Attorney Notes, Memorandum from Moulton to Guinier
Working File
January 1, 1984

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Plaintiffs' Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 1983. b75ec989-db92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/4b25e9f6-b3e7-4cbc-9912-d37c4baed3b8/plaintiffs-proposed-findings-of-fact-and-conclusions-of-law. Accessed May 22, 2025.
Copied!
IN TTIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FoR rnE EASTERN B*lT;$rSloiloRrH CARoLTNA RALPH GINGLES, et dI., Plaintiffs, v. RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, €t aI., No. 81-803-Civ-5 Defendants. PLAINTIFFS I PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF I,AW Tab1e of Contents I. Findings of Fact A. B. c. D. E. Introduction ( tttt f -14 ) History of Discrimination in Registration and Voting (tttl I5-29) Effects of Discrimination in Such Areas as Education, Employment and Health (tttf 30-55) Lingering Effects of Past Discrirnination in Registration and Voting (tttt 56-79) Racially Polarized Voting - General Findings ( tttt 80-102 ) -- House District #8 (tttt f 03-108) -- Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties ( ttT L09-L221 -- Forsyth County (ttlt 123-131) -- Durham County (Ttl 133-140) -- Wake County (tttt I4f -I52) The Extent of Election of Black Citizens to PubIic Office -- House District #8 (tl L62) . -- trlecklenburg County (tttt 163-167) -- Forsyth County (tttt 158-173) -- Durham County (ttlt 174-178) -- Wake County (tftt 179-180) Senate District #2 (tt 181) Page 25 33 35 38 42 44 46 49 49 5I 53 55 56 I I 5 l0 18 El \ Table of Contents (contrd) Use of Racial Appeals (tttt f82-I94) l,tajority Vote Requirement and Unusually Large Districts -- Anti-Single Shot and Numbered Seats(tt les ) -- Majority Vote Requirement ( tt?fr I96_2r s ) -- UnusualIy Large Election Districts ( ttT 2L6-2L8 I. Multi-member Districts Decrease Minority Participation (tttt 2L9-2331 J. Responsiveness (tttt 233-24L'l K. The Po1icy for the Use of Multimember Districts Is Tenuous (lttt 242-274) L. Facts Concerning Senate District #2 ( tttt 27s-313 ) II. Conclusions of Law A. Jurisdictional and Procedural (tttt 1-5) B. Statutory Claims (ttfl 6-15) C. Constitutional Claims (tttt 15-21) D. Rel ief ( tttf 22-251 III. Appendix Plaintiffs' Exhibits 56-70A Guide to Abbreviations: G. H. Paqe 57 62 62 62 66 67 72 74 84 97 97 98 r02 103 Plaintiffs use the following abbreviations in their cita- tions to the record: T. Tria1 Transcript Dep. Deposition Stip. Stipulation ( set out in Pre-Tria1 Order) Pl. Ex. Plaintiffsr Exhibit D.Ex. or Def. Ex. Defendantsr Exhibit Stip. Ex. Exhibit to Stipulations ( filed with Pre-TriaI Order) Pugh Ex. Exhibit of Pugh Plaintiff-Intervenors App. Appendix l1 r. FINDTNGS OF FACT A. Introduction 1. The North carolina Generar Assembly ( "the General Assembly" ) consists of the ltouse of Representatives ( rthe House") which has 120 members and the senate which has 50 members. (Answer to X 24 of Complaint) 2- rn 1981, the General Assembly enacted a new appor- tionments of its House and Senate representative districts in light of the 1980 census. (Answer to paragraph 37 of complaint) These apportionments were enacted in accordance with Article II S 3(3) and 55(3) of the North Carolina Constitution which prohibits the division of counties in the formation of House and senate districts. (Answer to complaint paragraphs 26, 27, 29, 30; paragraph 18 of Answer) 3- The apportionment of the House, chapter 900 of the session Laws of 1981, had a range of population deviation of 23.5t and had no districts which were majority black in population. (stip. 12i stip. Ex. ci This apportionment was substantially the same as the r97r apportionment. (Lilley Dep. at 12-13). 4. The apportionment of the senate, chapter 921 of the session Laws of 1981, had a range of population deviation of 22.7* and had no districts which were majority black in population (stip. 13; stip. Ex. F). This apportionment was identical to the 1971 apportionment of the senate. (Rauch O Dep. ar 76) 5. on september L6, 198r, this action was fired alreging, I inter a1ia, that the apportionments of the Hous.e of Represen- tatives and of the senate violated the one person, one vote reguirement of the egual protection clause, unconstitutionally and i11egally diluted the voting strength of brack citizens, and that Article rr, ss 3(3) and 5(3) of the North carolina constitution were being enforced without having been pre- cleared pursuant to S 5 of the Voting Rights Act ( "S5" ). (Stip. 14 ) 5. fn response to the filing of the Complaint in this action, defendants submitted Artiele II, 53(3) and S 5(3) to the Attorney General of the united states for preclearance. (Answer to paragraphs 88, 89 of Supplement t,o Complaint; st,iP. 15 ) 7. In October, 1981, the General Assembly reconvened to enact new apportionments of the House and senate. chapter 1130 of the session Laws of 1981 was enacted reapportioning the House, but the senate did not adopt a new apportionment. The range of popuration deviation of the House apportionment was 15.5t. Chapter 1130 was enacted in accordance with Article rr, S 3(3) of the North carorina constitution. (stips. 18, 19; Stip. Exhibit K; Answer to paragraph 90 of Supplement to Complaint) 8. By letter of November 30, 1981, the United States Attorney General interposed objection pursuant to S 5 of the Voting Rights Act to Article II, S 3(3) and S 5(3) of the 2 North Carolina Constitution stating, 'Our analysis shows that the prohibition against dividing the 40 covered counties in the formation of Senate and House districts predictably requires, and has led to the use of, large muLti-member districts. Our analysis shows further that the use of such rnulti-member dis- tricts neeessarily submerges cognizable ninority population concentrations into larger white electorates.r (Stip. 22i Stip. E M). 9. Subsequently the United States Attorney General interposed objections to Chapter 821 (the Senate aPportionment) and Chapter 1130 (the House apportionment). (Stips. 23, 25i Stip. Ex. N, O). 10. The General Assembly reconvened in February, 1982, and in April, 1982 to reapportion the House and Senate. (Stip. 32, 371 The apportionments enacted in these sessions divide both 55 covered and non-covered counties. See Chapters 4 and 5 of the Session taws of the First Extra Session (Stip. Ex. R, U); Chapters 1 and 2 of the Session Laws of the Second Extra Session (Stip. Ex. Zt CC). Counties were divided only for the purposes of lowering population deviation or of obtaining S5 preclearance. (Stip. 51 ) No districts which are majority black in population or in voter registration were formed in counties not covered by 55 of the Voting Rights Act. (Grofman, T. 28r31) 1 1. The apportionments the following districts with indicated (Stip. 57): of the House & Senate include population and registration as 3 Senate (SD) or House District (tID) HD *36 (Mecklenburg) HD *39 (part of Forsyth) HD *23 (Durham) HD "21 (wake) HD *8 (Wilson-Edgecombe- Nash ) SD "22 (Mecklenburg- Cabarras District Mecklenburg Co. (House) Forsyth Co. Durham Co. hlake Co. Wi I son-Edgecombe-Wash. Mecklenburg (Senate) t of Population that is Black 26.5 25.1 36. 3 21 .8 39. s 24.3 t of Registered Voters that is Black as of 10/4/82 18.0 20.8 28.6 15. 1 29.5 15. 8 12. It is possible to create single member districts wholely within each of these districts which are majority black in population and whieh are contiguous, reasonably compaet and have a population deviation of less than plus or minus 5t as follows: t Population that iq Black District *1 66.1 (PI. Ex.4) District *2 71.2(PI. Ex.4) 70.0 (PI. Ex.5)'10.9 (P1. Ex.6 substitute) 57.0 (PI. Ex.7) 62.7 (Pl. Ex.8) 70.8 (Pl. Ex.9 13. Senate District *2 currently has a population which is 55.1t black but voter registration whichr ds of October 4, 1982, tas only 46.2$ black. (Stip. *57) It is possible to draw a district in roughly the same area, using townships, which is contiguous, reasonably compactr has a population deviation of -.8t, and has a black population of 50.7t. (Pl. 8x.10). 14. Named plaintiffs in this action and the plaintiff- intervenors are adult residents of North Carolina and are registered voters. (Stips. 5, 5) They represent the class of all black residents of North Carolina who are registered to vote. B. Eistory of Discrimination in Registration 15. North Carolina has a long history of discrimination against black citizens. (T. 308) In North Carolina black citizens gained the right to vote after the civil yrar, and together -with white Republicans, controlled the Iegislature from 1868-1875. fn 1875, Democrats, who were whiter E€- gained control of the government and took steps to reduce black political participation. Nevertheless, black males voted and were elected to office during the remainder of the Nineteenth Century. (T. 230) 15. In 1890, the populists forned a coalition called the Fusionists, with black and white Republicans. The Fusionists. gained control of the legislature in 1894 and made changes to make it easier for blacks to hold local office and to register. In addition, the Fusionist Legislature enacted legislation favorable to economically disadvantaged blacks and whites. (T. 231 ) 17. fn response, the Democrats determined to break up the coalition by disfranchising black voters. The tactic used was to persuade white voters that North Carolina was under Negro rule. Using an overtly racist 'White Supremacy' pro- paganda campaign (e.9. PI. Ex. 22, 231 , violent intimi- dation, and corruption in votirg, the Democrats regained control of the legislature in 1898. The 1898 legislature adopted constitutional amendments providing for a pol1 tax, 5 a literacy test for voting, and a grandfather clause for the literacy test designed to Iimit its disfranchising effects to blacks. (T. 2321 233t 237) 18. By using the same tactics of overt racist propoganda (e.9. PI. Ex. 241 , violent intimidation, and corruption in ballot counting, the Democrats were successful in having these disfranchising amendments adopted by the voters in 1900. Thereafter black voter registration and participation in the political process virtually disappeared until 1930. (T. 239, 242) 19. The literacy requirement for voting continued to be used in North Carolina until at least 1970. In 1961, Bazemore v. Bertie County Board of Elections, 254 N.C. 398 (1951)' the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down the practice of requiring registrants to write the North Carolina Constitution from dictation but upheld the requirement of ability to read and write the North Carolina Constitution to be administered to all applicants of uncertain ability. (Stip. 85) Phyllis Lynch testified that she was required to copy a portion of the North Carolina Constitution when she registered to vote in Mecklenburg County in 1968. (T. 429 ) The earliest instructions that the State Board of Elections could locate instructing the county boards to stop using the literacy test were dated December 28, 1970 (in which the instruction was buried in a set of instruc- tions about registration of 18-20 year olds)(D. Ex. 41), and one written in L972 which refers to a iluly 30, 1970 memo as well as the December 28r 1970 memo. (D. Ex. 42; Spearman T. 578) 6 Although Representative Allen Adams testified for the State that the fact that Wake County was released from S 5 coverage in 1965 meant that it had not used a literacy test to dis- criminate, that testimony was limited to Wake County, and Rep. Adams did not know what time period the determination covered. (T. 1361- 2, 1364) 20. Between 1930 and 1948 the percentage of blacks who rrere able to register to vote under the literacy test and poII tax increased from 0t to 15t but no black was elected to public office. (T. 242) In 1960 only 39.It of the black voting age population registered to vote, compared to 92.It of whites. (P1. Ex. 38) By 1971 , 44.4t of blacks rrere regis- tered compared to 60.6t of whites. (P1. Ex. 38) This disparity in registration continues today. See PI. 70, infra. 21. Additional evidence of the continued disfranchising effect of the literacy test and the resulting low level of participation of black citizens in the political process is the overtly segregationist or tokenist stands taken by many politicians beginning 1950, when the civil rights movement was just beginning (T. 244). Dr. Harry Watson testified to this result through 1972 when he stopped his investigation. (T. 276-7i 324). 22. Prominent North Carolina politicians beginning with Willis Smith, who successfully ran for the United gtates Senate in 1950, (T.245-245t Pl. Ex. 25), and including Alton Lennon and Kerr Scott in the race for the United States Senate in 7- 1954 (T. 247-8, PI. Ex.26li I. Beverly Lake and Terry Sanford in the election for Governor in 1950 (T. 255-7, Pl. Ex.27li Lake, Dan Moore, and Richardson Preyer in the race for Governor in 1954 (T. 259-60, PI. Ex. 29, 3O); Robert Scott and ilim Gardner in the election for Governor in 1968 (T. 270-271i Pl. Ex. 33, 34) i and Jesse Helms in his successful bid for the United States Senate in L972 (T. 274-6, Pl. Ex. 37'), each took either overtly segregationist stands, advocated token integration to maintain the statug guor or expressed opposition to civil rights 1aws. These segregationist positions were neeessary because the participation of black citizens in the electoral process was so low that black voters could not injure the candidates who took these positions, and the racial prejudice of white voters was such that it was necessary for politicans to oPPose integration in order to get elected. (T. 256-7, 26Lt 27lt 276-71 23. fn addition to the use of the literacy test and poII tax to disfranchise black citizens, the State of North Carolina adopted other election mechanisms that hindered the ability of black citizens to elect representatives of their choice. North Carolina enacted an anti-single shot voting law in 1955 which was enforced in specified municipalities and counties until it was declared unconstitutional in 1972 in Dunston v. Scott, 336 F. Supp. zOG (EDNC ]1972). (Stip. 91, Answer to Inter- rogatory *20) 24. fn addition, concurrently with the adoption of the multi-member district plan for apportioning the General 8- Assembly in L967, the General Assembly adopted a system of numbered seats for specified legislative districts. (T. 302t 304-5) Nunbered seats were used in House or Senate districts including, at various times, Mecklenburg Forsyth, Durham, Wilson, Edgecombe, Nash, Bertie, Hertford, Northampton, Halifax, Martin, Washington, Chowan and Gates Counties. (Answer to Interrogatory 2ll Numbered seats were used for election to the legislature until they were declared unconsti- tutional in 1972 in Dunston v. Scott, -W.. (Stip. *92't 25. Numbered seats prevent single shot voting. (Stip. 92) This was the avowed purpose for adopting them (T. 302), and they were adopted over the expressed objection of black leaders that numbered seats were aimed at disfranchising the Negro and diluting the Negro vote. (T. 303-4) 26. fn addition to statewide laws which limited the ability of black citizens to register and use their vote effectively, the time and place for registering to vote in the various counties was limited to the central Board of Election office and to hormal working hours. These restrictions, which lasted until the late 1970rs, had the effect of preventing black citizens from registering to vote because of lack of transportation to the central office and because black people who work during normal office hours could not leave work to register to vote. (T. 555, 704-707 | 745) 27. Individual towns and counties also took official actions which were discriminatory in effect and purpose. For example, the first black Alderman in the City of Wilson was elected in 1953 from a single-member district which was 50t black in voter registration. He was re-elected in 1955 and was 9 named Chairman of the Budget Committee. (T. 697-8) Between 1955 and 1957 the City Council changed its method of election to an at-Iarge election system. The result tras that, running at large, the black Alderman was defeated in 1957. There was no black member of the Wilson City Council thereafter until 1975. (T. 699 ) 28. The Court finds that the City of Wilsonrs changing its method of electing its City Council had the effect of diluting minority voting strength and preventing the election of black councilmen, and was adopted for that Purpose. 29. Thus, North'Carolina has a history of official dis- crimination which directly affected the ability of black citizens to register, voter and participate in the political system. This official policy of diserimination began with the disfranchising amendments of 1900 and lasted until pre- vented by federal law in the early 1970rs. (T. 308) Effects of Discrimination in Such C. Areas as Education, Emplovment and Health 30. North Carolina has a history of official action designed to create and maintain segregation in all areas of life. Offieial segregation was almost total at the end of the 19th Century and even Fusion legislature took no action to end official segregation. (T. 232) 31. Between 1900 and 1950 segregation continued to be almost total. (T. 240t 243') Statutes prevented marriage be: tween people of different races and provided for segregation of fraternal orders and societies; seating and waiting rooms 10 for railroads and all other common carriers; cemeteries; prisons, jails, and juvenile detention eenters; institutions for the blind, deaf and mentally i11; public and employee toilets; schools and school districts; orphanagest eolleges; and library reading rooms. (P1. Ex. 42) With the exception of the statutes relating to schools and colleges, most of these statutes were not repealed until after 1965, and many as late as 1973. (p1. Ex. 421 32. Public schools in North Carolina were officially segregated by race until Brown v. Board was decided in 1954. Although in 1900 Governor Aycock had promised to improve the schools as part of a literacy test campaign, the increased funding went only to schools for white students, thus increas- ing the already present disparity in education available to white and black students. (T. 24L) The schools were not only separate but they were also unequal. 33. When Brown v. Board was decided. in 1954, Governor Umstead and all other major politicians opposed the decision and vowed to limit its effect in North Carolina. (T. 250) 34.' The Staters response to Brown v. Board was to decen- tralize the school system to make court challenges more difficult (T. 251)i to threaten black parents that schools would be closed if they demanded integration (T. 253); and to require black students individually to apply for admission to white schools. (T. 2541 35. The result was that by 1960 only 226 black students attended formerly all white schools in the whole state (T.253), 11 and by the end of the 1960 | s virtually all schools remained almost all white or all black (T. 267). school systems vrere not integrated until they were required to be by federal court order in the earry 1970rs following the united states supreme courtrs decision in swann v. tr{eckrenburg county Board of Education in 1971. (T. 267, GlI, 701) 36. North Carolina has a high degree of residential segre- gation which was promoted by official acts. Between 1930 and 1950 various cities such as charlotte and Greensboro had official zoning laws or other ordinances limiting where black peopre could reside. The veterans Administration and Federar Housing Administration cooperated by restricting the areas in which they.would make loans based on race. (T. 243) Other official acts such as the relocation of brack residents displaced by urban renewar, the location of public housing, and zoning ordinances perpetuated residential segregation. (T. 265-6t 649, 609-12, 775) 37. Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ended official policies promoting discrimination in residentiar roans, and produced token integration in rarge apartments and develop- ments, the degree of residential segregation remained very high. (T.268) 38. North Carolina also has a private discrimination in employment. 1960rs there was almost no employment by the state government. Employment history of official and In the late 1950rs and early integration, including opportunities for blacks 12 in the textile industry, the staters largest industry, were limited to outside or janitorial jobs. Other major industries such as tobacco and t,rucking limited blacks to employment in the lowest paying positions. (T. 263-4, 703) 39. The State Employment Security Commission cooperated in this employnent discrimination by referring people to prospec- tive jobs on the basis of their race. (T. 265) 40. The effects of this history of discrirnination remain evident throughout North Carolina in the areas of educationt housirg, and employnent as set out in paragraphs 39-55 below. 