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

    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;