Attorney Notes on Outline: Documents

    Lesa,@, H. NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

99 Hudson Street, New York, N.Y. 10013o (212) 219-1900

CO}ITACT: FREDA EISENBERG,/BRAD RODNEY
2L2/736-s050

** UEDrA ADV:ISORY **

I{EDIA BRIEFII,IG WILI, FOLIOW ST'PREUE COURTIS EEARI}IG OF

TEORNBTIRG v. GTNGLES,

FIRS:T HTGE COURT CASE TO I}ITERPRET 1982 VOTING RIGETS ACT

E\IEMT: Julius LeVonne Chambers, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational Fund, Inc.r dDd Lani Guinier, LDF assistant counsel
and counsel of record for the defense in Thornburq v._ G;lngles,will brief the media on the case and their argument.

WIIEN: Wednesday, December 4t 1985
Immediately following the hearing, 11:05 am

WEERE: Portico of the united states supreme court buirding.

BACKGROUND: ThgsnbuEst v.r Giggles is the first case to interpret amendments
made in 1982 to the Voting Rights Act, which prohibit practices
that afford minorities "1ess opportunity than other members ofthe electorate to participate in the polit.ical process and toelect representatives of their choice."

At issue is whether five at-1arge election districts in
North Carolina are unlawful because they effectively discriminate
against black voters. Should the Supreme Court upholcl
North Carolina's three-judge District Court ruling that thedistricts are dj-scriminatory, its decision will pave the eray for
numerous challenges to at-large elect,ions throughout the country.

12025 ^ NAACPAD

Contributions are deductible Jor U.S. income tar purposes

The NAACP LEGAL OEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND is not part of the National Association lor the Advancement ol Colored People although it
was founded by it and shares its comm itment to equal rights. LDF has had 1or over 25 years a separate Board, prog ram, stafr, otiice and budget.



FROM: FREDA efSgIrIBEnC/BRAD RODNEY
PUBLIC INTERE T PUBLIC REIATIONS
225 West 34th Street,, Suite 1500
tilew York; tihw York L0001
2L2n35-s0s0

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

SIIPRETIE COT,RIT EEARS TERI{BIIRG V. GIIIGISS,

FIR,ST EIffi COURT CESE TO I}IItsRPRET 1982 \,o.rTIG RIGETS ACT

Julius Cbafrers. Director{ounael of IBACP f.€qal Defsrse Furd Arques for

Itrth Carolina B1ack Voters Aoainst Discrininatory- At-tarqe ElestioB Districts

WASHIhIGION, D.C., December 4, 1985 -- The Supreme Court today heard oral argument

in Thornburg 5g. Ginq1es, the first major voting rights casie interpreting amendments

made in 1982 to the Voting Rights Act. The Courtfs decision will affect how the 1982

Act is applied in lower court cases ruling on a variety of election practices around

the country.

In Thornburq 51. Gingles, North Carolina is appealing the ruling of a federal

three-judge panel that held the staters 1982 redistricting plan discriminated against

blacks in seven districts. The State has been joined by the Reagan Administration in

a brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. AppeIlees, black voters in North

Carolina, are represented by the IBACP tegal Defense and Educational E'und, Inc. (tDF).

Aurici for the appellees include the Republican Party of lbrth Carolina, the ReSublican

National Committee and Senators Dole (R.-KS) and Grassley (R.-IA), along with the

eight other principal co-sponsors of the 1982 amendments.

- tloRE -
Contributiuns are dedtrctible tor U.S. income tar pl$?oses

The NAACP LEGAL oEFENSE & EDUCATIoNAL FUND is not part o, the National Association tor lhe Advancemsnt ol Colored People although it
was lounded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had lor over 25 years a separate 8oard, program, staft, ofticB and budget.



-2-

The District Court panel ruled the districts, six of which conducted at-Iarge
elections, unlawful because they violated Section 2 of the J982 Voting Rights Act.

Section 2 prohibits practices that afford minorities nless opportunity than other
members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect
representatives of their choice.!

I{orth Carolina maintains that blacks have some electoral opportunity in five of
the at-large districts, citing as conclusive evidence their L982 post-lawsuit election

results where five of 30 seats vrere won by blacks. fhe State is urging the high court

to rule that such a recent electoral success automatically precludes the possibility
of a Voting Rights Act violation.

fn defense of the District Courtrs findirg, Julius Levonne Chambers, director-
counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, argued t,hat the Statets

approach "disregards the ttot,ality of circumstances testr that must be used when

determining whether or not blacks are able to participate equally in the political
process. The test requires the courts to consider a variety of factors, not just one

election. The 1982 election results in the challenged districts are clearly an

aberration. North Carolj.nats three-judge District Court found that, in several
instancesr blacks were able to win only because of support by whites who hoped to
effect the outcome of this litigation, initiated 14 months earlier."