39. Since almost no sehool systems were integrated until after 1970, almost all black adults educated in North Carolina who are over 30 years old attended inferior segregated schools for all or most of their primary and secondary education, and the first classes of children who attended integrated schools for their whole education are just beginning to reach voting age. 40. In addition, black adults over 25 are substantially more likely than whites to have completed less than 8 years of education (34.5t of blacks compared to 22.0t of whites) and are substantially more likely than whites not to have attended any schooling beyond high school (29.3t of whites compared to 17.3t of blacks) (Stip. 81) 41. Some school districts remain segregated for all Prae- tical purposes. For example, the Durham City Schools are 90t black while the Durham County schools are about 30t black. 13 (T. 647t The Roanoke Rapids School System is almost all white while the Halifax County School System is almost all black. (T. 776t 8441 42. As recently as 1983, the Rocky Mount Board of Education adopted a classroom assignment policy which resulted in the creation of some all black classrooms. (T. 74ll 43. Despite the integration of public schools' black stu- dents continue to fail the North Carolina Competency Test at substantially higher rates than do white students in every school system in the counties in question. (Stip. 78) .B1ack students are improving on standard reading tests at a faster rate than white students are, but black students at each grade level tested stil1 did worse in 1982 than white students did in 1977. (Stip. 79) Similarly, while black students in Mecklenburg County are narrowing the gap between their scores on the California Achievement Test and white studentsr scores, black students at each grade level sti1l scored substantially lower in 1983 than white students did in 1978. (P1. Ex. 708) Thus past discrimination in education continues to affect not only the current voting age Population but also the current school age population. 44. Housing segregation in North Carolina remains very strong and virtually all neighborhoods in the districts at issue are racially identifiable. (T. 268, 436, 596, 648, 703, 739, 840-1, 1215-18) In addition, black households are twiee as like1y to be renting as opposed to buying their homes (T. 398; Pl. Ex. 55-70A) and are substantially more likely to be 14 living in overcrowded housirg, housing with inadequate plumbing O (stip. 83) or substandard housing. (T. 594-5) 45. According to witnesses for both plaintiffs and defendants, blacks continue to bear the effects of past and current dis- crimination in employment with blacks holding lower paying jobs than whites. (Little T.611; Butterfield T.703-4i Belfie1d T.743; ltalone T.1215-1218; Hauser Dep. at 38-39i Green T. 1251) Blacks also consistently have a higher incidence of unemployment than whites. (Stip. 68) 46. Even in state government blacks are concentrated in lower paying and lower skilled jobs. A higher Percentage of black employees is employed at every salary level below $12r000 per year and a higher percentage of white employees is employed at every salary level above $12r000. (Stip. 69, 7I, 72 and P1. Ex. 71) 47. A report produced by the North Carolina Office of State Personnel on patterns of pay in North Carolina State Government shows that white government employees are paid more than blacks even when education, years of aggregate service, supervisory position and age are held constant. (Pl. Ex. 71; T.406) 48. The North Carolina General Assembly itself enploys disproportionately few black employees, and those who are employed are employed in low paying jobs. Thus, for the professional staff 2 out of 49 (4t) of professionals are black and 1 of 20 (5t) of clericals are black. (Answer to Interrogatory 12A). Of the non-professional and clerical staff, only 24 out of 299 (8$) rrere blaek in 1983. Of these 15 9 were housekeepers, 3 are on the Sergeant at Arms staff, I was on the [Iouse Clerkrs staffr and the other 11 were secre- taries to black Representatives and the black Senator and chosen by them. (Stip. 99) 49. The result of the disparity in employment is that blacks are three times as like1y as whites to have an income below poverty leveI (30t v. fOt), the black mean income is only 54.9$ of the white mean income; and white families are over twice as likely as black families to have an income over $20r000. (T. 398-9, Pl. Ex. 70A) 50. In addition, 25.It of all black household units have no vehicle available compared to 7.3t of aII white household units. (P1. Ex. 70A) This has the obvious effect of di- minishing the ability of black citizens.to have the trans- portation necessary to either register or vote. (T. 686, 705, 712, 77Ol 51. All available indicators of health indicate that black residents of North Carolina are more likely to be in bad health than whites. The infant mortality rate is the stan- dard measure of health used by sociologists. (T. 400) The infant mortality rate is approximately twice as high for non-whites as for whites statewide in North Carolina (Stip. 73) and in each of Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Durham, Wake, Wilson, Edgecomb and Nash counties. (Stip. 741 In addition, the death rate is higher for non-whites than for whites (Stip. 75) and the life expectancy of non-whites is shorter than the life expectancy of whites. (Stip. 77) 16 52. For all socio-economic measures reviewed, the so"io-l economic status of blacks in North Carolina is lower than the socio-economic status of whites. (Luebke T. 402') This is true for the whole state and for every county in question individually. (T. 411) (See Appendix A to these findings, Pl. Ex. 56-70A). The ratio of blacks who were poor compared to whites who were poor is highest in Chowan, Nash, Mecklenburg ana t Wilson Counties. (T. 411) 53. North Carolina remains segregated not only in its residential patterns (See X 44 above) but also, according to witnesses for plaintiffs and defendants in its voluntary associa- tions such as churches, civic clubs, social clubsr and country clubs. (Lynch T. 435; Little T. 596i Lovett T. 648i Malone T. 1216; Butterfield T. 702i Belfield T.742t 76L-763i Ballance T.84Ii llauser Dep. at 8t371 54. Because of the disparities in education, incomer €IIt- I t ployment, housing, and health, the black community has special needs not in conmon with the white community. In each of the districts at issue, cohesive, geographically identifiable black neighborhoods exist which share common political and socio- economic interests premised on these disparities. These common needs give rise to the need for black representatitives who have an awareness of these conmon problems and who have a first hand understanding of the needs of the black community and whom black voters feel free to approach. (Lynch T.445t Little T.594-5; Hauser Dep. 36-37, 39; Lovett T.652-53; Halone T. L216, t2L9; Butterf ield T.'ll.7 i Belf ield T.753; Ballance T.846, 852) 17 55. The lower socio-economic status of black citizens lessens their ability to participate in the political process, (Luebke T.402-3i Arrington T.801). This factor contributes to the inequality of opportunity of black citizens to elect represen- tatives of their choice. D. tingering Effects of Past Discrimination In Registration and Votinq 56. As discussed in paragraphs 15-29 above, official discrimination in registration and voting, primarily through use of the literacy test, resulted in depressed levels of 'registration of black citizens in North Carolina through 1970. Although there is no evidence of the use of the literacy requirement since 1970, this past discrinination continues to affect the level of black participation in the political process as set out in paragraphs 57-79 below. 57. After 1970, the leve1 of black registration remained depressed due to inaccessibility of voter registration and fears and misapprehension of black citizens concerning the registration process. The inaccessibility resulted froro limitations of registration to the central elections office (T. 555, 704, 745) r dDd resulting transportation problems (T. 705t 745), limitation of precinct registrars to registering by appointment in their homes (T. 7461, and limitation of registration to normal work days and hours. (T. 655, 705) The fears and misapprehensions included fear of having to take a test, fear that the black citizen's employer would disapprove of his registering (T. 556), and fear of the 18 Courthouse registration facilities (T. 705-6). 58. The result was that by 1981, only 42.7* of the black population of voting age was registered to vote compared to 53t of the white voting age population. (Spearman T. 511 ) 59. fn November 1981, after this action was filed, Robert Spearnan was asked by the Governor of North Carolina to become chairman of the State Board of Elections. One of the primary concerns of the Governor was the under registration of North Carolinats black citizens. Spearman shared this concern. (T. 510-11; 544-5) 50. Spearman and the State Board of Elections have taken a variety of actions to encourage or require local Boards of Elections to make registration more accessible for blacks and others.. 1982 was named Citizens Awareness Year and a special effort was made to publicize registration oppor- tunities during this year. (T. 51I-528) 51. Whether the State Boardrs Citizens Awareness Year would succeed depended in large part on the voluntary cooperation by local Boards of Elections. (D. Ex. 3, T. 550) For example, while State law previously permitted precinct registrars to register voters out of their precincts (T. 512), thus enabling voter registration at churches, picnics and other places where people gather (T. 7071, many loca1 Boards did not al.low their precinct registrars to register voters outside their precincts. (T. 707, 547) Although some loca1 Boards removed the restrictions in L982 the State Board finall.y, Spearmanrs request (T. 525, 550), 1982, sought legislation to require at in 19 local Boards to allow out-of-precinct registration. (T. 550). 62. Another example is that while state law allows the appointnent of special registration commissioners, it only requires the appointrnent of two, and some local Boards appoint only the ninimum. (T. 708, 547-8) 63. fn a variety of waysr loca1 Boards of Election con- tinued to take actions which made black registration and participation difficult. (T. 709-10; 551-2; 563:ee) 64. Some previous efforts to increase voter registration, such as registration in libraries and banks, were not success- fu1 at reaching the bulk of black citizens who are not registered. (T.474) 65. Black groups in several counties, in particular Durham and Wilson, had sought to have registration opportunities increased prior to the State Boardts efforts in connection with Citizenrs Awareness Year and had met with resistance from their local Boards. (T. 553-5, 656-7, 704-5, 707-8) 55. This resistance to easing accessibility of voter regis- tration is exacerbated by the fact that only 12t of the members of County Boards of Elections are black. (T. 579) For exanple, despite the efforts of Durham blacks, the Durham I Board of Elections remains all white. (T. 555, 660-662) 67. During Citizens Awareness Year, a popular black can- didate, Mickey Michaux, was running for Congress from the Second Congressional District. Voter registration drives were conducted in the black community in conjunction with his candidacy. Michaux lost in the second primary. fn the 20 counties in which he was running, (Durhamr Nash, Edgecombe, Wilson and Halifax) almost all the gain in black registra- tion occurred before the second primary. Thus, the gains in these counties in 1982 seem to be as attributable to Michaux's candidacy as they are to the efforts of the State Board. (T. 573-4r PI. Ex. 14) 68. One of the most effective ways to encourage black parti- cipation and registration is for black candidates to be able to be elected. The election of all white candidates makes black citizens believe their participation is futile. Conversely, when elections have been conducted in which a black candidate has a good chance of success, black participation has increased. Examples are when the Charlotte City Council changed to single- member districts, and when Michaux ran for Congress. (Reid 476, 478, 489i Butterfield 709, 712, 732i Spearman 573-4; Belfield 753i Moody 773t 59. There remain actual barriers to registration of black citizens such as unavailability of registrars (Belfield 747-8; Lovett 6791r and lack of transportation. (Belfield T. 75gt 747) There also remain psychological barriers to regis- tration, particularly in older black citizens, some of whom are illiterate, who fear eittrer that they will have to take a test to register, who believe registration will be a major problem, who are afraid their employer will disapprove, or who believe they should not be making trouble. (Lovett T. 653-4, 590; Butterf ield T.728, Belf ield T.'7 47 i Lynch T. 432, 46L-2; Ballance T. 848-50 | 864; Moody 7941 A tradition of not 21 voting is the result of past election practices. It affects younger black citizens who are sometimes unfamiLiar with the processi many blacks still believe their participation is futile. (Lovett T. 590; Butterfield 710-1I, 729; BaIlance 864-55 ) . 'lO. The percentage of the black voting age population which is registered to vote continues to be less than the percent of white voting age population that is registered. In October of 1978, 1980r ?Dd 1982 in the State as a whole and in each of the counties in question, the respective percentages are as follows (Registration figures taken from Answers to Interrogatory *I divided by voting age PoPulation taken from Plaintiffsr Exhibit 89): Percent of Voting Age Population Registered to Vote L0/78 L0/80 L0/82 Whol.e State Mecklenburg Forsyth Durham ltake Wilson Edgecombe Nash Bertie Chowan Gates Hal i fax White B1ack 51.7 43.7 7r.3 40.8 55.8 58.7 63.0 39.4 6L.2 37.5 50.9 36.3 63.8 37 .9 6L.2 39.0 75.6 45.0 71.3 44.3 80. g 56. 8 68.2 50.4 '72.0 41.2 77 .O 54.l. 77.4 53.9 83.9 77.8 62.'1 53.1 64.2 43.0 74.6 60.0 74.1 54.0 93.5 82.3 67.3 55.3 White Black White Black 70.1 51.3 66.7 52.7 73.8 48.4 73. 0 50. 8 76.3 67 .7 69.4 64. r 70.7 45.8 55.0 52.9 76.0 48. 9 72.2 49 .7 55.9 40. 9 64.2 48. 0 73. 5 40. 9 22 72.0 50.4 Hertford Martin Northampton Washington 75.6 69.3 72.4 74.3 56. 5 49.7 58.5 62.8 81. I 76.9 '17.0 82.2 62.5 55. 3 63.9 66.0 68.7 58.3 7L.2 53.3 82. r 73.9 75.6 67.4 71. While the efforts of the State Board of Elections in Citizens Awareness Yearr combined with the volunteer activities of black organizations (T. 640, 473-4, 707)t and the efforts of black candidates to improve black registration have caused some narrowing of the gap between black and white registration, there remains a substantial gaP between black and white regis- tration statewide (P1. Ex. 40; T. 283-4), and in every county in question except Gates. (See ParagraPh 7O above) 72. while the level of black registration is gradually catch- ing up with white registration (D.8x.52, 14), there still exists a substantial gaP in white and black registration. There is an even greater gap when the percentage of black registered voters who turn out to vote is considered (T.4771. 73. Even defense witnesses Representative Adams and Mr. Spearman concede that after Citizens Awareness Year was over, the under registration of blacks in North Carolina remained unacceptable. (T. Adams 135711 T. Spearman 575-7) 74. This gap is the lingering effect of past official dis- crimination in registration combined with current socio-economic factors and a sense of futility engendered by the pervasiveness 23 Ilertford Martin Northampton Washington 75.6 69.3 72.4 74.3 56. 5 49.7 58. 5 62.8 81.8 76.9 7'7.0 82.2 62.5 55. 3 53. 9 66. 0 68.7 58. 3 7I.2 53. 3 82. 1 73.9 75.6 67.4 Citizens Awareness Year, combined with the volunteer activities of black organizations (T. 640, 473-4t 707r, and the'efforts of black candidates to improve black registration have caused some narrowing of the gap between black and white registration, there remains a substantial gap between black and white regis- tration statewide (P1. Ex. 40i T. 283-41, and in every county in question except Gates. (See paragraph 70 above) 72. While the level of black registration is gradually catch- ing up with white registration (D.8x.62, 141, there still exists a substantial gap in white and black registration. There is an even greater gdp when the percentage of black registered voters who turn out to vote is considered (T.477t. 73. Even defense witnesses Representative Adams and Mr. Spearman eoncede that after Citizens Awareness Year was over, the under registration of blacks in North Carolina remained unacceptabe. (T. Adams 1357; T. Spearman 575-71 74. This gap is the lingering effect of past official dis- rimination in registration combined with current socio-economic factors and a sense of futility engendered by the pervasiveness 23 of prior practices which make black participation less likely. (See Is 15-29, 55 above) 75. Although the General Assembly passed legislation in 1983 to improve accessibility of voter registration (T. 534-5), the Court cannot speculate what effect it will have and no evidence was presented that it will eliminate the gap between black and white registration in the immediate future. (T. 730-732? 462-3, 486) 76. In addition, newly registered voters are less like1y to vote, and newly registered black voters are less likely to continue to participate if black candidates 1ose. (Reid, T. 47 6-477 ) '17. Black citizens are less likely to have been selected for leadership positions in integrated civic affairs. They have, thus, been denied the opportunity to establish the credentials and visibility which would make them more accept- able to the white community. (T. 433, 435) In addition, the perception that black candidates have to be able to appeal to the white community limits the pool of blacks who are willing to run. (T. 442, 443, 834) 78. Other facts which make it less 1ike1y that blacks will turn out to vote include the practice of farmers in the North- eastern part of the state of requiring their employees to work extra. long hours on election day (T. 849t 850), the drawing of gerrymandered precincts in the City of Wilson in which black voters are required to travel into the white community to vote (P1. Ex. 87i T. 711-12), and the lack of access to vehicles, 24 and therefore transportation, which is three times more preva- lent among black households than white. (PI. Ex. 55-70A; T. 585-6 i 7701 79. Thus while some progress has been made, black citizens in North Carolina continue to bear the effects of past discri- mination in registration and voting which diminishes their ability to participate in the political process (T. 322') and contributes to the lack of equal opportunity to elect candi- dates of their choiee. E. Racially Polarized Voting - General Findings 80. Racially polarized voting occurs when white voters and black voters vote differently. Racially polarized voting is used synonymo]:sIy with racial block voting in political science literature (Grofman T. 5Ql and the terms are used synonymously in these findings. 81. Dr. Bernard Grofman testified on behalf of plaintiffs concerning the extent of racially polarized voting in the counties in question. Dr. Grofman is a Professor of PoIi- tical Science at the University of California at frvine. He has extensive experience concerning the analysis of voting patterns and minority concerns in reapportionment issues. (T. 19-24, PI. Ex. 1) He was received by the Court as an expert in comparative election systemsr apportionment and minority representation issues, statistical methodology' and voter turnout. (T. 25) 82. fn order to determine the extent of racially polarized voting in the multi-member legislative districts in question, 25 Dr. Grofman analyzed all the elections for the General Assembly in which there were black candidates in tt{ecklenburg, Durham, Forsyth and Wake Counties, elections for the House of Represen- tatives in Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash Counties, and elections for the senate in cabarrus county for the election years 1978, 1980, and 1982. fn addition, since there rrere not enough legislative elections in Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash Counties, Dr. Grofman analyzed two other county-wide elections with black candidates in each of those three counties. (T. 51-54) In total he analysed 53 sets of election returns (considering primaries and generals separately) stemming from 32 election contests. (T. 212-216l- 83. llr.Grofman condueted two different analyses of each election: an extreme case analysis and an ecological regression analysis. (T. 54) These two nethods are standard in the literature for analysis of racially polarized voting. (T. 54). The purpose of these analyses is to determine the extent that white and black voters vote differently from each other. (T. ss) 84. Defendants challenge Dr. Grofmanrs analysis on t,hree grounds. The first is that an extreme case analysis done alone can be misleading since voters who live in racially mixed precincts may behave differently than voters in ra- cially segregated precincts. (T. 1382) Eowever, in this instance, DE. Grofman did not conduct only an extreme case analysis. The regression analysis considers the behavior of the voters in mixed precincts as welI. In addition, in almost all cases the results of the extreme case analysis and 26 the regression analysis conform extremely closely. (T. 1441; Pl. Ex. 13-18) Because the extreme case analysis is standard in political science literature and because it produced almost identical results to the regression analysis, the Court accepts it as probative. 