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
Correspondence
November 23, 1981 - November 25, 1981

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. 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, 1981. baec6006-d992-ee11-be37-6045bddb811f. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/783bbd57-de14-4995-86d5-c94f043b115c/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. Accessed April 19, 2025.
Copied!
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