Mr. Chambers cited several circumstances which put black voters at, a distinct
disadvantage in elections held within the five majority-white districts, reducing

their opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

-- MORE -



-3-

These circumstances include:

Polarized Voting: The proportion of white voters who ever votd for blacks

was extremely Iow, and those who did ranked them last or next, to last on

their at-large ballots. This is due in part to the comnon practice of white

candidates in l{orth Carolina of urging whites to vote on racial lines. In

addition, black candidates receiving the largest number of black votes

ordinarily received the smallest number of white votes;

Icy ltinority Registration Rates: The Iingering effects of a century of

virulent official hostility t,oward blacks who sought to register have

resulted in substantially lower registration figures for blacks than'whites;

and

* Poverty and tow Education Leve1s Among Blacks: These factors harrn the

ability of candidates fielded by the black conmunity to wage a successful

carpaign. AD at-large campaign must reach eight times as many voters as one

waged in a single-member district, and are more than twice as expensive.

Despite these conditions, a few black candidates have been elected to North

Carolinats State Legislature for the districts in question. The State hopes the Court

will read those token results as proof of equal opportunity. The appellees believe

that, even with the 1982 results, the numbers are not dispositive.

Part of the NAACP Legal Defense Fundrs argument here is the issue of'single-
shootingr" a voting practice where minority voters in an at-Iarge election forfeit
irost of the ballots on their slate in order to weight their vote for one candidate.

-- l,lORE -



-4-

Although single-shooting has been effective in allowing minorities a chance of
electing one candidate of their choice, LDF contends Lhat it. forces them to abnegate

their right to cast a corq>lete ballot and thus provides blacks with less electoral
opportunity than whites who can cast a fuI1 slate ilrd, even with single-shoot,ing by

blacks, choose all the winning candidates, including which black wins.

Lani Guinier, an assistant counsel with the I{AACP tegal Defense Fund and counsel

of record for the appellees, said their position on single-shot voting "is on the

cutting edge of 1aw. Previously, courts favored laws allowing blacks to single-shoot

because it gave them a chance of electoral successr and that was bet,ter than none.

Eere wetre challenging laws and practices that, though they may be partially
successful, do not provide full and equal opportunity."

"rf the Court decide.s in favor of the Staterr Ms. Guinier added, "violations of
the Voting Rights Act will be easily avoidable. Whites could throw their support to

blacks for a single election t ot field black candidates t,hat support the positions of
the white corununity. Such tactics could create situations that, from the vierpoint, of
North Carolina and the Justice Department, would preclude findings of a Section 2

violation. But any appearance of equal electoral opportunity would be just that,
an appearance on1y, an illusion.o

fn addition to lrls. Guinier and Mr. Chambers, attorneys on the case include
Eric Schnapper at LDF, and teslie J. Winner, with the t{orth Carolina firm of Ferguson,

Watt, Wallas a Adkins, P.A.

The NAACP Lega1 Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is the primary IegaI arm of
the civil rights movement. Although founded by the National Association for the

Advancement of Colored People, tDF has had for over 25 years a separate Board,

program, staff, office and budget.

L2025 ^ NAACP\IR



CONTACTs Freda_Eisenberg/Arad Rodney
(2L2) 735-s0s0

TEORIIBTIRG v. GINGLES

Fact Sheet

Black Representation in the North carorina r.egisrature
* North Carolina has long had the smallest percentage of blacks in its statelegislature oj any. state with a substantiJt black -population, according toa report by the Joint center for political sLudies.
* Though blacks are 22.4 percent of North Carolinats population, they havenever held more.than 4 percent of the seats-iir either hodse ofNorth Carol-inars legis Iature.
* The first black state senaLor in North Carolina was not elected until tg74.
* The first black was not elected to North Carolinars House ofRepresentatives until 19G8.

North Carolina Election Districts
* North Carolina makes greater usestates: under the LgBZ plan

representatives and 30 of the 50
multi-member distr icts.

of at-1arge elections than most otherbeing challenged, 98 of the I20state senators were to be chosen from

* 40 of North Carolina's 100 counties, including the districts underconsideration in Thorrlburg g* Ginqles, are coverLd by Section 5 of thevotin_g Rights Act which requifei-tnat proposed chinges in electionprocedures be approved by the Justice Oepar-tme-nt.

History of Thornburq v. Ginqles
* rn 1981 North Carolina submitted its redistricting plan to the AttorneyGeneral, who made oPjections, concluding that "thL-use of large multilmember (?t-1a_rge) distr icts ef f ecLively submerges co-gnizableconcentrations of the black population into a ma3ority white eIeCtorate."
* rn L982 a three-judge panel of the Federal District Court for East,ernNorth Carolina unanimously ruled that six of the multi-member districtsand one single-member diltrict effectively discriminated against thestaters black population.
* North Carolin_a'-supported by the current Justice Department, is nowchallenging, before the Supreme Court, the correctnesi of the bistrictCourt ruling with respect to five of the multi-member districts.