85. The second challenge is that Dr. Grofman made no exact count of voter turnout by race. (T. 1383) The only way to determine these exact numbers is to count each voter regis- tration card for each election and note the race of each person who voted. There is no example in political science literature or in the case law for requiring this precision and defendantsr expert, DE. Hof.eller, has never used this method exhibit 12, qhichr dt pages 3-8, describes Grofmanrs metho- dology for estimating turnout. (T. 1441-I443) Hofeller could notT therefore, know whether Dr. Grofmanrs method of estimating turnout is flawed and the Court will not discount Dr. Grofmanrs analysis on this basis. 86. The defendantsr third criticism of Dr. Grofmants analysis is that there were two apparent mathematical or typo- graphical errors. (T. 1383) The Court finds that these two errors, out of the thousands of results calculated by Dr. Grofman, do not shed doubt on the accuracy of the overall analysis. (T. 1437 | 27 87. A standard measure of racially polarized voting is the correlation between the number of voters of one race and the number of voters who voted for a candidate of specified race. (Grofman T. 60; Hofeller T. 1445) An analysis of voting showing correlations above an absolute value of .5 is relatively rare, and correlations above .9 are almost unheard of. (T. 60-51 ) A11 correlations calculated by Dr. Grofman had an absolute value between .7 and .98 with most above .9. (T- 80) The Court, therefore, finds that there was racially polarized voting in each of the elections analyzed. (Ilofeller T. 1451 ) 88. Grofman also determined that the racially polarized voting was statistically significant at the .00001 level. This means that the probability of these results occurring by coincidence is less than one in 100r000. (T. 80, 151) Defendantsr expert agrees with the eonclusion that the racially polarized voting was stat,istically significant in each of the elections analyzed (T. L446')t and the Court so finds. 89. Dr. Grofman further analyzed the election results to determine whether the polarization of the voting was substan- tively significant. He defined substantively significant to mean that the voting was sufficientlv polarized that the result of an individual e erent if it had been held with onl white voters as compared to onIY black voters. (T. 195, 206) Using this definition he found 28 substantively si eneral the Durham and Wake County House elections in 1982. (T. 213) Both of these elections had incumbents running. (T. 2i-4t 99) fn addition, in the Durham district, because only two white candidates ran for three seats, a black candidate had to win the primaryr dnd in the general election there was no opposition. (T. 205, 209 ) 90. Dr. Grofman further concluded that there was substan- tively significant racially polarized voting considering the elections he analyzed as a whole beeause there was no election in which a majority of white voters voted for a black candidate (T. 162)r and because of the smal1 number of individual elections (2 of 32') which did not have substantively significant racially polarized voting. (T. 222-2231 91. More specificallyr on the average 81.7t of voters did not vote for btack candidates in prinary (T. 80, 216) . 92. fn general elections, white voters almost always rank black candidates either last or next to last among candidates except in very predominantly Democratic areas, in which white voters rank the black candidate last among Democrats. With few exceptions, this is true in primaries as well. (T. 81i Pl. Ex. 11, App. 3, Table 21. Furthermore, approximately 2/3 of white voters will not vote for a black candidate in " ,"n"J.1ection even after that candidate has survived the Demoeratic primary and the only choice is to vote for a Republican or no one. (Tr. 216) white I elections t election to be one election). 29 93. In none of the elections analyzed did a black candidate receive votes from a majority of white voters in either a primary or general election. (T. 81; Pl. Ex. 11, App. 3l Table 1) This indicates that polarization is severe and persistent. (T.81) 94. The proportion of white voters who are willing to- vote for a black candidate in multimember districts is not properly compared to the proportion of white voters who will vote for a black candidate in a single seat election. (T. 215-2161 95. Whlle incumbency modifies racial polarization of the voting, it does not eliminate it. (T. 82) Black elected incumbents have successfully sought re-election, but no black incumbent has received votes from a majority of white voters, even when the election lras essentially uncontested. (PI. Ex. 11, App. 3, Table 1) 95. In addition, black incumbents in office by virtue of appointment rather than election have been uniformly unsuccessful in their re-election bids with less than one- third of white voters voting for each of them. (T. 83; Pl. Ex. 11, APP. 3, Table 1) g'l-. The elections analyzed demonstate that Republicans will vole for white Democrats but not black Democrats. (T. 84) This puts black candidates at an additional disadvantage. Com- bined with the racial polarization within Democratic voters, the result is that, in a general election, if there is a black candidate and if any Democrat loses, it is the black Democrat and not a white Democrat who loses. (T. 83-84) 30 98. The racial polarization is more disadvantageous to black candidates than to white candidates because there are fewer white voters who vote for black candidates than there are black voters who vote for white candidates. (T. 85) A large segment of white voters will not vote for any black candidate but few black voters will not vote for some white candidates. (T. f 44 ) 99. The result of the racially polarized voting is that for black candidates to win, black voters must vote almost exclusively for black candidates, thus forfeiting the right to vote for a full slate of candidates. (Grofman T. 85, Hofeller T. L437 ) 100. Defendantsr expert, DE. Ilofeller, disputes Dr.Grofmanrs conclusion that the racially polarized voting is substantive- ly significant because Dr. Grofman did not analyze the totality of the circumstances to determine whether race was the predominant factor in determining election outcome. (T. 1452) Dr. Hofeller did not perform this type of analysis himself. (T. 1454-5) Nor did he testify that this type of analysis has been required in any vote dilution litigation or appears anywhere in the political science literature. (T. 1452) Moreov€E7 Dr. Hofeller eoncedes that analysis he did do showed that race was a factor in a number of elections (T. 1460). Dr. Hofeller further concedes that the standard methodology to determine racially polarized voting is to look at correlations. (T. 1445 ) In addition, Dr. Hofeller has no previous experience in analyzing 31 racially polarized voting and no prior experience in nulti-member districts. (Tr. 1458-60) Based on Dr. Grofmanrs extensive experienee and the fact that the methods he used are the standard methods in political science literature, the Court rejects Dr. Ilofellerrs argument. 101. Based on the facts in paragraphs 80-100 of these findings the Court finds thaE there is severe and persistent racially polarized voting in elections for thd General Assembly in each of the multi-member distriets in question (T. 81, 86), and that this polarization contributes to'the inequality of the opportunity of the black electorate to elect candiates of its choice. 1.02. This assessment is supPorted.by the analysis of Dr. Theodore Arrington, a professor of Political Science at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte, who was accepted as an expert in North Carolina political camPagins, elections and practices. (Tr. 787-9 ) Dr. Arrington compared the pro- portion of the vote received by black candidates in the current multi-member majority white districts with the proportion of the vote received by that candidate in a hypothetical majority-black single-member district. He nade this comparison of elections in 1980 and 1982 for the [tecklenburg, Forsyth, Durham and Wake House districts and for the Mecklenburg Senate district. (T. 796-8; Pugh Ex. 6-20) Dr. Arrington found a large amount of racial polarization in each election and a substant,ial difference between the way white voters and black voters voted. (T. 799 , 805 ) 32- House District #8: RaciaIlv Polarized Voting 103. The Court finds that the findings eontained in para- graphs 80-101 above apply to House District *8. fn addition, the Court makes the following findings concerning racially polarized voting in House District #8: 104. In county-wide or district-wide elections from L975- 1982 in House District *8 and l{ilson, Edgecombe, and Nash Counties, the following percentage of white and black voters voted for the black eandidate (P1. Ex. 11, App. 3t Table 1, PI. Ex. 18): Primary General White BIack White Blaek Wilson Count f9g2 Congress-lst Primary-Michaux 2nd Primary-ttlichaux 1976 County Commission-Jones Edgeeombe Countv 1982 Congress-lst Primary-Michaux 2nd Primary-Michaux 1982 County Commission-Green McClain Thorne Walker Nash Count 1982 Congress-lst Primary 2nd Primary L982 County Commission-Sumner 96 98 77 6 7 32 66 84 97 14 27 75 82 2 3 0 0 4 2 6 5 9 38 36 91 94 73 81 82 House District *8 1982 House-Carter 33 105. With one exception, over 90t of the white voters have failed to vote for the black candidate in every primary in each of these three counties. (P1. Ex. l, App. 3t Table 1) The one time that black Democratic candidates made it to a general election, they failed to receive over 50t of the white vote even though Edgecombe County is overwhelmingly (89.7t) Dernocratic. (f 104, suprai Answer to fnterrogatory *1) 106. Dr. Grofman testified that racial polarization of voting in House District *8 is so extreme that no black has any chance of winning in the district as it is presently constituted. (T. 103, 105) Dr. Eofeller agreed that ra- cially polarized voting in House District *8 is substantive- ly significant. (T. 1454) l07. This obj.ective anal.ysis is consistent with the subjec- tive assessment made by Fred Belfield, a long time political activist in Edgecombe and Nash Counties who testified that black citizens do not have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice from the current House District *8 simply because blacks are so outnumbered. (T. 7521 108. The Court finds that racial polarization of voting in House District fB is extreme and persistent and, itself prevents black citizens from having an equal opportunity to elect any candidate of their choice to the North Carolina llouse of Representatives. 34 Mecklenburg & Cabarrus Counties House District *35 e Senate District #22: Raciallv Polarized Voting 109. The Court finds that the findings, made in paragraphs 80-102 regarding racially polarized voting in a1I counties in question apply in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties. fn addition, the Court makes the following findings of fact specif- icalIy with regard to Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties. 1 10. In elections in llouse District *35 (Mecklenburg County) between 1978 and 1982, the following percentage of black and white voters voted for the black candidates (PI. Ex. 11, App. 3t Table 1; P1. Ex. 14): Primary White Black General White Black 28 881980 (Maxwell) 1982 (Berry) 1982 (Richardson) 22 50 39 7T 79 71 42 29 92 92 91 n/a 94 fn elections in Senate District *22 (ltecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties) between 1978 and 1982, the following percentage of white and black voters voted for the black candidates (Pl. Ex. 11, App. 3t Table 1; Pl. Ex. 13): 1978 (Alexander) 47 1980 (Alexander/Motley) 23 1982 (PoIk) 32 Primary [!Ihite Black 87 78 83 General white Black 41 n/a 33 1 1 1. THe fact that candidate Berry received votes from one half of the white voters in the primary does not negate the conclusion that there is substantial racially polarized voting in Mecklenburg County in primaries, since there were only seven 35 white candidates for eight positions in the primary and one black candidate had to be elected. (p1. Ex. 11, App. 3, Table I ) Berry, the incumbent chairman of the Board of Education member (stip. 123) ranked lst among black voters but 7th among whites. (pr. Ex. 11, App. 3, Table 2) 112. The only other brack candidate who even approached getting half of the white voters to vote for him was Fred Arexander in the 1978 primary when he ran as an incumbent. At that, Alexander ranked last among white voters in the primary and wourd have been defeated if the election had been held among whites. (p1. Ex. 11, App. 3, Tables I & 2i Stip. 97) 113. Approximately 60t of whites voted for neither Berry nor Alexander in the general election. 114. Defendantsr witness, Malachi Green, a black resident of Mecklenburg County, who does not speak for other black voters and whose views are not generarly shared by other politically active blacks (T. 1189-90, 1478)? acknowledged that white voters cannot be expected to vote for a black candidate by testifying that if two majority black single-member House districts were drawn in Mecklenburg County, a black could not be elected in the remainder because most of the brack voters would be in the single-member district and the remainder would be dominated by whites with interests antithetical to the interests of blacks. (T. L2721 115. fn addition, Green acknowledged that race was a factor in the defeat of candidates Maxwerl (T. rzTa). polk (T. l,27gl and Richardson (T. l27g). These candidates were the crear 36 choices of the black community, see il10 supra' and even defense witness Representative Louise Brennan agreed these were all "highly qualified candidates." (T. 1195-96) 116. The racial polarization of voting in Mecklenburg County is exacerbated by the difficulty black candidates have in forging coalitions with white politicians, (Lynch, T. 441), and in convincing whites that there is nothing to fear from having blacks served in eleetive office. (Lynch T. 4421 717. The polarization of voting in Mecklenburg County means that black candidates will most likely lose unless Repub- licans do poorly. If a Republican candidate wins and Ehere is a black candidate in the general election, it is consistently the black Democrat, and not a white Democrat, who is beaten by the Republican. Thusr black candidates will fare less well in years with high Republican turnout than in years with 1ow Republican turnout. (Grofman, T. 94) 118. One of the results of racially polarized voting in Mecklenburg County is that black candidates who have run and lost will not run again, in part because of the difficulty of attracting white votes and of Projecting themselves in a way that is acceptable to white voters. (Lynch, T. 443) 119. In addition to polarization of voting in Mecklenburg County, financial contributions to political campaigns is also polarized along racial lines. White candidates receive 2t of their contributions from blacks, black candiates receive 30t of their funds from whites (although 82t of the registered voters are white (Stip. *57)). (Arrington' T. 791) 37 120. There is no evidence that the trend of racially polarized voting in Mecklenburg County is decreasing. (Grofnan T. 95) 121. The result is, according to defendantst witness Green, that in the current Senate District *22, in the Democratic primary, if there is a black candidate and a white candidate, and all other things are equalr the white candidate has a better . chance of being successful. (Green, T. L2791 122. Based on the findings in paragraphs 80-102 above, and in 109-121 herein, the Court finds that racially polarized voting in Mecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties is not only statistically significant, but also substantial to the extent that it continues materially to decrease the opportunity of black voters to elect representatives of their choice to the North Carolina House of Representatives or Senate. Forsvth Countv: Raciallv Polarized Voting 123. The Court finds that the findings made in paragraphs 80-102 above with regard to racially polarized voting in all counties apply in House District *39 and in Forsyth County in general. In addition, the Court makes the following findings specifically about Forsyth County and House District t39: 124. In House and Senate elections in Forsyth County from 1978-1982 the following percent of white and black voters voted for the black candidates (P1. Ex. 11' APp. 3, Table 1; Pl. Ex. 15): 38 Primary white BIack General White Black 1978 House-Kennedy, H. Norman Ross 1980 House-Kennedy, A. Norman Sumter (Repub) 1980 Senate-Smal1 1982 House-Hauser Kennedy, A. 28 8 L7 40 76 29 53 85 32 n/a n/a 32 n/a 42 46 95 n/a n/a 96 n/a 87 94 18 35 n/a n/a n/a n/a 33 2s L2 25 51 80 36 91 125. .According to this analysis, 60t of white voters have voted for no black candidate in a primary, and no black candidate has gotten more than 46t of the white voters to vote for himr/her in the general election. 126. The success of Kennedy and Hauser in the 1982 House election does not indicate the end of racially polarized voting or that there was not substantial polarization of voting in that election. White voters ranked Kennedy and Hauser seventh and eighth, respectively, out of eight candi- dates in the general election. fn contrast black voters ranked them first and second respectively. (T. 89; Pl. Ex. 11, App. 3. Table 21. Instead the success of Kennedy and Hauser in the primary is more attributable to the unusually large number of white candidates (nine) and the lack of 39 Democratic incumbents. Their success in the general election is attributable to the unusually low white turnout ( 20t less than 1980) and usually large black turnout for a non-presidential year (the same as 1980). (T. 90) 127. The analysis of Dr. Hofeller of the election of a black candidate to the lilinston Salem City Council from a majority white ward supports rather than detracts from Ehe conclusion of substantially racially polarized voting in Forsyth County. Eofeller, who made no attempt to determine if more blacks than whites actually voted in that election, acknowledges that voting was racially polarized in both the primary and the general. Furthermore, there is an almost perfect correspondence between the percent of registered voters in each precinct that is bl-ack and the percent of votes the candidate received ranging from lt of the votes in a precinct with It black registered voters to 55t of the votes in a precinct with 58t black registered voters. (T. l42l-23; Def. Ex. 54) 128. The testimony of defendants' witness, C.B. Hauser, a black representative from Forsyth County, also supports Dr. Grofmanrs conclusion that there is substantial racially polarized voting in Forsyth County. Hauser acknowledges that most of his support came from the black community (Eauser Dep. p. 3I-32); that he received the endorsement of the black but not the white newspapers (id, at 20li and that race is a factor which makes the election of black candidates more difficult in Forsyth County (id. at 40). llauser also testified that when white 40 Republicans run against black Democrats in Forsyth County, white Democrats cross over and vote Republican and this happens to black candidates more than to white candidates so that black candidates are more 1ike1y to lose to a Republican. (Hauser Dep. p. 31) This testimony is consistent with Grofmanrs conclu- sion that because of racial polarized voting in Forsyth County, black candidates will lose unless Republicans do unusually poorly. (T. 86 ) 129. Hauserrs testimony indicates that the racial polariza- tion of financial contributions which Dr. Arrington observed in Mecklenburg County also exists in Forsyth County as only 20t ($2r000 out of $10r000) of his campaign funds were contributed by white individuals or majority white political action commit- tees. (Hauser Dep. p. 17) 130. Examining the last three election years there is no evidence of a trend of decreasing racially polarized voting in Forsyth County. (Grofman T. 87) 131. The result of the racially polarized voting in Forsyth County is that it is easier to elect a white candidate of the same qualifications as a black candidate because there are more white voters. (Hauser Dep. at p. 41 ) 132. Based on the findings contained in paragraphs 80-102 and 123-131 above, the Court finds that there continues to be substantial racially polarized votring in Forsyth County which makes it materially more difficult for black candidates 41 to be elected and which decreases the ability of black voters to elect candidates of their choice to the North Carolina House of Representatives. Durham Countv - Racially Polarized Voting 133. The Court finds that the findings made in paragraphs 80-lilZ *itn regard to racially polarized voting apply in Durham County. fn addition the Court makes the following findings specifically about Durham County. 