Memo from Winner to Williams,et. al; Defendants' Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Stay; Defendants' Reply to Memorandum in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Stay

    O.,

MEMORANDUM

TO: Napoleon Williams, Steve Suitts, Raynond l{heeler,
Lani Guinler, Jull-us Chambere

FROM: Leslie J. hllnner

RE: ReaPPortiorrment

DATE: November 25, 1981

Attached please find Defendantrs Motion to Reconsider
Denial of Motion to Stay. I see no need to respond to this.



lr-. -rd

R.ALPH GINGLES, €t

Plai
v.

RUFT]S L. EDMISTEN

Now come the

through their att
1. On Octobe

Stay Proceedings

tion of the Unit

legality of Artic
of l.Iorth Carolina

districts for the

Senate and House

United States A.t

submitted to the

3. On IIo

inter a1ia, denie

order to permit f

tion " ;

4. Said Orde

filing of the pla

l4otion to Stay, p

Court a reply to

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
E EASTERI,I DISTRICT OF. NORTH

Il.,-r'.EIGII DfVISION

COURT
CAROLINA

NO.81-803-Crv-5

Defe

CTVIL

.,i',
ir .. i'jl. 'i

'_ ii,

DEF'ENDA}ITS I UOTTON TO RECONSIDER
DENIAL OF MOTION TO STAY

etc.. , €t dI. ,

dants.

efendants'in the ahove-captioned action, by ancl

rneys of record, stating to the Court the following:
2J-, 198I, the defendants filed their l,lotion to

n the above-captioned action pending the determina-

States Attorney General on the issue of the

e Ir, Sections 3(3) ancl 5(3) , of the Const.itution

and the 1981 apportionment of the representative

United States Congress and the North Carolina

f Representatives;

date r no determi-nation has been made by the

any of the mattersrney General vrith respect to
partment of .Tustice;

aL. ,

tiffs,

r L9, 1981, this Court entered

the defendantsr Motion to Stay

11 preparation of the case for

an Order nhich,

Proceedings "in
expeditious adjudica-

2. as of thi

$/as entered on the sixth day following

ntiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to the

eventing the defendants from filing with

he response pursuant to local rule 4.05;

the

Defendants I

the



l-- ,D

VffIEREFORE, t
the Court accept

that the Court r
Order regards t
that the Court a

their llotion to
This the 2

-2-

defendarts respect.fully move the Court that
for filing and. consider the defendants, reply,

sider j-ts Order of October 19, 1981r ds that
defendanLsr Motion to Stay proceedingsr and

, 
'.iord the defendants opportunity to be heard on

ay Proceedings.

day of November, l9B1

RUFUS L. EDMTSTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

Norma HarreII
Tiare Smiley
Assistant Attorneys General

Ronald Goodbread
JerriS Leonard
900 17th Street,
Suite 1020
Washinqton, D. C.

N.IT.

20006

allace, Jr.
Attorney Gen

Legal Affair
Frttorney General r s Of ficeN. C. Department of Justice



fr-' thr

f hereby cer

Defendants I Moti

plaintiffsr atto
United States po

This the 23r

-3-

CP.RTTFICATE OF SERVTCE

ify that I have this day served the foregoing
n to Reconsj-der Denial of Motion to Stay upon

neys by placing a copy of said Motion in the
t Office, postage prepaid, addressed to:

,I. Levonne Chambers
LesU-e Winner
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas,

Adkins & Fuller, p.A.
' 951 South Independence Boulevard

Charlotte, North Carolina 2gZOz

Jack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III.

