Group Exhibit (Exhibit A)

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.
Download
By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:
For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):
Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.
LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.
If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.
NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.
Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.
I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.
If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at
This is an exhibit as it is noted on the bottom of Page 1. There are several documents contains within this group exhibit including; Population statistics, a copy of section V of the voting rights act, case files from City of Lockhart v. United States, and County Council of Sumter County, South Carolina v. United States
LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorney
- Leslie J. Winner
Organization
- LDF
Matter
- Gingles
Case
- Thornburg v. Gingles
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- abb68d02-d492-ee11-be37-00224827e97b
Cite this item

Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Group Exhibit (Exhibit A), 1982. abb68d02-d492-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/96ff6d35-bc57-4df2-b316-485b517d6bba/group-exhibit-exhibit-a. Accessed October 12, 2025.

Copied!
    -) Gcocral popularioo charactcristics 
ITablc 28.-CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION, FOR COUNTIES: 196o

35-123

7',--r

979
r20
0.9
166
t6o

29

73A
t42
996
2.7
2?'
600
,o

tr7
8r'
4\7
6tt
8r6
tlo
71,
675
626
,04
7t2
,a2

.ag

lP.mnt not rhorrt whcn lcre then 0.1 or rhcrc bu ie ls thrn 100; poputrtion pcr houhold not rhovn rhcn lcet thra 100 pcnonr ln bourholdr]

SUEJECT lLAt{ANcE ALEITNOEi ALLEGHANY ANSON ASHE AVERY BEAUFORI BERTIE BLAOEII SRUNS-
rICK

BURKE cAEArtus

HOUSEHOLOS

IOTAL

TOfAL POPULATION e r
lil HOUSEHOLOS.

. HE^O OF H0USEHOLOT r r r
HEAO OF PRII,IARY FAITILY
PRtX^RY INOTVTOUAL . .

tlFt 0F- HE^O
CHILO iJNOER l8 OF XEAO .
OTHAR RELATIVE OF HEAO .
}iONREL^TtvE OF HEADr r r

INGRoUPOU RTERS.....
INiATE OF TXSTITUTION. .
OfxER. .

POPUL ?tON PER HOUgEHOLO O

NONTX ttE

TOTAL POPULA?ION . .
lN HoUsExOLOs.

HE^O OF HOUSEHOLO. . r r
HEAO OF PRIXARY FAHTLY
PRIX^RY INOIVIOUAL. E

IIFE OF HEAD
CHILD UNOER t8 OF HEAO .
OIHER RELATIVE OF HEAO .
NONRELATIVE OF HEAO. . .

INGROUPOUARTERS.....
INXATE OF INgIITUTION. .
OTHER.

'OT^L 
POPULATION

i.lcE

,llLErr.or
lxllEr r e r
NEGIO. o o r
lNOllr{. r r
JAPANESE r r
CHINESE.. r
FtLtPINO . .
OTHER RACES.

FErALt. o r r
IHITE. . . .
NEGRO....
iN0llN r o o

JAPANESE..
CHtNESEo. o

FILtPINO..
OTxER RICES.

XARITAL STAIUS

IOT^L

ItlLEr l$ YEARS INO OVEi. .
SINGLE o

xARR I 80.
PERCENI H^RRtEO. . .

. SEPAMIEO.
rIO0lEOr
ol voRcEo

FEHALEI 14 YEARS AND OVER.
SINGLE .
|llRRlEO......r..

PERCENT HIRRtE0o r r
SEP^R^ t EOr

llDOIEOr
Dt voRcEO

NONIH ITE

xlLEr lta YEARS  ND OVEi. .
SIIGLE r
liARRtEOr

PEiCEN" HARltlE0o . r
SEPARATEO.

rlootEo.
oI voRcEO

FEIALET lra YEARS ANO OVER.
SINGLE .
HARR t EO.

PERCENI I{ARRIEOT r O

9E PA RA 
' 

EO.
r I oot Eo.
ot voRcEo

POPUL^TION PER HOUSEHOLO .

7

rl, 799
t6 ,07
? q64

20
z
2

u

t5 6?s

ol 673
,4 55e
7 276

,o
2
2

28 655
6 829

20 8r2
't2.6

462
685
,29

,o 971
5 772

2l ,o5
68.8

794
, )02

)02

4 576
I 657
2 7t5
59. 

'tl8
l6t
4t

4 842
L69
a 834
58r9

222
ts2

67

t5 674
14 611
2t i20
21,760
2 160

19 t9'
29 0?6
rt 298
I 124
I O6t

28t
773

ls 809
l4 62t
,2rt
2 92t

,10
e rl,
5 29t
, {55

,29
188
ll6
72

!.511

ra.59

I5 625

7 ?tl
? t9l

320

7 914
7 t67

947

t ]o?
I {14
, 702
c9.8

67
t56,,

J 
'71L 212

, ?19
66.8

9'
968

72

,a{
t4l
l7{

5r. ?
6
9

!r5
ltt
I16

56. I
l6
t{

t5 625
I5 T9l
tt 172
t 857

,l!
, 1106

t q2l
2 

'69t2l
llq
lo7
27

I 067
I o57

212
199
ll

r55
,91
294
l5

t.7

5. O,

9

9

2 70t
626

I 954
72.'

,9
9l
,o

2 9to
5]8

I 968
67.6

40
,71,,

? 7r4

I 80'
, 699

92
,

I

7 7tq
7 650
2 198
I 99'

205
I 76t
2 59)
L 227

59
e4
64
20

, 9lt
, 802

It7
2
I

2tt
21,

.t7
47
to
t2
a6
56

2

t8
I5
t7

2I
I

a7
25
4'

,.48

,
9

4rO9

2.1 962

t2 lto
6 

'65! ?rE.?

L2 Ar2
6 624
6 22t

ra

2q 962
24 796
6 Ztz
5 r4l

671
4 5o!
9 06'
tl 8{t

l7t
t66
t4,
2'

ll 97'
lt 8?o
2 qo6
2 156

250
I 601
tL 722
, ort

rot
lo,

86
t7

I

7 7t'
2 t?tq 96E
64.7

L29
284

68

8 56?
2 t52
3 tr?
60.o
2rt

I 199
7'

I et'I le7
I 17'
t8.,

a7
t17
la

t 67C
I ItO
I 969
tr.5

17,
5{1

tt

,.99

4.9t

t9 ?6t

9 425
9 728

0u

I

t
I

9 9q'
9 641

97

,

t99
t99
47
,9

6
27
6ra
s7.
{

6 ?t6
I 906
4 67'
69.2

79
19l
44

7 098
I 44t
4 765
67. I

7a
tl2

76

69
,t
,t
,,

?4
26
,$

2
t2

2

t. ?5

sr2)

19 76r
19 612
3 242g 884

,50
[ 266
6 807
t 186

rl,
ll6
lro

6

L2 oo9

6 0r9
, 922

rl6
t

3 970
5 9r2,,

12 009
tl 460
2 968
2 7tO

2ll
2 16l
I 9s?
2 092

90
549
30{

t5,
7i
2tl
20

4
9
9

,7

76
7'

I

I

4 2re
L79
2 70!
6!.8

ll7
122
,4

! 26E
I O57
2 689
5r.o

6t
46t
3t

,t
7It
I
!
I

105
ll
9t

86.7
.?6

I
2

t.g6

16 0r4

t7 521
tt !02
6 {lo

s

I
l8 49'
lt 622
6 866

5

l, 290
l,162
2 9t2
2 r92

4lao
I ?go
4 8r'
t 254

r9,
128
2l

lo7

ll 508
, t60
7 725
6?. I

255
{78
145

12 669
2 557
? 999
6). I
,77

I 927
186

! 714
I rol
2 r25

57 .2
159
249
,9

t. ?0

4.U9

q 146
I lo7
2 290
55.2

255
705
{q

]6 0r4
,5 7l'
9 642
I 429
I 2tt
6 956

12 ,9'
6 064

6t8
,ol
t6l
I$O

24 tto

12 ols
4 Et6
7 tr'

t

a

l2 116
t O4l
7 292

I
I

I

7 5rt
2 290
4 E66
5q.6

165
,06

69

t or5
I 651
rt 930

62. O
2ZA

t l2t
t,

14 45'
t4 4ll
2 801
2 554

2ta1
I 99O
5 6lt
,J2o

269
{2
I

,4

{ 016
t 42'
z t78
59.2
lr6
t6T,r

{ 268
I 209
2 476
5trO
l9l
5r6

2{ }50
2q 277
t 774
5 tAo

39{
{ 299
t 785
, otl

160
7t

ll. 2o

t. ,. lt

.a7

tt
{2

2C 661

lla ,28
0 261
5 116

Itl

t{ 95'
L96
6 022

rr5

! 969
2 904
5 ?Ol
6!.6

148
296

68

9"6
2 247
t 852

62c7
176

I 16'
?o

, .412r 116
I 95q
57r,

07
129
tl

, 5ll5
I OBI
I 992
56.2
ll2
4t9
l7

L2 224
12 106
2"6
2 tl7

219
L 6\2
{ 98E
, oo2

lr8
ll8

9la
2q

tt.2?

5.ll

2a 831
2a 679
6 722
6 tq,

57e
t L27

rt 2oe
5 lf6

za,
202
14,
59

20 2?8

to 227
6 659
, 556

I

ra

I

I

ro ort
6 {q5
, 60,

2

6 70?
2 00,
4 4tt
65.t

122
206

E7

6 69'
I 42{q 4rt
66.2

124
761

79

7 L?t
7 0E9
I lt6
I 259

127
986

2 6ra9
I 7tC

ao
c6
6'
2t

2 070
7El

I l9la
5?.7

5l
?l
l6

$. ot

5.lt

2 lr.!
6?0

I ltt
55. rl

61
2ct

2q

zo 27e
20 llq
t ol{
{ 571

ta{!
,91:
7 tt1
, 69!

I5l
l6{
l!
?t

Iro o?{

62 tO9
5t 789
6 679

lo
)

L2
2

t2

67 )53
60 l5t
7 t6l

l4,
lo

2
ll'

.l.t 24{
I 79'

,2 094
72.'

6t8
I 521

8r2

to o8,
I 521

tz ,36
64.6

I t6l
6 727
I 47'

tra t2{
lr Stt
J 90t
, to8

?9'
2 !91
t 92t
2 96t

540
606
tt6
220

rl ,26
L 224
2 860
6!.4
27'

'L?rr6

t.29

l.rr7

, 2at
I O9E
2 t7'
56.,.lrl

I O57
r55

lro o7q
t26 286
]8 {l'
,, 090
5 

'2t28 52t
,9 3qt
l7 ao6
I 990
, ?88
2 2re
I 549

,2 70r

2' 92L
25 60t
Itl,

L2

27 t80
2) 27J
I 187

lo
t,
z
2

t

l7 lt8
u 757

t2 
'9r69.4
285ll7t
2t5

,

, ?rt
,641

El2
7t6

96
t6t

I lr9
865

57
92
6?
25

I t57
laot
706

6l.o
42,t
t7

I er5
,r8
699

57.5
47

167
ll

t9 679
{ t59

12 999
66. I
40,

2 07'
446

.5?

4.18

52 701
4e 056
r, a6o
t2 2ee
L L?2

l0 841
16 969
6 290

506
ra 6)5
I 889

746

6a .l17

tr 2lt
2e 422
t 78ra

'5
'2

t2 921
27 Et?
5 021

I'5'{

22 ?At
, 250

16 650
7t. I

474
605
274

25 4r5
4 729

t7 24'
6?.8

770
a 90?

tt{

60.9
156

t
I
I

2 986
979

I t20

32c

6! r,
66 8'
19 4ra
t7 6r
18,

It ll
2t 77
e67

7t
I

to 82t
!,0 612
2 586
2 t65

{21
r 521
, 7s4
2 5rO

229
2r6

3.

208

rr. !o

EXHIBIT A



35-124 _ Nonh Cerolinr

. Teur.e-cnanacrERlsTlcs oF rHE popur.rrroN, FoR couNrrES:rrilt"r.
[Pcrcrot aot rhown rhcn lco thra 0J or rhcn bero la lcg t.hrn 100; popubtion pcr hourchold oot ghom whcn lcar thra 100 prrroru ia hourcholrta]

3U8JEC? clL0ttLL CATOEN C iTERE? CASIELL cATArSA CHATHAX :HEROKEE clrorAN CLAY CLEVE.
L^!o

:OLUHIUS crAvEN CUHBER-
L NO

ilLE.......
lHlfE.rrrol
NEGROrrrorj
l[Otlt{rorrr
tilPAllESEorrr
CHltrElE.....
rll.lPlilo....
otHEricEs...

TOr^L POPULAIION r

ilcE

TE|IALE.r.rr
rHtre. . . .
ifGiOr r r r
INOIII . . .
t  TINESE . .
Cxtl{ESEr r r
FtLlrtNo . .
otHEi R cE3.

rlilTrL 3rlTU3

TO'rL

iALEr 14 YEIiS lNo OVER. r
STNCLE r
t{AtRlEO. . . . . . . . .

,ERCER? xlRitEO. . .
sErllrTEo.

tl00rEo.
0lv0icEo

iEl{ALgr lT YgAtS INO OVER.
3INGLE r
li lRtEO. . . . . . . . .

,ERCgNl xlRRlEO. . .
SeplRl?E0.

I lOOrEO.
0l voicEo

NONIHITE

I LEr lrt YEIRS lNo oVER. .
Slt{6LE.........
XIRRIEO.........

PERCEIT XARRIEO. . .
SEP^MTEO.......

rl00rEo.
olYoicEo

FETALZ, t4 YEIiS lxo OVEi.
SINGLE .
lt^tRtEo.

PERCEI{t xlRilEO. . .
SEPltllEO. . . . . . .

rlootEo.
olvoicEo

XOUSEHOLD3

TOT^L

lo?lLPOPUL^TIoN..,
Itl HOU3EHOLOS.

HE^OOFHOUSEHOLOT r r r r
xElo 0F titx^iY F^t{tLY,
titx^iYINOMOU L...IIFE OF HEAO

CxlLD UNOEi lC OF HglO . .
OTXER iELATIVE OF HE O . .
NOiliELATtVE OF HErO. . . r

IX GROUP OU^RTERs.
l|x^tE oF tt{srtTU?roN. . .
otxti..

lotuLlTloil PEt HOTJ3EHOLO . .

NONTHITE

lOlrLl6Pgglll01ror
lN HOUSET{OLoS.

HEAOOFHOUSIHOLOT r r r.
xElo 0F tRI,tAiY FAt{tLY .
till{liY lN0lVlOU^L . . .

lltE 0F Htlo
cxtLo rJNoei lt oF HElo . .
otHEi ieLlrlvE oF HE^O . .
NONiZLATIVE OF HEAO. . . .

lN GIOUP ourRtlis.
ttirl?E OF tNsrrturtON. . .
OfxEi. . . . . . . . . . .

toPuLlttoN Pui xougeHoLo . .

I o, ,,,

L.u,,I zz tesI rccc
l0lc

T9 tt2
49 264
l2 .980
t2 lot

972
to 722
tt 076
? 090

4r6
26A
22i
,0

2t oao
2t 2q!
I t2q

6
t
I
I

t7 122t 267
lt 9to

6t.E
,t9

l.89
,t6

16 ,t,
4 or5

It 7{9
?t.t

261
,7t
t96

I 0!6
,82
,90

36 o9
llt
,t
26

I tzo
t2t
62?

l!.5
37

l9t
2l

lr60

, !l2l
r lorl

7?r I
6s2 I

rel
q9'r Ir 2901
!s7 I

3eI
ll I

rr I

O.rta I

t 12?
,o9

t 244
6e. I

26
t7
l7

t t98

I

I

a ?9t
I 6ot
I t86

2 tO7
r 6t5
I 17t

I

I5
20

2

8t6
t7t
267

ar? ,2
29

225
2l

608
2L2
4t4

6r.9

6r5
la,
t22

0 r.6
!,
?r
t)

, 9981
3 r75l
r srol
r 29?l

r rtl
I rrolr 9!el

9?tl
erl
2rl...t
2rl

,ttal
2 !q4l

476 I
q29 I

{?l
162 I

9 r5l
,56 I

!rl
ro I...t
,"1

c.e2 |

x, 9To

l7 099
It 069
L 927

,0
2
2

rl,
6

l, t4t
12 0rr
L ?37

,5
7

2
2

t2 t40 I
o ogrl
? 9881
6r.? I

160 I

2e6 I
209 I

9 6g?l
r 3761
6 7!11
6e.7 I

22L I

:,.,1
{66 I

7st I

$.oI
)21
,21
2rl

t r27l
,12 I

614 I
,6.!l

12l
rA2 I

,"t::l
2? rorl
7 6rsl
a a27l

eo7 I

5 S?91
9 1231
4 r4el

r16 |,6!?l
661

,57t1

ttD
, t2l

76'
6r6
lol
471

t OO
996
9l

,12
)7

2rt

l.t6

4.6 I

19 9t2

6 {!2
l 58t
4 l!,
6{.6
tl9
629.69

2 8!6
I t2t
I 592
t6. I

77
96
23

z ?7t
t85

l r9l
t7.4

82
26'
,4

to 0r7
, 200
4 tt'

2

ll 912
L9 672
r $rJ
o 24r.1

2eo i, 6991
7 Tt2l
! ?301

2rol
2qo I

r?o I

7ol

9 5!6
9 

'98I 744
t clr

9r
L45
, E96
a 298

t17
l18
ll9
tt

9 t7t
t 156
T 7t4,

6 5t2
2 tor
4 t45
ct.7
l12
207
tl

T rlta

5.rl

1,,,""
I lr zceI t ztrlllall

,7 6rt
t4 to9
, q99

I
lo,
2

26 J65
, ro!

t8 279
69. 

'526
2 498

4A5

24 2l'
5 559

l7 869
7r.8

297
,67
220

r e?rl
car I

r eo,r 
I'6l.rt

rol. aal
,rl

2 22tl
6!9 I

r 2eol
!s.ol

r 12l
zasl

trr:rl
?2 r40l
zo lcal
rs 6791
r ?r?l

r6 6231
23 5061
e rgrl

?201
zcr I

r70 I

rer I

,.rrl
I

" arrl
c zsel
r rtol
r lcol

I?O I

r o25l
a S:clr rrol

r?9 |
c;l
cl

rrl
..u. I

26 ?At

l2

tl .r20
t 146
4 272
-2

t! !6'
I 22'
4 116

t

9 2tO
2 646
6 226

67 t6
162
269
.69

L'6
I 954
6 2r7
66.8

160
I O6e

77

2 668
I o44
L 5t,
37.'

lt5
7l
l6

2 ,6'
7tt7

l' O
59.'