134. fn House and Senate elections in from 1978 through L982, the following percentages of white and black voters voted for black candidates (P1. Ex. 15, PI. Ex. 11, App. 3, Table 1): 1978 House-Clement 10 Spaulding 16 1980 House-Spaulding n/a 1982 llouse-Clement 26 Spaulding 37 1982 Senate-Barns (Repub. I n/a Primary White Black 89 92 n/a 32 90 n/a General White BLack n/a 37 49 n/a n/a 89 90 n/a 43 89 L7 05 135. The black candidate ran uncontested in the general election in 1978 and in the primary and general election in 1980. In the 1982 election there was no Republican opposition and the general election was, for practical purposes, unopposed. A majority of white voters failed to vote for the black candidate in the general election in each of these years even when they had no other choice. Furthermore, in the 1982 primary, there were two white candidates for three seats sor necessarily, one 42 black candiate had to win. Even in this situation, 63t of white voters did not vote for the black incumbent, the clear choice of the black voters. At least 37t of white voters voted for no black eandidate even when one was certain to be elected. fn this situation, white voters who would not normally vote for a black candidate will vote for a black candidate in order to exercise a choice about which black candidate will be elected. The results of the 1982 election signify extreme racial polarization of voting. (Grofman T. 99-102 ) 136. The apparent error in the noted estimate of turnout in plaintiffrs exhibit 16(e) (House general election 1982) or plaintiffrs exhibit 15(f) (Senate general election 1982) does not affect Dr. Grofmants assessment that there is substantively significant racially polarized voting in Durham. (Grofman T. 1473) 137. In Durham County the percent of Republican voters is so low that winning the DemocraEic primary is tantamount to election. (T.98-99) 138. Given the 1eveI of polarization in the Democrat,ic primaries, if the incumbent does not run for re-election it will be problematic for a non-incumbent black candidate to win the primary. (T. 99 ) 139. Dr. Grofmanrs analysis of Durham County elections eomports with Durham resident Willie Lovettrs assessment that large numbers of white voters will not, vote for black candidates 43 (T. 564-5). This is not contradicted by the testimony of Howard Clement who reports that in 1978 and 1982 he got white financial support and support from white workers (T. 1294-95) since Clement received only 10t of the white vote in 1978 and 26t in 1982. Furthermorer Clement only got 32t of the black vote in 1982 and is clearly not the choice of the black community. 140. The level of racially polarized voting in primary elections in Durham County is such that it materially decreases the ability of black voters to elect representatives of their choice. Wake Countv - Polarization 141. The Court finds that the findings. in paragraphs 80-102 above with regard to racial polarization of voting apply in $Iake County. In addition, the Court makes the following findings specifically about Wake County. 142. In elections for the North Carolina House of Represen- tatives from 1978 through 1982 the following percentage of white and black voters voted for the black candidate. (P1. Ex. 11, App. 3, Table I; Pl. Ex. 17): Primary General. White Black White Black 1978 Blue 2L 76 n/a n/a 1980 - BIue 31 81 44 90 t982 - Blue 39 82 45 91 44 145. In a county in which winning the Democratic primary is tantamount to election (T. 102), from 60t to 80t of white voters did not vote for the black candidate in the primary compared to between 76t and 82$ of black voters who did. (T. 103 ) 146. fn a county whieh is overwhelmingly Democratic in registration (77.6*; Answer to Interrogatory *1) and in which normally vote along party lines (T. 582'), nonetheless 55t of white voters did not vote for the black Democrat in the general election. 147. The racial polarization of voting in the 1978 and 1980 elections, in which Blue was not an incumbent, was substantively signifieant in that the the results wouLd have been different if the election had been held only among white voters or only among black voters. (T. 195, 212-214') 148. The polarization of voting in elections for the House of Representatives in Wake County overall is substantively significant and is such that while the chances of re-election of the incumbent are good, it would be problematic for a different black candidate to win should the incumbent retire. This is because of the high percentage of white voters (69.7t on the average) who do not vote for black candidates in primaries. (Grofman, T. L02, 212-214) 149. Defendants counter the evidence of polarized voting in Wake County by analyzing the election of a black incumbent (Baker) as Sheriff in 1982. (Def . Ex. 53i T. 14-17) This election was 45 not, picked for analysis in an objective manner but was picked by the attorney for defendants because it was an election in which a black candidate won in a majority white district. (T. 1420) Nonetheless, Hofeller concedes that even this analysis shows statistically significant racially polarized voting. (T. 1425) 150. Eofeller did not analyze the results of the 1978 election when Baker initially ran. (T. 1423) In that election, Baker received only 50.8t of the votes in the general election (Stip. 157), suggesting that a large number of white Democrats crossed over and voted for Bakerrs white Republican opponent. (Spearman, T. 581-582) 151. Nothing in the analysis of the Baker elections contra- dicts Dr. Grofmanrs assessment that the racial polarization of voting in Wake County makes it problenatic for black non-incum- bents to be elected. 152. The Court finds that the racial polarization of voting in hlake County is statistically significantly and substantialr that it materially interferes with the ability of black non-incum- bents to be elected, and that it therefore contributes to black citizensr lack of equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. F. The Extent of Election of B1ack Citizens to Public Office 153. The first black citizens this century were elected t public office in 1948 and the early 1950rs when a few blacks were elected to various city councils. No blacks were elected o\ ( I 46 to any other level of public office at that time. This trend did not continue after the civil rights movement escalated in the late 1950ts because these black politicians lost support of white voters when they expressed the demands of the black community for civil rights. (T. 262-3) 154. By 1970, there were only 62 black elected officials in North Carolina (T. 284i P1. Ex. 4].l, with the first black member of the State llouse of Representatives elected in 1969 and the first black State Senator elected in 1975. (Stip. 96) 155. The number of black elected officials increased from 62 to over 200 between 1970 and 1975. Since 1975 the growth has almost stopped. (P1. Ex. 41, T. 284-5) _ 156. The extent of election of blacks in North Carolina is still very low. Nine percent of the City Council members from towns with a population above 500, 7.3t of County Commis- sioners, 4t of Sheriffs, and 1t of Clerks of Court are b1ack. (T. 285-6; Stip. 104-8) Thirteen of the 19 black mayors (58t) come from majority black towns. (Stip. 108, Pl. Ex. PP) Eorty percent of the black City Council members come from majority black towns or election districts. (Stip. 10, Pl. Ex. QQ). i 157. No black person has been elected to statewide office or to the United States Congress .from North Carolina this century i with the exception of three judges who were elected in 1978 and ( 1982 to seats to which they had previously been appointed. ) (Stip. 100 ) i \ 47 158. Betvreen 1971 and 1982, thbre were between two and four members of the North Carolina House of Representatives out of 120 at any given time. This was between 1.5t and 3.3t in a state with a black population of 22.7*. Prior to L975 there were no black Senators. From 1975-1983 there were either one or two black senators out of 50 or from 2-4*. (Stips. 96-97 ) 159. In 1982, after this lawsuit vras filed, 11 black peopfe/ ( were elected to the House of Representatives for the 1983-84 \ ) term (9t). Five of these 11 were elected from newly created / majority black districts. (Stip. 96) 150. In the six multi-member districts in question, black candidates have enjoyed considerably less success in their bids '\ \ for election to the General Assembly than have whites. Those black candidates who won in the Democratic primary between 1970 and 1982 were three times as likely to lose in the general election as were their white Democratic counterparts. (PI. Ex. 19; T. 113) This disparity is statistically significant given the sample size. (T. 214) While white Republicans had a one in four chance of winning, no black Republican won a general election between 1970 and 1982. (Pl. Ex. 19) 151. Dr. Grofmants study of the Charlotte and Raleigh City Councils demonstrates that black candidates fare much better in a single-member district system than they do in a multi-member district system. In Charlotte between 1977 and 1981, blacks won 28.5t of the single-member district seats compared to 15.7t of \ I j \ \ \ \ r 48 the at large seats even though more blacks ran for the at large seats. In Raleigh during that period blacks won 20* of the district seats but none of the at large seats even though there were as many black candidates running at large as for the single member district seats. (Pl. Ex. 20i T. f32-33) 762. The extent of election of blacks to public office in Ilouse District *8 is negligible. There has never been ? black Representative or Senator from that area. There has never been a black County Commissioner from Wilson or Nash County. Edgecombe County elected its first black County Commissioners in 1982. (Stip. 176) There has been no black Sheriff or Clerk of Court in any of these counties. (Stip. 177 | 192) Wilson County, which is 36.5t black, has one out of nine bLack Board of Educa- tion membersr and the City of Wilson, which is over 40t black, has one black out of six city councilmen. There have been no other black elected officials in Wilson County. (T. 7L3-714 ) 153. In Mecklenburg County, blacks have been elected t,o public office as follows: A. The first black person to be elected to the House of Representatives from Mecklenburg County was elected in 1982, after this lawsuit was filed, although seven black people ran between 1965 and 1981. (Stips. 115-116) B. Senate Dist,rict *22, Mecklenburg and cabarrus. Counties, currently has no bLack Senator. One black Senator served from that district from 1975-1980. Blacks made unsuccess- ful bids for a seat in 1980 and L982. (Stips. 117-118) 49 C. The Mecklenburg County Board of Commissioners has one black member out of five. He was initially elected in 1976, was defeated in 1978, and yras re-elected in 1980 and 1982. (Stip. 119 ) D. Blacks have been elected to the Charlotte City Council as discussed in paragraph 161 above. Between 1945 and 1975, when t,he Charlotte City Council was elected alt at large t 5.4t of its members were black. (T. I32) E. Two of Mecklenburg Countyrs nine Board of Education members are black. (Stip. f23) 164. Mecklenburg County is 26.5S black in population, Senate District *22 (litecklenburg County and Cabarrus County) is 24.3t black and the City of Charlotte is 31t black. (Stips. 5'l I L27 ) 165. fn Mecklenburg County black candidates must generally run at least two times before being successful. This is not true for comparable white candidates. (T. 434-5) For ex- ample, Dr. Bertha Maxwellr a highly qualified candidate (T. 438, 458-9), ran for the House of Representatives in 1980 and lost while at the same time Jim Black, a first time white candidate won. (T. 467-8) 155. fn [ecklenburg County it is difficult to get black candidates to run for office because of the difficulty of projecting the black candidate as acceptable to the white community. (T. 433, 443) Acceptability to the white community is one of the factors which the Charlotte B1ack Caucus considers in recruiting black candidates. (T. 433-34) 50 167. ft is even more difficult for black candidates to be elected to the State House or Senate from Mecklenburg County than to be elected in the City of Charlotte because there is a larger concentration of white voters outside of the City and in Cabarrus County with whom blacks in Charlotte do not share - common interests (T. 11231 i it is difficult for Charlotte black candidates to make white contacts those areas. (T. 445-6) 158. fn Forsyth County, blacks have been elected to public office as follows: A. Prior to L974 Blacks had been elected to the City Council from majority black wards but to no other public office. (T. 612-613) B. fn L974 a black candidate, Baileyr'was elected for a four year term to one out of eight seats on the Board of Education, and Richard Erwin was elected to the House of Represen- tatives. (T.514-515) C. In 1976, Erwin was re-elected to the House and the first bIack, Woodruff was elected to one of five seats on the County Commission. (T. 515-616) D. fn 1978, Bailey, lost his bid for reelection to the Board of Education, and Harold Kennedy, who had been appointed to fifl Erwinrs unexpired term, lost his bid for election to the House of Representatives. At that time the Board of Education and the House delegation returned to their pre-1974 all white status. 51 E. In 1980, Woodruff lost her bid for re-election to the County Commission, Bailey lost his bid to return to the Board of Education, and Annie Kennedy lost in her attempt to return to the House seat to which she had been appointed mid-term. In addition, Jean Burkins, a black candidate for District Court judge, lost to a Republican. Each of those bodies remained all white. (T. 618-6221 F. In 1982, Bailey successfully ran for the Board of Education (T. 5f5), Woodruff successfully returned to the County Commission (T. 516)r drd B. Hauser and Annie Kennedy were elected to the House of Representatives. (Stip. 971 G. No black has been elected to the State Senate from Forsyth County. (Stip. 95) E. Each of these black candidates who lost, lost to a Republican. 169. The election of black candidates has been haphazard. Each of the years in which black candidates have done well (1974, L976, L982) are years that Republicans have done unusually poorly. (T. 61.3, 615, Hauser Dep. 45-6) On the other hand, white Democrats have done well all years. (T. 622i 643-41 170. The fact that 1982 was a worse than usual year for Republicans in North Carolina is demonstrated by Plaintiffsl Exhibit 19 which shows that in the six multi-member dis- tricts in question, 92.3t of Republicans running in 1982 lost as opposed to the average of 75.9t for all years. (T. 115) 52 1'71. There are several other atypical factors about 1982: A. This lawsuit was pending. The Democratic Party of Forsyth County did more to help black candidates meet white voters in 1982 than it usually does because they rrere concerned about the single member district issue. (Hauser Dep. at 49) B. Black turnout was unusually high for a non-Presi- dential year but white turnout was not. Both plaintiffsr and defendantsr experts agree that white and Republican turnout wilI be higher in 1984 because it is a Presidential year with an incumbent Republican running as candidate for the U.S. Senate. )T. 1453-4) The proportionately greater white and Republican turnout decrease the chance of success of black candidates. (T. e0-91 ) 172. Thus, the chance of two blacks being elected again from House District *29 appears to be negligible. (T. 91) 173. For a black person to be elected at large in Forsyth County he cannot be an outspoken advocate of the interests of the black community nor can he or she be controversial or otherwise be offensive to white voters. The black community must look for mild-nannered moderates, lightweightsr oE "Unc1e Toms" when looking for black candidates who can be successful in the white community. (T. 625-26) Thus the candidates who have been successful running at large are not necessarily the candidates of choice of the black community, and they are not as assertive in articulating the concerns of black voters. (T. 851, 857) 174. A black citizen has been elected to the House of Rep- resentatives from Durham County each term since I973 and blacks have served in the County Commissionsince 1969 (StiPs. 145-150). 53 o 175. Three of twelve city council members are black in the city of Durham which is 47* black in population (T. 662-3). 176. All Durham County elected bodies are elected at large, including the ward members of the Durham City Council (T. 564). The result is to be able to win, a black candidate must be able to obtain the vote of a large segment of the white community. This limits the kind of people who can and will win to people who are already well known and can appeal to the white community (t. 666t 669, 691). Blacks who are involved or outspoken cannot expect to get the support from the white community needed to be successf ul (T. 667') . 177. The people who have been elected are not necessarily the choice of the black community in that not all who would run for a single-member district would run at-larger and those who run at-Iarge are not necessarily the people who would represent the black community best (T. 683-5). A good example of this is the appointment of Howard Clement to the Durham City Council in an at-large seat. Clement was clearly not the choice of the black community in the electionfor the House of Representatives in 1982 since he received the votes of only 32t of the black voters (PI. Ex. 11, App. 3, Tab1e 1 ). In addition, Clement concedes that blacks opposed his appointment to the City Council and that he differs in opinion from the black community on significant political issues (T. 1281, 1295). In addition, Clement admits that his family name is well known in Durham, that he has the ability to appeal to white voters, and that he is better educated than most black residents of Durham (T. L2991. 54 178. The use of at-large erection in Durham county, while not preventing all black candidates from being elected, denies the black community the equal opportunity to elect candidates of its choice. 779. Black citizens have been elected to pubLic office from Wake County as follows: A. For two terms, from 1975-1978, there was a black state senator, ilohn winters, from wake county (stip. 95). IIe had previously served in the City Council (T. 1308). B. For two terms, from 1981 to the present, there has been a black state Representative, Dan Brue, from wake county (Stip. 95). Blue had run in 1978 but was defeated (T. 1324). C. Otherwise there have been no blacks in the General Assembly from Wake County (Stip. 95). D. Elizabeth Cofield in the only black to have ever served on the seven member wake county Board of county commis- sioners. she has served since 1972 (stip. 164). cofield does not live in the black community but rather in an affluent white area of Raliegh (T. 1280). E. John Baker was elected Sherif,f of $Iake County in a close election in 1978 and was re-elected in 1982 (Stips. 155-7). Baker had previously been an aIl-pro professional football player whose name was very well known in the white community (T. 12201. F. Vernon Malone serves on the Wake County School Board. He is the only brack of nine members and comes from a majority black district (Stip. l5g, T. 5791. 55 G. The only other non-judicial black elected official in lilake County is the one black member of the Raleigh City Council.. No black has been eleced to fill one of the at-large seats onthe Raleigh City Council although there have been considerations (Stip. 173; Pl. Ex. 20i T. 580, 1358). H. Clarence Lightner served as mayor of Raleigh from 1973-1975. There has been no other black mayor of Raleigh (Stip. 1721 . 180. Blacks have been elected at-Iarge from Wake County only erratically. Baker has atypical advantages. Cofield does not even live in the black community. The election of so few black officials at-large is evidence that black citizens of Wake County do not have an equal opportunity to eleet candidates of their choice. 