' Napeoleon B. Williams, .Tr.
10 Columbus Circle
New York, Nevr york 10019

day of November, 1981



(>+"
Olp+

ro

RALPH GINGLES, Et A

Plaintif

V.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN,

Defend

On October 2L,

action moved the

until the General

ment Plans and unt

either interPoses

and Amendments to

1981 the General A

(House Joint Resol

in opposition to t

A request for

legislature is no

both. grounds stat

obtains: Until t

the Amendments an

It is for this re

lthe submiss
previous House P
tonsider onlY th

.,

Sp

n of the Octol-rer
n a nullity, and
nevr version.

zgLln House Plan renderecl the
the Justice ltePartment vrill

I

IN THB UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

I THE EASTI:IRN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION

CML NO -,, 9I'2803-CIV-5
I{lJ\.: .'i :'

.!. lRii-;i.l l .l:r'; "'
U' l'' l-rl ;'' '

t t'l'

DEFEI{DANTS ' REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS I

IIED,IORANDUM rN oPPOSITION TO

DEFENDANTS ' }IOTION TO STAY

tc. r et aI.,

5e

1981-the defendants ln the above-capt'ioned

urt to stay all proceedings in the action

ssembly had reconvened to redraw its reapportion=

1 the Attorney General of the United Stat'es

objection or aPproves the challenged plans

e North Carolina Constj'tution' On bctober 29'

sembly reconvened and a new House plan was enacted'

tion 1427') . The plaintiffs f iled a memorandum

motion to stay on November LI, L98I'

stay on the grounds of the reconvening of the

onger viable. But the underlying thrust behin<l

i.n the original motion and mern'orandum still

United States Department of JusLice preclears

the plansl they do not constitute effective 1aw.

)
)
)

)

)
)
)
)
)

Canton Branch, N. .A.C.P. v. city of canton , 472 F.SuPP' 859 (S'D'

Miss. 1978). Thu , until such time as the Department of 'fustice
r the subm.itted plans and Amendments are IegaIIy

makes clear rvhe

effective the th at of harm to the plaintiffs is entirely hypothetical.

son that the court in canton said that a challenged

clearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Actplan requiring P

was not riPe for ecision by a federal district court pending

determination bY AttorneyGeneralorthed.iStrictcourtforthe



lL-:<1 r

-2-

Districi: of Co1

defendant cannot

terms.

Furthermore,

not be final upon

objection be fort

be rejected, the

an action for dec

for the District
as they proport

issue will. be res

a final resolut
Finally, insofar

plaintiffsr reque

case has not been

prej udiced.

Respectfully

ia. See

nswer the

,.janton at 865.

complaint in

resolution of the preclearance issued might

objection by the Attorney General, should an

lng " Should the Amendments and,/or the plan

tate of North Carolina has the option to bring
ratory judgement in the federal district court

f Columbia. Thus, the pLaintiffs cannot guarantee,

do in their memorandum, that the preclearance

lved by the February 19th date. Cantonr gupra,

lear that a private suit should be stayed until
pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

s the defendan ts continue to 'comply with the

ts for discovery, the actual progress of the

slowed, and that the plalntiffs have not been

Consequently, the

other than hypothetical

he

an

and McDaniel v. hez, U. S. , 68 L.Ed. 2d 724, 101 s.ct.
2224 (1981) make

ubmitted, this the Jj
RUFUS t.
ATTORNEY

day of November, 1981.

EDT!TSTEN
GENERAL

Attorney Gen
Legal Affairs
ey Generalrs Office

N. C. Department of ,fustice
Post Offlce Box 629
Ra1eigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone : (919) 733-3377

Norma Harrell
Tiare Smiley
Assistant Attorneys General

Ronald A. Goodbread
,Jerris Leonard
900 17th Street, N.I^I.
Suite 1020
lrlashington, D. C. 20006



Pra'

I hereby cer

Defend,ants I Repl

Defendantsr Moti

a copy of said P

prepaid, address

rhis tn. JJ

CERTIFICATE OI' SERVICE

that I have this day served the foregoing

Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to
Stay upon plaintiffsr attorneys by placing

ng in the United Slates Post Office, postage

fy

to

to

to:

J. Levonne Chambers
Leslie Winner
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Ialallas,

Adkins & Ful1er, P.A"
951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

'fack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, III
Napeoleon B. Wil1iams, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle
Nerv York, Ilerv York 10019

y of November, 1981