7A

I

26 Tgrl
26 614l
7 olll
6 0601

frt I

c eoal
e oTel
4 6trl

ror I

rTrl
erl

"'::le !o7l
r ecr I
r 160l

ror I

r 2661
r r28l
a rz,a I

126 I
ro? I

arr I

2rl
,.oo I

2!61

l6 ,r5

8 t96
t oo4

162
26

2

2

t lr9
7 9ta7

lr5
,6

I

l4l
56
79

56.O,
ra

2

rr2
,l
80

60.6
E

l6
5

16 fr5l
16 rs5l
4 1951
,9!71qrsl
! o2rl
5 ?r7l
2 SeOl

roo I

lro I
rr9 I

tr::l

t77 I

8eI
arl

.:l
Itr l
ezl
12 Itl

..1I

".ru I

5 670
t 656
t 77t
66. !t

76
t76
65

t 814
I 2rO
I 8!8
66.0

loq
660
.t6

ll 729

6 0r2
t 2t7
e ?94

I

I 6E4
I 058
2 4J9
66.2

79
tre

BA

t )22
544
t85

39. I

t 717
, 048
2 669

I

rr 7291rr eaql
z eral
z ccslrrllz zozl
4 05rl
2 2rlrl

20sl
{rl
rol

,'::l
5 4rll
r ll4l

sce I

r4c I
tzel

r esel
r qszl

r14 I

,rl
6l

231

*... I

oJ5
892
t26

62.6
tll
97!

$4

{
2

65
74
l9

I 69ra.t9t
,t7

,3.l
12

24U
2t

2 ?Ot
2 690

l8

I 9r'
t92

t 116
68. r

2'
194,t

5 526

2 tl8
2 786

,l
I

I 94ra
566

I 298
66.8

25
62
It

!.691

to
30
l8
L5,
lt

E
l2
I

27
to
l$

2

I5
2

ll

2

5 5261! ttrl
r qg,.l
r r70l

r2'rl
t rErlr 9691

t27l
12l
rtl
lrl

,

66 00e

,2 0e,
25 005
7 060

,, 95r
26 245
7 699

2L t12t
t ra70

t, 24t
71. I

582
,t7
175

21 6tr
4 87t

tr 68E
66.4

6q6
2 726

,44

4 047
t 468
2 006

59. 
'165

l09
20

4 549
Lq4
2 

'gt56.8
,o8
,74

ta8

66 0C8
ct ,22
t7 421
tc oc4lr rorl
rr 925l
2' r23l
ro 162l

carl
t26l
r 241
tao2l

,.r"1

,-r"rl
rr cscl
2 9s3l
e zocl

2rl I

2 ol!l
6 o2el
, rt20I

2!7 |
ro2 I

551
8?l

".c2 |

$a 97!

lt 429
ra 451

to ,41
67.0
t4,
460
15l

t6 ft7
I 5r8

ro 572
64.8
4lg

2 olra l

17, I

2t{ 026
r5 697
7 t96

ll29
t

2{ itt7
t6 l6t
I"8

T25
!

I

s 7r8l
r 66rl
2 S46l
eo.rl

r70 I

r95 I

tol

5 tr2l
I O64t
2 e54l
3?.Sl

2591

'31

"a "rrlolt 72rtl
12 0ra5l
ro 9s?lt o59l
9 

'221te 7r2l! rr2l
4e2l
24el
r86l
6rl

".0*l

,, , rrl
16 9501
I $?91
! l20l

,t9l
2 4071
7 0661, ?rsl

260 I

165 |
rro I

!51

o.87 I

,a 77t

19 746
t 907

t, 085
66. 

'46!
469
2st

r8 641
, ll!

t, of5
69.9
t99

2 LA2
,l!

!o o?{
2I EsE
8 116

2o
2T

J
t

2l

28 699
19 906
t 606

l8
t2l

6
t

,4

{ 905
I 766
2 828

57.7
273
252

'E

3A 77tl
31 5r5l
11 9831
rl qgcl
r 4s9l

rr 6rsl
2r os{l
7 0rrl

7i7l
, 216l

22rl
! or4l

I,.7I 
I

I

17 0091
l6 5721
, 8571t 2731

5e2 I

2 !s8l
6 ooolr azol

cl.tl
crz I

r6s I

26e I

u.a, I

t 4rtl
t !)t
I lo2
5?.Ol

qo4l
eo6l

e8l

146 4t8

8t 4t6
61 2r9
19 402

5t7
rto
l6
6l
29

t4a 4t6
l29 rrr8

[.r7

66 962
47 672
It 288

521
,90

6
40
4,

5t 990
21 169
!2 84ra

58.7
866
87t+
90,

$2 858
7 245

,l lr0
72.6

L 172
, 805

688

12 5q4
4 88q
7 160

37. I
,6t
t66
lr4

tr 807
2 959
7 

'lr61.9
667

I ,76
l!l

!, 656
lr ,56
2 500

27 607
3L 525
lq 486
I 674

l0 070
52tt

r! 542

!9 507
f6 006
7 860
7 lr5

169
5 654

lra i9c
7 120

956
, 499

66
, 4r,

!oA2



_ ..O 
Gcocrzl Populatioo cherectcrisdo 

, , t 
gs-l25

Tablc 78._CHA.RACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION, FOR COUNTIiIS: Tqd{oo.
[PcE !t Dot rhown whcrc lcrr t]ru 0.1 or tbcn buc lr Iu thu l0O; populrtion pcr hourcbold lot rhorn whcn tan tlra 100 pcrronr h hourholrttJ

suSJECr C URRITUCX O^RE DAVIDSON olvlE OUPLIN 0uiHAii EDGE-
coH!E

FORSYTH FRANXLIN GAS!9N 6^TE3 GiAHAll GR^t{-
VILLE

rOT L POPULA?ION

iAcE

XILE r o

rHllEr r
N€GRO. r
lNOllN.
J P   NE SE
cH I NESt.
FTLIPINO
oTxEiRCES.....

FEI{ LE.
txtrE..
NEGRO. .
lN0l li.
J PANESE
CHINE5E.......
FtLtPtNO
oTHEtR^CES.....

XARIT L SI TUS

TOIAL

hlLer l0 YEARS ANO OVER. .
SINGLE.
HARR t E0 r

PERCENT xlRRlt0r o r
5Et   tl 180.

rID0rEO.
o I voRcEO

FEt{ t-Er l4 YE RS ANO OVER.
SINGLE.
t{ARR I EO.

PERCENT X^RRtEO. . .
SEPA RAtEO.

r I oorEo.
oMRCE0

NONTHITE

h Lt, l0 YEIRS AND OVER. .
SINGLE.
xAtR IEDr

PERCENT H RRtEO. . .
SEP RATEO.

llDOIEOr
ol voRcEo

FtHlLe' l4 YEAis  NO OVER.
SINGLE.
X RRIED.

PERCEN? XARRIEDT T I
SEP^RATEO.

rloorEo.
ol voicE0

HOUSEHOLOS

TOT L

TOIAL POPULATTON . .
lN XOUSEhOLDS.

xErO oF HOUSEHOLDT o o r
HEAD OF PRIt.rARY F I{ILY
PRTHARY INOIVIOUAL r r

IIFE OF HEAD
CHILO UNOER I8 OF HEAO.
OTHtt RELATIVE OF HEAO .
NONREL^TIVE 0F HEADr . o

IN6ROUPOUARTERS.....
INHA'E OF INSTTTUTIONO O

OTBER..

POPUL ?tON PER XOUSETIOLO .

NoNtHtte

TOTIL POPULATIOII r o

lN HousExoLos.
XEAO OF HOUSEHOLD. . . .

HE O OF PRIHARY FAI{ILY
PRIx^RY INOIVtDUAL o r

IIFE OF HE O
CHILO UNOER 18 OF HE O .
OTXER RELATIVE OF HEAO.
NONREL^IIVE oF HEAO. . .

INGROUPOUARTERS.....
lNx^tE OF tNsTtruTtoN. .
OTHER. .

,OPUL TION PER HO{.ISEHOLO .

6 60t

, ,ro
2 

'O'I 0r4

2

t 262
2 212
I O{o

I

,.51

2 tre
616

I t70
67. I

,9
tlr

T2

2 t24
400

I 566
6?.ll

,9
,t7

2L

6 601
6 516
I 861
t c2t

240
l' 9l
2 tol
I lo,

7t
65
,t2
2t

669
20,
406

6t.o
,6
44
l4

6t,
161
,92

60. o
22
t9

4

4 r!f

2 066
2 070

476
412

64
t2t
690
550

20
l6
I

It

9rt9

2

2 e25
2 716

l!7

2

t oro
2 79t

216
t

l. l7

19,
5ttll3,

69. O
26rt
,z

226
,19
514

6t.9
,5

t27
46

126
t7
?s

6 t.9
6

to
I

2

t 9rt
,792
I 826
I 99t

2r5
,.2{
I 722

tt9
6t

l{t
6

r97

lsc
29
t,

t6. I
7

23
!

5

l. c,

406
401
ll7
99
l3
t9

t25
90
lo

5

79 49'

26 744
6 0r5

19 802
7{. O
{90
667
2qo

2r ,,rt 002
20 150

7t.l
66e

2 765
421

,9 
'rat,{ 97O

{ t6'
5
2

4

oo t|rc
,t t76
T 459

6,
I
2
I

l.56

2 74t
866

t 7to
62. 

't76
ll7
to

4.20

2 772
60t

I 7r,
6t. E

205
,{t',7

?9 ra9t
71 586
22 o6t
20 2tt
I 8t7

lE lo,
27 0E4
lO ,91.

917
90?
,64
54!

I 54?
t q56
2 0t5
I 744

271
I tl,
2 961
I 89'

2rq
t9l
144
$7

12a16

5 36'
I ra25
ra 19,
71.5

E8
l9{
5l

6 0ol
t lol
4 rt5
69.7

tl
c24

87

t J69
7 

'O4I Orr
!

! ,6'
1 5r'
I OO7

I

lr16

65'
216
407

52 rl
l9
2C
{

6e2
t79
{12

39.t
2l
cl
t2

t6 724
t6 5f,
{ 6tE
{ 216

ts2, tro
t la)o
2 136

99
195
tt4

lal

2 07t
2 07r

4?9
418
6l

)40
656
567

27

.1. 12

TO 270

12 979
, 826
t 625

66r 5
296
418
tol

lr 62r
2 9o4
6 170
60.5
,50

I 8rO
lo5

ao 440
t2 608
? EJO

I
t

ll rro
12 5r8
7 

'r2

It lra4
l4 998
, 244
2 895

r49
2 lr9
t 841
, 56'

le l
t{6
ll,
t,

{ 2r8
t 497
2 5E5

6Or !
t89
l8t
2t

4 690
I ,47
z 662
56.6
25'
6ra2
,9

4o 270
{o o79
to 205
? 2t6

969
7 770

l4 78t
6 9?2

,47
t9l
l15
56

,.9r

4.62

Itt 99t

]7 949
ll 2r4
21 059

66.O
I 0I4
t loE

533

42 741
ro 25t
26 00t

60.9
I 3rt
5lll9
I 056

5, 60C
,6 9{2
16 55t

l6
22qt
c

26

5a ,t9
,9 02'
t9 rll

l6
l2
l6
2
9

,6 0ro
,ta t6,
I lO5
7 45t
I 612
, 246

It 224
7 ta2
I 406
I 55?

187
I 480

lo 9rtr 7ro
6 laE,
59.t
646
5r2
L77

Itl 99t
tot la7
,l 22t
26 924
4 lo{

22 r40
,! t4a
l$ 927
2 640
6 lol

al6
) 972

t, ,97
I 9tO
7 r5C
5!r4

290

I ol7

I t90
2 02t

t.77

,4 226

It 216
4 25'

ll lrr
5l.o

655
2 570

270

z7 ?90
tr 4o7
l4 t69

l2
2

26 216
12 6t5
Lt 527

20
o

16 290
o 8ro

lo ?4t
66.O

44la
590
r5,

2t lr4
27 Ar2
I 672
4 999

7t,
, 688

!o 768
? 06l

62'
,02
t15
l6?

t$ 226
5' 649
rt tl4
lt 661
I 4t'
9 642

19 ?0,
lo 259

9rl
t77,,,
224

7 ttt
2 725
rt 404
,9.6
,t0
,22

60

t 62t
2 

'804 656
t4.o
ttl

I 2?,
tt2

4. 09

{.91

It9 .r2t

6t 9$2
llt 416
44 9t!

72.6
I 729
I 806

7q,

70 27A
t4 loc
46 lrt

66. O
2 tra2
t 201
I 6tl

l{

9t t2o
74 oot
2{ 45t

2'
2l

6
2
c

16 661
4 

'709 0t7
54. t

t 741
2 75a

{r?

90 90t
59 6rt
21 204

l9
7
a
I

t, 66,
4 r7l
8 a$t
60r4

t 0t9
c2t
2t9

q5 ?or
4{ 490
t2 to?
9 452
2 q5t
6 47O

l{ 197
9 619
l -697
I 276

,94
884

,.62

189 428
t8{ 

'065{ l5tq? 715
6 4t6

40 6{to
60 825
2t 709
5 98t
5 122
? ,4C
2 576

,. rao

2t 7r5

l{ 276t oo9
6 2{2

2)

l4 4?9
? 98{
6 T?C

It
I

28 75t
2A 262
7 r2lr
6 1!6

6t8
t r.ot

to or2
5 

'89,29
49'
l!9
lt{

L2 752
12 74'
2"O
2 29t

219
I 786
t 144
t o77

t88
t7
2

lf

o 50?
! 022
6 0t5

6! r7
225
,21
109

9 8rt
2 268
6 lr9

62rT
26'

I tl6
9l

, ar?
I lt7
2 t77

J6t7
la2
40t
t3

, 59t
l.26
2 o8'
!l rO
lal
lt6
26

,.97

5.O0

l2? o?4

6L 727
5' 9l?
7 7!!

l7
4
I
I

63 t!7
56 

'29I 777
l4
I5

rl
I
7

q 680I rut
t oo,
64.2

261
2r,
tl

t 66'
I 44a
t 2a2
58.0
Ttt
3t,

AO

q3 629
t 5c9

fl 296
58.5

I 5ral
{ 9tl

91,

le? 0?4
12, 954
,q 7r,,t 7r5
I Ol8

27 6t7
T4 469
l? l16
L 279
I 120

16 628
t6 rol
{ ora6
t 4)7

509
2 q6t
) i?7
! 551

J19
127
69
58

4l r4l
9 55r

,o 290
7r.,

E7{I Ol?
{Et

,91
72?

,.62

qrOS

I 2tra

4 5ll
2 060
e tqe

6

I t20
,9t

,
o 64,
2 L7Z
2 467

2

2

9 ztq
? 2!6
2 270
2 012

2?7
I ?la,
, r90
I 916

l2C
It
l?
t

I O22, o22
I OO9

926
7E

7!4
I 116
l 26

a2

, 060
996I 9r'

6r.2
ll

tot
2E

, 16l
7l'

I 067
62t2

la6
{4t,,

470
37r I

t2
T?
t2

I ttl
orc
!97

57.4
,6

Itt
It

t.oo

4.Ot

6 rar2

t lgt
, 064

127

a t?t
452

I 4Et6t.,
la2

20,tt

l2tal
t lta

l?a

I

6 4r2
6 4t4
I 6r'
t ,21

tto
t ,lt
2 4rt

9r,
102
la
2

l6

256
256

47
47

,t
93
7o
,

2 ItO
629

I 420
66.0

ll
6t
,7

?7
29
{9

t
t

77
27
,17

7,

!r9!

3.st

,, I

t6 24t
a 9r4
I zaa

I

t6 c6t
9 4!t
? tl29

t

ll ot9
, 807
6 76t
6t.a

2t7
t7l
tr8

ll 7t2
, lrt
7 026
t9.9
,t!

I {r4
l3q

{ 526
t 676
2 614
,?.4
l16
llt
It

{ 590
I t2l
2 707

!, lr0
29 7,47
7 5t6
6 7r9

3c7
3 722

lo llSz
, 4t2

505
t ,6t, rr5

l4 72t
l4 400
, ort
2 7t6

)49
2 l9t
5 469
r ll7

,rr
,21
27,
4c

,.92

s 167

39.0
l9?
5ol
t,

ro

POPUL



35-126 North Carolina

Tablc 28.-CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION, FOR COUNTIES: 196G-{on.
[Pelc€nt not shown vhcrc leu thu 0.1 or when bsa ir les thu 100; population pcr houhold not shom when lcs than 100 pcmu h houcholdrt

SUBJECI GREENE 6UILFORO x^L I FAX H RNETT HAYTOOO HEN0ER-
3oN

HERTFORO HOKE HYOE IRTOELL J^CKSON J0Hritsl0N -JONE3

rOiAL POPUL TTON . .

RACE

lt^LE..
tHtte..
tecio. .
lNollN.
JAPANESE
CHINEsE.
FILIPINO
olxEt ilcEs.

FEH^LE .
rxttE..
r{Ecio. .
INOIAN.
J^P^NESE....... t
cr{ t NEsE.
FILIPINO
OIHEiMCES.......

t{ousEHoLoS

rot L

tol^LPoPULlTlON...
lta HouSEHoLoS.

Ht^oOFHOUSEHOLOTrrrr
HEIO OF PRIiIIRY FAHTLY r
PRlts^RY tNOlVIOUAL...

tlFE oF ll6ao
cHtLo UNOEi t8 0F tiEAO . .
OIHER ReLAllvE OF HEAO . .
taONREL ftVg OF HfAOe o o r

1,. GnouP oulRrERs.
INXATE OF INgIITUTION. . .
OTHeR..

POPULAIION Pf,R HOU3EHOLO . .

NONTH I?E

TOTALPoPULA?IONrr.
lN |rousEroLos.

XEIOOFHOUSEHOLO.....
xE^O OF PRIH^RY FllltLY r
PR I;.^RY INOMOUIL . . .

IIFE O' HEAO
CHILO UNOER T8 OF f{EAO . .
O'HER REL TIVE OF HEAO . .
NONRELAIIVE OF H€AOr r r .

lN GiOUP OU^RIERS.
INHAfE OF Ir{3?t?UttON. . .
OiHER. r

POPUL TIOft PER HOI,,SEHOLO . .

l. RlrlL st^?us

?OT L

liALEr l{ YEIiS INO OVER. . .
tINGLE .
t{^RRtEo..........

PERCENTIIARRIE0T o o r
SEPlRllEO. . . . . . . .

IIOOI,EO..........
otvoRcEo

FEHlLgr l4 YE nS AIO ovEtl. .
stLGLE . . . . . . . . . .
n^tRtEo.

PERCEN?'{ARRIEO... t
SEP RATEO.

rtoorEo.
0 I voRcEO

NONIHTTE

I^Ler ls YEARS ANO OVEir . .
SIIGLE.oorerrror
liARRlEO..........

PERCEilrt,lAiRtEO....
3ep^RAtto.

rlootEo. . . . . . . . . .
ot voRcEo

FEI{ LE' ltl YEATiS ANO OVei. .
3lx6LE.
tAiRIEO.