181. E'ew, if oDy, blacks have been elected to public office \ from majority white electorates in the area covered by Senate \\ District * 2 (T. 8471. The two black representatives from that \ area come from majority black districts (Stip. 95; T. 830). Before I \ that area was put into a majority black single member House districts/, it ras in a majority white multi-member House district. Several blacks ran for election in the old llouse District * 22 but were defeated (T. 834 ) . One black was elected from a majority white multi-member district in 1980 (Stip. 95). There has never been a black Senator from the area covered by Senate District * 22 (Stip. 95). The Clerk of the Court of Gates County is black (Stip. 192), but 49t of the registered voters in Gates County are black. (Answer to Interrogatory 1 ) There has never been a black Sheriff form any of the counties in Senate District * 22 (Stip. 191). 56 There has never been a black member of the Halifax County Board of Commissioners though some have run (T. 780-1 ). There has never been a black person elected to the Roanoke Rapids City Council though there have been candidates (T. 781-2). The extent of election of blaek citizens in that are covered by Senate District * 2 demonstrates that so long as blacks live in areas in which a majority of the voters are white, they will not'have an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. G. Use of Racial Appeals 182. A racial appeal in politics occurs when a eandidate identifies his opponent by race or by the race of his suppor- ters or when the media identifies the political candidate by race (T.379-380 ) . 183. A racial appeal may be overt or subtle. The term "racial telegraphing' refers to subtle racial appeals. (T.380 ) . 184. North Carolina has a long history of the use of racial appeals in politics. The use of racial appeals is clear in the Democratst campaign to overthrow the Fusionist government in 1898, with advertisements showing white leaders in the control of black politicians. (T.237-8; PI.Ex. 22-231. Racial appeals were blatent in the campaign to adopt the disfranchising amendmenls in 1900. (T.238; pl.Ex. 241. 185. Between 1900 and 1948 there were few black voters and no black elected officials and, thusr no cause to point out the race of candidates or their supporters. Howeverr ds 57 blacks increasingly challenged white suprenacy beginning in the 1950rs, racial appeals reappeared in North Carolina politics (T.244-245). fn 1950, Willis Smith accused incum- bent Senator Frank Porter Graham of being soft on race issues in a violently racist campaign exemplified by the "White Peoppple Wake Upi leaflet distributed before the election. (T.245-246i Pl.Ex. 251 185. The technique of accusing a candidate of receiving the support of blacks, voting as a bIoc, was also used beginning in the 1950rs to arouse white voters. (T.2471 187. Racial appeals either accusing candidates of favor- ing integration or of appealing to the black bloc vote were used throughout the 1950rs and 1950rs in North Carolina. Examples include the use of racial appeals in the 1950 Durham mayorrs race (T.249, I in the 1954 election for the United States Senate (T.247; PI.Ex. 26)i in the 1960 election for Governor (T.257; Pl.Ex. 27li in the 1954 election to Congress between then Congressman Jones and now U.S. Senator John East (T.259); in the 1958 election for Governor (T.270t Pl.Ex. 33, 34li and in the 1958 Presidential campaign in North Carolina (T.272; Pl.Er. 35r35). Racial appeals were also made in the 1972 canpaign for the United States Senate in which incumbent Senator Jesse Helms was initially elected (T.274-6; P.Ex. 37(a)). 188. The use of racial appeals persists in North Carol ina. 58 189. At times the race of the candidates is simply pointed out by including a picture of one's opponent in campaign literature. (T.338 ) For example, in 1976 Jimrny Green ran an advertisement with a picture of his black opponent, Howard tee. (T.337; PI.Ex. 44) It is unusual for a candidate in his own political advertisements to run the picture of his opponent. under normal circumstances a candi- date is unlikely to give his opponent free publicity, but if a candidate wishes to make race an issue, "a11 you would have to do is put both your pictures in the newspap€E. n (T.338) Another example of racial telegraphing is the running of the picture of an all white slate in the Durham County Board of Commissioners election in 1980 (T.352-3i PI.Ex. 51 ), at a time when black candidates were running in the election. (T.424t 190. The media in North Carolina contributes to the racial identification of candidates by continuously identi- fying black candidates by race while not using raciar identi- fications of white candidates. (T. 564i 750) 191. llore subtle racial appeals are made by referring to issues with particular racial connotations at the time of the election. For example when black candidate Harvey Gantt ran for Mayor of Charlotte in 1979, the Charlotte Observer printed a letter to the editor with a headline iwe Dontt Need Another Atrantan at a time when Atranta had a black mayor, a black police chief , and a particular crime probJ.em. (pI.Ex. 45i T.342-3). Another example was the use of an appeal for 59 continued progress in Durham County by an all white slate in the County Commission race in ltay 1980 after an all white City Council was elected in 1979 using a "progress" theme. (T. 353-4 i 426-271 192. The technique of claiming an opponent is in the control of or responsive only to black voters, which was used as a racial appeal in the 1898 campaign against the fusion government, continues to be used in North Carolina. (T. 388) Examples of this include: (a) In the 1979 election for Mayor of Charlotte, the white candidate, Eddie KnoxT Eorl ads claiming that he would be l,layor for all of the people, implying that his black opponent, Gantt, would be answerable only to black residents. (T.345-5, PI.Ex. 47-48). The Charlotte Observer promoted this theme in endor- singmthatr while Gantt was more'ex- perienced, he would not be able to work with white residents and participants in city government. (T. 343-4, 348 ) (b) fn the 1980 election for United States Senate, in which John East defeated then incumbent Robert Morgan, East distributed flyers with pictures of Morgan with black leaders. (T. 357-8) (c) fn the spring of 1983, in the nascent election for the United StaEes Senate, the incumbent Senat,or Jesse Eelms ran advertisements showing his probable opponent, Governor James Hunt' talking with black leader Jesse Jackson. This advertisement also points out that Hunt wants to boost minority voter registration in North Carolina. (T. 381, 385-87' 389; PI.Ex. 53(c)). Another Helms for Senate advertisement shows black teachers who are on strike in another state and associates Governor Hunt with them. (T. 390; Pl.Ex. 53(h) ). These advertisements ran in 1983 in newspapers in every county in the contested districts with the possible exception of Northampton. (PI.Ex. 53(i)). 193. The racial appeal technique of increasing white voter turnout by using the threat of a black bloc vote, which began 50 in 1950 continues to be used in North Carolina. This tech- nique was used by Jimmy Green in the run-off primary against Howard Lee in counties with high black population, with apparent success. (T. 334-35r337-38' 390-91; PI.Ex. 44). Racial appeals lrere also useC in the 1982 Congressional elec- tion in the 2nd Congressional District in the run-off primary between Tim Valentine and Mickey Michaux. In that election the Valentine campaign distributed letters to white voters in Durham, Wilson, Edgecombe, Nash and IIaIifax Counties, encour- aging them to vote by warning them of Michauxrs "welI organized block (sic) vote" that Michaux would be ibussing" to the polls. Thus, he not only used the threat of the black bloc vote but also injected the controversial racial busing issue into the campaign. (T. 359-369i Pl.Ex. 521 - 194. Thus, starting in 1898r and eontinuing to the present, politicians have used racial appeals in North Carolina against black candidates and candidates thought to be sympathetic to the black community to increase the white vote for white candidates by using the threat of a black bloc vote, by claiming that the opponent favors integration, and by threatening that the opPonent will be controlled by or only responsive to black voters or politicians. 61 H. The extent to which the state has used unusually large election districts, najority vote requirements, anti-single shot provi- sionsr oE other practices that enhance the opportunity for discrimination Anti-Single Shot Provisions and Numbered Seats 195. North Carolina has used both numbered seats and anti- single shot vote provisions in the past, but discontinued their use in 1g72r ES discussed in is Zl4q above. Ma'iority Vote Requirement 196. North Carolina has a majority vote requirement which applies to all primary elections but not to general elections. It is set out in N.C.G.S.S153-11 and provides that if no candidate receives a majority of the votes cast, the candidate who receives the next highest number of votes can call for a run-off election. (Stips. 88-89) 197. The majority vote requirement was enacted in 1915 at the same time that the party primary was established. At the same time many counties established all white primaries whieh were then permissible under state law. (Stip. 88; T.239-40 ) 198. The general effect of a majority vote requirement is to make it less likely that a minority groupts candidate will win an electlon because the majority group will be able to elect its candidate in the run-off. (T. 141 ) 199. Because of the substantial black minority in North Carolinars electorate and because of the substantial racial polarization of voting in North Carolina, North Carolina's 62 majority vote requirement acts to limit and dilute the voting strength of the black electorate. (T. 142') 200. Forty-three run-off elections for the General Assembly would have to been eliminated since 1950 if North Carolina did not have a majority vote requirement, and 18 of those would have had a different result. (T. 964-55; D.Ex. 48, p.20 ) . 201. In addition, second primaries in 32 elections for the United States Congress and other statewide offices would have been eliminated since 1950 under a plurality system, and twelve of those would have had a different result. (D.Ex. 48, p.20 ) 202. Of the recent Congressiorial and statewide elections, at least two involved black candidates who led in the first primary and lost the run-off. (T.963) These were Mickey Michaux who lost the election to Congress from the second District in 1982, and Howard Lee who lost his bid to become Lt. Governor in 1976. Each of these losses was well publized across the state. (T. 965) 203. By causing the defeat of black candidates for higher elected offices, the majority vote requirement hinders the ability of the black electorate to elect candidates to the General Assembly for two reasons: (a) The well publicized defeat of black candidates provides a disincentive to running for potential minority candidates. (T. 950i D.Ex. 48, p.221 (b) Electoral success at higher levels of office is important for electoral success at lower levels 53 because individuals who succeed at higher levels are in a position to offer assistance to those who are just getting started in politics. (T. 142, 204. North Carolinars majority vote requirement also affects the abil,ity of black candidates to be elected to Iocal offices such as county commissions and city councils. (T. 9671 Larry tittle testified that in Forsyth County, whenever there was the opportunity to do sor white candidates call for a second primary against black candidates and it always becomes a black/white contest. (T. 519) The Sheriff of Edgecombe County, a defense witness, testified that he was initially elected in 1974 by losing to a black candidate in the first primary, calling for a run-off, and defeating him in the second primary. (T. 958-59 ) 205. By causing the defeat of black candidates at lower levels of office, North Carolinars majority vote requirement hinders the ability of black voters to elect candidates of their choice to the General Assembly for two reasons: (a) Electora1 success at lower levels of government provide a pool of experienced candidates who have developed campaign organization which can be used as a base for campaigns for higher office. (T. 1421 (b) Service in local office is a way in which candidates build credibility with the electorate to enable them to be successful in bids for higher office. (T. 437 , 967 | 206. Thus even though there are no examples in the record of black candidates who have lost elections to the General Assembly in second primaries, the effects of the majority vote requirement on electoral success for higher and lower 64 level offices has a ripple effect which hampers success of minority candidates at alI levels of including the General Assenbly. (T.192) electoral government 207. rn 1983, Rep. Kenneth spaulding, a black representa- tive from Durham county introduced regislation to decrease the majority vote requirement to a requirement that a can- didate receive 40t of the vote to avoid a run-off. when that birl was defeated in committee, he introduced a second bill which required a candidate to get 4lt of the vote and at least 3 percentage points higher than the next contender to avoid a run-off. (Stip. 90) 208. Only nine states curently have a majority vote requirement, and these are all Southern states. (T. 970i D.Ex. 48 fn.2) 209. rn promoting his amendment Representative spaurding said that the majority vote requirement is a barrier to the election of blacks; the North carolina rnstitute of Govern- mentrs Weekly Legislative Summary agreed. (D.Ex. 48 r p.Z2i D.Ex. 55) 210. Opponents of Spauldings bill seized on the race issue to defeat the proposal, some calling it the iuichaux bill'. (D. Ex. 48 t p.221 211. Both of spauldings proposals were defeated in the House Election Laws Committee. (Stip 90) 212. Representative Allen Adans, a white representative from Wake County attributes the defeat of the bill to spauldingrs unwillingness to compromise by amending the bilr 65 to a 45t cutoff requiring the winning candidate to get at reast 10t more of the vote than the next highest candidate. (T. 1339-40). This proposal would have had no significant effect on election results and wourd not have herped black candicates. (f. 1356-7; D.Ex. 48, p.20) 213. Defense witness Mark Lanierrs study concludes that while the 40t modification of the majority vote requirement would help some minority candidates, only the elimination of the majority vote requirement would significantly improve the chances of election for minority candidates. (D.Ex. 48, p.20 r23). 214. The majority vote requirement in North Carolina has the effect of enhancing the opportunity for discrimination against minority candidates, and it has been maintained, at least in part, for that purpose. 215. North Carolina's majority vote requirement contri- butes to black citizensr lack of equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Unusuallv Large Election Districts 216. The election districts which plaintiffs challenge include House District *36 (Mecklenburg County - 8 seats), House District *39 (part of Forsyth County - 5 seats), House District *21 (Wake County - 6 seats), House District *8 (Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash Counties 4 seats), arrd Senate District *22 (lrlecklenburg & Cabarrus Counties 4 seats). (Stip Ex. BB and EE). 217. The average number of seats per district for the Iower house of the state legislature for the five states -66 which have the largest average size of district is 3.55 seats. The average size of multimember districts in North Carolinats House is 3.3. seats, with the average for the whole state 2.91. Four, five, six and eight seat districts are larger than any of these averages. House Districts *35, *39, *21t and #8 are unusually large. (T. 133-5i 2O2i 217'. 218. The average number of seats per district for the upper house of the state legislature for the five states which have the largest average size of district is 2.87 seats. (T. 135) The average size of North Carolina's multi- member Senate districts is 2.28 with a total state average of 1.80. (T. 202) Senate District * 2 is a four seat Senate Distriet which is larger than any of these averages. It is unusually large. I. The Use of Multi-nember Districts Decreases Plaintiffs Opportunity to Participate in the Political Process 219. The use of whole counties in the apportionment of the North Carolina legislature necessitates the use of Iarge mutli- member districts which submerge the black electorate because concentrations of black voters which are large enough to be a majority of reasonably compact single member districts are placed in larger districts in which they are a minority of the electorate. That is true as a general natter (Grofman T. 31 ), and witnesses for plaintiffs and defendants agree that it is true in the multimember districts in question in North Carolina (Grofman T. 3'1 , 40, 42, 44, 67 45, 47, 48i PI. Ex. 4-9i Hofeller T. L428, 1430-31; Lilley T. 1149-50; Rauch T. 1101). 220. The use of multimember districts and the submergence of concentrations of minority voters decreases the opportunity that black citizens have to elect candidates of their choice. This is true in general (Grofman, T. 108-11; pl. Ex. 11, App. 6), and is true in North Carolina (Grofman T. 132-3, pI. Ex. 20? Little, T. 624, 643i Butterfield, T. 71Gi Be1field, T. 752i Rauch, T. 1099-1100; Green, T. 1266-Gg). 221. Hofeller testified that in some instances multimember districts help minorities to get elected (T. 1409). His two examples are unique in North Carolina in that the district in cumberland county has a majority black voter registration without having a majority brack popuration and the other ( in Robeson, scotrand and Hoke counties) has three major ethnic groups none of which is a majority of the population. (T. 1432-5) Ttris argument has no probative force with regard to the multimember districts in controversy here. 222. The cost of running for election in multimember dis- tricts is greater than the cost of running for erection in single member districts. Both Drs. Grofman and Arrington estimated that in North carolina it costs twice as much to run in a multimember district. Representative Brennan, tes- tifying for defendants, estimated that it cost $2Or00O for a non-incumbent to wage a successful campaign at large in Mecklenburg County. This cost disproportionately affects black citizens and candidates who are substantially poorer than are 68 white citizens. (Grofman T. 35r 130-1; pr. Ex. 20i Arrington, T. 7g1t 7g3r 800-1, 814; Hauser Dep. at 35; Brennan, T. 1lg4) 223. Multimember districts reduce minority participation in electoral poritics both by reducing turnout and by reducing interest. (Grofman T. 197) This generar finding is true in North Carolina, in part because black candidates are more like1y to run in single member districts and black citizens are more 1ikely to participate if black candidates are running. (Reid, T. 478i Little, T. 642i Hauser Dep. at 49i Butterfierd, T. 7t4i Belfield, t. 753i Ballance, T. 834, 848) 224. Multimember districts reduce politicaL competition because of the winner take-aIl feature (Grofman, T. 31 ). In places in North Carolina in which there are majority black single member districts, elections have remained highly competitive (Reid, T. 490i Little, T. 641-2; Ballance, T.868). 225. Multimember districts tend to produce an uneven geographic spread of representation. The result is that there is 1ittle chance for brack citizens to elect represenatives who live in or near the black community. (Grofman, T. 33) 226. In Mecklenburg County in the past six years, 46t of the House members have come from an area which is the affluent "silk stocking" section which includes only 14t of the residents of the city of charlotte. rn contrast, none have come from the part of the city in which the bulk of the black population lives which includes 43t of the city's residents. (pI. Ex. 3; T. 116-22t 447) 69 227. In Forsyth County, two out of the seventeen representatives and senators who come from the City of Winston Sa1emt ot 11.8t, have lived in the half of the city in which most black residents live and I of 17 (or 47t), of the representatives and senators have lived in the white affluent West Ward which has only 12.5$ of the cityrs population. (T. 124-26, 624, PI. Ex. 4) 228. fn Durham County, 9 of 11, or 81t, of the senators and representatives from the City of Durham have lived in a ward of the city which has only 16t of the cityrs residents; none of the eleven lives in the ward of the city which contains the bulk of the minority population. 