Memo from Winner to Williams et. al; Defendants' Reply to Memo In Opposition To Defendants' Motion to Stay; Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Stay
Public Court Documents
November 23, 1981

Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Memo from Winner to Williams et. al; Defendants' Reply to Memo In Opposition To Defendants' Motion to Stay; Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Stay, 1981. 271daeb6-d292-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/78ae8157-00c8-4264-aba1-225163f8df00/memo-from-winner-to-williams-et-al-defendants-reply-to-memo-in-opposition-to-defendants-motion-to-stay-defendants-motion-to-reconsider-denial-of-motion-to-stay. Accessed May 14, 2025.
Copied!
M E M O R A N D U M TO: Napoleon Williams, Steve Suitts, Raymond Wheeler, Lani Guinier, Julius Chambers FROM: Leslie J. Winner RE: Reapportionment DATE: November 25, 1981 Attached please find Defendant's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Stay. I see no need to respond to this. IN FOR TI THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [E EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ' RALEIGH DIVISION CIVIL NO. 81-803—CIv—5 RALPH GINGLES, et a1., ) ) J.mcntwn.uv, .n Plaintiffs, . ) n.8JHS W .wxnd ) RIHHSZH}J”H . v. ) DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER ) DENIAL OF MOTION TO STAY RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, etc., et a1., ) . ) Defendants. ) Now come the c through their attc 1. On Octobe] Stay Proceedings 1 tion of the Unite: -legality of Artici of North Carolina districts for the Senate and House c 2. As of this United States Att< submitted to the l 3. On Novemb1 inter alia, deniec order to permit fl tion"; 4. Said Orde filing of the pla Motion to Stay, p Court a reply to Iefendants in the above—captioned action, by and >rneys-of record, stating to the Court the following; : 21, 1981, the defendants filed their Motion to Ln the above—captioned action pending the determina- 1 States Attorney General on the issue of the Le II, Sections 3(3) and 5(3), of the Constitution and the 1981 apportionment of the representative— United States Congress and the North Carolina 3f Representatives; ., a date, no determination has been made by the Drney General with respect to any of the matters Iepartment of Justice; ar 19, 1981, this Court entered an Order which, i the defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings "in all preparation of the case for expeditious adjudica~ r was entered on the sixth day following the intiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to the Defendants' teventing the defendants from filing with the the response pursuant to local rule 4.05; U18 HREL‘S'JTL WMT, WMLAS.‘ WMSfiFmURPL WMS WHEREFORE, the defendants respectfully move the Court that the Court accept for filing and consider the defendants' reply, that the Court reconsider its Order of October 19, 1981, as that Order regards the defendants' Motion to Stay Proceedings, and that the Court afford the defendants opportunity to be heard on their Motion to Stay Proceedings. 'This the 23rd day of November, 1981. RUFUS L. EDMISTEN ATTORNEY GENERAL .mes Wallace, Jr. - Deput' Attorney Gene fo Legal Affairs orney General's Office N. C. Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Telephone: (919) 733—3377 Norma Harrell Tiare Smiley Assistant Attorneys General Ronald Goodbread Jerris Leonard 900 17th Street, N.W. Suite 1020 Washington, D. C. 20006 ~ I hereby cert Defendants' Motio plaintiffs' attor United States Pos This the 23rd CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE‘ @575, _ _. ify that I have this day served the foregoing n to Reconsider Denial of Motion to Stay upon neys by placing a copy of said Motion in the t Office, postage prepaid, addressed to: J. Levonne Chambers Leslie Winner Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas, Adkins & Fuller, P.A. 951 South Independence Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Jack Greenberg James M. Nabrit, III Napeoleon B. Williams, Jr. 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 day of November, 1981. 'I- RALPH GINGLES, et Plaintiffs, V. RUFUS L. EDMISTEN,- Defends On October 21, \V1fi’l IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA RALEIGH DIVISION CIVIL NO. 8178Q37CIV+5 ;VL~'\$ . (1'; J.Rmnljcngnn.nhiu U.S.DBTRWTQWNAJ c nu .Hw.jwh a. . ,. a1., DEFENDANTS' REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS' MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STAY etc., et a1., lnts. 1981 the defendants in the above—captioned action moved the Court to stay all proceedings in the action until the General Assembly had reconvened to redraw its reapportion— ment plans and until the Attorney General of the United States either interposes and Amendments to 1981 the General 1 (House Joint Resol in opposition to 1 A request for legislature is no both grcunds state obtains: Until t] the Amendments an< Canton Branch, N.A an objection or approves the challenged plans the North Carolina Constitution. On October 29, issembly reconvened and a new House plan was enacted. Lution 1427). The plaintiffs filed a memorandum :he motion to stay on November 11, 1981. a stay on the grounds of the reconvening of the longer viable. But the underlying thrust behind ad in the original motion and memorandum still 1e United States Department of JustiCe preclears 1 3 the plans they do not constitute effective law. I.A.C.P. v. City of Canton, 472 F.Supp. 859 (S.D. Miss. 1978). Thu makes clear whethe effective the thn It is for this re< plan requiring pr< was not ripe for < determination by I), .. until such time as the Department of Justice ar the submitted plans and Amendments are legally eat of harm to the plaintiffs is entirely hypothetical. asOn that the Court in Canton said that a challenged aclearance under SeCtion 5 of the Voting Rights Act iecision by a federal district court pending the Attorney General or the district court for the lThe submissi previous House pl consider only the an of the October 29th House plan rendered the an a nullity, and the Justice Department will new version. District3of‘Colum1 defendant cannot 2 terms. Furthermore, 1 not be final upon objection be fort] ( I be rejected, the an action for dec for the Districtl as they proport b issue will be res: and McDaniel v. S. Dia. See Canton at 865. Consequently, the. inswer the complaint in other than hypothetical :he resolution of the preclearance issued might an objection by the Attorney General, should an 1coming. Should the Amendments and/or the plan State of North Carolina has the option to bring laratory judgement in the federal district court If Columbia. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot guarantee,. 3 do in their memorandum, that the preclearance Dlved by the February 19th date. Canton, supra, anchez, U.S. , 101 S.Ct. 2224 (1981) make a finaliresOlutiOJ Finally, insofar} plaintiffs' reque case has not been prejudiced. Respectfully 68 L.Ed. 2d 724, :1ear that a private suit should he stayed until 1 pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. as the defendants continue to comply with the ate for discovery, the aCtual progress of the Slowed, and that the plaintiffs have not been submitted, this the £13 day of November, 1981. RUFUS L. EDMISTEN ATTORNEY GENERAL W/ /I/ alface, Jr. De uty Attorney Gen Legal Affairs ,/ % rney General' 8 Office N. C. Department of Justice Post Office Box 629 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Telephone: (919) 733—3377 Norma Harrell Tiare Smiley Assistant Attorneys General Ronald A. Goodbread Jerris Leonard 900 17th Street, Suite 1020 Washington, D. C. N.W.' 20006 I hereby cert Defendants' Reply Defendants' Motio a copy of said P1 prepaid, addresse This the 92-3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ify that I have this day served the foregoing to Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Opposition to a to Stay upon plaintiffs' attorneys.by placing aading in the United States Post Office, postage d to: J. Levonne Chambers Leslie Winner - Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas, Adkins & Fuller, P.A. 951 South Independence Boulevard Charlotte, North Carolina 28202 Jack Greenberg James M. Nabrit, III Napeoleon B. Williams, Jr. 10 Columbus Circle New York, New York 10019 day of November, 1981. Ja e Wallace, Jr. 6:;é;