t-o us by Mr. ltobcrt,.I. Shetreen, Chairoan of Lhe
House Judiciary Committee.

We have given careful consideration to aII of the
forwardecl rnaterials, as weII as other information available
to us. The submitted reapportionment includes 124 single-
member districts, the overwhelming majority of r*rictr arc
unobjectionable. We are, however, r:nable at ttris time to
preclear ttre reapportionment plan since there are a limited
number of districts whictr fail to satisfy ttre requirement
under thc Act, tlr;rt thcy bc dr;rwn in a rElnncr that. docs nol:
have a discriminatory effect. -

Under Section 5, ttre State bears ttre burden of groving
the absence of both discrimin-atory purtrrcse and ef fect in ttre
proposed House redistricting plan. City of Rorce v. United
states, 446 U.S. L1.o, 193 n.lg (lggoffiitemes,
ffis. 130, r4o-41 (Lgl6). rn order ffi'roveffi
of a racially discriminatory effect, the State of South
Carolina must demonstrate, dt a minimum, that tl.e proposed
House redistricting plan will not lead to 'a retrogression
in the position of racial minorities with respect to their
effective exercise of the electoral franchise.' Beer v.
United States, supra, 425 u.s. at I4I. Wtrile theEi-e is



.-\

-2

under no obligation to maximize minority voting strength,
ttre State must demonstrate that ttte plan " fairly ref Iects
tr,-" "L""gth 6f- tminorityl voffiiistr . "- Mississippi v. united States, 49O F. Supp. 569, 58I (D.D.c.
ffiTlTiffing n , suprao 425 U.S. at 139
n.rr'and r4r; afr-citvffi.@t 422
u.s. 358, 362 (1975).

On the basis of our revietr of the proposed reaPPor-
tionment plan we find gertain district.s clrawn in a manner
that "would lead to a retrogression in the Srcsition of
racial minorit,ies with respect to their effective exercise
of the electoral franctris€., Beer v. United States, suPra,
425 u.s. at L41,. In this regaE,-we h@ aiiE@ed
ttre submitted plan in comparison to the prior reapportion-
ment plan as drawn in L974. In examining the "old" Plan,
we haver a,s the law requires, viewed the districts "from
ttre perspective of ttre most current -available population
datar' City of Rome v. U4ite{ States, suPrq, 446 U.S. at
186 (i.6fficenffi ffiuaeis, we have
found no-ticeable dilution grjr,agrneniaLion-of- the minority
vote in flEence -_CoEnfy-( Proposed District Nos. 59 , 62, 63),
Bichland County (Pioirosed District Nos. 70, '12, '13, 74, 75,
76,--7-9T, Lee County (Proposed District Nos. 5O, 65, 66),
Allendale-Bamberg-Barnwell Counties (Proposed District Nos.
9Or 9I), and Jasper-Beaufort Counties (Proposed District No.
L22) . '

We are avrare tJrat alternate proposals lrere presented
whictr would have avoided the fragmentation ard dilution of
minority voting strength in each of ttre referenced areas,
and we have receivecl complaints alleging that sudr alt.ernate
proposals brere rejected for racially discriminatory reasollEio
Or:r own review tras revealed that reasonably aviilable alter-
native plans for each of these districts could be drawn which
would avoid the fragmentation and dilution of minority vot.ing
strength and-the St,atB/s submission of fers' no satisfactory
exp Ia ia t i on fo r r -or'. 

{o n-e r nment a-t =ffi-EEje ct-ion
-of such- afterriatives. In these cfrcums-i:ancEsr-and in light
of the existing patterns of racial bloc voting in South
Carolina and the current underrepresentation of blacks in
the South Carolina Flouse of Representatives, we are unable
to conclucle that the State has met its burden of proving
that. the p1an, dt least as it affects the referenced areas,
meets the requirements of the Act.



r

/

3-

Since I am unable to conclucle that Act No. R249 (I98I)
providing for the reaPPortiorunent of the South Carolina
tlouse of Representatives was enacted by the Legislature
without a racially discriminatory PurPose or effect', I must,
on behalf of the Attorney General, interpose an objection to
Act No. R249 pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act
of I965.

of course, as prloA;.dgd by- Section-a-of the Voting
Rights Act, you ruay gcck- a ileclaratory-jurlgllgnE-frotn the
Unltea St.ates Oistiict Court for ttre Distric-t -of Columbia
that the nouse i"ipp"ttionment plan does- noC trave the PurPose
and will not have ttre effect of denying or abridging the
right to vote on account of race or color. In addition, the
Pr5cedures for the Administration of Section 5 (Sec. 51 '44,
46 Fed. Reg. 878) permit you to request the Attorney General
to reconsiaer 9_be-9-bj-e-9-t-l9r-l-. Until the objection is withdrav,n
or unless a-clecfiiatory judgment from the District CourL for
the District of Columbia is obtained, the effect of the Attorney
General's objection is to render the reapSpstionment of the
South Carolina lbuse of Representatives 1eq1a1Iy ttncnllorceatrlc.

If you have any questions concerning this Ietterr
please feel free to call CarI W. Gabel (202'724-7439)
i>irecgor of the Section 5 Unit in our Voting Section.
You can be assured that we are Prepared to assist, you in
any way possible in connection with your reaPPortionment
ef forts. , '

Wm. Bradford Relmo1ds
Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Division

Sincerely,



IONY HAFRTSON. Prctdc^t

U FY FRA^€€S 0ERFNER v€lPrcadcnl a

CHAMBERS, P.sl Prcad.ol

SIEVE SUIITS. €rrculrve Orxlor . JOS€pH HA S Cenel

75 MARIETTA STREET, if.W. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 ({0{) s22-8764

l,trl,toRAN DUl,l

o
JUTIUS L

TO:

FROM:

RE:

The North Carolina Reapportionment

Steve Suitts

I'leeting of January 9

Working Group

DATE; December 28, 1981

While there have been some discouraging rumblings from the
other side of the l"las on- Dixon, I think that it is quite clear
that Saturday, January 9, is the best time for a meeting, if we
are to have one before late January or February. As an alterna-
tive to using all of Saturdayr we could plan to start at an
early hour around 8:00 A.M. so that the meeting could end
by noon, so that people could leave by mid-day. l\Iith this
alternative, those of us who are coming from out of town could
arrive \rery early on Saturday morning or on Friday evening.

I gather that the folks in Charlotte would permit the folks
from out of torrn to decide if we want to start early or late morn-
ing on the gth.

Under this cover f 'm also placin.g a copy of the departmentrs
opinion in the South Carolina case rvhere in mid-November it held
that the rcapportionment of the South Carolina I{ouse violated the
Voting Rights Act.

I look to see you on the 9th.

S.S.

INC I, : letter of )iovcmber I8, l9I1