229. In Wake County, 17 out of 22 representatives from the City of Raliegh (or 77tl live in a ward which has 20t of the population and none of the 22 lives in the ward which contains the bulk of the black population. (t. 127-9r P1. Ex. 5) 230. This geographic inequity demonstrates the ability of the members of the black community to participate in the political process because it means that they are unlikely to ever see their representatives (T. 446-7 ) and because none of their representatives has a first hand knowledge of their problems (T. 653). 231. Hultimember districts tend to weaken the link between the constituent and his representatives. (T. 33) This is es- pecially true whenr ES here, most of the representatives live in one small part of the district. (Grofman, T. 33) It is 70 Particularly true since multimember districts decrease the like- lihood that black representatives will be elected and black constituents are more likely to approach representatives from the black community. (Little, T. 622i Butterfield, T. 7l7i Lynch T. 446i Ballance, t. 852i Hauser Dep. at 40) 232. Blacks who are outspoken on controversial issues cannot be elected from multimember districts because of their need to appeal to the white community. (Little, T. 625-25i Eauser Dep. at 42-3; Lovett, T. 665-7, 583-5, 591 ) Once someone black gets elected from a multimember district, that person must moderate his views in order to get re-elected from a constituency which is majority white (Lovett, T. 652i Ba1lance, T. 851-2, 857-9). 232a. Defendants claim that multimember districts increase the influence of blacks by increasing the number of represen- tatives to whom they can appeal. (C1ement, T. 1289; Adams, T. 1332, 1344; Willey, T. 1156i Brennan, T. 1162, 1156) They claim this is true because all of the representatives must attempt to get votes from the black community. At the same time, defendants acknowledge that blacks must single shot vote in order to elect black candidates from multimember districts. (Eofeller, T. 1437i Rauch, T. 1099i ses also Grofman, T. 85) If black voters must vote only for black candidates in order to elect representatives of their choice, then white candidates will not be supported by them, and will not be subject to their influence. Thus, the only way for black citizens to take advantage of this theoretic mutlimember district inversed influence is to give up their limited ability to elect representatives of their choice. 71 232b. For the reasons discussed in paragraphs above, the Court finds the defendants' use of multimember districts diminishes the ability of blacks to participate in the polltical system and contributes to the inequality of opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. 71a - J. Responsiveness 233. Plaintiffs made no attempt to prove that the General Assenbly has been unresponsive to the needs of black citizens. 234. Defendants did attempt to rebut plaintiffs evidence of unlawfuL dilution by showing that the legislature has been responsive. The primary evidence offered by defendants rras the subjective hope of Representative Adams of Wake and Representa- tive Brennan of Meck'lenburg that their delegations are respon- sive to all citizens. (Brennan T. 1153, 1155i Adams T. 1333). 235. Although Adams purported to speak for ForsYth, Mecklenburg and Durham Counties, he has so litt1e familiarity with black leaders, the black community, or the political workings of those counties that the probative value o-f his testimony is Iimited to Wake County. (T. 1342, 1345-1351). 236. While there is evidence that the Mecklenburg delega- tion listens to black constituents when those constituents contact them, there is no evidence that the delegation, other than black representative Phil Berry, seeks out the opinions of the black community or that any action is taken in resPonse to their concerns. (Brennan, T. ll63; Lynch T. 453). In fact, Representative Brennan admitted that she took no initiative in seeking out the views of black voters before deciding to support multi-member districts and even after listening to those views, made no effort to change her position or introduce legislation (T.1182' 1197); she was more concerned about preventing Republicans from getting elected than responding to the desires of her black constituents. (T. 1192-93). 72 237. Furthermore, since none of the white Representatives live in the black community, Pl. A.Ex. 3(a), the people in the black communities do not normally see their Representatives when they come home from the legislature on weekends. (Lynch, T. 446-7). 238. Representative Adams testified as to a few specific pieces of legislation which were enacted which he viewed as responsive to the needs of blacks. They vtere a few bills to ease voter registration, the declaration of Martin Luther Kingrs birthday as a holiday, and an appropriation out of federal Block Grant money, not the staters general fundr for sickle cell anemia. (T. 1334-38). The legislature did not enact legislation to modify the majority vote requirment, which was also supported by black legislators. (See tr 211 gre,.). 239. This subjective testimony plus these few examples do not pursuade the court that the legislature is responsive to the particularized needs of black citizens. The evidence before the Court is that black citizens have serious problems with regard to employmentz poverty, education, housing, and health. (See ls 30-55, supra). There is no evidence that the legislature has taken any actions to respond to these needs. 240. Defendants introduced evidence of the employment and appointment of blacks by the Governor and the executive branch. (Testirnony of Leslie Bevaequa starting at T. 925 and D.Ex. 77, 18r19). These exhibits not indicate the percentage of appoint- ments who are black, do not indicate the appointees or em- 73 employees who have resigned, and do not indicate by whom those who have resigned were replaced. It{ore importantly, the wil]ing- ness of the executive branch to appoint or employ blacks does not indicate responsiveness on the part of the legislature. 241. Based on the record before the Court, the Court makes no finding as to whether or not the North Carolina General Assembly, or the delegations from the districts in question, have been responsive to the particularized needs of black citizens as a group. K. The Policy for the Use of Multi-Member Districts is Tenuous 242. At the time that the General Assembly adopted its apportionments in Feburary 1982 and April 1982 it had available to it plans for subdividing Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Durham and Wake Counties which would have created majority black single member house districts within each county, two within Mecklenburg County, and a majority black Senate district in Mecklenburg County. Each of these districts was contiguous, reasonably compact, and had a population deviation of less than plus or minus 5t. (Stips. 111, 113, 130, 145, 159) 243. In addition, Representative Blue had raised the question of subdividing House District *8 to create a majority black district in the Wilson, Edgecombe, Nash areas. (Ha1e Dep. p. 20) 244. By February 9t 1982 the United States Department of Justice had objected to Article II, S 3(3) and S 5(3) of the North Carolina Constitution and the redistricting committees 74 of the House and the Senate had been advised that the pro- hibition against dividing counties was not in effect in the counties covered by S 5 of the Voting Rights Act or in the counties not covered by S 5. (Cohen Dep. 130; Rauch Dep. 86i Rauch T. L072r 1085; Lilley Dep. 69-70) 245. The July, 1981r and October, 1981 apportionments had been enacted without any adopted criteria (Sullivan Dep. (Ll/82) at 621. In E'ebru6ry, 1982, the Senate and House Redistricting Committees adopted reapportionment criteria. (Stip. 0-1 and 0-2, respectively). -246. These criteria are not a statement of public policy / I conceived by the legislature. Instead they are criteria I \ proposed by counsel for the State, based on the criteria \ I used in another state, and adopted because eounsel for the I Ilegislature advised that criteria were necessary to obtain I Justice Departnent preclearance of the plans. (Sullivan I I Dep. 34-5, Lilley Dep. 59; Rauch T.1072) In fact the House I of Representatives apportionment had been drawn by the staff I Iprior to the adoption of the criteria and on instructions to I I cross county lines only to satisfy S 5 and decrease population / deviation, and to otherwise to keep districts like they I I were. (HaIe Dep. (5/82) at 55) This staff plan was adopted \ with only minor changes (Hale Dep. at 57) 247. The [Iouse criteria prohibit submergence of concentra- tions of racial ninorities. (Stip. Exhibit 0-2, n 2). The House redistricting committee knew that use of multi-member districts and whole counties submerged concentrations of 75 racial minorities. (Lilley Dep. 35-36, Lilley T.1149-50) This criterion applied statewide but was not forrowed in the counties not covered by S 5. (Eale Dep. 13-14, Lilley T.1151) 248. Both the House and Senate redistricting committees were informed by Counsel that the criteria they adopted did not prohibit changing multi-member districts to single member districts in areas not covered by S 5. (Stip. Ex. LLL, Tape 3, p. 5 - Transcript of L/28/82 iloint Session of House and Senate Redistricting Committee ) . 249. The criteria were not followed in other regards. fn particular, paragraph 4 of the House and Senate criteria provides that districts should be constructed to recognize the staters historic communities and commonalities of interests. (Stip. Ex. 0-1, O-2, i4) This criterion iras ignored. (Rauch Dep. 38; Long Dep. at 38; Cohen Dep. L77.-72) fn general, the smaller the district the better for recognizing commonalities of interest. (Rauch T.1123, Dep. 39-40) In particular, combining Cabarrus County, a rural textile county, with Mecklen- burg County, a major urban center, in Senate District *22 violates this criterion. (Rauch Dep. 35-36i T.1123) 250. Thus, the criteria adopted by the committees do not provide a public policy which justifies the use of multi- member districts in the districts in question. 251. Defendantsr witnesses Sanders and Farrell testified as to reasons for maintaining whole counties in the creation of legislative districts. Sanders is the Director of the North Carolina Institute of Government, an institution which has only 76 white facurty members (T.890, 9221. Farrelr is a professor of public law and government there. (T.l0O2) 252. The reasons they articulated are as follows: A. The use of whole counties as building blocks for legisrative apportionment has been traditionar since 1665 (T.907 ) ; B. For a long time counties luere the only subunit with estabrished boundaries and people thought of their prace of residence as a county (T.908); C. The county is the primary administrative unit for administration of state poricies and programs (T.908; r012); D. The county is an important unit of local government (T.908r I015); and E. Keeping counties whole is necessary to enable passage of local bi11s (T.1020-1025). 253. These reasons were not discussed with the legislature prior to the adoption of the apportionment acts. (T.1053) 254. The traditional use of whole counties in apportioning the legislature does not justify the continued use of whore counties because: A. Prom 1665 until 1955, the use of whole counties in the House did not result in the use of multi-member districts. (Defendantsr Exhibit 52) The system of apportionment which combines counties and creates multi-member districts is fundamen- tally different than the original system in which each county had one representative. B. fn 1665r dDd until 1858, not only did the counties 77 o have representatives, but also the major borough towns had representatives. Thus the urban and rural interests were separately represented. (T.289 | 2951 C. The State has historically been willing to under- go drastic changes in the way counties have been governed, including creating and abolishing township governments, and changing from elected to appointed county commissioners in order to idjust the racial balance of povrer. (T.290-2941. The form of county government has not been sacrosanct. D. For most of the time from 1775 through 1898, the legislature appointed the governing body of the counties. (!.29L-92) Since 1898 that has not been true.(T.1043) Thus the tie between the legislative delegation and the county government is weaker now than then. 255. The use of whole county multi-member legislative districts in 1 966 and the 1967 prohibition against dividing counties were recommended by all white committees and enacted by an all white legislature. (T. 2961 There was no black voice in the process. (Sanders T. 919) The legislature was advised by Dr. John Sanders that the use of multi-member districts would subject the legislature to possible constitutional challenge by black citizens because multi-memeber districts tend to dilute minority voting strength. (T. 1301; D. Ex. 53) At the same time the General Assembly enacted a numbered seat provision with the purpose of preventing single shot voting and over the protest of black citizens that it would negate Negro voting strength. (T. 302-305) fn addition, the General Assembly 78 concurrently adopted the apportionment of congressional districts which rrere gerrlmandered in order to place Durham county in a district in which the black community would have little effect. (T. 305-307) Plaintiffsr expert, Dr. Harry Watson, concludes that the General Assembly adopted the use of whole counties in apportionment in 1956 and 1967 with knowledge of its discriminatory effect and for the purpose'of maintaining the all white status quo as nearly as possible. (T. 30; D. Ex. * 53) ilohn Sanders testifying for defendants, negates this only by saying that no one expressed any racially discriminatory intent to him. (sanders, T. 9211 This discriminatory intent contributes to the tenuousness of the policy behind the use of whole county multi-member legislative districts. 256. The fact that counties used to with boundaries does not justify the use be of the only subunit whole counties today. Townships have existed since 1868. (T.290) All parts of the state are currently in some township and in some electoral precinct. (T.1055) These townships and electoral precincts can be used as a basis for subdividing countiesr €ls is demonstrated by the current subdivision of Guilford County in the House (Stip. Ex. BB) and in the Senate (Stip. Exhibit EE) and by plaintiffsr illustrative districts for Mecklenburg County (PI. Ex. 4(a) and 9(a) ); Forsyth County (Pl. Ex. 5(a); Durham County (Pl. Substitute Ex. 6(a)); and Senate District *2 (pl. Ex. 10(a) ). 257. Nor does the fact that people used to think of their place of residence as a county justify the retention of whole counties in apportioning the legislature. 79 258. People are less likely to identify with counties now because county seats are not the social, economic, and cultural center that they were before industrialization and improved transportation and communication. (T.294-5; 1035-38) Socio-economic problems do not stoP at county lines. (T.845- 46) To the extent that people do identify with counties, it is likely to be rural people, not the urban residents of the counties in question here, who maintain county identification (Lilley Dep. at 57i FarreII T.1017) 259. In addition, counties were created to recognize the communities of interest that existed when they were created and boundaries have not been modified since 1911. (T.1009- 1010 ) 260. Subdividing counties for the apportionment of the legislature would not hamper those civic, religious or business organizations which organize thenselves on a county by coun- ty basis. (T.1047) 261. Counties are not as important to the administration of state policies and programs as defendants suggest. None of the following important state functions are administered by counties: education either elementary and secondary (T.914, 1041-2) or higher education (T.I039-40; 1042); transportation (T.915; 1043) ; development of industry (T.915-16) i' consumer protection and licensing (T.915); enacting criminal laws (T.916- 1?li providing correctional institutions (T.917); providing institutions to serve the deaf, blind and mentally impaired (T.917; 1039; 1040); and health care delivery and planning 80 (T.1039, 1040); and for the most part, providing a judicial system (T.1040-41; 923-24r. 262. Each county does not have to have a representative who lives in it to carry out the administrative functions of the state. (Sanders T.917-18; Ferrell T.1045) Furthermore, there is no evidence that those counties which have been divided in the apportionment of the legislature have experienced any difficulty administering state programs. 263.. The importance of counties as a unit of locaI govern- ment by itself does not justify the retention of counties as the basis of legislative districts. Counties have no independent significance in state government in that it is not a federal system. (T.918) Furthermore, subdividing them into legislative districts does not dininish their importance. 264. The final reason articulated by defendants for dvoiding splitting counties that it is important for counties to be whole in order to enact local legislation. (T.1020-25) 265. The testimony is uniform that the autonomy of counties and local government has increased dramatically since the mid 1960rs and that their reliance on loca1 bills has, similarly, decreased. E'unctions such as zoning, annexation, and salary setting may now be done without legislative intervention. (Sanders, T. 909-910; Rauch Dep. 70-71, T. 1122; Mills Dep. 24-29; Farrell T. 1044) 266. Although Sanders and Farrell each testified that about 300 loca1 bills were enacted in 1983 (T.1022i 911)r 8t neither of them know how many of those related to school adminis- trative units, municipalities, or administrative units other than counties which are not the basis of legislative apportion- ment. Some of these units are larger than and some are smaller than one county. (T.919-20; 1058) 267. It is not necessary for the county to be the basis of legislative apportionment to get loca1 bi1ls passed. For example, Senator Rauch concedes that Guifford Countyrs needs have not gone unmet. (T. 11221 268. The state has already divided eight S 5 counties and four non-covered counties in the Senate, including Wake and Forsyth, in the Senate (T.27 ) and eleven S 5 counties and fifteen non-covered counties in the llouse. (T.30) Thus there is no uniform state policy with regard to division of counties. 269. Some other administrative units which may need local legislation are in more than one county and are divided by the use of eounty lines. For example, the City of Rocky Mount is i; two counties which are in different Senate Dis- tricts. (T.40, 46, 7441 2'70. llore importantly, all four steps specified by the Farrell as necessary for local legislation could be accomplished even if counties were subdivided: A. The loca1 government body could still request the legislation. lT.l-022-23i 1048i 92ll B. A1I representatives from that county could be consulted and could enter into a voluntary majority or unani- mous consent ru1e. (T.1023; 1049, 1I82-83, 1154) No county will 82 have fewer representatives because it is subdivided (T.1046, 9221 C. The bills could still be debated in committee and not on the floor. (T.1023; 1049). D. The members who introduce the legislation could still take political responsibility. 271. The extent that the purpose of the current system of local legislation is to prevent divergent needs or opinions from being expressed (T.1051-52' 1059-60), that is not a public policy which justifies the use of whole county multi-member districts. 2'12. Thus the use of counties is neither necessary for the state sary for the counties to function. as the basis of apportionment to function nor is it neces- 273. The actuaL reasons that the legislature maintained the use of whole counties in the apportionment of the challenged multi-member districts are! A. They believed that creating single member districts would help Republicans get electedr and they sought to avoid that result (Brennan tI92-3; Adams 1135; Litt1e 539, 543i Lynch 458). B. They wanted to maintain the previous districts to protect incumbents (Rauch Dep. at 7L, 94, 106i T.107I, 1118, 1120-21, Lilley DeP. at 19, 55). Senator Rauch testified that the reason legislators are attached to county lines is that their old districts were based on counties. (Dep. at 113). See also Reapportionment Criteria n 5 (StiP. Exhibit 0-1, 0-2) - 83 C. The legislators wanted to the minimum required to get approval of the plan from the Department of Justice and the Department of ilustice did not require them to subdivide the contested districts. (Rauch Dep. at 90, 109; T.lO72, 1095-8, 1100; Li1ley, T.1152; Sullivan Dep. at 7Lr 119; Long Dep. at 14, 95). 