Correspondence from Bradford Reynolds to Brock

    J.J. l-tclrul'lrltcu' Ju*tcu

tlivil Rights Division

Ot!tcc ol tltc Attittonl Alt<trncy Gcncrol Wothinlston, D.C. 205J0

? otc 19ul

D:C

$Ir,liBII1s, ffil:i::I, lt.lrI, tlltlu,l
AD:lllts I rillfl], P.ti

Mr. AIex K. Brock
Executive SecretarY-Director
ScaLe Board of Electiono
Su:le IOf RaIer-oh BuiIding
5 Wcst ttargett Street
RaIeigh, North Carolina 276OL

L)e;rr Mr. lJrock:

This ir in referencc Eo chaPter 894 (S.8. No. 87,
l()rtL ) :rrrrl ChapLor B2L ( S.n. No. 3I3, IgBL), 1>rovlding
for L)le reapportiorunent of Uniteci Stateo CongroaBional
tlistrict-s and for the reapportionmont of thc NorLh
C,rt.()l i rr;r SrtrratO. YOUr OUbnriuuiorl , pLlrouant LO SCction 5

oI Llrr: VoLilg t(ighLu Act,- 42 U.S.C. I973c, wao lniti.rlly
receivecl on Jufy 16, I9BI, and was supplemented with
recluesLecl actdltional information on Octobor 6, 19BI.

Under Scct.ion 5, thc St.rte bears t'he burden of
proving the abaence of both diecriminatory PurPose and
Lf r"cr in propocod redietrlcLlng plano. Cily of Rorne

United States, 446 U.S. 156, IB3 n-lB (I9BO ; Beer v.
unffi-S6tes , 425 u.s. r3o, r4o-4L ( 1976) - rn order
ffibsence of a racially diecriminatory effect,
the State of North Carollna muet demonetraLe, Et a minimunt,
that Lhe proposed redistricting plans wiII not lead to
,,a retrogresaion in the lrcaition of raciai mi:rori*-ies
with resp€ct to their effective oxerclee of the electoral
franchise." Beer v. Unltod Statcs, auPra, 425 U.S. at I4I.
wr,i r" rhe srIG-Ie uiroeFno ouTGatlSii:Eo maxlmizo minority
voting etrength, the State must demonatrate that tho plan
" fair-ly ref lecto tho otrongth of [nrinority] voLing powcr
du it. txinto. " Ml1lti-iusl1pl v. Urritr:<l SLatca, 49O [r' Supp'
s6e, 5B r ( D. o. C; I9-7][-tl-tIls-ilfe?--vf-UilE".]_xtot" r,
supra, 425 U.S. at I39 n.II ata-f-A-f, otO-ci-"y-df-ltiEh"ttn ''[ni-tt.r sLatcs, 422 u.s- 358, 362 (1975)'



i'h
af)

2-

l.ie have given caref uI conoicleration to alI of the
forw.rrrled rn.rLerlaIs, as welI as past legislative redppor-
Liorurrent pIans, cornrncnte 'frorn interested citizens, and
other information available to us. With regard t.o the
Senilte plan, wc note at the ouLoet LhaL Lhc propoocrl
rcdi:rt-rict-irrg pI;rn watl clovclol>ed ).,y Lhc Nort-ll Carro Iin.r
Legislature pursuant to a 1968 amendrnent to the Norch
Carolina Constitucion which provides thaL no county shalI
be rllvirlerl in the formatsion of d Senate or Rc1>retrenl-trl-ivc
disLricL. As you knowr orl Novotrtbcr 30, 19BI, the At-Lorlrey
General interpoeed an objection to that amendlnent under
secrion 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. I973c,
because "[o]ur analysie show[ed] that the prohibition against
dividing the 4O covered countiee in the formation of SenaLe
and llouse di stricte predictabiy requires, and tras leci to che
uae of, Iarge multi-rnember dietricts." Our review of the 1968
.rrrrerr<-lrrrerrL;tIuo tlhowod "that. tho ust: of euch muLti-metnber
districtss n{rccsaarily eubrnergca cognizable minori ty poPulacion
concentraLions lnto Iarge white eIectoraLes." Accordingly, w€
h.rve rcvicwr:d the Senatc plan noE only to det.erminc wheLhcr
Llrc 1rr'r-rlrout:rl PI.rrr woultl Lo.rl Lo (r "rt:Lrogrouuion ln Llre 1o:iiLir.rrt
of racial rninorlLiee with reet)€ct to their effective exercise
of Lhe clectoral franchise," Beer, 6upra 425 U'S. at I4I, buL
.\l so t-() nc(: whr:t-lror It falrly-roIlr-rcLo rninoritsy votitr,J trLrcngLlr
du iu ev.iuLu Loddy. S!g!" of MiuBiusit>t>l v. UnlLcd St;rLcu,
490 I... supp. 569 (o.offi