PERCENTI{^RRIEOT O r r
sEPARA?EO.

tloorEo.
otvoRcE0

lc 7ql

L66
{ lt5
T 2ll

a t75
o 162
t 2l,

t t2r
I 675
t 27t
6r. e
ll6
l4o,,

t 22t
I 290
, ,28
6r.7

14,
,6t
t2

2 zrt
942

I 2lO
t0.6

35
72

9

z 26t
7qJ

L 272
,6.2
lle
227
l9

g ia2!
8 r2l
I rar6
L24

lr2
I Ot7
, 790
I t82

176
lo,
70,,

t6 741
t6 617
, 69ra
, 4!,

261
2 iz|
6 7!O
, 06,

229
lo4
7t
,t

4. !o

9.79

2{6 520

trt 27t
9t ,67
2{ 700

l7r
4

l$
t

llt
l2t 242
rol 6r7
a6 4t,

l2t
9

l4
t

IE

to ttra
It 646
58 688

72.9
I 9t4
2 129
t o9t

9r f62
Li ,27
60 2t6

66.0
t 2?t
9 641
2 lo8

17 154
{ 902

lo ,72
ta. I

l.92
2 212

,58

t

tl ,16qt 640
L2 t77
lo lr59
I 918
7 E69

16 830
9 427
2 lo2
2 895

,o9
2 

'e7

16 l7q
t 458
9 802
60.5
t20
67la
240

246 
'202rt 149

69 l2lt
6t tl7
7 941

51 271
aL 227
29 594q 727t rTr
I 501
6 C7o

.{5

!o9!

,6 956

2t 969
12 84'
t5 859

zr5

2i 0t7
l, 6f7
t6 057

2A2
I

It 295
, tt9E

12 00c
65.6
470
t86
204

t9 )95
4 4r9

t2 170
62.7
6?[

z ro)
2tt

,2 46tr
tt 681
6 069
, 505

,s4
4 277

Lt 221
7 6??

41,
78t
607
L7s

9 to9
, f42
t 289
tr. I
,re
,t8

60

9 407
2 886
S rlo
t6.c

4a2
I l16

7'

18 956
,7 9r4
tr o4rt
12 589
I 435

lo {87
2t 558
tl r25

700
I 042

?27
,I'

4. 12

t.20

s8 216

2' 899
t7 287
6 4t5

187
2

t
2t rt?
L7 526
6 617

186
5

I
,2

16 745
t 692

l0 Et9
6[.7
509

2 0!o
204

{8
47
l2
ll
t
9

l6
I

16 t58
5 002

to 5r7
65ol
,te
496
145

216
2t2
,?4
280
094
509
54S
219
5r2

t, 421
Lt 277
2 735
2 152

,04
| 779
t 004
, ra66

272
l16
I l6
,o

, ll94
I 520
2 lll,
56. r

176
169

22

t 069
L 241
2 271
15.8

26ta
5t8
t,

I 00q
160
804

,.62

T.g2

,9 7ll

le 466
ta 999

{76
to

I

20 22t
t9 8t8

,91
l2,
t

t4 5tl
2 519

lo 19t
70.2

255

L' 622
, o89
I 990
7J.'

l{14
,tl
160

I 3t7
264

27t
62

t64
60. I

to
o,
{

894
926
202
l7l
lt

lrs
275
202
l2
68
c6

2

l.o9

,9 7ll
t9 429
lt 26f
lo ,4,

920
a 22A

t, lJl
! 506

2Ei
242
192
90

,21
l2t
178

55.5
lo
t5,

,.!o

,6 16l

17 49'
16 to2

967
I
2

I
It 670
L7 692

974
I
I

2

12 44t
2 

'779 047
72.7

144
laoq
120

l! 695
2 ,91
9 22t
67.'

242
I 66{

217

2*7
407

t7.t
,!
t1

1

66'
l5!
t7c

,r. I
4t

lr6
ta

I 969
r 846

,t2
,92
120
277
t5t
417

a7
l2t
i2rt

,6 t6l
,3 829
to 708
9 5l'
I l9l
3 

'6!ll 542
4 752

46ll
trtl
2tL
lo,

708

t., 5

t.61

22 716

lt lr5
4 617
6 498

o tl,
I 199
2 tA7
,a.o

224
q75
t4

lt 5al
{ 68r
6 900

2

22 ?LE
22 otj
, t65
{ 82S

5t7
ll ol5
3 tt9lr 162

,96
659

7 275
2 !91
4 592
6r. I

209
218

7t1

7 
'70I 84'

4 665
61 .6

235
9?0
9t

l! 400
l, 229
2 7t9
2 4r7

262
I 895
5 208
t t22

283
l7r
tr]

lr8 l

t 844
l.7l
2 291

59.6
t7f
144
,6

49ra
l6t

I{.1

o. e7

16 
"6

t l2r
, 492
, 929

707

a 229
t rt70
{ oo2

73'
I

4 767
t 3at
I Or9
6r.,

126
158
49

t 09,
L2l
, 099
60.8

168
605

68

16 156
l, 70,
, {66
,180

286
2 

'986 159
t 296

l8{
65t
604

49

9 ,94
3 971
I 620
I {96

124
I t25
, 692
2 401

ll,
t2t
,64
,9

2 t56
97,

I t72
!5rl

a2
9t
tl

2 681
907

I 4rl,r.t
lra,
tD
t2

o.!,

9.54

5 763

2 Ar7
t 66JI t94

2 906
I 667
I 241

I 917
566

I 257
65 16

t2
72
22

2 04'
427

t 29r
51.2

,8
,16

9

?59
2tt
ra2'

56.0
26
99

2

696
262
406

lrro!
l9
25,

5 ?65
t 761
.. 

'2l.62
170

I lr4
I 7rt6
t 29'

56
I

2 4r5
2 415

1.69
4tz
t7

!4C
el5
744
2l

T

!.76

,.l e

62 126

,O larT
24 983
t 446

I
I

I
I

20 741
{ E67

It 065
72.6
,2r
62C
Irl

22 77'
4 621

t, 272
07. I

$61
2 321

,57

c2 526
6t E97
17 55r
t3 9t4
I 617

l, gt?
20 tlr
9 067

6{9
629
rloo
229

,.5'

,2 0a9
26 qo6
, 677

I
I

2

, 2eo
I lt9
I 985
!o. l
lr5
149
,7

t t67
t o5l
2 0r4
,6.7

200
{50
,2

ll trJ
l0 969
2 506
2 207

299
I 607
, 869
2 7i4

19,
l6q
tr9
25

or!a

6 497
2 219
t i97
61.5

lo5

l7 780

s 952
E 08'

r7l
69{l

64tl
?r

,o8
16,
290

57.t
2o

6 
'9'I 647

4 oJl
6!. I

120

I 828
7 957

170
699

I
I

72
209

2tl
ll

tr6
t09
,o9

t7.6
25
6!
t5

17 780
t6 776
I 4?6
{ lrl

,4,
t ,47
t tr4
, o2e

I lao
I OO4

lo9
t95

I TraO

I 7rO
!59
tt2
27

2r6
6t1
ra59

L7
lo,

7

7,!r

{.E2

62 9J6

JO 970
2ra I l5
6 849

4

,l 966
29 692
7 267

2
2
I
I
I

2

20 906
5 e?t

t4 2t7
66. I
,74
597
201

22 L70
4 6l'

tq 5ro
6 5.5

518
2 77q

25t

q o22
I 524
2 298

57. I
t6?
t70
to

4 q64
l 4'
2 462
55.4
27t
t99

60

62 916
62 r71
16 659
I5 tq8
I 9lt

It o78
22 79'
0 202

E'7
r6t
26E

97

l4 t29
r4 052
2 999
2 649

,49
I 972
t 564
, 167

,5t
77
22
,5

,.76

o.69

lr oo5

5 320
2 gral
2 57l.

5

5 4t5
2 89t
2 569

o

,414
I 056
2 2rl
6q.8

t19
26

a5
420
2t

I larz
5r5
856

t9.9
60
t5

871
96.7

c2
I?E

, 5s6
8lt I

2 2t2
62.8

ll oo5
to 974
2 5f'
2 

'262o5
| ?77
4 t6l
I 2lO

9l
,r
,l

5 17'
t r{2
I 005

926
7'

7to
2 020
I ,26

59,r
,t

I t{O

4. !'

!r.t2



,.rul.HARACrERrrr:;; Tffiffi , lo* .o^r,"r.,,r2""
[Percent not ahown where les than 0.1 or when bae is lerc thal r00; popuJation per houeholtt not show! whcre les tJla.n 100 pcmD! in hourctol&l

35-t2?

SUBJECT LEE LENOIR Ll NCOLiT [c ooreLL x cor'r xAol sot{ IIARTI N ,{ECKLEN.
AURG

ITITCHELL HONt-
GO14EiY

t{ooRE Nlsx

IoTAL POPULATION

R^CE

f{4L8.....
rHtTE. . . .
NEGRO. . . .
tNOl lil . . .
JAP NESE..
CHtNESE...
FILtPtNO . .
OTHER R^CES.

FEIALE....
rxtTE....
NEGRO. . . .
lN0llN r o r
JAPANES€ . .
CHtNESE...
FILIPINO..
OTXER R^CES.

IiARITAL STATUS

rOTAL

X LEr ts YEARS AND OVER. r
SINGL8.
I{ARRtEOo

PERCENT XARRIEO. . .
SEPAR TEO.

rloorEo.
o I voRcEO

FEXALET II' YEARS ANO OVER.
SINGLE.
x RR I 80.

PERCEN' HARRIEO. . .
SEP RATEo.

r I oorEo.
o I voRcEo

NONTBTTE

llllEr l4 YEARS rNO OVER. .
SINGLE.
tlARRtEO.

PERCENI taARRtEDo r r
SEP RATEO.

rloorEo.
oIvoRce0

FElllLEr l4 YEARS AND OVER.
SINGLE.
t{ARR I EO.

PERCENT }TARRIED. . .
SEPARA TEo.

r I o0rEo.
ot voRcED

HOUSEHOLOS

TOTAL

TOIAL e6Pgl-1716i1 . .
IN HOUSEHOLOS.

HEAD OF HOUSEHOLOo r . .
. HEAO OF PRIHARY FAI{ILY

PRIXARY INOIVTOUAL I 'IIFE OF HEAD
CHILO UNOER tE OF HEAO .
OIHER RELATIVE OF HEAO .
NONREL TIVE OF HE O. . .

INGROUPOUARIERST...T
INXATE OF INSTITUTTON. .
OTHER..

POPUL ItON PER HOUSEHOLO .

NONIH ITE

TOTAL POPULAIION . .
It{ HOUSEHOLDS.

HE O OF HOUSEHOLDI O ' 'HEAO OF PRII,IARY FAI,IILY
PRIHARY INoMDUAL..

IIFE OF HEAO
CHTLO UNOER t8 OF HEAD .
OTX€R RELATTVE OF HEAD .
NONRELATIVE OF HEADT T ItNGROUPOUARTERS.....
INHAiE OF INsTITUltoN. .
OTHER. .

POPULATION PER HOUSEHOLO .

25 
'6

6 758
2 295
6 lot
69.7

170
282

80

9 2t7
I 77U
6 218

67,3
25t

I 064
l6t

t 651
578
982

t9. r
e?
8'
l6

I 889
It96

I 065
56.Ia

t45
290
,6

l! O7l
LO 2Ui
2 B2l

tl {8!
lo 4l(
r osq

26 
'6126 136

7 146
6 454

692
5 5rO
9 476
r 8r8

!66
203
l2t
77

,.69

4.36

t 90,
3 8s7
l.44
I 159

r65
816

2 205
I 

',8l5q
46
I

,8

5' 27

l? o?l
5 tor

ll 28r
66.l

551
g9{
lE'l

t9 2r(
q 67(

ll ?5(
5l.t
8li

2 46(
,5(

? o?e
2 00!
, 90{
55. I
6tlI Ocl
lrr

26 5rt
16 20
r0 ,,

28 721
l7 20
rt 5r'

3' 276
52 I50
l5 871
L2 278
I 595

lo t27
19 465
8 

'61I 024
2 426
2 050

t76

6 06!
2 llc
, 6a{

59.a
,9t
262
3l

,.8t

4. 
'a,

2r a72
zt 525
4 864
rl l9o

7Lq
2 951
6 216
4 9fB

5t6
t47
142
205

26 I

? 721
2 4rr
6 9rt

7 t.l
l5l
26\
7t

to 2l!
2 021
7 00t
6E.!

l9:
I O8l

le(

9B(
40!
t2t

5r. l
,(
52

!

I O?(
,N

,,6:
52aa

6a
l4!
l2

l{ 2l
12 5t
170

l{ 59
LZ 771
I 82i

2t 8l{
28 6t6
7 708
i L't

3Jt)
6 

'0€9 9rtl
4 5t7

169
178
r25
52

t.7

5,20

t ize
,518

676
614

62
45t

I 467
857
t5
t
2
c

26 7qi

l, l2t
l2 451

661

tt 52,
12 9r!

7O!

26 742
26 552
7 rl9
6'7]6

5t,
5 975
e 225
,8rt

201
190
98
92

I 95{
2 t7l
6 448
72.4
l2l
25t

82

9 672
I 867
5 60l

68.2
15,

I O45
r59

rl2t
l{2
25t

59.6
l0

,25,
47b
L2e
262

54r 8
It
72
t5

1.6,

I J76
I t67

,tr9
291

58
2?O
455
t25
l8
I
9

,.92

r$ 9t

! 2T:
I rtr(
, 58:
5S.:

,i
lBl
4{

5 42(
I t5t
,651
67.r

7t
55:
6:

loq
oc
rE

3r.:

lol
.25
59

57 tl
1

l9

7 rao
726

1'

7 521
7 

'71t4:

l4 er5
rq 8!6
4 172
, 8ot

,71
,r@
5 068
2 t70

97
99
85
l4

,.56

298
295
EI
6'
20'4,
9t
70

e
J
2
I

1.55

l7 2l

6 
'012 t97

t 425
60.7

7l
201

70

6 to2
I 595
, 920
62.2

7A
7lo
7t

t9
t6
20

2
I

5i
l{
26

tt

I 680
t 626

,l

6 5t7
I 468

67

t7 2t7
16 288
4 462
4 or4

ll28
, 496
, 266
2 909

l5t
929
2{

905

! r65

12,
120
l4
26
t

2r
,2
,f
,
,

,.5t

z7 tt9

lt t42
6 ?r8
6 60l

t

2

Lt 797
6 8.rl
6 95)

,

I t6l
2 556
5 488
65.6

215
261

56

, 6ta5
I l5r
2 tll
59.5

164
l17

25

a 92t
2 060
5 647
6!.'
,0,

t ro7
89

{ oo9
I 249
2 2tat
55.9

252
479

42

27 Lt9l
2? 016l
6 {761
5 8rr2l

614 I

4 er2l
lo q2r I

{ s45l
,8r I

lorl
891
r4l

,1. l? I

,rr""l
D c6S|
2 6651
2 t-ttl

29ql
I 80!l
5 76Sl
2 e57l

275 |
92 I

7s I

r{l
5.o' I

t9 250
5 879

r2 t5'
6r. I

,. lt,
99r
2201

z?2 Itt

lro 16l
98 617
,l 427

6l,
l4
t

t6

t4l, 95o
to6 547
,t 274

8l
l!
l7
t

l5

86 490
t9 664
6' 

'O571.2
2 tzL
2 167
I r5J

98 605
19 580
65 lra t

66. I
t 772

rl 597
2 257

22 665
5 554

l, 2la8
56.5

2 r7l
, 509

f54

272 tlt
266 62'
76 477
67 

'069 571
58 092
9' 984
,r 62J
6 047
5 4E8
t 174
4 

'14
t.41

66 947
65 719
t6 47ra
l, 897
2 577

to 046
2' 859

- !, tol
2 259
L 22A

r95
Io,,
9.99

t, 906

6 855
6 612

2L

7 ort
7 0!l

l7

5

,r"aal
r, 8s? |, ?!01
, 4761

2s8 I

, 068l
I Beel
2 roTl

7el
rel

,il

'"rl

til

,il

:::l

I

T ?65
I 269
l rr5
69.6

t{z
l4T
t7

t 06t
r o8{
, f6l
56.4

32
567
{9

t6
6
3

2,
l5
I
9

Ir {o8

I lo7
6 866
2 220

I

9 fol
5 9!0
2 160

4

I
2

6 ort
I 6t6
4 1,9
69.6
lol
t96
l.{

6 407
I f38
4 2r2

65.7
122
780

57

r8 4081
rB 2631
4 s84l
.. 39! I

4e! I

t t47l
6 55!l
2 E50l

22r I
rc! I

eel
AOI

!.?4 I

I

i 3:sl
e20 |
s28 I

e2 I

6!2 I
r 8341
t o6cl

col
28 I
ll

".;: I

I 2tt
l+20
74e

60.7
4g
6t

2

l.at?
llra l
792

55.9
57

t7e
6

t6 7t,

l7 80,
l,128
4 64f

,o

It 9ro
t, 870
5 02t

,5
2

2

tt 9!5
t 2e7
t tzg
68. I
249
,86
l rlr

2 8!51
96e I

r 6e5l
59.8 I

128 I

r48 I

221

,2251
862 I

r sr?l
56.' I

22rl
505 I

arl

,"rrrl
!3 9?61
r s56l
s 6501
r 216l
7 29rl

12 5361
s 77el

4so I7t7l
414 I
!4! I

,.65 I

"rrrl9 6001
2 2571
r 9041

f5, I

r t7l I

I 25rl
2 5rr I

206 I

r15 I

42 I9'I
q.25 

|

lr t02
2 9r7
8 )O0
5r. f
,?r

I 67t
214

61 004

29 854
l7 991
lt 8ro

.t2
I

,l llt
rt 7rt
l2 J65

!E
2

2

19 r2f
5 462

ll 006
67.'

452
6!t
220

20 777
4 606

ll 261
6f.e

596
2 6!8

272

6 alt
2 .196
4 001
,8.6
]00
272

62

7 
'282 208

4 t{9
56.6
,73

.891
80

61 002
60 498
lt ,o5
l, 762
I 56'

ll 607
22 r,l9q
9 eoa

944
504
264
240

24 2aO
24 097
{ 810
{ 29'

317
, ,88
9 825
5 556

518
It,

A9

! r94

ll4

5.Ol



35-128
tl

North Ceroline

Tablc 28.-CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION, FOR COUNTIES: l96G-Con.
[Prrcent Dot rhowa rhcrc les thrn 0.1 or vherc beso ir les th.n l00i populetiou pcr howhold not shom wherc lcs tha! IOO penoD! in hou*hol&]

IUEJECl NEI
HANOVEi

lloitx-
AIIPYON

oNSLOl ORANGE PAr,rLlco PAS0UO-
tlNx

PENOER PEROUI-
IIANS

PERSON PIT? POLK RANOOLPH

?OTAL POPULATTON .

iAcE

114LE.........
lHlTE. o

NEGRO..
lNOllN .
JAPANESI
CHINESE.......
FtLtptiro
OlHEiRlCESororr

FEtllLE........
lHl tEr r
tlEciO..
lNOllX.
r,APlNeS€
CtrlNESE.......
FtLlPlNo......
oTlrEiRcts.....