274. None of these reasons is a public policy which justifies the knowing submergence of minority concentrations into large, majority white, multi-member districts. L. Findings Regarding Senate District 2 275. Plaintiffs challenge Senate District 2 on the ground that it results in dilution of the voting strength of black voters in the northeast, and that it-was passed for that pur- pose. 276. Senate District 2 was ratified as part of Chapter 2 of the Session Laws of the Second Extra Session on April 27, 1982. This was the third plan passed by the General Assembly to redistrict the Senate pursuant to the 1980 census. On .Iuly 3, 1981, the first redistricting plan for the Senate (Chapter 821 of the 1981 Session Laws) was ratified. (Stip. 13) This plan did not divide any counties in accordance with Article II, S 3(3) of the North Carolina Constitution. This plan was a re-enactment of the existing Senate Districts and had population deviations greater than 20t. (Rauch Dep. at 6-71 84 277. By letter of November 30, 1981, the United States Attorney General objected pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to the provisions of the North Carolina Constitu- tion prohibiting division of counties. (Stip. Ex. !{) The Attorney General also objected to the July Senate reapportion- ment plan which was based on those provisions. (Stip. 23i Stip. Ex. N) 278. As a result of the objections, the members of the Senate Redistricting Committee were advised by counsel that county lines could now be broken in fashioning a reapportionment plan. (T. 1084, 1085) The Committee Chairman, Marshall Rauch understood this to mean that county lines across the state could and should be broken. (Id.; Stip. Ex. JJJ at 9i Stip. Ex. TTT April 26 at 6t Senator Rauch: nlt is my understanding that Justice has ruled that we may and in fact we shall cross all county lines in arriving at what they want.') 279. The Senate Committee on Redistricting reconvened in ilanuary and February 1982. (Stip. 261 During the 1981 session, no criteria were adopted. (Sullivan Criteria for Reapportionment (Stip. Ex. 0-1 ) were adopted on the advice of counsel. (Su1livan Dep. (5/82) at 941 A public hearing was held on February 4t 1982 (Stip. 281, also on the advice of counsel and staff who had met with officials of the United States Department of Justice. (T. 10721 85 280. Nothing that was said at the public hearing was ever seriously considered by the Senate Redistricting Committee. (T. 1106-7; Sullivan dep. (5/82) at 49, 81, 82) At trialr Senator Marshall Rauch, Chair of the Committee did not recal1 that such a hearing had even taken place in February 1982 until prompted by counsel. (T. 1082-83) At the public hearing, strong sentiment was voiced by black leaders across the state for majority black single member districts. (T. 1083; Stip. Ex. AAA) 281. After the public hearing, Senator Erye made a motion in the committee to create a 58t black single member district in the northeast. There was no reason based. on the reapportionment criteria adopted by the Senate why Senator Frye's plan could not have been adopted. (T. 1106-7) The motion was defeated. Instead, the General Assembly enacted a 51.7t black district which they were advised by counsel did not meet the minimum standards of the Department of Justice for a majority black district. (Sullivan Dep. (5182) at 117-18) 282. The committee was informed that the Department of ilustice guidelines for a minority district, that is a district in which blacks have an equal opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice, is 65t black population. (Stip. Ex. DDD, Feb. gr 1982, Tape 3 Page 3) This 55t guideline was made known to senators during the February 1982 session. (Cohen dep. at 88-9) Counsel for the legislature advisedr "When the Justice Department talks about a majority single member 86 district, they usually have a bench mark magic of 55t for a realistic possibility of actually electing a minority.' (Stip. Ex. DDD, Feb. 9t 1982, Tape 3 p. 3) 283. The legislators were also advised by counsel that a majority black district is "something considerably over 50tr' and lhat where concentrations of black voters occur that are sufficient to form a district of approximately 60t black population, "you are going to have to do it.' (Stip. Ex. DDDT (Feb.91 1982) Tape 2 p. 11' Tape 3 p. 3) 284. Defense witness Hofeller agreed that the generally accepted rule of thumb for a majority black district is 658 of the total population to take into account the lower voting a9€r registration rate and level of turnout of blacks. (T. - 1428 ) 285. The counsel retained by the legislature also advised members that a compact Senate district could be drawn in the northeast that was 59.4t black "without any gerrymandering at a11." (Stip. Ex. DDD Feb.91 1982, Tape 4 p. 5) Defense witness Hofeller drew such a district in November 1981. (T. L425) The district was contiguous, and divided only two counties- (T. L426-7) Although Hofeller included in his report to counsel a description of the district, from November 1981 unitl after the final Senate apportionment was enacted, no one ever asked to see a map of the district. (Id. ) Although Hofeller's plan was not distributed to committee members, several senators, including Senator Rauch, knew about it. (Sullivan deP. 15/82) at 16, se) 87 286. In addition, the committee had before it a 61.2t black district in the northeast which had been presented at the public hearing by the North Carolina Association of Black Lawyers. Senator Frye specifically informed the committee of the proposed district. (Stip. €x. DDD 12/9/82) Tape 1 at 7) 287. Senators Allsbrook and Harrington were members of the committee who live in the affected districts in the northeast. Senator tlarrington opposed any plan that would have increased the black population over 52t. (Stip. Ex. DDD (2/g/ 821 Tape 4 at 8-10 ) Senator Earrington was supportive of a district with a black population of no more than 51.7t because that percentage involved minimal disruption to the preexisting districts and did not threaten his re-election. (T. 1115) He was not concerned with avoiding dilution of black voting strength and was satisfied with any rationale offered by counsel to justify publicly his position- (Stip. Ex. DDD (l/28/82) at 29-31) 288. As enacted on February 11, 1982, the District 6 of the Senate reapportionment, the district adjacent to District 2l had plan had a District 2 with a black population of 49.It. (stip. Ex. V, W) This was a classic example of fracturing a concentration of black voterg to divide their voting strength. 289. The purpose of creating a 51.7t district was to give the appearance of having a majority black district without in fact threatening the re-election of the white 88 incumbent, Senator Monk llarrington. at 50, 621 (SuIIivan DeP. (5/82) 2gO. The black population was held to 51.7t in Senate District 2 during the February session in an effort to obtain Section 5 preclearance without actually providing black voters an equal opportunity to elect a candidate of their choice. (stip. Ex. DDD ll/28/82) at 11; 2/9/82, Tape 3 at 3-5' Tape 4 at 5) Although several senators made public statenents about not splitting counties as a reason for adopting a plan with a 51'7t black population in Senate District 2. the Court does not find this rationale to be credible since the legislators admit and defendants do not contest that they could break county lines where necessary to avoid dilution of minority voting strength in Section 5 covered counties. Their own criteria said they would divide counties to avoid fracturing concentrations of minority voters. (Stip. Ex. 0-1, is 2 & 6) Moreover, the committee did not even ask to see the conpact, nongerrymandered district with a 59.48 black population that split only two counties. 2g:.. By letter of April 19, 1982, the Department of Justice for the second time objected to the North Carolina Senate Redistricting Plan. (Stip. 37 i Stip. Ex. Y) 292. During their second effort to obtain section 5 preclearance, in April 1982, the legislature again did the minimum required. Although the Justice Department had stated that a district with at least 55t black population could be drawn in the northeast, this was clearly understood to be a floor not a ceiling. (T. 1117; Stip. Ex. EEE (4/25) Tape I at 4-5i Stip. Ex. TTT APril 26 at f ) 89 293. A Justice Department attorney informed the Senate staff that he had drawn a plan with a 62\ black population in the northeast. (Sullivan Dep. (5/82) at 3I) Nonetheless, \ no plan considered by the Senate Redistricting Committee after the second letter of objeetion had no more than 55.3t black population. (T. 1114; Stip. Ex. TTT (4/27 ) at 1-2) A statewide single member district plan was presented to the committee by Senator Ballenger. (Stip. 39) A motion t,o table this plan which had three districts over 57t black was seconded by Senator Harrington and approved. (T. 1107; Stip. 39; Stip. Ex. TTT, April 27 at 2-31 fnstead, a plan was adopted by the Committee and enacted by the legislature that had been drawn at the request of Senator Daniels who had given instruc- tions to the staff to try coming within "50 to 55tn black population. (Stip. Ex. TTT, Apri L 27r pp. 2-3t Of the three plans considered by the subcommittee, this plan had the smallest black population. Senator Rauch, in describing the rejection of two staff plans drawn at his request (Sullivan dep. 5/82 at 62i Stip. Ex. TTT at 2t 4) with a black population in District 2 of 55.3t and the adoption of Senator Daniels'plan with a black population in District 2 of 55.1S said, 'We were given three pills and we swallowed the smallest one." (Stip. Ex. EEE, 4/27, Tape 2 at 9i T. 1115-6) 294. Honk Harrington was the senator most affected by the redistricting during the April session. Senator Earrington was appointed to chair the subcommittee that recommended the 90 present configuration of Senate District 2. (Stip. Ex. TTT, April 25, p. 11; T. 1114) AIf other members of the subcommittee were incumbents who would also be affected. . Senator Harrington rras opposed to creating a district with a 57t black population (Stip. Ex. TTT, April 27, p. 3) or a 588 black population. (Stip. Ex. DDD, Feb. 9, Tape 4 p. f0) No blacks served on the subcommittee chaired by Senator Harrington. (SuIlivan dep. (5/82) at 66i T. 1114) 295. Senate District 2t as chall was ratified as part of Chapter 2 of t Second Extra Session on April 27, 1982 CC) This was the third effort by the the Senate. 296. Senate District 2 consists of the following whole counties: Northampton, Hartford, Gates, Bertie and Chowan. It also includes parts of Washington, Martin, Halifax and Edgecombe Counties. (Stips. 57, 58) 297. The black lopulation in Senate District 2 is 55.1t. The percent of registered voters that is black is 46.2*. (Stip.57) 298. The Court incorporates the general findings, paras. 15-29, Egg,, regarding a history of discrimination that touched the right of blacks in North Carolina to register and votei paras. 55-79, E-!lE, regarding the lingering effect of that historyi paras. 30-55, -W., regarding the enged in this litigation he Session Laws of the . (Stip. 43; Stip. Ex. legisiature to redistric t 91 depressed socio-economic status of blacks in North Carolina; paras. 195-218t supra, regarding the use of a majority vote requirementi paras. 182-194, supra, regarding racial appeals; paras. 153-161 & 181, supra, regarding the extent of election of blacks to public office; and paras. 283- 274, supra, regarding defendants I attempt to show responsiveness and a cornpelling state policy to rebut plaintiffsr showing that blacks in North Carolina do not enjoy an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. These findings apply in general across the state and the Court finds that they also apply specifically to the eounties and parts of counties in Senate pistrict *2. 299. The Court finds that there remain consequences of North Carolinats history of discrimination which continue to affect the ability of and the opportunity for black voters in Senate District *2 to partieipate in the political process. The configuration of Senate District 2 fragments a sizeable black population and voter concentration and manipulates boundary lines in ways that divide and submerge black voting strength. This fragmentation and submergence continues and exacerbates the present effects of past official discrimination in registration and voting. 300. Voting in Senate District 2 is substantially racially polarized. (T. 139-141) Dr. Grofman found that racial polariza- tion persists in the northeastern counties within Senate District 2. (Id. ) His analysis is substantiated by the testimony of 92 trained political observers (T. 330-32 | 390-92; 834, 830, 838, 839, 846-7, 855-7) and black community leaders. (T. 7791 The voting is especially polarized in rural area of heavy blaek population concentrations when white voters are threatened by the prospect of bracks gaining elective office. (T. 330-32) This was evident in the 1976 tee-Green run-off election. (Ig. ) Even where white voters might be inclined- to vote for a black candidate, they do not support him publicly. (T. 865-7) The conclusion of substantially polarized voting in Senate District *2 was not contradicted by any of defendantsl witnesses or by any evidence. 301. Given the polarization of voting, the evidence is clear that Senate District 2 is not in fact a majority black distriet. (T.137-8) 302. Defendants atternpted to rebut plaintiffs I evidence that Senate District 2 dilutes minority voting strength by showing that this district best comports with the reapportion- ment criteria; that the district meets the minimum reguired for Section 5 preclearance of 55t black population (T. 1117); and that it best preserves constituentsr relationships with incumbent Senators and was therefore motivated by political and not racial concerns. (T. 1118) The Court finds that defendants have failed to show that these purported policies are not tenuous. 303. The Court finds that the reapportionment criteria were not consistently followed in the adoption of Senate District 2. 93 304. In enacting Senate District 2, minimal considera- tion was given Eo the redistricting criteria of comPactness, historic communities and conmonalties of int,erest and count,y division. (Stip. Ex. o-1, {s 3t 4 & 5) Senate District 2 is not compact in that natural boundaries, such as the substantial body of water between Chowan County and Bertie and Hertford Counties, were ignored. (T. 1055) Moreover, by putting the Albemarle Sound County of Chowan in a different district than the other Albernarle Sound counties, Senate District 2 divides counties that have fundamentally similar historic and geographic commonalities of interest. (T. 1006, Pl. Ex. 1OA; Sullivan dep. (5/82) at 52) By placing Washington and Chowan Counties in Senate District 2? the General Assembly has left the northern and.southern portions ofSenateDistrict1separatedbytheA1bemar1e,,W no direct access by a road. The criterion mandatihslas i6w counties as possible was not followed in the enactment of Senate District 2. Senate District 2 splits four counties. A plan which split only 2 counties but had a higher black population was never considered by the legislature although they were repeatedly informed of it. (T. I425i tr 285 supra) 305. The purported goal of meeting only the minimum Section standards is evidence of purposeful discrimination. Alterna- tive plans were available that better comported with the goals of Section 5 and were consistent with the staters own reapportionment criteria. Moreover, even the minimum Section 94 5 standard was ignored initially despite advice of counsel and staff who had met with Justice Department officials after the first letter of objection. It was only after the second letter of objection was issued that the legislature became concerned with minimum Section 5 standards. There rras no evidence presented that the legislature was ever concerned with actually avoiding dilution of minority voting strength or establishing a district where minorities have an equal opportunity to elect a representative of their choice. 305. Defendants also proffered evidence that during the period after the first ilustice Department objection, all votes of the committee were open, that only I08 of the meet- ings were in executive session, that a black S6nator was eventually appointed to the committee and that a public hear- ing was he1d. (T. 1070 | L072, L077 ) 307. The Court finds that defendants' evidence concern- ing the process used is insufficient to rebut plaintiffs' case of vote dilution because the evidence is clear that defendants did only what was absolutely required by the Justice Depart- ment and did it only after two unsuccessful attempts to ignore the advice of counsel and the Department of Justice. (T. 1071) The process iras open in form but not in reality. 308. Defendantsr policy of protecting incumbents is manifest in the pursuit of "least change pIans.' fn enacting Senate District 2t protection of incumbents was allowed to dominate other considerations. (Rauch dep. at 106, 113) Defense 95 witnesses concede that senator Frye, who is brack, was the only senator who was concerned about protecting the rights of minorities rather th,an his ot n re-election. (8. at 104) 309. Prans such as those proposed in E'ebruary by senator Frye (T. 1075) and in April by senator Barlenger were not eonFidered even by a working committee because they would have enabled minorities to have a chance to elect a representative of their choice and that would have meant unseating the white incumbent. 310. Protection of incumbents is not an important goal of reapportionment. (Hofe1ler, T. 1428) 311. The policy behind the current configuration of Senate District 2 is tenuous. _ 312. fn a racially polarized political system, where there are no black incumbents elected from an area of the state with a heavy concentration of black voters (and from where there have not been any blacks elected to the North carolina senate in this century) (stip. 971, and where bracks are not ineluded in the decision-making process, the protec- tion of incumbents amounts to deliberate racial discrimination. 313. The court finds that senate District z was inten- tionally kept the lowest possible black population to minimize the voting strength of blacks in northeastern North Carol.ina. The Court also finds that Senate District 2 results in dilution of the voting strength of black voterso 96 II. CONCLUSIONS OF I,AW A. Jurisdiction and Procedure 1. The Court has jurisdiction of the parties (Stip. 3) and of the subject matter pursuant Eo 28 U.S.C. SS 1331 and 1343(a)(3) and (a)(4) and 42 U.S.c. S 1973j(f), to redress the deprivation of plaintiffs' rights secured by the Thir- teenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and 42 U.S.C. SS 1973, 1981 and 1983. 2. A three-judge court is properly convened pursuant to 28 v.s.c. S 2284(a). (stip. 2) 3. This action has been properly certified as a class action on behalf of aII black residents in North Carolina who are registered to vote. (Stip. 4) 4. Of the challenged districts, House District 8 (wil- son, Edgecombe and Nash) and senate District 2, include counties that are covered under Section 4(a) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and for which preclearance is required under Section 5, 42 U.S.C. S 1973c. On April 27, L982, the United States Attorney General indicated he would not object to the Chapters I and 2 of the Session Laws of the Second Extra Session. The action by the Attorney General does not resolve or pretermit or in any way act as collateral estoppel to plaintiff s' Section 2 claims. 42 U.S.C. S 1973c; Major v. Treen, C.A. 82-LL92 (8.D. La. Sept. 23, 1983) (three- judge court). 97 5. The Court finds further that defendants attempt to preclude the plaintiffs from pursuing their Section 2 claims in these two districts by reference to the doctrine of col- lateral estoppel was not timely pled in defendants' September 24, 1982, Answer to Plaintiffsr Third Supplement to and Amended Complaint in accordance with Rule 8(c), F.R.Civ.P., nor yras it raised as one of defendantsr contentions in the Pre-Trial Order. The defense of estoppel, even if it were available, was waived. B. Statutory CIaims 6. Plaintiffs challenge the 198I and L982 apportionments of the North Carolina House of Representatives and Senate because each dilutes their voting strength. in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1955, amended June 29, Lg82, 42 U.S.C. S 1973 (hereafter Section 2). 