Our urr.rlyolo of the Scn.rLc plarn shows that, in Bcvcr.tl
countics covered by the Votlng Righte Actrg opecial provisions,
such a6 in GuiIford, Wileon, Naeh, Bertie, Edgecomb and Martin,
thcre arc cognlzable conqontratlons of nrlnority persons whose
1>oliLical strength Ie dlluted as a result of the use of rnulLi-
rnernber districte in the propooed redletrlcting plan. In
Cuilford , foE examplo, tho State trau propoocd the'cre.rtion of
a thrce-rnember dletrlct wlth a black population p€rcentage of
only 25 percent. Yot, undor a falrly-drawn eystem of single-
rnernlcer districts ln that arear oo€ auch d-istrict, Iikely would
be majority black and, therefore, would better recognize the
potential of blacke to oloct rcpreoentatlon of thelr choice.

Likewise, in Wileon, Naeh, Edgecomb, Martin and several
of the countles ln proPoaed District I wtrich are covered
jurisrllctionu., the State propoucs Lo cre.rLe nruLLi-mctnber
clietricts in wtrich black voLerc aecnl to have no opfrortunity
Lo elcct candidates of their choice. Ilere again, fairly-
drarwn singIe-mcmlcer distrlcts would likeIy result in Senatc
clisLricts that would not, as Lhe proposed Senate plan does,
rninirnize Llre voting potential of black voEers in those covered
counties.



3-

Understandabry, these ef fect.s of the proposed senatereapporLi-onment plan werl may have been the i.ourt of thesLcrl-e's ardho'rcnco to the I968 constiLutionat amen<Irnent wlrich,
Lrs we have arroady found, necessariry reguires a aubmergingof sizeablo black cornmunlties into Ii rge multi-mcmber di str icLs.In vi<-rw oll t-lrc concorno dlscuuu od .rbovo, howr:vor, r trnr uo.rt)r€t-o cor)crudc, iru r rnuuL und<rr Lh<-r Vouing lrights AcL, LhirL r:he
1>roposcd Senat-e redlscricting pian is free of a raciarrydiscrirninaLory purpoae or erieLc. According ly, on behar f of
r-h<l n u Lorney Gonorar, r rnurrL lnL<: rpose arn ol> jectlon tr> tlru
5r':rr.rl-c 1>l.rrr urrdcf secLion 5 of Llre Vouing ltights AcL of r965as it re lates to the covered counties.