XlRlTAL S?AIUS

?OTTL

l^LE| ls YEIRS  NO OVER. 'SINGLE.
tt RR I E0 . . . . . . . . .

PERCENT I{^RRIEO. . .
SEP R^TEO.

lloorEo.
0IvoRcEO

FE!{^LEr l4 YEARS ANO OVER.
SINGLE.
II RRIEO.

. PERCENT I,IARRIEO. . .
SEP^R TEO.

ll00reo.'olvoRceo

ttoNtHttE

lllLEr lO YEliS INO OVER. .
S!NGLa.........
iAiitEo.......... 

PERCENT I'ARRIEO. t .
!EP^R.Are0.

I t00tEo.
0lvoicEo

FEIALE' lT YE iS ANO OVEi.
tlllGLE .
t{liR tEo.

PEiCET{T t^RRtEO. . .
3ErlR^?EO.

! l 00rEo.
0IVORCCO . . . . . . . .

. HOUSEHOLOS

TOT L

' ?OtAL POPULIIIO.{ . .
lNHOU3EHOLOS.......

HE^O OF HOUSEBOLDT I I I
HE O OF PRIXARY FAI{tLY
,ltr.lRY lNOtVIOU L..

IIFE OF HEAO
CHILO UNOEi !6 OF HEAO .
OTHEI REL TIVE OF HEAO .
NONREL^'IVE OF HEAO. . .

IXGROUPOUARTERS.....
ItiH^?E OF INSTITUTIONT .
OTHER..

POPUL TION PER HO{JSEHOLO .

NONIHIIE

POPULIIION PER HOUSEHOLO r

7t

,tt 22t
2' O't
I Ot7

,2
7
9

lll
2l

,7 tt9
26 691
lo 771

t6
4
ra

4
L2

2t l:17
, 676

t6 !62
?t r0

670
7\?
152

26 t7a
, LA2

l7 267
64r2

I 266
t 12,

60{

!l 691
I 79'
I 492
61.4

187
,r6

70

7 ttr
I t6l
I 96!
t{. !
739

t ,6,
lll,

7t 742
70 3r2
ao 9r2
17 99t
2 9r7

lr.7!,
2t 398
9 858
I 4lt
I 2r0

244
966

,.

19 99e
t9 ?66
t 274
4 294

980
2 746
6 701
4 260

76'
2t2

52
t80

7tl2

t7

t.7,

26 All

t, 297
4 798
8 500

I

lr 5l4
4 9t6
t 59'

t ,lo
2 70t
5 2{r
61,2

209
29t
66

t 7ro
2 205
t 288
60.6

259
t t58

79

4 85ra
t 850
2 820
58.1

t66
t59
?5

ra 966
I 505
2 85'
s7.5

207
580

26

a6 81t
26 qt6
6 095
t tl72

62t
T tll
9 ?68
3 6le

4$'
t55
2lo
125

4r !4

l7 099
16 845, rr2
2 909

2t1t
2 292
6 804
4 298

299
254
149
lot

t.l4

a2 706

49 tlo
41 4tq
t a88

t6
r0
l6
2t
t,

,, 196
2g 270
T 62'

5'
l5r
27
,7
,5

,6 098
t7 618
17 701

4e.O
l4o
,o6

'{5r
20 4oo
a 701

t6 289
79.8
,r6t 2ll
199

4 099
2 orr
I 9!8

47 o9
lll
88
q2

2 E17
66'

t 908
65.9
It2
26t
,8

a2 706
65 569
t7 t85
t6 266

lE7
t3 090
27 706
5 02{

,84
l7 tt7

trl
t? 006

,.62

tl 022
9 t7\
I 968
I 75t

217
I 556
, ltlT
t 828

205
I 648

70
t t?c

T.76

T2 9?0

22 624
l? 56r
t or5

t
6,
I

t7

ao ,46
t5 204t tr6

2
9

l5

16 614
7 zto
t 9ta

71,7
t90
,41
le5

t{ 459
, 605
E 998

62.2
,20

I 417
219

t tt{t 142
t 820
58.4

96
t2t,t

, t9l
881

t 89f
t9.,
L7'
,65
,2

12 970
,7 8rt
lo 7c,
9 22'
t 540
E O9o

LZ 7t5
t 080
I t6'
I lre

269
4 870

t.5l

t0 205
lO 094
z 159
t 916

ztat
t 499
,76r
2 

'802i,
lrl
45
66

4r68

9 850

4 870
, l2l
I 749

T 980
, rl8
I 862

tlr,
8q5

2 169
6t.8

la6
lol,r

, rtl
626

2 225
67.2

75
427,,

9?O
,20
ti1

6r.5
20
t2
tl

I 079
,t?
628

t6.2
t7

L26
8

I 850
9 817
2 519
2 252

2r7
I 971
, [75
| 7t7

rrt
t,
t,

t.9r l

t 6tt
, 605

682
622
60

ta97
l.r.7
I OO2

77
6

6

5.29

25 610

12 462
? 59t
$ 861

I

t
2

It 168
7 9tO
t a5t,

o

t ,E6
2 19'
t 7{6
6E.5
l6t
,lr
ll8

I t22
I 918
I 849
64ol

247
t t72

16,

, 049
I 056
t 796
59.9

124
165
87

,416
! otd
I 882
t5. r

l6t
416

64

2' 610 I

24 116 |

6 86rl
t 9E7l

890 I

5 rrgl
6 670l
t 72ll

4o5 I
6rq I

80 1

?r4 I

r.6r I

,"rrrl
e614l
2 2SOl
r e26l

r24 Ir 4901
r5r2l
2oscl

2r8 I

515 I

16 I
q99 I

s.r? |

l8 508

9 l4o
4 745
{ ,68

5

I
9 

'68g a57
{ 498

I
2
7

J 962
I 899
t 79L
6r.6

149
2"t

49

6 209
I 416
t 87r
tt2,)

184
829
!f

2 5t6
975

I s85
,7.tt

9'
lt5
ll

2 Tlll
77t

l' 45
,6.4
tr4
laoS
l,

l8 508
lE ,90
4 6t'
I llo

4t,
) 196
5 5ll
, 716

L74
tl8
?i
,9

! r99

6 906
8 798
I 8!6
I 664

174
t 2r5
t 2t2
2 )9q

tl9
lo8
?7
ll

t

{.79

9 l7a

4 5r'
a ,99
2 154

4 645
2 tl?6
2 169

, o4l
472

2 009
66rl

7l
l{o
20

, l6e
65'

2 02t
6!r8

86
466
27

L 276
4q7
7'L

56.9
,l
70

s

,oa
,51
7r4

97.6
59

190
It

9 t78
E 994
2 ,8E
2 lro

279
I 768
! l{r
I 586

lo9
184
68

ll6
lo77

c ,o,
I 222

908
7q7
tlr
602

I 6I2
I 025

75
8l
68
l5

T.65

I

26 f9{

l, o9r
6 

'804 628
80

2

I

t,,0,
8 5!l
t 678

72
I

t

E 589
2 4t8
5 801
67.5
t4l
264
62

8 978
2 052
5 865
65.l
l8l
966

95

2 ?{q
I 020
I 599
56. 

'75
lo9
l6

2 85t
879

t 617
56.7

)2
,rl

22

26 5E4
26 ztt.6567
6 0r7

310
, 2?5
9 826
4 265

)oo
t6l
120
4l

,.99

I tlt, I

9 1661
r srol
I 67el

r?r I

r 16ll
,9921
r 9801

rsr I

lr? |
ro8 I

'l
t.o6 

|

69 942

,, 7!O
19 ll8
l4 404

I
6

I

t6 212
20 I40
16 o6t

4
t

2

2r ?t6
6 979

l, 9r5
64. O

56 !,
636
2r6

2rr ,06
6 

'20l4 49,
59.6

916
t 201

foo

a lot
2 967
4 686

57.8
{ro6
tlt
7t

9 582
2 789
5 13'
tf.8

729
I 5lO

lro

69 9q2
67 4rl
17 ort
tt 166
I 665

t2 572
20 55r
t2 0r0
L 267
2 5rl

144
2 t67

!o 96

,o 484
,o $4t
6 

'823 567
8lt

, 956
lr 729
7 727

655
,5
l9
l6

{ aa

lt

t 516
T 805

7rr

t 8?9
5 167

7ll

, 9t8
I 06l
2 686
68r2

75
140
tl

4 282
669

2 707
6r.2

8l
6r2
7*

lt !95
LL 276
, f90
2 848

5q2
2 ta29
, 665
I 597

195
tl9

75
44

t. rl

I q2,
I ,42

)r2
254
,8

tg2
4r,
t67

T8
tl
7L
lo

4.ro

,95

I

47t
r7l
266

,6. 
'2?

,r,
{64
ll2
2rto

11.7
2t
85

7

6l

,o 4tl
27 892
2 551

,l 044
2A !77
2 55t+

lo
2

21 020
4 89t

L5 422
71.4
tt7
,49
158

22 074
{ ot7

t5 706
7t.!,
It9t

2 075
260

I 66'
629
9r4

57.4
7a
7t
t

I 62E
4r9

I ool
6t.5

loo
176

L2

6t 497
6r l15
t7 45'
l5 966
r q87

l{ 299
2t l4'
? 590

650
t62
221
l4l

t.ro

, t28
{ 966
!, 190
I 022

l6E
794

I 806
I 069

127
lt12
tlt
24

I

ra.t9



35-r29O 
Gcncral population Charactcrisdo O

Tablc 28._CHARACTERISTICS OF THE POPULATION, FOR COUNTIT.S: I96&.Con.
[Pcrtcnt not rho*rr whcre lerr thrn O.l or vhcra bu ie las thrn 100; populrtion per hourchold not ehosn wherc lcar thra l@ pcmu tn Lourctolrtr]

SUBJECI i I cHtroNo ROBESON ROCK-
IN6HAII

ROI N RUIHER-
FORO

slxPsoa{ SCOTL N0 sr t{LY sloKEs SURRY sflr{ TR NSYL
vlNtA

?OI L POPUL TION

RACE

XALEroo.r
IHITE. o r e

liEGRO. . . .
lNotlf, . . .
JAP N€S€ . .
cxtNEsE. . .
FILIPTNO . .
OTHER R CES.

FEi^Le....
rHtTE. . . .
NEGROT o. r
INOIAN . . .
J P NESE..
c,ilNES8. . .
FILIPTNO . .
OTHER R^CES.

x^RtrAL STATUS

rOTAL

^NO 
OVER. .X^LEr tg YE RS

SINGLE...
I{ARRIE0. r o

PERC ENI
SEP RATEO.

ilOOiEO...
olvoRceo . .

FEH^LE. t4 YIARS ANO OVER.
SIhGLE .
t{lR R I EO.

PERcENI xARRIEo. . .
sEpaR tEo.

l!tOrEo.
o I voRcE0

NONrH trE

HILE| t4 YE^RS IND OVER. r
SINGLE.
xlRRtEo.

PERCENT HARRtEOT o r
5E'A RA 1EO.

r I oorEo.
ol voRcto

FEXALE, IT YEIRS AND oVERo
SINGLE.
nARRtE0.

PERCENI I' RR:EO. . .
SEP^RrTEO.

I I OOiE O.
0tvoRcto

xousExoLo3

rOT^L

loTlL POPULAIJON r r
IN HOUSEHOLOS.

HEAO OF HOUSEHOLO. . . .. 
HE O OF PRII'iARY FA}IILY
PRlx^RY tN0lVlOUlL..

IIFE OF HEAO
CXILO UNDER 18 OF I{EAO r
OTHER RELAIM OF HEAO r
NONREL^TIVE OF HEAO. . .

INGROUPOUART€Rg.....
IN{ATE OF INSTTTUTION. .
OTHER..

POPUL^TtON PER XOUSEHOLO .

NONTH ITE

TOI^L POPULI'ION . .
lN xousExoLos.

HE^O OF HOUSEHOLO. . . .
HE^O OF PRII{ARY FAHILY
PRTHARY INOtVIOU L..

TIFE OF HEAO
CHILO UNOIR IE OF XEAO .
OIHER REL^IM OF HelO .
NONRELATIvE OF HEIO. . .

tNGROUPoU^RTERS.....
INXATE OF INSTTTUTION. .
OTHEN..

'OPUL TTON PER HOUSEHOLO .

,9 202

19 047
t! 286
t 7)7

l6

J,
20 lt,
lo o89
6 0r7

25
I
I
t
I

t2 620
r 516
I 57!
6?.9
274
!94
l4ll

t! 855
2 9t4
3 6t8
6r.6

405
I 9tO

2r'

, 458
Ll7
I 928
55.8
lt7
170
2t

I 73'
997

2 020
5!.8

207
697
4l

ll 627
lr ,16
2 556
2 221

tar5
t 5?O
ra 197
2 723

l6l
5lt
445

65

t9 202
,6 5t4
lo !92
9 277
I ll,
7 699

t, 698
6 t23

400
6e8
500
r8t

,.71

4.26

E9 lo2

{l 4ro
L7 717
t2 562
l, lot

I
9

ta5 672Ir 8r5tr 694t, l17
t

,

26 0r9
I 646

16 44'
51. I
6t4
749
20r

28 tarlt
7 ql5

L7 076
60. I
96'

,615
,28

l, 835 Ir 28{l
s o85l

58.4 I

464 I

42' I

6!l
re 126 I

4 616lI 5r5l
56.4 I
??r Ir s25l

,"r::l
8e o20 I
r9 90e I

rs r5, I

I 146l
r0 6st I

16 01, I

16 09r Ir 2!21r o82l
t4r I

?4r I

tr"t:l
52 r5E I
9 9891
9 rc6 I

s4, I

6 0481
2! lrr Irl 092 I

srE I
re2 I

2r8 I

r54 I

3.:221

69 629

,, e85
26 9r'
7 0q5

7

lt 6T4
28 024
7 604

9
6

I

2' 22t
t 548

16 ?46
72. L
qr5
6ra l
288

2' 
"O4 7)5

17 t86
67.8
6r9

2 918
q7l

{ 295
I t85
2 680

62.4
154
le7g,

4 906
l.44
2 80ll

57.2
22'
664

94

ttl 672
L4 622
, )90
2 970

420
2 ,0,
5 218
, )9?

,14
50

2
48

69 629
69 2s5
ll 44,
t7 614
I 809

l5 rl5
2' 06l
r0 658

774
,?4
l{7
227

!.56

4.!l

62 817

{o 604
,, 751
6 8r7

l2
2

42 2l',5 rr2
7 080

I
5
2
2,

I
I

82 817
8o 681
2' 820
2l J2r
2 492

ts 725
25 252
tt orl

85'
2 lf6
t 20f

9r,

28 6ra5
6 89'

20 577
71.8
50l
8'E
)r6

,0 592
5 628

ao 822
68. !,

760
,612

5ro

4 450
t 594
2 )7'

!7rE
186
22a
5t

4 70t
trD
2 6ra,

56.2
2E9
696
oc

l, 95{
lr 215
, 2tr5
2 747

{96
2 05t
4 q52
, o8t

t76
7,9
lr9
420

,. 19

u.o7

st o9t

l5 22r
I ?rl

lo 904
7lr5
22t
{44
rTO

,.52

5 r.oo
t ,58
I 214
I 060

150
775

t 9?l
I ll7

8t
r2
25
l7

0.cr 1

22 000
19 42'
2 572

2
I

2' O9l
20 268
2 819

2
2

16 748
, ,42

I I l'ta
56.6
,50

2 004
248

2

4' O9t
44 509
12 614
LL 552
I Ot2

lo oo4
Ira ?6la
5 7lO

t57
592
470
ll2

I 52t
554
90,

59. I
6t
62

9

I ?7r
496
988

95.6
It5
259
,5

rat ot,

21 8r!
t{ 9tI
t {50

{ta9
I

2

19 607
4 647

10 fo?
66.0

298
32L
l12

16 2rr
, 684

lo 49t
64.6
,99

I 9r'
t2'

zra 2o0
l4 952
I tol

4{4
t

2

t l17
I 6t,
, o44
59.5
lEt
204
l6

5 tr4
I 6q'
,193

57.7
267
630

o6

{t ot,
47 ?et
tl 8?2
lo t6,
I OO9
9 277

l7 36ra
t 592

la?c
2r0
129

l8 150
l8 lo?
, ?61
, 400

,61
2 6['
7 zLl
{ 262

224
4'
l6
27

tol
.02

4.61

o

25 tt,

L2 2L7
6 ?8t
5 05?

,79

7 457
2,'8
4 ?tO

64. I
195
272

64

L84
a 099
I OO5
99.7
,49

I 150
lr0

t2 966
7 2t5t rlT

,9'

25 18'
24 91,
6 026
5 

'946f2
4 254
9 79t
4 ttt

2r7
270
lt7
lr,

t ool
I 209
I 618
t4r6
tl2
lll,
ll

, ,69
I 08t
I ?50
51.9

222
5r,
ra

ll l06
lo 916
2 r97
I 9{9

2tl8
L60
4 591
2 646

142
2lO
r0o
llo

4.1'

q.98

{o E7'

t, 952
t zco

to 2r,
7!r!
l7{
,78
9t

l5 0t4
2 882

to 416
69. I

256
I 619

157

I 264
laoo
tl9

6!.8
40
55,

I 4!9
,{4
868

60.t
64

2lt
l2

20 07t
t7 89{
2 170

2

7

20 AOO
l8 4Ba
2 >12

I
2
t

40 87'
rao 21,
It 686
lo 654
I Ol2
9 565
r, 5r2
5 1!4

276
660
l6c
lt70

4 q97
4 488
I 069

920
149
729

I 68'
919
8t

9
t
{

o.20

I r{4

22 tt$

lt 147
9 996
I tll'

g
2

7 7A2
2 0ro
5 461
?o.2

126
219

72

7 856
I 555
5 456
69.4
rlo
779

67

ll 167
lo o49
I rlt,

2

66t
20l
,80

96.9
L7
80

7

652
2t8
t77

55.9
2t
2t

o

22 ll.a
22 t3g
5 905
5 50'

402
{ 9rl
? 65t
, to6

t,,
lt6
llra
z2

2 26i
2 266

4rt
.aoT
ll

t2l
9ol
58t

20,,

5.21

,.75

4t 205

I

I
I

t6 264
t 906

tt 6t4
72.6

217
427
ll7

Ll 62'
t 296

l2 lr!
6E.7
f60

I 964
252

2r r5t
22 t40
I 006

,
I

20 654
2t zra
I )69,

8Et
22L
5!e

60.9
54

rl2
l,

902
,20
513

59.t
l4
!5
,2

48 205
4? 90a
1' 509
12 4r5
I O7q

to 9tT
16 406
6 70t

,71
217
l17
roo

2 807
2 68t

599
516
6'

420
?77
5{9

00
122
lo4
l8

4.Ca

,.5t

L87

4 tt9
, rt9

,o
?70

e 268
,401

40
426

I

2 ?t7
642

I 925
63r I

6l
,4'
{7

2 786
790

I 86'
66.9

ll
95
,8

4t6
Itl
27i

,7.tI,
20

6

521
l5r
,t6

60.?