7. In particular, plaintiffs contend that defendantsl use of majority white multimember legislative districts in five house districts and one senate district violates Section 2 by submerging concentrations of black voters into a larger white electorate and by preventing black voters from electing representatives of their choice. Plaintiffs also challenge Senate District 2, a single member district, as violating Section 2 by fracturing a concentration of black voters in the northeastern part of the state and thereby preventing them from electing representatives of their choice. 8. Under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, plaintiff has the option of either proving a discriminatory 98 purpose in the adoption or maintenance of an electoral scheme or demonstrating "based on the totality of circumstances' that the electoral plan results in the dilution of minority voting strength. l,laior v. Treen, suprai Buchanan v. City of Jackson, No. 8I-5333 (5th Cir., filed June 7, 1983); Campbell v. Gads- den County School Board, 691 F.2d 978 (llth Cir. L982li Ivlcl{illan v. Escambia County, 688 F.2d 960 ( 5th Cir. I982) . 9. Section 2 reaches any "systems or practices which operate, designedly or otherwise, to minimize or cancel out the voting strength and political effectiveness of minority groups." S. Rep. No. 97-4L7, 97th Cong., 2d Sess. at 28 (1982) (hereinafter Senate Report). Claims of discriminatory redistricting fall squarely within the ambit of the Act. Sen- ate Report, eit L2 n. 31. 10. Section z(bl, supplemented by the legislative history of Section 2, provides the standard of proof for establishing a Section 2 violation. The Senate Report at 28-29 delineates specific factors which a court may consider in resolving whether a redistricting plan results in dilution of minority voting strength. The Report makes clear that a litigant need not prove all, or even a majority of the enumerated factors to prevail. Moreover, "It]he failure of plaintiff to estab- lish any particular factors is not rebuttal evidence of non- dilution.n Id. 99 To determine whether dilution has occurred in violation of Section 2, the Court must examine the totality of circum- stances to see whether the flvoting strength of minority voters is 'minimized or cancelled out.'" Senate report at 29 n. I18. City of Lockhart v. U.S., u.s. , I03 S.Ct. 998, 1004 (1983) (llarshal1, J., concurring). II. The plaintiffs have shown that, under the totality of circumstances, the use of multimember legislative districts in Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Durham, Wake, Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash Counties, each of which has a large concentration of black voters and racially polarized voting patterns, dilutes the voting strength of black voters, and denies those voters an egual opportunity to elect candidates of their choice in violation of Section 2, as amended. L2. The plaintiffs have proved an unlawful voter dilu- tion under Section 2 as amended in the composition of Senate District 2. The plaintiffs have shown that Senate District 2 fractures a large black population concentration in north- eastern North Carolina into two senatorial districts, sub- merging their voting strength in majority white racially polarized electorates with the result of denying the black citizens of that area an equal opportunity to elect represen- tatives of their choice 13. Notwithstanding the election of a few blacks to the General assembly in 1982, this court concludes that the chal- lenged reapportionment plans have a discriminatory result that 100 is impermissible under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act as amended, based on the totality of circumstances surrounding the history of discrimination in North Carolina, the linger- ing effects of that history, the existence of substantially significant racial polarization, the use of unusually large election districts, a history of racial appeals that persists into the present, and the existence'of other barriers to full participation by black voters including the majority vote requirement and the depressed socio-economic condition of black citizens in North Carolina in general and in the chal- lenged districts in particrrlar. 14. Plaintiffs' proof that the North Carolina reappor- tionment plan submerges the voting strength of black voters and denies them an opportunity to participate equally in the political process lras not rebutted by any credible evidence. 15. Plaintiffs need not prove that the challenged reap- portionment plan was an intentional gerrymander in Senate District 2 or intentionally discriminatory in the multimember districts in order to prevail under Section 2. Nevertheless, plaintiffs have put before this Court evidence that the dilu- tive results of the configuration of Senate District 2 and the use of multimember districts were intentional. Plain- tiffs have an independent basis for proving a statutory viola- tion if they demonstrate through circumstantial or direct evidence that Senate District 2 ox the multimember districts were enacted for a discriminatory purpose. Plaintiffs have met this burden. 101 c. Constitutional CIaims 15. Plaintiffs have met their burden of proof under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and Section 2 of the Vot- ing Rights Act, that the dilution of minority voting strength in Senate District 2 was intentional. They have presented direct and circumstantial evidence that is sufficient to estab- lish a claim of intentionally racialty discriminatory dilution, cognizable under Section 2 and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Perkins v. City of West He1ena, Ark., 675 F.2d 2OL (8th Cir. 1981), aff'd mem. u. s. ( 1982 ); Rogers v. Lodge, u. s. , L02 S.Cr. 3272, 73 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1982). L7. Plaintiffs have also proved that the use of multi- member districts in the contested counties was done with the foreseeable result of diluting minority voting strength. That proof, together with the circumstantial evidence which leads the Court to conclude that the apportionment has a discrimi- natory result, is sufficient to establish that the plan had a discriminatory purpose in violation of the Fourteenth Amend- ment to the United States Constitution. 18. In addition, the state fragmented the large and contiguous black population that exists in the northeast by splitting that population between two senatorial districts, thus minimizing the possibility of electing a black to the General Assembly in the second Senate District. The impact of this state action is probative of racial purpose. Busbee v. Smith, 549 F. Supp. 494 (O. D.C. L982) , aff 'd, , 103 s.ct. 809 (1983). LO2 U. S. 19. Defendants have failed to rebut plaintiffs' evidence and have not shown that Senate District 2 was enacted exclu- sively for non-racial reasons; rather, the evidence was suf- ficient to establish that the enactment of Senate District 2 was unconstitutional, and in violation of Section 2., propelled by the discriminatory purpose of limiting the opportunity of blacks to participate meaningfully or effectively in the polit- ical process and to elect legislators of their choice. 20. The North Carolina House and Senate Reapportionments are unconstitutional in violation of the Thirteenth, Four- teenth and Fifteenth Amendment guarantees because they perpet- uate the present effects of the pre-existing purposeful and intentional denial to blacks'in North Carolina of equal access to and participation in the political process. 2L. In determining that a discriminatory purpose existed in the enactment of the challenged reapportionment p1ans, this Court has considered the totality of circumstances and finds that in particular, Senate District 2 was enacted to accord members of plaintiff class less opportunity than other voters to participate meaningfully in the political process and elect legislators of their choice. D. Relief 22. This Court holds that on this record the State of North Carolina has a duty to draw House and Senate districts that fairly recognize the voting strength of the minority com- munity. See In re: Illinois Congressional Districts Reappor- tionment Cases, No. 81 C 3915, slip op. (N.D. I1I. 1981), 103 afffd sub nom., Rvan v. Otto, L02 S.Ct. 985 (1982); Rvbicki v. State Board of Elections, No. 81 C 6030 (N.D. I11. Jan. L2, L9821 i Kirksey v. Board of Supervisors of Hinds County, 554 F.2d 139 (5th Cir. L977) (en banc), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 958 lL977l. 23. In granting relief from unlawful discriminatory governmental action, it is the Courtrs duty not only to pro- hibit the continuation of discriminatory actions and require devel,opment of non-discriminatory procedures, but also to grant effective affirmative relief from the present effects of past discrimination. 24. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1955 r €ls amended, requires this Court to order whatever relief is neces- sary to remedy completely the discriminatory results of the challenged reapportionment and to recognize the voting strength of blacks in each of the districts in question. 25. Defendants should be enjoined from using multimember districts to conduct any future elections for Representatives to the North Carolina General Assembly from House District 36 (Mecklenburg County), House District 39 (part of forsyth County), llouse District 23 (Durham County) r House District 2L (Wake County)r llouse District 8 (Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash Counties) and Senate District 22 (l.tecklenburg and Cabarrus Counties). Defendants are also enjoined from conducting any future elections from Senate District 2, or from any similar districts containing those counties or parts of them which fractures minority voting strength. 104 26. The plaintiffs are entitled to an award of costs, necessary expenses of the litigation, and reasonable attor- neys' feesr ES provided by 42 IJ.S.C. SS 1973 1(e) and 1988. Dated: October 'l , 1983 LESLIE J. WINNER Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wa1las, Adkins & FuIIer, P.A. Suite 730 East Independence Plaza 951 South Independence Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 tANI GUINIER Suite 2030 I0 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 (2L2) s86-8397 ATTORNEYS FOR PIAINTIFFS ( 7Ul I 37fr46l 105 APPENDIX TO FINDINGS OF FACT: PI. Ex. 56-70A -- Demographic Data Note errata (t. 409-410): Pl. Ex. 59 (Wake Co.) Percent of Population Below Poverty-white z "62.2" should be " 6.2o PI. 8x. 63 ( ttalifax Co. ) Percent of Population Below Poverty should be: white 12.6t black - 47.8t Ratio Black to White l,lean Income should be "54.96t" instead of "-54.96t" ,o ,l .. .::-..'-.... I : : *-'j Mecklenbr.rrg Cor.mty - Deoographlc Data Populattoni;Iffifif Popularr.on Percent of, Populatlon Belqw Povercy Percent of Failly Incoue over 920,-000 llleao Indooe RatLo Black to l{hlte Meau Incooe Totel Nrnber of Eouetng Uulte luuber of Renter Occrpled Parcent Renter occrryled Perceat lhlts wlth No Vehlcle Avallable Percent Otlr 25 r{4th F{dhrl eade Edrcatfun G lcss Pcrc,eut Votlng ege PEpulsrlm ther ts Blsck (19S0) Percent Votgs ttret fu Blsck (1940) "'E&, 29L,442 72.L 5.5 6L.7 27,209 itt,zzs 36,949 33.2 5.9 9.9 Black 107,006 26.5 25.7 27.9 15,519 57.07 34,209 2,056 50.1 26.5 25.0 Totel 404,270 10.9 s3.6 24,462 10.0 24.0 16. g Glngles Exhlblt ,56 PopulatLon P.arclt of Populatton Percent of Populatlon Belory Povertv _P-erceur of Faiily Incoue over 520,600 Itlaan Indoue-' Ratlo B1ack to Whltc llean Income .Total Nr:uber of Eoualnr Untts Nuuber of ReRter Ocerpled Psrceat Rsnter oecuplld Pcrcaut llnLtg rlth llo vchlcle Avat labla lercellt Ovcr 25 rrtth Elsjhrh ead. Edrarro c IassPcrccnt Votllg lp pe'utettrn tt.t tt ffaac tfgAOiPerccnt Vorctri thsr lt BLsdE (1980) Forsyth County - Denographic Data '';Ilhfte. Bleck L82,647 59,40375.0 24.4 5.9 25.656.2 28.625,355 15,101 s9. s6z 69,699 19,885 L9,320 11,934 27 .7 60.:0 5.9 27.4 L6.7 25.6 22.0 20.3 . . Total 243,683 11. 6 50.2 23,188 10.7 Gtnglee Exhlblt lSt I,. Ij 9.'i,. .. , ,,i , a-- Durhso Cor:nty - DcuograPhlcData ''llhlte. 95,818 62.7 Populatlon Perceut of Populacion Parccnt of Populatlon Below Povertv P,orccnt, of Fao11y Iucome over 920,600 !!adn Inl,ooc" Batlo Bleclc to lfhlte tteaa Incoue ,.Iotel trrobcr of Boustus llulte f,uuber of Reuter Occrpfed Porccnt RsntGr Occtplid Porccat lhtte rtth i{o Vehtcle Avatleble lecart OvEr 25 r.lth E dhrb eade E&rcclsr c lass Pcrc,ent VoE Eg egB kp,ult&n tbat fu glsctr, t19g0iP.lcGnt VotGas tet ts Ehc}, (1980) 7 .6 24.9 57.8 28.524,984 15,357 -6L.477, Black 55,424 36.3 Total L52,7&5 14.0 47.9 2L,7L9 13.0 36,792 13, 953 37.9 5.9 18,343 LL,462 62.:5 25.2 14.6 26.6 33. 5. ?4.e. Ctnglea Exhlblt lSg I{ake Corrnty - .Denographlc Data Popuktloni&;;;-;I popularlon ......,. ferceng of Populatlon Below poverty Porcent of, Fol'Iy Iacooc oner 920,600ltEdn InAooa -r-- Y-r' Betlo Black to llhltc l{ean Incooe .Total Nuobor of Eourlnr llnltrIluubcr of Rcnter Occr:pied --- Parecot BenEer Occr:pt'cd PGrcent llnitg rtrh ilo vchlclr Avai.labld lemstt Orlcr 25 rrttb Efghch Grade Edrat o G roes 3:::=: gryt's ApE ElpE!3rt4n trlr r" ffir?gaoircrcGaE votsE! theE fu BLck (1990) .'' '.Thlte, 23L,55L 76.8 62.2 63.7 26n893 : 85,664 29,609 34.6 4.5 9.3 Black 55, 553 21. I 23.4 28.7 L5,347 s7.071 L9,793 11,021 55.7 2I.0 28.2 ... Total 30t,327 . 10.0 56. 8 24,646 .. . 7.6 Gtnglee Exhlblr ,59 I{Lleon Cor.srty - DcoogpaphlcData Populatlon Perccnt of populatlon ; - .,' Perccnt of Populettoa Belorr povertv ParcaEt of Feotly Iacorqe over 920,600lieda .Iaaoae-. Betlo Black to lfh1te Mean Incme .Totel Nnobcr of Eouatns Uaite l[uubcr of Rcnter Occupied Percent RcBtsr Occrplid Percont Iltrlra wlth ilo Vehlcla AveLlebld Perccnt Otf,r 25 rrfth E8dhth ea& Ed:catfrn c LeseI:l:=l bErns ,rp B9P|E]+rrn aG-tr Bt d.-irmolrerc&E vot€E! rhrt 1s Bfsck (1990) '$iltc, 39,943 63.3 9.6 45. 5 2L,687 L4,725 . 4, 818 32.7 7.L 23. 0 Black 2?,98L 36.4 37.8 17.1 L2,241 56.447, 6,78L 4,368 64.4 2C..L 44.2 32.4 23.0 ' ; Totel 63,L32 20.0 36.5 L8,732 14. 0 14.0 Glnglee ExhibiE ,50 tt r i?.i ,''I,lJ 'l 1i i, l .',! Edgecoube County - Denographlc Data Populatlon P:rc1t of PopulatLon Percent of Populatlon Belols poverty Perceut of Fartlly Incoue over 920,600 l{eAu InCoue" Ratlo Bleck to llhl,te Mean Incooe 'Total Nunber of Houal,ng Untts Nuuber of Renter Oceupled Percent RentGr Occuplld Percent llaits rlth lilo Vehicle Aval1ab1e lerccni Over 25 rrfdr Elghth ea& E&:catfcr c LerePercenr !_ortng aEc fquUttcr rhsr G nkA.-itgg0i'Pereenr Voras ' -r & Blsch (19S0) \.. 8, 117 4,258 52..5 26 .2 15.0 40.3 45.7 14.q,' "I{h{te Black 27,428 28,43349.0 50.8 9.6 30.544.2 20.220,476 L3,592 -66.382 Total 55,988 20.2 33.3 17, 360 L0,246 2,782 27.2 7.7 23.8 Glngles E:xhlblr , 61 T" ,. L a\ Populattou Percent. of Populatlon Parceat of Populatlon Belotr poverty Percsat of Folly Iucoae over 920,600liedu Ineooe'. Ratl.o Black to lfhlts llean Income .Totel Nunbcr of Bouelns Unlta Nuuber of Rentcr Oceupfed Percent Rsnter 0ccrplLd Perccat llalts rdth i{o Vahlcle Avallable lerc€ns OrEr 25 d41 rrgith ftade Edrcacl^cn G Iera Perceur lortg ap pq:tettrn rher G alecL ifsgoiPercGnt Votcs thet ,r Black (19g0) Naeh County - DeuographLc Data ''Ilhfre 44,745 66.6 8.9 46.7 2L,785 Bleck 22,089 32.9 41. 8 13.9 11,434 Total 67,L53 .19,9 37.5 18,937 52.497, iQ,gq? q,r91 0,933 3,763 29 .0 58.96.7 27.2 L2.3 29.4 L3.2 Glngles Exhlblt 162 Hallfax County - Deuographlc Data a' Populatlon ,::""1. of Popularlon Percent of Populatton Below povertv Pcrcent_of Foily Incoue over 920,600lleall .LncoEc' Ratto Black to l{hlte }lean Incoue .Tota1 Nuober of Bouelnr Unl_ra Nuober of Reater Occupfed Percent Renter Occuplld Pcrcrnt lrnlts rltb XIo Vahlcle Avallable lerc€8lt GE 25 trlth Elghth eaOe Sdasrlcn c rose Parcanr F,rtry Ags pryutsrlEB thsr fi Uaal-ifgmi PeEcent Votaa rhrt tt Bl^aclr (1930) "I{hfte. Black 27,559 26,05349.8 47.L 37.9 L2.9L9,042 10,465 -54.967 Total 55,285 27;L L5,479 19.0 10, 680 .2, 8oo 26.2 L0.2 25.6 44.0 35.2' 7,20L 3, 520 48..9 32.3 51.5 Glnglee Exhlblt ,63 li z.' (l Northaryton County Deoographlc Data '"Irhlte: Black ;,; 39. t 60.7 11.6 38.234.9 15.319,964 L2,942 64.837, Populatloni&;;;;I popularton Pcrceut of Populetlsa Belon povertv P-erccEt_of Faally Iacoue over 920,600lraan IncoEC" Rstto Black to llhltc Dlcan Incotre Totel Nuobsr of Boustar Ual-ta lfiruber of Renrsr Occupled Percent Renter Occuptia Percent Iirlts rdtb Ilo Vchlcls Availebli Total. 22,584 28. 1 24.0 16,080 19. 9 3,248. 549 16. 9 10 .5 23.L 56.2 51.4 . 3, 849 L,26L 32.4 27.9 54.6 Glnglea Exhlblt ,64 :!:' leorcGot Or,E 25 w&h Efghri Gade EdrcaHrrr c IasePcrcenr voHrg Aga Detr1rrro thar G f:rcf-ifgg0)'Perccnt VotE! ttrat fi Blac&, (1990) Hertford Cormty - Deuographic Date I Populatloa PGrcsnt of Populetlon Percent of Populatl.oa Below povertv P-crcaut of Fo11y Ineoue over 920,600 Hacn ilndona Itetlo Bleck to l{bite l{ean luco,me !_ot91 Nunber of Eoualng Uatts l{ruber of Renrer Occrpfed Percant Bcnter Oceuplld Pcrccut lhtte rrlth ltlo Vchicla Avallable Percenr O\rEr 25 x{th Erdhrh Grade EdratLcrr c trrssPcrcenr VrrfnS AF fcpntettcn ttsr G-Bkd(-ifgeOi Pereeut'Votqa #t t ,l Bbck (19g0) ''E&. 10,285 44.0 10.4 41. 8 20,465 Black 12, 8L0 54.8 34.7 20.5 13, 194 fotal 23,368 24.3 31.2 L6,946 L9.2 64.472 3,727. 950 25.5 10.0 2L,9 3,709 L,452 39.1 28.L 48. L 55.2 51.4. Glnglee Exhlbtr I 65 l;;';;i f'j ',i*,..1+.' :-. .; l. f t' I: .. { l:. Gatea County - Denographlc Data Populatl.on Percent of Populatlon Percent of Populaclon Below Poverty Percent of Faolly Iacoue over 920,000l{ean Iucorne Ratto Bleck to tltrlte llean Incous Total N'qher of llouatng Unlts Nuaber of RantEr OcerryIed Pereeot Renter Occuplld Percent Ualts rLth No Vehicle Avatlable Perctsrt G,er 25 wfth Bt.ifEtr eade Edrc8r!.cr q reas Percent lbEing AeE Peut rlcr tbar ts Bk* (19g0) Percent Vorsrn ther tt Bl^eck (1980) ''!Jhfte: Btack 4,L92 4,664 47.2 52.6 7.9 30.s43.4 22.L 2L,025 L3,204 -62.82 Total 8,875 L9.7 33. 4 17,380 1,605 L,274. 265 343 16. s 26.9 7 .2 2L.9 L3.7 2L.3 43.4 -49,4 . -47.8 Glnglee Exhlblr ,66 Marttn County - Deoographlc Data Populettoa Psrcent of Populattoa Percent of Populatlon Below povertv Perceat of Feolly lucoue over 920,600 Dtedu InEoae' Rstlo Black to Wht.Ee Mean Incme Iotal Nuobcr of Eoualng Llntta Nuuber o_f Renter Ocerpfed Percent Renter Occuplld Pcrcent Unlts wtth [o Vehlcle Aval1ab1e I€rccnt Ovrnr 25 rrlth Eldhrt &ede Edrcatlo q Tees Parsenr yodrg eee pqdletlrn tbatE-atsdc tfgaOiPerccrt Ertcs tbat ts Black (1990) "Uh1te: 14, 334 55.2 10.8 * * * .* * * 25.2 Black 11,555 44.5- 40.3 * * Total 25,94E 24.L * * 40.6 ?3.1 47 .9 Glngles ExhlblE I 67 *not avallable T €t' l.l. :i Bertle CowrrY . - DcoographLc Data Populatlon Percent of Populatlon Percent of Populatlon Below Poverty Percent of Faotly Incoue over 920,000tiean Incme Ratlo Black to llhltG llean , Ingoae totel Nuober of Eouetng Unlte I{rnber of Benter Occr:pied Percent Renter Oceupled Perc,eBt llnlta rlth llo Vehlcle Available PerctcIt o,Er'25 6g5 erghth eada &frcatrrn cr Iesa Parceut %tl4 age fqulrrlm tbar is Bls& (1980) Pcrcent Votctrs th* ts BLaclc (1980) "I{h{te: 8,488 40. 6 L3.2 32.0 L7,549 3,'346. 678 20.3 8.8 28.8 Black L2,44L 59.2 40.7 12.8 L2.502 70.82 ' 3,533 1,293 35.6 24.2 45.1 Total 2L,024 29.4 22.0 15,008 16. 5 s4. 5 44.2 Glnglee Exhlbtt ,68 '1 :: l r. Waahtngton County - DcoographLc Deta Populatloa i#;;;;f populetlon Pqrccat of Populattoa Belou poverty PcrcGBt of Feolly Incoue ovcr 92O,60Oltsdn InC,onc-. . Betlo Black to llhlte lGan Iacooe .Totel Nuubcr of Eoustar lJnlte Ituubor of Raurer Occrpied Percont Renter Occuptid Perceat lh1tr rrlth ilo Vehl.cle AvcI'lable Pescelt OrE 25 *45 rrgirlr Grade Edrcadrrr c IasaI!lt"l! goltns Ae {tatl]+srn tt"r r" st"ckle8oirerc.nr \EtE! thsr ,t Blsck (1990) "tMrftc: Black 8,346 6, 410 56.4 43.3 10.9 3s. 948.5 22.420,.E68 13, 019 62.392 3,052. 596 19. 5 7.6 22.2 39. 1 J4'q' Total 14,801 2L.7 38. 9 17,998 15. 6 L,670 624 37.-4 30.:1 43.9 Ginglee Erhibtr 16e t-p t: Chorran County - Deuographlc, Data Populatlon Pcrceat of Populatton Pcrcent of Populatlon Balos povertv -P-ercent of Fol1y Iacsoe over 920,600t{edn InEome Ratl,o Bleok to llhlte lGan Incooe Totel Nrnbqr of Eourtng tlnlte iluuber of Benter Oceupfed Pcrcent Renter OccuptLd Prrcenr ltralre rlrh nto Vehl.cle Aval1ab1i Percst! Gnr 25 wfth El,ihEh ftsafu FAnatl,ar ss raes .Pcrcarr votlrg lgn reEUUo ttarE-Bleck-ilgSoi'Perceat Votcr thrr t! BLd (1990) ''Ifhtte: 7,294 58.1 8.8 41. 5 20,622 2,765. 587 2L.2 7.5 23.2 Black 5,2L0 4L.5 4s.4 9.5 10,704 512 1, 550 738 47 .3 30.3 48.9 38.1 :1.?' Total 12, 558 24.0 29.L L6,877 15.8 Glnglea Extriblr ,70 .l 1 il $ 5 North Carollna - Deuographic Data PopuletLon I."::T: or PoPulatlou Pcrcsut of Populatlon Bclow poverrv larccnt_of Faofly Ineona over g20,600 &7AAll 'IDCOEe-. . Brtlo Black to l{hito Mean Incooe ._I-ot-al Nruber of Eourlug lhtts truober of Rcnter Occnpied Percgat Reatcr Occtrptld Pqrcsar, uutrr rltb irlo Vchlela Available I€rcfu O,Er-25 nlrh Ef*rh crade E&cartsr c LecaParceat Vottg '':Mrlte:' 4,460,570 75.8 10 -0 43. 8 21,008 L,624,372 442,060 27.2 7.3 22.0 Bleck 1, 319,054 22.4 30.4 2L.5 13,548 64.9t 39L,379 LgL,925 49.03 25iL . 34.6 Total 5,991,.765 14. I 39.2 19,544 10.8 Glnglee Exhlblr ,70A