with respect to the congressionar reclietricLing r w€
ir..rve .rrso cornpleted review of that eubrnisoion. ouring thecoursc of our reviewr w€ were preaented with allegations thagthr: clecision Eo cxcrude Durharn county Erom congreoeionar
l) r u t-r tc u No. 2 htrcl tlrc ef fecL of rulnlrnizlng mlnority voLing
st rength and in--addltlon wae motivated by racial consideraiions,
t - e. , the dceire to preclucle frorn that dietrict the votingfnft u()n(:r: oC Lhc froIf LlcaIIy-.rcLive blcrck cornrnunlty in Dtrrhurn.()rt Ll.rc l).ruis of thr: lnformat-ion tlrcrt- has bccn nraclr: avir iIabIeLo us, we remain unabre to concrucle that the state, s decieion
Lo rlr,rw Dist.rlct No. 2 wao whol ry free from di ecriminatory
lrut'lr(l:r(-' tt(rtl r:f focL. Itr Lhlu connocLlon wo f Ind pdrLicu L.ri-ly
LrouI;rcscrnc the "atrangely irrcaular" ohape of CongressionaiDisLricc No. 2 (eee @IniIIion v. Lightfoot, 364 U.S. 339, 34I
( t960 ) ) , wtr ich apPea?ffiooT!nex} to--6xcIudE Durharn CounLy frorn
Llr.rL .lisLrict contrary to the House Congrosslonal Redislriccing
Comrui t Lee 's recomne nda tion.

wr: noLr: aloo thaL, over Lht: p.rut sevor.rl rediuLricLings,
Lhr; bL.rck poPulatlon lxrcontagc 1n Diutrlct 2 hae been decreise,J.Prior t-o the stato's rgzr rcr,iieLrictir,g Dletrlct No. 2 waeapproxirnately 43' percent b1ack. Under the 1971 reapportionmentplan, District 2 decreaeod to 40.2 percent black popuration.
The I9BI eubmittod plan would recluce furthor ttre U1ack population
in the dietrlct to 36.7 porc€nt" T'leia reductlon in brack-population percontoge, occurrlng deaplto a etatewide lncrease inthe brack populatj.on, i s osp€cl ar ry c ruclal ln Dietr ict z,because it occura ln the only dletrlct where black votera coulclhave Lhe potential for erocting a candidate of their choice.



t-- 'E

r
4

We recognize that the State may want to reslrcnd
f urther to Lhc craime that a racialry diecrirninatoi-y
Purpose and ef fect were lnrrcrved in the Legisrature. sdecision to circumvent Durharn. However, because of theLirne constraints impooed on the Attorney Generar bysect ircn 5, and the unanswL.rsr queations sLir r remaining,t c.rnrrt-rL concrude that tho burden irnl>osed on the st.ate bysection 5 has been sustalned. Accoraingry, r must incerlosean ob jection also to the Congressional ieai.strict ing instfaras ic af fect.s bhe covered cor,rntiee. However, ehourd LheuL.rl-.: .lcs ire t.o prr:uonL to uu tnforrrruLion roL.rcing tro L5cconf igur.rt-ion of Dietrict 2 which wourd address the allega-tions rnentioned abover we .stand ready to reconsider thisdetermination aa provided in the section 5 guiderines.

of courge-, aa proyidecl by Section 5 of the Voting
RighLs_ Actr lou have the rlght to Eeek a decraratory jrag-
mcnL frorn the United statoe Dletrict court for the bistri"tof, c<,rurrrl>i.r that Lho congrgtralonirr re<lisLrictlng pran hasneither the purpoge nor wlrr have the effect of-dlnying orabridgirrq the right to voLe on account of race, coror orrrtcrrrl)r-'rillrip in a 1;rnguilgo mlnorlty qroup. uowovor, uncilulrt: ol)Jr.:cLion ru wlLhclr<-rwn or the Judgrnr:nt. frorn thc Districtof corurnbia court ie obtalned, Lhe efiect of the objectionby thr-r n Et-orney Genoral ls to make Lho Congrooslon.rl rcclis-
LrrcL.t-rr'-1 1.rI.rtt lr'lg<rIly unon.Corcoablc in Ltrc covtrrtxl counLIcs.

r f you have any quostione conccrning thle matter,prcose fcer free to carr carl w. Gabor (zo1/tz+-7439),
Director of the section 5 unit of the Voting section. Asarways, w€ stand reacry to assist you in any way po'aibrein y<-rur rcdp[rcrtlorunent effort.

Wm. Bradfoid Roynolde
Aeeletant Attorney Goneral

CIvII Righte Divlolon

Slncerely,