4?

8 )47
a ,7q
2 2tl
I 99?

222
I 70{
t ot2
r ll0

59
IJ

t,

| 667
I 667

,rl
,o6

25
26tl
7rl
,o?

lla

t.

5rO4

t6 t72

! lt9
7 74'

lto?
t
2
t
t

a 2rt
7 760

44?,
2
I

t 595
I 541
,821
64.,

a7
ttl
a2

t ?ro
L 2t7, cr{
67.O

92' 5!O
?l

arl
96

147
32.t

2l
,6

,.6,

T.6E

2{t
,J

l{o
56.5

t,

L5 t72
l3 9t5
4 ,a4
, 976

{08
I 506
t 7a,
a ltllrr

4t?
?z

,6t

85?
t5l
I12
t5t
!l

ll6
,26
er,
It
l6
?

t4



35-130
tl

Nonh Carolhe

Tablc 28._CHARACTEPJSTICS OF THE POPULATION, FOR COUNTIES: 196O-CON.

[pcrccnt not ahosn rhcn lec. thsn 0.1 or rhcn bs ir lcss thu 100; population per houhold no! rhom whcn ls thu 100 penoro ia houholdr'l

SUEJECT ?YRRELL UNION V^NCE fAKE I RREI{ llSH-
INGION

IATAUGA t Yr€ IILKES IILSON Y OK I N YANCEY

POPULATION

R CE

II LEroroo
lxIlEr r r r
tr€GRO. . . .
lXOllN o o .
J P NES€ r r
CHINESEo o r
FILIPINO . .
O?HEI R CES.

FEIi LE. r r r
rHtre. . . .
xE6io. . . .
lNollr. r o o

JAPINES€ r o

CHIIESEo o r
FILIPINO..
orHfR i cEs.

ll^iltAL St^lus

torAL

L LEt te YEARS ANO OVER. r
SIXGL€ r
ta RR I EO.

2ZRCEi{T l(lRRlEO. r o

SEplR rEO.
rloorto.
ot voRcEo

FEXALET l{ YEARS ANO OVER.
SINGLf .
I^RRIEO.

PEiCENT H^RRIEO. r I. 
SEP^MTEO.

tIoorEo.
olvoicEo

NONII{ ITE

ItlLEt tr YEIRS lt{O OVERr o

SINGLE r
II RR I EOo

PERCENI lilRi tEO. . .
3E'TRITEO.

rloorEo.
ol voicEo

FEI{lLfr lT YEIR3 INO OVEi.
SINGLE r
r^rR I EO.

P8RCENI xlRRlEDr r r
SEP^ RT IEO.

I I OOTEO.
olvoicao

HOUSEHOLO3

?OTAL

?OT^L POPUL^?ION O O

l]{ lou3EHoLoS.
XEAO OF XoUSEHOLD. . o r

HE O OF PRITARY FAI{ILY
Pnlx^RY INOIvIOUAL. r

TIFE OF HE O

CHILO uxO€R 18 OF HEAO r
OTHET REL^tlv€ OF XEAO .
NOtaiEL^tlvE OF HEAO. r r

Itl GROUP olJliT€as. . o o r
lNiltt uF lNsltrurloN. .
OTHER. .

,oPu-l?Iott PEi )tou3EHoLO r

NONTHITE

lOlrL POPUIAIION o o

IX,10U3EHOLO3.
HEIO OF HOUSEHOLO. . . .

HIAO OF PRIHARY F IIILY
Pitr^RY lNOlVlOU^L. o

rtFE oF x€lo
cHtLo UNoER t8 oF HE O .
OTHER RELAIIVE OF HEAO .
HOilR€L TIVE OF IIEAO. O r

lXGROUPaUlRtERSrrror
INx^rE OF tN3ttiUrIuilo r
otxeR. .

POPIJLATtOt{ PER HOUSEHOLO O

I t20

2 2rq
I 2)i

09,

2 266
r 285

981

t rltS
420
967

65.0
20
9l
20

I 
'fl,2ra
962

6t.7
,e

216
ll

t70
206
,2'

t6.7
to
t5

o

589
!7t
tr2

t6.q
l9
74

5

| ,20
r 3t4
! 16l
I o2l,

rD
t6l

t l.9a
926

66

t.89

I 976
I 970

t72
,44

2g
267
7t5
584
t2

t
I

t.ro

{4 6?0

22 0a7
l? ,50
a 72q

4
4

a2 5s,
t7 ?q2
e 6ra

It 6q,
4 022

lo 292
69.'
2r8
$29
loo

t5 ?o5
t t22

lo laE6
65.8
,4t

I 7rO
t6,

2 77t
992

t 6t6
5?.1

122
It9

€

, ol:
88:

L 1tt
)7 ,a

l9l
,7:

2(

t4 67(
{, 90(
ll 6l'
lO 7Or

98
9 q5'

l5 88'
6 

'2',{,
?6r
l8
56,

!.7t

,17
942
196
I ltt

2l
l15
,6t
2t2

l{
I5
l2

q

t

2

lar

,2 002

I5 q6t
t 7ro
6 727

o

16 ,4t
9 2ra,
7 29t

t

ro r59
2 868
6 ?90
66.8

2la{
,tt
ll,

tt ,o4
2 497
7 0l{
62.0

>77t t9,
200

, 982
I l9l
2 

'6t59.q
l6r
167
,9

4 487
I 26?
2 tl:

56.C
2rl
6l.!

6i

,2 001
It 62r
c 2lal
7 

'Or94:
6 0t.

ll o1
t 7r(

,2'
,71
l7:
20:

t4 02(
l, 86(
, oor
2 6l(

f91
I 97r
, 26
, 2Ci

,l'
l6'

2t
lla,

,

T

!r Er

{.6i

t69 0t2

E' 268
62 021
ar o9r

t5
l8
97

7
{5

35 794
62 9rr
22 760

tt
2t
l4

$
Ir

56 
'2at7 t7L

,8 66?
66rf

L t27
I 570

T lra

61 554
t, 5q,
,9 

'9660. O
2 0!9
7"8
L 277

t, 5r4
{ 859
7 9t!

38r5
696
619
lql

It t7(
T 29t
t {0(
3lol

I l6r
2 201

2?1

t69 08:
157 or,
It ra?(

t9 92(
, t4'

t$ ,7t
t, l4'
20 08/
, 751

12 ot+
72q
o gO(

44 12,
Tt 5r,
9€4
852
l12
622

t{ 6r
947
140
219
l16
r 2l

,.4r

Il 652

9 7t'
t 16l
rt Ito

202

9 919
t 578
6 tl5

204
I

6 lo8
I 9r9
, €74
6r. $
l!9
24t

52

6 996
I 62t
t 922
60.{

t49
t9t
t5

, 6'E
l, 5lt
2 lt,

57 oA
lo7
167

2C

, 764
I l2q
2 l!!
)6.1
Itl
471

2l

19 65:
19 5I',
{ 52,
{ 06,

{6(
t f6r
? lll
425

23)
lfl
t'
ei

o.

L2 7l
12 60
2 cor
22t

l8
L7'
500
t21

l7
lo

,

l, T88

6 780
,725
, o55

6 708
t 680
! o28

e ,o,
I 296
2 aL2
65.l

lo2
139
,6

{ ,oo
920

2 AzL
6t.6

lo8
514

o5

L 745
694
96'

)5.2
7L
71
It

I 70{
ttc
9{t

l!.:
a:

2tr
t(

l, {81
l, f4l
t 2rl
?i2

tr:
2 4E,
5 o2l
2 40:

17:.
l4r
7
6i

606
) 93'
I 14',
I OOI

lq'
75,

2 
'A'154
l2r
t2

,.

t7 52e

t 5qo
E 4rO

lo7

t
2

t 969
I E66

l2l

6 !68
2 027
, 94o
6r.9

4'
164

57

6 691
I 995
, 962
39.5

67
662
,2

l7 t29
16 098
4 5!6
4 069

467
, 587
,524
2 257

194
t 4ll

188
! 24,

lr55

I

t

7t
,o
[2

8l
20
40

,
lo
2

2lf
2t2

54
\7

7
It
8'
to

t
I

o.r0

82 059

rao 99E
26 r20
l{ 821,

,l
lz,
o
7

4t 06l
25 715
tr 2E5

2l
29
I
2
6

2r Lt,
? 5t5

!8 57'
68.{

I 618
661
,r5

27 'rt, 266
It 656

67.8
t 861
, 20tl

407

i 521
, oE9
, 991

62.9
I 461

t21
Itt

lo oo€
25u
6 06(
60.(

I 60r
I 26.

l6i

82 o5'
76 t9
20 lqi
!8 l9i
I 941

15 56
26 9$',
lo 5l'
L22
t66
,81
185

,.

to 22
26 2tr
597!zr

76
J84
es9
t9l

6l
,96
,?o

27

4.'

la' 269

22 595
2L 205
I f80,

I

o
2

22 674
2L t't
I )ltr

I
2

l5 20ta
4 lr8

l0 t5t
68. I

160
t76
159

lt 784
t 266

lo 545
66.8

225
I 760

2t.,

9fl
t77
5lr

54.8
21
,5
lc

86€
254
tt71

55.i

L2<
t!

4t 26'qt 02!
ll 801
lo 96r

8l'
9 51i

16 28'
7 tll

,or
24
L21
ll'

f.a

2 7l
259

601
5!'.

6
f9l
89
68

I,

I
I

37 716

26 045
16 8!2
lt 209

2

2

29 67t
17 666
ll 998

r
I,

16 ,J4
5 284

12 t6l
66.'
5q'
695
194

20 to2
4 667

12 4?'
6I.{

807
2 6rl

,5I

6 518
2 275
, 8'6

58.q
4l!
f4l

6a

7 
'r22 lol

4 ooi
54. {

6()t
I 09:

lo(

37 7Ll
56 q7r

l{ 7r'
t, 08,
I 6['

lo 82.
20 ll
9 06r
l20
124

66
5ar

!rt

2t 2L
22 72
4 971
428

68
, 00r
88'
t2r

59
ta9
4l

$r

804

tr r?2
lo 799

t7t
I

ti 4r2
lo 875

557

I ll7
I 966
5 878
72.2
lo,
L17
?T

LO5
I 5)l
, 899
71.0

I Itr
795
to

,68
l2f
ztt

6].'
22
tl
I

,58
76

2r4
65.o

L7
tl7
I

22 804
22 665
6 ,q6
, i$7

f99
, t62
? ,47
, q2)

167
l19
c7
,2

lt57

I lro
I 125

260
251
2t

192
,96
2ra8

2A
4
la

22

I

la.r,

to oo8

6 958
6 694

6{

7 050
6 978

72

o 8rl
t fc,
t 2t4

67. {
2tl

lE6
o8

t 00,
I 066
, r2l
66.4

40
5r9
,7

I{ ooE
l, 930
, 662
, {ol

261
, ool
{ 976
2 2t2

e,
54
L7
t7

!.at

I

I
,.97

l!6
l)5,{,r,
27
o4
lo



Calondar No. 598

9?rs Cononres I SENATE I RuPont---% S;;d., I Dr;NAr'li I No. g74t.

VOTING RIGHTS ACT EXTENSION

REPORT
otr' 'l.rrl:

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

UNITED STATES SENATE

ON

s. L992

with

ADDITIOI{AL, MINORITY, AND SUPPLENIENTAL
VIEWS

Mer 25, 1982.--{rdered to be printed

U.S. GOVERN}IEN'I' I'RINTING OFT'ICE

9{-618 O WASHINGTON: 1982

EXi{IBIT B



I
on the basis of a careful review of the contemporaneous reeord of on-

"Li"" votine rishts discrimination in 1970 and 1975, respectively.
'-i.t-.q.rpn sT of"19?5, Congress extended the Voting Rights Act.of 1965

tor ? veirs, so that 'iurisd-ictions originally subject to the special pro'
ui.ior"t of ihe Act remained covereii until Au!'ust 6' 1982' Congress
also made permanent the nationwide ban on literacy_Fils and other
devices, which it had imposed on a tempor*y--ba5is in 1970''--f" 

utiaition, based on i.n extensive re-cord filled with examples of the
barriers to registration and. efrective voting encountered bv lul,go"g.-
minoritv citizins in the electoral pnocess' Congress expanded the-cov-
erage oi th" Act to protect such citizens from efrective disfranchise-
ment."'.i"L.ifi.allv. 

Consress amended the definition of tttest or device" to
i";;d; lii;- ""tt of-Enqlish-onlv election materials in ju-risdictions
-ohu; a sinqle languagd minoriiy group comprised more than 5^per-
.u"i- of the ?otin STaSE populq,tion.-It then eitended coverage o.f jh"
A;t to those juriid"ic"tio:ns^which had used a test or device as of No-
;;;fir i, tsiz, and had registration or voter turnout rates less than
50 percent.lo""Ii;;;;;;", 

Congress required that language assistanee be provided
throuqhout'the el"ectoral irocess where members of a single language
minorTty comprise more !han- 5 percent of the voting,-qgf trcpulation
,"a tt."iftituiacy rate of such liersons as a group ishigher than the
national illiteracY rate.l?- -Fi"rli;. 

Corer.".*t amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act-the
g.n.rut "prohib-ition against voting- discrimjnation nationwide-to
a-""""1i,[;ili;;iilr" b-ased. on merilbership i, q langua-ge minority
o-"oro. fn adoptins this amendment, Congress indicated that the basis

?;;;ii. ;*p#d.d-section 2 Eas not onlf the F ifteenth Amendment,
but also th6 Fourteenth as well.

V. THE CONTINUING NEED FOR SECTION 5

PRECLEABANCE

fn the Committee's view the extensive hearing record complied by
ttre b"nate and the Ifouse Judiciary Committees d.emonstrates con-

;G;;$ th;tth; A.t's pruclua.ancd-requirement must be continued.
There is virtuai 

""n"1ririty 
among those w-ho-have studied the record

thJSection 5 preclearanceihouldEe extended. The Subcommittee on
the Constitution *u. ,tturimous on this point. As the Subcommittee
A;;;;;;t.d,;t "r"iy 

.very witnqs agl-<nolrledged some need for the
.o"ii""r"." of Secti<in 5 coierage." 18 The Committee's analysis of the
p;;i;;;;;." of the covered juiisdictions in recent ygars.gonstitutes
ihe basis for our conclusion that Section 5, as well as-the other special
prc,visions,, remain necessary and appropriate legislation to ensure

la Jurisdietions meetlng thls trlgger and thus subJect to the speelal-provlslons of the
ect.-incruaini p.".-i.riiiiie",'*ei,i-itie Slalei or atalta. Arlz-ona-and r-exas: 2 countles
in Cattfornia: t eoun-ty ln"'Cof6raa6;-f-c6irnttes in Ftoritla; 2 townshlps in Mlehlgan; 1

eounty ln North Caroliira; and 3 countles ln South Dakota.--iiiirriiaictio; ;ov;r;d 'und;atnti second triiiei were; all 143 countles ln Terae^; all
82 counttes ln New "Liiii"-i;-iit 

f i-coun-ti& tn-f,rizona ; 39 countles ln Californla; 34 ln
Colorado; and 25 ln Oklahoma.s Subcommlttee Report at 53.



10

the full enforcement of the rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments Uo the Conslitution.lg

Although we have come a long way since 1965, the nation,s task in
securing voting rights is not finished. Continued progress toward
e_qual- opportunity in the electoral procoss will be halted- if we aban-
don the Act's crucial safeEuards now.

The Oommitbee is ecluiliy concerned about the risk of losing what
progress has already been rvon. 'Ihe gaurs are fragile. lVithdut tire
preclearance of new laws,.many of tlie advances oT thc past decade
could be wiped oub overnight lvith new schemes and d6vices.ro
Entent of Objectiptw

The exLent of objections under Sec.tion 5 has remained substantial.
Whilo sgme.plogress continues to be made, racial and language mi-
nority discrimination aflect,ing th_e riglrt to vote pelsists tiir.orfu'hout
th_e jurisdiction-s covered by tle Sectiin 5 precleirance require-ment.
AII too often, the backgrouncl of rejected sribmissions-the'failure to
cloose unobjectionable-alternatives, the absence of an innocent ex-
planation for the proyrosed change. the doparture from past practice as
minority voting streigth.reacirds 

.new 
leizels, and, in iome^instances,

direct indications of raciai considerations--ser.ves to underline the
continuing necd for Section 5.

A review of the kinds of proposed changes that have been obiected
to by the Attorney_ General in re-cent yea,rs ieveals the t.ypes of inipedi-
ments that stiil face minority votdrs in the .or..ed ^iurisd.ict'ions.
Among the.types.of changes-thaf have been objectea"to mort-f.u-
quently in.the period from-ig75-19g0 are annexations I the use of at-
I3rgo eiections, majority_ vote-.requirements, or numbei.aa poiir; *d
the redistrictirrg of boundary linei.r'

This reflectsThe fact thai,,_since th-e adoption of the Voting Rights
Act, covered jurisdictions 'have 

substanfially moved froni diiect,g"I i$qediments to th.e right to vote to moie sophisticated aeviceJ
that drlute mrnonty rroting strength.z2

*" Us't""*,itution, Fourteenth nmsnflmrentr Se-ction S,.Fifteenth Amendment. Sectlon 2.Thus the legislative 6xtension ot sei-iion-r li fru;.4;;3i.ttii"'"itn the requirbnrent thatIt be based on "(-'onq-ress' colsidered rteteirntaftioi,';-a-riei"ievlewing the recent and eon-temporeaneous recor"d. ,tlai ii-ieniii"i'iicessary io l;pieser"e the-,llmited and fiaglle,aehievernents of the Aet and to rrioi,r,,te-tqi*rei ameriiiiii6n"ofttiiii'hGciiiiir.'tloo.,,cily*!_Eyyg v.^united, Sr_qrea ++6 ri.S. iaa rai-iidaor.'.zu rrolessor c. vanr.l .Woodrvard. ooe of Amerlea's leadlng Southern hlstorlans, told lugraphic detail how ouickly the gaihsln ,<rtin?'iicfiti rnitii'i io"oturv aso were wtped out,
fr1$.illu. 

"(m)vlistorv teirehes ire that ir-it cln [irii,e;;;6 ii'ean nappei'uslii..q-frouse
zr Report of the ttuited States C_ommission^on Clvll Rights, (Civll Rtchts Commtsslon Re-.port). "The votins Righrs a<:t: unfulflite,t c'oa1!;;'r,^-e5,-f"dgil'see a!ao e.g. lenort of theLawvers comnrittee roi-Ci':ii.riignii'_iiifriii"w, "votinCi,i rrriiiissippr: A Rrght sti, Denied("Lawvers com'mittee.]rississiirpi- n.-r,nrt;i riariiiriiiirlLrr iir?'breaxcrou.n of ohjections tnlllssissiprri from I se r-^roso. i;h'ur iGii;;,;ny beloio-iiie'sutiii,.irrittep_on the cohstttuuon,January 27. te8z. 8t 6_7. r,("niie-i,*ii;i;;l,,i iirmn-'irailii"er.'pre.raent of the lrexrcan-American Lesal Defense.-anrl eaucition--iriif,o, ir-ot.if ii;-;;qd;;A changes from Texas whtehwere objeeted to bv the Departnra;i;f-i;s'ii;e, aespite ttiriilct Ceias *.as not hrought underthe Aet unul 1f175. The ob.icatio;;;&iin"i:espons?ir; i;il;;d ii,a.,s"s submttted by Jurts-d ietion.s th rorr ghorr t the enti re at; t"';i-i;;;;.2erhls trend shoultl not uo-iarr"" -tn"ir"nn that rnore hlatant dlrcet lmpe6lments tovotins are no lonser utiliz,etl. noiir-iii" ]loii.e ana sonnie-tr.;;l;; rpeords eontatn oxamnlesof direet efforts to bar. min"ritv-pa"ir"ii',""'iio".'i""ri,ii,ii,d"lit-il?ur 

'torenee nnrt rnttmidn-tion of voters and canclidar"*. ai.s"i:irnl-ri,i't".v mar_rtputalior' ,ii'ioierr, rereslstratton reclulre-mcnts nnrl rrurclns of roters. cr,anrtnc'iii; i"i:;ti;;-;;';r;riii;;;i^ees nrrrr tnslsrcnee on re_taining ineonrenipnt soting ana reEis[i^iinn ho,rr". Ilorrie nn"6"i'xo. 97-227. nD. l1-9I andtcstimonv before tho serrn t3--'rriaieiilir:- SiiS"nmmittee on- it " i"ir-trtiiti;r i.,; niiir,^i. -drn""-
fcld. Prpsldent. f,ensrre o-t Women-i;or"r*.'lla-nuarv 27 .1fl,qg nt ti and f-rr$,vcrs Co,nmttteeMlsslsslppl Renort. rt 13.94 rtn-iiriraatrnnl rn"on"oni";t'.;ciJt;;iton tocattons nnd horrrs.ehRnscs in nolling nlnces): irna 'snnntn r,ni'"rn,T*.'in*ti;,;;;i'ii'ititrir rurner (relrtenttflea-tlon plan). Fehrriaiv z, llrgd at i-i'vliriii lri,itin"r,'tei;""'tire"nouse Judtetary subeom-footnote contlnued on p. 11.



t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

Some elamples of changes objected to by the Department of Justice
since the last extension of the Act are illustiative: d

- Holy Qnling, Mississlppi,- a 4ajg-nty black city, redrew its
four districts. Tho,new plan drasticilly ieduced miirority voting

latcd (
strength. trogt of the blapk residents w6re put into two oierpopul
lated (and therefore underrenresentetl) d-istric.ts- while mistl.'f

( iL or urs DIBIK resroenEs w-ere -put mto two overpopu-
therefore underrepresented) districts, while mosf of

11

the whites were put into the other two'districts, which were un-
derpopulated. The Attorney General objected in ig81.r*

The Burleson county, Texas Hospii,al District eliminated 12
of its.1& poiling places, leaving. t\e onty remaining polling place
19 miles from the area where Slack vot6rs were coicintraied^ and
30 miles from the area of concentration of Mexican-American
voters. The Attorney Goneral objected in 1g81.z5

January 19,80rthe.De $ulk County, Georgia, Board. of Reg-
istration adopted a policy that it woulil'no loiger appnove com-
punrty grgupll requests to-co_nduct voter registration d-rives, even
though only 24 percent of black eligible v-oters were resistered,
compared to 81 per.cent of wtrites. A lawsuit was required"to make
tt g coun-ty submit the change, and the Attoiney General
objected.'?

North Carolina drew a, congr_e$sional districting plan that mini-
ryized the voting strength oI black voters in th"e'Durham &rea.
The Attorney-.Ge1eral objected in 1981, noting that the plan not
q{y.had a discriminatoiy effect but also afpeared to- have a
discriminatory purpo6s.zz 

-

. In f-981, Pe,tersbrlrg, Virginia, drew a redistricting plan that
virtually insured white conlrol 6ven thgugh blacks fiaku up 61
p.eTceqt of the city. On submission to the-Attorney General-, an
objection was entered under Section 5, pointins odt that the ef-
fect-as well as the purpose (as shown'by white-council members,
statements ) -*f the plan was discrim inatory. 28

In 1979 the Depaitment of Justice objec-ted to a South Dakbta
law that would hlave nullified tho efrec[ of a iudicial decision 2e

that gave the residents of two unorganized counties-whose popu-
lations are predominantly Indian-the right to vote for county
offi.cials in lhe organized count,ies to which they are attached;

On October 27,1981, the Attorney General obiected to the por-
tion of the New York City Coun.:il"redistricting"plan, concerriing
the three counties covered-by section 5-New Y;rk (Manhattan)",
Kings (Brooklyn) and Brons, bccause the gerrymandered di3:
tricts discrirninated against lrlack and Hispanic voters.so

footDote zz contlnued.
mittee on Clvll and Constltuttonal Rtghts, June 1S, 1981, at 1878, 1895 (,'House hearlngs")
_1Pg]linc t)lacelf ; House Hcprlngs, te-stiniony or notanair ntos, Iiav O, iSSr at 42 (InitEl-(Iatron):.the Sen8tae he-$rings testlmony of Vllma trlartinez, January 27, 1982,' at b-6lpurging). Cir-il Rtghts Comrilsslon Rqprirt. lhe Commtsston iets out irumerouJirimpteior stlch_impedilnents to.minority candidat^es and their suplrorters (pp. 59-61): harass[ientand intlmldation in registratiod G1o, 2!-!!) ; pulgtng ariri qeregistiiircn Oi-iil\-; fiiitr;pl qgg!- ( 2 9r3 1 ; a nd haiassment ariil' lntlmtdritio'n-iri' vdtinf t sa-55 I .

. zr The llst of sectlon 5 objeetlons was contalned tn thti Appeirdix to the testlmouy olAmericrrn_Lecal Defense ana iraucCtion Funo, noie osb piopo;6d ch;;;"Jri6il iiili-r"fr"nr"n2' See Horrse Hearlngs, p. 18r1,'i.
2r See House Hea.rtnis. i. 1849.

-.!. Re.lor-t by th1'-Am1'riLan Clvtl Llbertles Unlon, "Voting Rtghts lu tbe South,' Ihereln-after_elted as ,.ACLU Report"l, p. 54-55.
----ObJeetton letter of Wllllah-Bradford Reynolds, Asslstant Attorney General, to AlexK. Broek. Dee. ?. 1081.
_ a_ ObJeetlon letter of Wtlllam Bradford Reynolds, Asslstant Attoruey Gleneral, to JoboF. Ke1'. .Ir., trfareh 1. 1932.n rittle Thund.er v. ,s_rgre_ ol south Dakota, rlg tr.2d lgb3, 1g16 (gth ctr. 19zb).
- al,etter of \trm. Bradford Eeynolds, Asslsdant ettoruey-C'entiii, io-i"aiiiin-Fiirimino,October n, tg8t.



t2

M*y of the-practices to. which objections havo been entored arp
complea and subtle. Sophisticated rulei regardins elections *n, io*
part of t_ho. everyday rough-a{rd-tumble of"Ame.i'ca, politicsJattics
used traditiona[y by the-66ins" against the ((outs.,, viiwed in context,
however, the sch-emes reported h-ere are clearly the latest in a-direrct
hne of repeated efrorts to perpeturlte the resdlts of past votins dis-
crimination and to undermine the gains won under dther sectidns of
the Votine Rishts Act.

The bre"adtli of the continuing problem is perhaps bgs_t_ shown by
the section 5 objections to state#ide redistrictins rrl^ans foito*i"s trrl,
1980 census. rn the.past.year the Attorney Geileral has objecte? to
statewide plq,ns in Virginia (State lfouse and Senate), Arizoia (S1ate
House and Senate)., North Carolina (State House, Senate urd bor,-
gressional districts),- South Carolina (state r{ouse'), Georgia (State
rrouse. Senate and Congressional clistricts). Alabjma (SGte iiorr"
and Senate), Mississippi- lCongressional districts), and r"*r" iSiut".hrouse, Senate and Congressional districts). rn some of these c&ses
successive plans have been submittecl and rljected several times.sl
Non-Cornplionce
rn addition to. th.e continuing level of objectionable voting Iaw

changes, disappointing gaps. in 6om_pliance'wilh Section r are Jgnif-
icant evidence of the contillrin-g need for the preclearance requirerient.
, Non-compliance- generally .I'o. taken two forms. First, tnu." hr.
been eontinued widespread failure to submit proposed changes in elec-tion law for Section r review before atteniptiirg to irnpt-urn."itrr.
change. Second, there continue to be instancejof Ihang;riuul"* u.."
implemented despite a prior Department of Justice obiection.-

The Subcommittee on the Conititution received tesiiniony detailing
the extent of non-qgrypIlance rvith the Act by covered 'iuiisaictions.
A representative of thi Southern Regional Council testinea ittri-frit
organization's research showed that t'iince 1965 in six Souihern-siate.s

".t 
pqny. qp 750 state enactments affeeling voting have been passed by

!tq!e legisl'atures and have not been submitted foi review und'er i..iioi,
5.32

The witness also testified that ((the failure of local governments torob*itg"ges in practices and policies that they arlJpt o" tr," io"ar

y^"^q&lhiilfi:!!t fl"3'""T"yJ,o*..,"&lp,:it's,rT""lt!*." Tf;"g'"iX",#sill""s1:,Tt:."',",,1;
Igagolrs. for-example,. rea.ppordonmeit or h.ome i'uie,. i:rilitiajc-ttoni maf -niii-niways 

takeea.re to avot<t dlscrtmtng-ting a.sarnst mtnortty-vote-rs'rn1tr-e-[iocesi.,,-S."nili. ii;.-di_2irb;p. 
_1_8 (1975), quoted tn McD-aniitv. Sonehiz.-l 2 ti.S. ai-gsi\ ''^--'
t;nder the rule of Be.er v. unlted stotet,425 u.s. rgo-(lgzo). a voilng chanse whleh isa elioratlve ls not obl.eetlona_ble unless the cti4re:iiisriu"si'arieri-iiiitdi-<if,-tiiJ'irasisof raee or eolor as to vlolate the Constltutibn.;'-eDB-u.S-a'it?i i.see olso 142 n. t4 (eitingto the dllutlon caseg from Fortaon v. Doraey throus-h?;iti'i.'iiiiiii"rl.'l-r'ircfrt'i'i'tr,"amendment to seetto! 2, _tt ls tntended ttrdt. a Jec-tibn S'oUl&fron aiio'foiloilii i^n"*votl n g pr_oced u re ltsel f so' d lserlmtnates-is loltdia Ii seciioi i."' -' 

-

. In anal.r-zlng subgrisslons, the Attornef c-enerat hii eoiieeiry taken the posltion thRt theImmedlate-lv -preeedlng plan ts not neeesirltv ttrelianan"a aciinit rvhieh t'o-i:iiCiiriJ'iitro-
fl-..19".,t.f^^ql1,t_!Ja_o was preeleared wlthoiit t[e^ lnnlqirii?e'slttr6ii-ii'"""ri:*] d,ir- 6i:".-tlon tolUlsslsslnni renpporttlonment-plan. Mareh g-O;i982. The sCme should atso hold tiue
l!-- lle nqlor f,tirn w'ai - piggtg-ariit --unaer_ 

_sianacraJ 
- ti,a-f'"ni- rongu" apply. comparewhitecomb v. chaote. 1os u.s.- rze. rez_es-. tisii). iiiI" ,iiie li,--?,i- r.eJil,ii iidii-tr,"Attorn-ey General's ststement tbaTledlstrrcttnli-sr-u'irts-sto-ns'irra"" seeuon b are to betreated on a ease-bv-ea-se basrs. "rn the iishT oiiti tl;-H;i;'j, ii,iier 1;;-11i i.{o*ily'nfuaeto_-Chalrman flateh. Febmaiy 2S, ISSL --'-

82 scn&tc bearlnes- stat-em'6nt of Stevea Futtts. Exeeutlve Dlreetor. Southern RecronalC.ouncil, February*1. 1982 ai D, C,-Tiese st;i;ii'Ri;: ar,iirr*ir,'ceorgta. Loutsiana. MIs-sistlppl. North carollna. an{ 'soutn cirorrni, wiiile N;;th "c;"dir,i;:;i i"3ioi"l*ir"hotsubjeet-to seetton E. the legtslatton in quesUoi arici"a-Nii'irr-Ciioiini c,iuntGi*i,lfe[ arueovered aud, therefone, lt should have bebnpiecteirea.-



_)

INITED STATES DISTRTCT COUBT
FOR lHE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CITY OF IPCKIIART,

.. Plaintiffs,

v.

I,JNITED STATES OP A},IERICA,
et al.,

Civil Action No. 80-364

Defendants.
EILED
.lJL 3 0 i93l

JAIIES E. DAVEY, Clerk
ORDER

Upon consideratl,on of the trial in tiis mattsr, and
the entire record herein, it is, tor the reasons 'et forth in
the accompanying rercrandurn opinion, tfris 3 6@ day of,
Ju1y,198I

ORDERED that plaintiff,E regues! for a dectaratory
judgrnent be and hereby is denied, and it ia furtlrer

, ORDERED that tbis action be and hereby is dj,snissed.
For the Court.

EXHIBIT C



o
t,

HIiH"'3i3;i. 3i'3I' 33,3ffHII

Cil'Y 
.Or 

LOCKIIAR?,

plainti. ff,
v.

UIJrE? srArEs oF AMERTCA,et aL. .

Civil Action No. BO_364

)

)
)

)

)
)
)

)
)
)
)

Defendants. EILED
,tU! 3 0 iyri

JAIJES F. DAYEy, Ctcrk
I'IEUORAIIDUM oPTNToN

I. lnLr-()ducLiorr

Thi.s matter caine on for trial before the Coult onscprcrnbcr r'0 an. 11' 'rggo' upon consideration of the trial. andthe entire record herein, praintiff's reguest for decJ.aratoryjudgmcnt is denied.

The city of Lockhart initiated this action pursuant toscction 5 of the voting Rights Act, 42 U.s.C. S]973c. plaintiffseeks a declaratory judgment that the adoption in r.g73 0f a HomeRul_e Charter does not have the purpose, and will not have theeffect' of denying or abridging the right ,., ,oau on account ofrace, color or mernbership in a 1i
septernber 11, 1e80, the court 

"r:::"::.T" .:L:.'i;. ;:..."u_ings were limited to evidence pertaining to ttre "errec;: :;;""-adoption of the Home Rule Charter. The Court reserved the inguiryon the ,,purpose,,of 
the adoption for a later time, if necessaly.ff. Findinqs.of pact

Thc City of Lockhart is located in Ca1dwell County,approximately thirty miles south of ).ustin, Texas.
In 1970, the City of. Lockhart had a population of G,4g9personsr of whom 45t were Anglo,.4lE were jrtexican American an<l)4'L wa;ra blsck. As of tgll, there

in rockhart, of whom e74 
".'";;; 

were 3'267 resistered vorels
t, ws's IrexLcan Americans.

Under Texas state municipal law, nunlqipalities arcr--aLc,ori.zc.:d .rs aithcr r,gctrcrul Iaw,, gjgis5. *special charter,, citiesor "home fulel ci
,,,icrrefirl i.,r., 

"r.art.ir"' 

As exfl,ained hereinafter, r,ockhart is a



O

(l

-2-
A "spccj_al charter', city is similar to a ,,home ru]e,,

crty in that the powers that each tlpe of city possesses are derived
from the same source (charter) and both are subject to the same

staLutorY linitation.
There are, however, significant differences between a

"general J-aw" city and a "home ru1e" city. A',generar 1aw,,qliy
nas the autliority to undertake only what is specificarly authorized
by Texas J.aw, while a "hone rure" city has authority to do what-
evcr is not specifically prohibited by statc J,aw. Thus, t,hc
practical effect is that the authority of a ,general J.aw,, city to
govcrn its own irffairs i,s r,initccl , while a',home rulc- city has
broad autlrority to govern its own affairs.

A "generar law" ci.ty which operates under a cornmissi.on

form of government has no contror over the size or the method of
clecting its governing body. Texas law rigidly requires that the
commission consist of three individuals, a mayor and two comrnis_
sioners', ana that all three members be elected on an at-large basis.
There is no authorization for an eLection scheme which features
single-mernber d,istrj.cts, nunbered posts , resi,dency districts or
staggering the terms of the commissioners.

A "general law" city, if it satisfies reguirements inposed
by state Iaw, may adopt a city charter and becorne a -home rule,,
city. rn drafting its charter, a municipality is free to adopt any
provision which is not inconsistent hrith state rarr. Texas statc
munici-pal raw regulres that the m,nicipality in opting for horne

rule select the powers i,t desires to exercise and the procedures
necessary to implement those porrers. . rn so doing, the muni.cipality
is free to choose the form of government unier which it $ri.11 operate
,rrrd the governing body can be e.lected at-rarge or by single-member
di-s:ricts. At its option, the xlluicipality may require that candi-
di.rtcs designate thc positi,on or poat for which they seek crection
(nurnbered-post provision). rt may arso provide that the terns of

b.

the nrclnlcers of the governing body be staggered. A 'general law,,
city docs not enjoy thj,s latitude of ehoicc.

\

: <;?;.#+r;e*-+ri*.'t +r ,::;+!:F>*i..+'frt.e

' :r,r:i{:.a,\.,{;->: i:'1:,- . ,^r- i.1 , i;qiei.J.it,-;

(-



O

-. lai:

. - :.e,i .-.

.-"r.rq{dh$ #ft{:<n}f':+:$ffi

.;ier*+f qi*ihI+XF-,.+# . .l.r;nt, ";.rS.r,i:-h1d

-3-
Prior to February 20, L973. the City of Icckhart tdas a

"general 1aw" city which operated under a cornoission forrr of govern-
ment. As authorized by state law, the city was governed by a mayor
ancl Lwo commissioncrs who were elected at the sane time on an at-
large basis to tlro-year terms. rn addition, and contrary to Texas

Law, candidates for election to the city commissi.on wer-.e reguired
to Cesignatg the places they sought; i.e., numbered posts.

The limitations i.mposed upon the actions of "generar law,'
cities by state law led the City of Lockhart to study, during 1972,
Lhc feasibility of acguiring 'home rule" status. rn July l9?2, the
Lockhart city cormission appointcd for this purposc, pursuant to statc
1aw, a fifteen-rnember charter study conmittee composed of, nine (9)

Anglos, four (4) Mexi.can Arnericans and two (2) blacks. The charter
study corurittee recommended ttrat a charte! commission be fomed to
draft a "home rule" charter for the city of r,ockhart. The study
commi.ttee was itself Later el.ectec as the chartcr corimission. ?he

chartcr comnr-ission used as a model. the sharter of, the city of
Gonzales, Texas, a town sinilar in size to Lockhart and located
approximately th5.rty miles south of Lockhart. The pran adopted
followed the Gonzales nroder with the principal. d,i.fference being
that the Lockhart plan provided for nurnbered-post positions.

The Horne Rule Charter, as drafted by the Lockhart
charter comrni.ssi.on, was adopted by the ci.tizens of rockhart on

February 20 ' i.,g73- under the charter the new plan of government

for the City of lockhart tas a cor:ncil-manager fo:m, consisting of a

mayor and four. counciLmernbers electeu ao l-glg;ad_pos.t-s on an at-
large basis. The charter arso provi,ded that the mayor and two
councirmembers wourd be erected one year and the remaining two
councilnrembers would bc cl.cctcd thc forlowing ycar (staggercd_-tcrJrl.
Elections pursuanE to the plan were hel.d from the ti.oe of its adop-
tion in 1973 until 1978. This governance and clcction pran is bcforc
the Court for Section 5 review.

q

the system

In 1977, a lawsuit challenging, on constitutional grounds,

of electing members to the city coturcil was filed against



(t.-

.'i

the citv of Lockharr bv four ,..::;r-*erican cirizens. The record
in that action revealed that the governance and, erection pl.an adopted
by the city of r,ockhartrs Hose Rule charter had not received the regui_
sitc pr-eclearance, pursu.nt to section 5 0f the voting Right,s Act.
Cano v. Kirksey, No. Z7-CA-133 (W.D. Tex. Lg77).

Another action was thereafter f:-led against the city of
r'ckhart, seeking to enjoin the city from uti.lizing this or any
unprecreared change affectj,ng voting, ,nless and rrntit such change
rcccivcd the neccssary section 5 precr.earance. The court, in grant-
ing injunctive rerief, found that the ,home rure- governance and
clccLion pran had not received the necessary section 5 review. The
court, fo,nd that ierqong tbe urajor changes reguired by the adoption of the
Home Rule charter rras to enlarge the ci.ty councir t0 tour Der'betrs,
pLus tlre nayor, and to adopt a nu,bered place system for the e]ec_
tion of co.ncirnenbeJis.' cano v. chessar, A-7g-cA-032, (w.D. Tex.
March 2, L979) .

' Forrowing ttre order of the court in cano v. ghessar.
A-79-cA-032, the city of rcckhart submi.tted the ,home rur.e.
governance and election plan to the Attorney General. for section 5
revi'ew. The city of rockhartrs section 5 sr:bmission was received
by the ALtorney General on llay 7, .:g7g. On June 27 , Lglgr the Attorney
Gcncral requcstcd thaL thc city provide aclditional j,nforrnation. The
cityrs response was received on July 17, Lglg, and a Section 5
objection to the home rul.e governance anil election plan was inter-
posed, by the Assistant Attorney General acting on behar.f of the
Attorney Gener4], on september 14 , :-g7g. The present action by the
City of Lockhart followccl.

There ex'sts a pattern of racial b10c voting in the city
of Lockhart. Electj.on returns trom mr:nicipal elections held since
1973 show a high correspondence between Spani.sh-surnamed voters who
voLcd in tlrc parLicurar clection and the nunrber of votes received
by the Spanish-surnamed candidate.

\
population

Although Mexican Americans constitute over 40$ of the
of the city of Lockhart. only onc Mexican Anrcrican has



o

.rqfcqh*ricl'ca,':!t,',iq..-. ia)i--!.1+{r;;;-.iri; ;.,,

(

-5-
ever served on the Lockhart governing body. The one Mexicarr
.I-merican to win a municipal election contes., Mr. Rangel, rron a
position en the council in 197g, when fi.ve persons, including tour
Ang10s, sought erection to place r. rn that erection 550 0f the
total 0f 1,9g3 voters were ltexican Americans and Mr. Rarrgel received
655 votes (tJre crose sirailarity of those figures is crearly indi-
cative of racial bloc voting). Since the Anglo vote r.ras split
arnong four Ang10 candidates, Mr. Range]. prevailed with the highest
nurnloer of votes.

Mr' Rangel',s vi'ctory dernonstrates that the J,arger number
of candidatcs for ir givcn position, Lhc bottcr is Lhc ch.rncc of
Mexi'can Americans to er.ect candi.dates of their choice. The voting
results before the Court bear this out. For exarnple, in the sarae
year that !{r. Rangel was elected to place l, a }lexican American
sought thc position of nayor and another sought the position as
uouncilmember for place 2. fn each instancer the nurnber of votes
received by the Mexican A,nerican candidate was approxiroately the
same as the number of i'lexican Arnerican voters. Ho*rever, in each
instance, the renaining votes were split anong only ttrree AngJ.o
persons who were serious candidates, and in each instance the
Mt:xican A&erican candidate was defeated.

Under an at-large electoral system without, nu.mbered posts,
a'cognizabr.e voting ninority can leverage trreir voting strength by
single-shot or bullet voting.

The impositio;r of nunbered posts diminishes ttris reverage.
rt does so in tiwo ways- Expert witnesses for ar1 parties agreed
that the imposition of a nunrbered-post provision reduces the fierd
of candidates for election, and at the same tirne, highlights the
individual candidates for each position. This double resurt nulti-
fies the effects of single-shot voting by fcrcing minority voters
to cast a vote for cach nunrlccrcd position. This rocluction in thc
size of ttre candidate field and conseguent highlighting of candi-
rt"t"8 is <rctrirrcntar to rninority or ninority-supported candidates.



o ,O

-5-
The enployeent of staggered te:ms further dininishes

this J'everage- staggered te,,'s t" T elcctorar systeB highlight
individual contests and ernphasize individual confrontations between
candldates. This is usually to the detrinrent of the minori.ty or
tninority-supported candidate, because ,,single shot,,, votj.ng is
less ef fect:,ve.

The enlargement of Lockhart,s governing booy from three
to five does not off,set the disadvantage to minorities of nurnbered
posLs and staggered terms. Although tlre study reLied upon by Dr.
Taeber indicates, as a generar theory, that enJ,argcrnent of a cruy,s
governing body rnay enlrance the effect of tlre ninority,s franchise,
the enlarge,ent at issue here (i.e., frgm three to fivo rrcmbcrs)
is not significant enougb to provide any crear benefit to Mexican
Ancrican votcrs since both thc thrce-ueruber genera). ravr comnission
and the five-nenber home rure courrcir would be classified as

"srna11. 'r

flf. Conclusions of Law

l'. This court has jurisdiction to hear and determine the
plaintiffrs request for section 5 preclearance of the voting changes
involved in this litigarion. 42 u.S.C. l973c; 28 U.S.C. 1346(a) (2).

2- The Court is properly convened as a court of three
judges. 42 u.s.C. 19?3c; 28 U.s.C. 22g4.

3. The Voting Righrs Act of 19G5, 42 U.S.C. Sl9Z3 ct
seg- was enacted to insure the protection of ri,ghts ,u.r.rrau"Jo,
the Fi'fteenth.Ame'&oent ard ,,to rid the country of raciar d,iscrimrna_
tj.on in voting.,, South Carolina v. Katzenbach. 3g3 U.S. 301, 315
(1e66).

\

4.

requirements

U.S.C.1973c,

5.

of icxas and

The State of Tex4s is subject to the precJ.earancc

of Section 5 of rhe Voting Rights Act of LIOS, 42

40 Fcd. Reg. 43746 (].925).

Voting changes enacted or adrninistered by the State
the City of Lockhart after Novernber L, Lg?2, are sub-



(

lcct Lo the

Rights Act

-7-
preclearance requj.rements of Section 5 of, the Votj_ng

of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c.

6' under section 5, the city of rpckhart Day not enforce
or im1:Icment any change in "any voting quarification or prereguisite
to voti-ng, or standard practice or procedure urith respect to voting,"
unless such change has either been precreared by the Attorney Generar,
or unless the city of Lockhart obtains a declaratoxy judgment i.n
the united states Di.strict court for the District of colu*bia that
such change "does not have the purpose and wil,l not have the effect
of denyi'ng or abridging the right to vote on accourt of race or
color [or tlctnLrcrship in a languagcl rnj.rrority group].. 42 U.S.C. 1,973c.

7. The 'houe ruJei .governance and erection plan adopted
by thc City of Ipckhart on Februa:y 20, Lg73 ie subject to the
preclearance reguirerents of sectron 5. cano v. chsgl, A-29-cA-
0032 (l.r.D. Tex., Uarch 2, I9?9).

8- The court concrudes that the nurubered-post provision
of the lrection plan set forth in the Lockhart ci.ty charter is s,b-
ject to Section 5 review. In reaching this conclusion, the Court
is mindfur of the u.s. supreme court,s decision in Beer v. united
:f-3_*-ES, 425 tJ.S. r3o (1975). but concl.udes that Beer is clearly
distinguishabre fr:,r the instant case. rn @, the city of New
orleans sought a judgment declaring that a reapportioruuent of its
five co,ncilmanic districts did not vi.olate section 5. The 1954
New orleans city charter provided for a seven-me[ber city co,nci],,
e,ith one member being elected frorn each of fi.ve councilnanic d,is-
tricts, and two being elected at large. The reapportionment vras
rcquircd aftcr each clccennial census by the same city charter.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Colurnbia
hcld that the entire reapportionment p],an f,or five cor.'rciru.nic
di'stricts was invarid because it would have the eff,ect of abridging
Llre ri'grrt to voLc on account of race or color. The Di.strict court
also.he1d, rrore pertinently, that as a separate and independenttground, thc reapportionurent plan could not withst:-d section 5

scrutiny solely bccausc it did not enhanco thc minority votc by

(

.;l.r-i1^iiiiiiet s*r:l.tjii : :,;.',,.-i,Xr.r;qr*

,.r,r+-'rr;i'i



,o

-8-

"r i'mrrrating thc two'discriminatory at-Iarge seats which had
existed wi'thout change since rg54. on this aspect of the case,
the u's' suPreme court held that the.tuo at-rarge councirmanic seats
werc .not subject to Section 5, stating:

,,Discriminltory practices .., instituted priorto Nov. 1964 ... are not subject to tfr.-riguire_ltent of preclearance under S6ction 5.----(tiiationsorn-itted) . The ordinance tfr"t iaopt"i tair. 
^._apportionment planl made no referince io tnu ut_large counciLmarric seats. Indeed, s:,nce thoseseats had been established in i95i by- tire citycharter, an ordj.nance could noi-rrirE.alier.athem; any change in the chartei *r""ia-[i""required approval by the city's "oieisl- 425 u.s.I ?a-o

Thc Court irlso hcla that ttrc reapportionment plan enhanced thc
position of racial. ur.inorities and that such an ameliorative plan
could not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to
vote on accourt of race or color in violation of the statute.

'rhc circuxnstances presented herei,n are different. Here,
the previously illegar nurnbered posts were i,ncruded specificarly
in the Hone Rur.e charter presentry at is'ue, and the charter was
approved specifi.cally by the voters in rpskhart. this approval
aborished completely the coromission form of government aI,d SUb-
stituted in i.ts stead an entirely new fora of city governrent with
an entirely new eLecti.on scheme. In Beer, the Legitimate albeit
discriminatory at-large seats established in 1g54 rrere not mentioned
in the implementing ordinance, and the voters were.not called
upon to consider therE. As the language from Beer, cited supra,
indicates, these were facts that the u.s. Supreme court expressly
relied on.

Moreover, when rcckhart ori.ginarly adopted the nr.'obered-
Post provisions of itE election plan in 1912, it did so uithout
authority and j.n viol,ation of state law. As a rgeneral law, city,
the power of rpckhartrs city goverrunent was r.iruited to those pre-
scribcd undcr sLaLc law, tcx. Civil Statutes 5596l gq ggg,. The statc
legislature had deterrnined the rnethods of election of general law
cr.Ll,es. Tex. Civil Statute 51159. There is no provision under
Texas IaL, authorizing .,gcnoral lawn ciLios to u:jc nurUJcr(.,cl po5L:j.

I I

.i;(|la yu. vr_.4i.\i.1. <;-. j :

.1;.4 < :,:.' ;';vP-,L'l +6.,;r; .: .: ;,,'-< * i'ir-'



o

"l:t";"r;*Crr.lidr.+a!iS*i.lli{ii

J

-9-
Under Texas law, a city can exercisc only those powers

conferred by raw. citv of west Lake Hills v. westrsood Legal Defense
Funo, 598 s.w.2d 68L (Tex. Civ. App. 19gO). Al.1 acts done beyond
Ll'rosc..porrcrs conferretr are void. citv of Fort worth v. !LL}gg,
272 S-VJ.577 (Tex. Civ. App. 1925). L/ "tror"over, tlre mere assualption
a,.,d assertion by a ci-ty of a power not granted to it gains nothing
by lapse of'time. Conklin v. City of El paso, 44 S.W. g7g, gg2 (Tex.
Civ- App. 1897) cf. City of Beaumont v. lrroore, 202 S.lI.2d 44g (Supreme
court of Texas 1942) (where a contract of a rnurricipal corporati,on i.s
ulLra vires and voj_d, there is no contract to rescind),. pasadena

Poli'cc Of f icers Association v. p"eg.lc"a. , 4g7 S.W.2d 3gB (,I,cx. Civ.
App- 1973) (A ror:niciparity's void act, one that i.s beyond its powers
may not be validated upon principles of estoppel); younq v. Citv of
SeagovilLe, 421. S.w.Zd 494 (Tex. Civ. App. 1967) (ordi.nance void at
timc of adoption for confrict rdith statute statute did not become

valid upon repeal of statute). As Lhis Court intexprccs the fore_
goin<3 authori,ties, the nunrbered-post provision, iLlegititnate at
inception, must be treated for section 5 puryoses as if it had never
cxisted unLir it appeared regitimately pursuant to Texas Law i.n tlre
]975 Lockhart City Ctrarter. Ia summary, the validation of the
previously itlegal n,mbered posts represents a change in voti,ng
procedures which is completery dissimi,l.ar to the continuation of
the two at-large corurcilnanic seats in Beer which were rurchanged.

The Court does not consider perkins v. ttatc.heurs, rloo u.s.
379 (1971) to undercut this conclusion. In perkins, plaintiffs
sought to enjorn the 19G9 election for city offices in canton,
Mississippi.- plaintiffs alleged that the newly utiri.zed ar-large
electi-on of al.dermen differed from the ward election feature
utilized prior to November 1, 1964. The at-]arge feature had been
regui'red by a Mississippi state statute since 1g52 that had heretofore
bccn ovcrlookecl- Thc city arguc<l ttrat, havi,ng lcarnod of thc 1962
statute, it had no clr<.rice but to cornply wi,th it in the 1969 electi.onsab...t
and that thcre was no change subject to 55 precJ,earance. The United

L/ This is the universat rul6 bt
RowLand, 105 N.E. 285, (I11./f914)
no cff--ct) ; itary).and 6 D.c. hifre on v. Washinq-totr , 442 D.2d
Corporations, Counties and other

n.16 tierein.
Aro. Jur.2d , Municipal

cases cited in .Politicat Subd,ivisio"; jtra-ile



aati...r*-Px-<-' -:r-':t.!!&alic}s

?{&!5.S/.:, j:. - . '. .l.(dCeAlil .,..,

.-d-tFft<{..its.!--iliJat'i\+ -;rhir4!:!i .!e

*q, {fra{*i;rt,ri}.:{ r,'.1..r.1 ?i,:::

(

-10-
states supremc court notecl first that a change from ward to at-large
aloerrn.n elections had been for:nd previously to be a change wichin
Lie coverage of g5. rd. at 3g4. rn.the contexr of the suspicious
facts bcforc it, thc.court cxtcndcd the.cveragc of s5 to rncludc
cantoh's belated 1979 change fron ward to at-1arge even though it
iru(r iruurt rccluircd si'cc 19u2, bufore thc opcrauivc date of s5. rrr
so ooing, th-e co':rt extenclcd s5 protecti.on to the fullest extent, i.n
accordance with the policy urrderlying the voting R!.ght-s Act as set
forch in prior case r.aw ancl the ).egislative hi.story. This court.,
in reaching its conclusion that Lockhartts nr:rnbered post provisi.on
utilized i11e9a11y for over 50 years and regitimatized in 1973 i.s
wiLhirr 55 sr:eks to do the same. To hold othervj_se, to permit plaintiff ,:
discriminatory nurnbered-post prov5.sion to cscapc s5 preclc;rrancc,
wou.Lc reward praintiff for its ilregar acti.vities in the past.

,Ihcre is an ;rdditional rc.rson why thc nurnLered_posu

provisiorr rs a section 5 change and must, be reviewerl. prior to
-t"cLrru..r'y 20, 1973, the city \ras governed by a mayor and two commis-
siorrers who were erected on an at-Iarge basis to tvro-year terms at
ui,e s-rne ti-me- The new ci,ty charter provicled that Lockhart wouli
be governed, by a mayoi and four commissioners elected on an at-rarge
uasis Lo two-year ternls, anrl the terms vrere to be stagqereci. The

Inayor and two council members would bc elected in one yea! and thc
rer.,dirring two counci] members the next. The new plan requires
elections every year as opposed to every other year under t.hc old
pldrr, drrd Llrc discri,mrnatory J.mpact of the nurnbered posts urrder
thc new plan affects tLrice as nany elections for a rarger nunber
ot positions. section 5 is concerned wi.th thc rearity or- changed

rr,:uc"rccs as they affect rn:inorlty voters, Georgi;r v. unitcci states,
iitt r-r '5- 526 (r973i, drrcr 1s inLcnds<.I to rcarch dny oDcrctmcnL whrch
qLters the election Law i.n even a minor way. Al1en v. :qt"te_Boar,i
rf Ill.e ctions, 393 U. S. 54 4 (L969) . Evcn assumj.ng thc vi.rlidrty of
the..ori.gi'naI .two ntunbered-post provisions, the provision for an

h
trdditioni.rr Lwo nLunbere<l posts in conjunction with thc prov:-sion for
''caggered terrns has a synergistic discrj,rninatory cffcct. This :.s
,rgairr c,nrprcLeJ.y drffcrcnt ry'l\ u," continuatr.on ot trre provlsr.on/for tuo at-1arge councilmar/lc aeats in Beers.

tfri;,?..r.... . --,...-;iE|(Bt.



.11-

g. rn this declaratory judgnent action under section 5,
t...re pla'ntiff has the burden of proving that the governance anc
electi-on plan at issue does not have the pur?ose and will noc have
thc er'[ect of denying or abridging the rigirt to vote on account
of race, color, or membership in a language minority group. ?he
airseirce <.rf both ciiscrinuinatory purpose and di.scriminatory effect
musr be established by plaintrff. The :nabiLity of tire plaintiff
'cu establish the absence of the prohibited effect precludes the
piaintiff from obtaining the requestcd reli.cf. 42 u.s.c. r973c;
CrL), of llorns v. United States, fOO S. Ct. l54g (19g0); South Carolina
v. iiatzenbach, suora - ?Ai n q i+ ,?< - ^^ ----.. _upra, 383.U.S. at 335; Georqia v. Unitcd Statcs, 4fl
u.-. 52L (1975); CrLy of Richnrond v. United States , 422 lJ.S. 35g
(1975),- City of petersburg v. United States, 354 F. Supp. 1021
(D.D.C. 1972), aff,d., ALO t).5. g72 (I923); Allen v. State Board
of Elcctions, 393 U.S. 544 (1969) i Beer v. Unj.tcd States, 425 U.S.
L3c,, 140-41 (L976).

I0 - tsoth the Congress anci the Supreme Court h<-.ve
escablished that the impos,-tion of numbered posts and staggered
.c.,n5 can have a discriminatory impact. on mlnority voting rigi.rts.
'rhe suprerne court has recognized that an election plan which
eorl-;rins features such as nl,nbered posts and staggered terms, when
cornoined with the presence of racial bloc voting, has a dj.scrimina_
Lulir iurpr;rct on the group of persons whom the voti.ng Rights Act was
designed to protect. rn extending the voting Rights Act of rg75,
ti're congress fo.nd nunrbered posts to be a potentially discriminatory
device. Citv gf Ronre v. Unitcd States, IO0 S. Ct. I54g (19g0);
S. Rep. Ilo. 94-925, 94th Corrg. lst Sess. 27_28 (1975); H.R. Rep.

Jtt-Lzb, 94r:it Cong. 1:jt Sess . Lg_2A (1975) .

Ii.. 'r.ire Coul:L rccognlze:i that thc City of Lockh:rrt ir
i'^oi- rcquired Lo se'rrch for werys to maximize the politrcal strengtn
or- Jiepresentatiorr of Mexic.rn Americun ciLizcns. Citv of Richnroncr
v- unitcd states, .w., 422 u.s. at 370-72; Gilbert v. Elerretr,
t{tv 'i'.2tt I'389, 1394 (5th Cir-. }975) ; Cousins v. City Courtcil or..

crru Ciiv of Chrcaqo, 503 F.2d 912, 920 (?th Cir. 1974); Turncr v.



-L2-

{slsrlh,en, 490 P.2d j.91, 197 (5th Cir. 1973); Howard v. Artams

C()u]rlr Boarcl of Supervisors, 453 F.2d 455, 45g (5th Ci.r. Lg72).

L2- The plaintiff has faired to demonstrate, however,
cnuL Lhc "honrc rulc" govcrnancc and clccti.on pl;rn !,rirI not h;rvc a

<liscriminatory effect on Mexican-American voters, ability to el_ecE

currdi-d.r1-cs of thcir ciroicc. Although the at-large system, by itserf ,

does not der4r Mexi.can-American voters the opportunity to elect candi-
d.'tes of their choice, the imposition of the nurnbered-post and
staggered-term provisions has clearly had and wirr continue to have
such an effect on Mexi.can-American Vot€lo.

13. UnLike pScf, thc apportionment plan beforc us i:;
rroL aurcliorati.ve but is retrogressive because the abi).ity of
Mexican Ameri-cans to participate in the political process and to
.iuct i:heir choices to office is di.minishe<i by the nunrirered-post
.rnc s i:acJgercd-tcrm provisj.ons.

14. The fajLure of the city to sustai,n its burccn of
:,lruivirrg that the adoption of the home rule governance and electi.on
pl-an has ngt, had, and will not in the future have, the effect of
ucDylng or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color
or metirlcership in a language minority group requires that the
;cc.1ucs1- for decr-aratory judgment be denied. 42 u.s.c. 1g73c; HaLe

q9!-1!y v. United Srates. C.A. 77-0286 (D.D.C. Sept. 4, lggO); Cjty
uL l<oure v. United States , supra; Donnel1 v. United States , C.A.
78-0392 (D.D.c. JuIy 31, t979) aff'd. tOo S. Cr. lOOo (]9BO).

In light of the foregoing, this action is disrnissed. An

appropriate orSer is ent.ered herewith.
Eor the Court.

Dutr:<.t:



'j/.l. 
1-_1__ FILED

_?:j: 3 0 ::u;
ROBINSON, Chief Judce, dissenting:

. with ar1 due respecr, for rny colleagues, ,r"r*itrr'uflaii:ictcr:r
abre to joln in their refusal to preci.ear the contesred provi-
sions of c,he Ci.ty of Lockhart,s home_ru1e charter. My reading
of the supreme courr's decision in Beer v. united statesf/
leads mc to conclucrc, on tlrc facLs hcre, t.hat !,he numbered seat,s
and sEaggered ierms incorporated i.nto the charter,s scheme of
councilmirnic elections wirl not have the effect of denyi.ng or
abridging the :j.ght to vote on account of race, color or
ranguage-minority membership within the neaning of section 5 of
E,he Voting Rights Act of Lg6s.?/ Accordingly, I musr disscnr-

I. BACKGROUND

A. Thc Beer Decision

My starting point, is Beer. There the City of Ncw Or_
ieans sought a judgment decla:lng that a proposed ;eappo!t,ion_
ment of counci'lmanic <iistricts did not succunb to secEi,on 5.
Norwithstanding the reapportionment plan's capability of increa-
sing the power of the city,s black vote sonewhat,l/ lhis courE.
withheld the requested rerief on the ground that the ptan lefr
black citizens unable to er.ect councirmembers in t,he proportion
they bore to the city's population or t,he total of its regi_

t/
(1976) . - 425 u.s. 130, 96 s.cr. 1357, 47 L.Ed.2d 629

2/ pub. !.-No. 89-110, s 5, 79 Srar. 439 (]965), asamendeci,-42 t).s.c. S I973c if giii. The Act i.s hereinaf ter circdas codi'fied. r do not address trre question whether the charterprovisions in suit were concervcJ-wiilr-i"v--""Ji-piipor. in nrino.licc rrol-c 37 infra.

)_/ Thc_Ncw Orlcans rcapportionmenL plan envisioned1'ro.iucLi on ot black popuration m"j6r i. ti"" in -ti"-."unci. 
r.maniccristricrs ancl " bii:l ig!"r noSoiir], j.n one- -u"o.i 

rhe pre_exl'sting plan, btack ci'cizens i"iu u najority of rhe popurationin only one district and a *inoiitv of registcrcd vor,crs in a1r.Iic.u iro,ls, v. {,nit:r.d jl:..,!(.il , :.!f,_I_r- ,ioU. I , 425 U.S. uL L36, 9t,r.crl-TE tto1-7q'lt .i,,t.ict ac i-:t .



(L

,o

--2--

Uni ted $g.lgcs, suDra,+aEEE-i'63E-
96 S.Cr. at I362, 4?

:4rii#:+!:*'lri9arl.+i.r'."r : .,.i., . .:.. \'' -: :- !

, 
; 
:i li1r1i i-.,;.;>firBtf i:;r; -:' :'. :.;-.. ;:'.-i v i

stered voEers.!/ As an indepcndent reason for denying pre-
crearance, this court furt.her held that the cityrs failure t,o

.iiminate a 1954 charter provi.sion establishing two at-IaEge
council seats itself had the effect of abridging che right t,o

vote on the basis of rac".2/
On appe:r1, the Supreme Court first addressed -.he ru1ing

in regard,to the at-Iarge seats. Noting t,he Goverruoent's con-
cession of error thereon, the Court explained that.

Ic]hc languagc of S 5 clcarly pro-
vides that it applies only to pro-
posed changes in voting procedures.
o IDl iscriminat,ory pract j.ces. ,._insti-t,ured prior ro November L96a9/...
are not subject to the requj.renent
of precleaEance [under S il."Z/ ./

Becausc the charter provision creatj.ng the at:largezseats had

been adopt,ed in Lg54,9/ the Court held that the seats ,were

not subject to revj.ew in this proceeding under S S."9/
The court then turned i;u a-claim of further error in the

ruiirrg t.hat the reapportionment plan was unacceptable for the
addi.tional reason that it would dilute the black votr: in New Or_

leans' councilmanic elections. Adverting to the regisrative
history of the Act, the court quoted at length fron t,he House

Repor t :

.!( Beqr v. United Srares, 374 F.Supp. 363, 389-390
\Ly tc) (Enree-Jud9c court) .

2/ rd. at 402.

.- 9_/ .' Voting-procedure changes occurring in New OrJ.eansa.rter November 1,1964, statutorily-bccame suUj6ci to S 5 scru_ti ny. Thc relcvant daEc for Locklrart. is Novcrn6cr I, Lg12. Scc,t2 u.s.C. S 1973c (]976).

7/ EqSr ,. (rnitcd Sr.rL..:.;, .s-!.pra. note I, 4ZS U.S. at
.i Ju, go S.cu. ar f :C: ,--4'fT-.f{:Td- ar 638 (brackcr.ed maLerra} inoriginal),. guoting united srates commission on civil Right;; Thevoting Rights Act: Ten years After 34? (1975) [hereinaffer i:.ieaas Ten Year-s Af ter I .

9-/ sce llccr v.
aE I3B, 96 s.ct,. aFDOg,

2/ rd. at 139

note I, 425 U.S.

L.Ed.2d ac 638.



:-..-'r,;'di{*+illjH tris{l

:,., -:.i.',+a+[A,r.tre+slf,i$]{6{

(

--3--

"section 5 was a response to a. cormon practice in some jur isdict j.ons
of -stayj.ng one step ahea6 of th;federal courts by lassing n"r-di=_crrmrnatory voting laws as soon asthe old ones had been struck down.. That practice had been possible be-cause each new law remai.ned in effectuntil the Justj.ce Department or pri_vate. plaint.if f s were able to 

"u"-tain. rhe burden of proving that the;;;--'1aw, :oo, was discriminatory....C"n_
9ress therefore decided, as the
Supreme Court held it could, ,toshift the advantage of time'unJ-ir,_ertia from the perpecrators of theevil to its vicLj.ml' Oy ,treezinf-' election procedures in the cover6dareas unless the changes caD .be shownto bc nondiscriminatoiy .,.10/

"Section 5 was intendedr. tbe Court said, ..to insure that [the
gains thus far achieved in roinority political participationl
shal1 not be destroyed through new [discrininatory] procedures
ancl techniques. ."\/

The Beer court also lruked to a iegislative event trans-
pirrng after adoption of the Act:

"r .Hl"l. i i,;oii;;t" "ol;r;i',.i; ! :"::;:gress -explicitly stated that ,,t.he s!an-dard [under S 5j can only be fulivsarisfied,by derermining-. ..rf,eiIEi tr.,"abiiity of minority groups to partici_pat,e in- the political process ?rna-io-elect their choices to-office i;-"rg_

^..^L: -_ *( _rd: at 140, 96 s.cr. ar 1363, 4? t.Ed.2d at 639,9:9-iln9 H.R. Rep.-No. 94-1e6, 94rh Cong., ist s;;;. s7_sB(19'li) (uddition.il citations'omiCtecl). "By prohibrting the en_'i''5ccl.cnt of a voE.rng-procedure change untir. it has been denon-strated to the united states Department of Justice or to athree-judge federar couii-a["t-i;; change does nor have a dis_criminatory 'effect, Congress aesiieO to prevent, staEes from ,un_oolingl or dcfearlingl inc ii;;i;-rccenrly won, by Ne9roes.,,itt, x ;, *iri5##ti 
. #Hrl:i ;" ;, ; ; ; 

-i; 
; 
j ;:lt; 1,, i#;* ;Cong., 1st sess. I (1969). s-e" ii=o South Carolina v. Karzcn_

-b_qq[, 383 u.s. 301,'3ss;' ae s.ctl-sogffir.iiffiiii(]966 ) .

u./ Bee! v. 
-gI- ire.g-_-9-!g-rcs, supra note I , t,25 u.s. .rE,j/'o-)4r,l-6 s-d[]-at r:c-:, ,rz-r,ru.].2d aL 639, (brackcE,cd nrirr.cri-uJ. i.n or j.gin;rl), quorin? S. Rcp. No. g4_2g5, 'Siit--ong. 

r IstSess. 19 (I975) (emphasis 
"uppiiuO)t



(

--4--

mented, diminished, or not affectgd by

"In ot,her wordsrr the Court adnonished, ,the purpose of S 5 has

.irways bcen to insure Lhat no voting-procedure changes would be

nade t,hat would lead to a retroqression in the position of
racial minorities with r'espect to t,heir effective exercise of
t.he elecqoral franchise."E/

Employing this analysis, the Court, held that whatever

deficicncies from anothcr viewpoint Ehe Nevr orleans plan might
have, an electoral scheme that enhanced the voting power of
r:.r(ji..rr ruiDoriLiug c<,rurci "lrardry havc tlrc rcffccL, of clilucing
or abridging the right to vote on account of race witbin t,he

mcaning gf S 5."I4/ Accordingly, thc Court set this court's
judgment aside anrJ renanded for further proceedingt.!3/

B. The Home-Rule Charter

A brief dcscription of t.he case at. bar wi.Il highlight
the issues. prior to adoption of its home-rule charter in
1973, t'he city of Lockhart was governed by a comnission com-

posed of a mayor and two comrnission.rr.&/ AII three were

elected at rarge for thro-year terms by prurarit,ies at elections
held in even-numbered years.I/ consistentry sincc r9r?, the
two comroissioner posts were numbered; that is, candidates were

reguired to designate which of the two seat,s they soughE.g/

C

dr{.FE*aV., i- .-. '- r: r,E.rii

Ii::"vrrio.-:/:{dpffi

'.,.;.'.:.'..;1 11y;;.r.lan ffill'p-! .,.rifrf.{

!1/i/r1, 96 S.Ct.

y'/
t5/
L6/

,
u-/
L8'/

:,t i' L(jxL irrl.r.r

12/ Beer v. United States, siJpra note I, 425 U.S.141, 96 ilct. ilsef ,-T?-m:ZA-ar 639, guoring H.R. Rcp.r96, 94th cong., rsr sess. 60 (1975) (emphisis ii origi.nai).
at
No.

Bee!-v. United States, supra note 1, A2S U.S. atat. L364 , 47 L.rrd.2d ar OJslemphas j.s supplied) .

dt 14J, 96 S.CL. aL 1364, 47 L.Ed.2d at 640.

Ma jor i ty Opi.nion (Ma3 . Op. ) ar 3.

at 3,9. For rcasons hcrcinatLcr c.xpl..rinr.:<J,
rr<.rLu 5I, I do nou jo j.n ruy collcagu,:,s rn in_

rd.

rd-

See

rd.

rd_.-
uL

:,.t4tDaf, , r;|.i-..: " .-.r i,r'"r+{l



,o
t.C

',., J ; :r ;':. l. 1.-;] \

--5--

The home-ru1e chart,er provides. however, for a council.-
manager'form of governmen!, consisting of a mayor and four coun-
siknsrn6s6s.l2l The mayor and two.councilmembers are to be

erected at-large by plurarities in even-nurnbered years for two-
year Eerms ,4/ ayr6 the tero council seats are to be num-

barca-2L/ 'rhe two arlditionar. councilncmbers are t,o be electe<i
in simila.r fashion--at-Iarge on a numbered-post basis by plur-
arrties for two-year terms--except that elections for these two
are to be held in odd-numbered years.?/ Thus, the three
changes t,hat would be urade in the city,s eLectoral schene by
thc rnovemcnt from comnrission to council-managcr govcrnlocnt arc:
the increase fron two coru[issioner to four 

"oun"il 
seats, the

nultrbering of the twg ncw scatsr dnd the st,aggcring-.ot -council_

nembersr terns.

The city submitted the charter t,o the Attorney General
for section 5 preclearance and, fa-i1ing that, forroweil with thrs
acLion for a precJ"earing decraratory judgment. The new plan is
attacked?l/ on the ground that the city has not shown that the
numbered seats on the council and the st,aggered terms of coun-
cilmembers pass muster under section 5, and my colreagues hold
that they do not.4/ Now considering these facets of the con-
troversy in turn, f elucidate m:, disagrcement.

guiring whet.her the-cityrs pre-charter use of these numbereoposEs was authorized by state 1aw. see id. ut g-io. rt bears
T:l:t?1,-l:::y::,.r.hat, rhe pracrice was neEer challensed, andEnat rt remgined in vogue untiL Lockhart's home_iuie charteremerged in 1973.

y/ rd. aL 4.

4/ rd'
2t/ rd.

4/ rd'

U/ Lry t,lrc Unitccj States and by the intervenor.
colleagucs sccrningly corr-in the size of Lockhart'snot dilute the voting power

) ?!/ Maj ' oP. 'B a-r: - MYccdc, and I agrec, that/the increasegoverning hdy, standir{9alone, wiJ.1of i ts mi nor i ties. See id . at 6 -



(.

--6--

II. ANALYSIS

A. Basic Considerations:

. Racial bloc-voEing is a reallry in the City of Lock-
hart,4/ and indubitably numbered posts and st,aggered terms

tend to curb the ability of minorities to erect minority candi-
dates.b/' Minority votlng power may be serongly feLt when a

Iarge number of candidat,es for several offices are pitted
irgainst each other in a single plurarity-erin contest, from which

the top vote-getters will emerge ylsgesieu5.I/ ff , for
c'x.rurplc, therc arc four unnurnbered offices and twerve candi-
dates are vieing for them in such a contest, the four receiving
t,lre higlresL nulnber of votes will prevafl.A/ By concentra-
ting its votes on one candidate--so-called,single-shot,, vot-
tng22/-.'und when aided by a splitting of t,he rnajority vote

aJnong more than one candidate, a minority group succeeds or as-
sists in eLecting its own candidate if he or she cones in no

]ower than fourth.aql
Numbered posts and staggered terns--singly or in com-

bination--render singre-shot vot,ing less potent, if not whorly
ineffective, by inducing head-to-head contests in which only

4_/ See id. at 5-6.

^_ 4-l See generally Ten years Af ter, supra note 7, at
?99-209i cilv of Rome v. unitea-ffiGl-I?6 uJl-Tse , r84 n.le,185 n.21, 100-EFTs48,:T.l,rs;-- n.2r,64 L.Ea.2d 1r9;r4d n.19, 145 n.21 (1980).-

2l/ See Ten Years Afterr supld note 7, at 206-209.

4-/ scc notc 30 i nf r: a .

4/ - "Single-shot voting enables a minority group towrn some at-Iarge seats if it concentrates its vote behind alinrited numbcr of candidatcs and if thc votc of thc majority rs<jivic.lcd dnrong a nunrbcr of canclidaEcs.,. Ten years Af t.ei. sutra
note 7, at 207. f\:, I' I/ Td. at Zle-ZOl . Thc exirrnplc assurncs not. only LhdE'cherc is no rnajority-vbr'e requirement, but also tbat there is no
impediment to siagle-shot voting.

C

::i:r.r:;r.

';":'.



,o
( C

&;,\s.,i..i,fr.---;>{t.-.--.-..',..,-;. : r,,,.. -;.; i' . -- . . .

r.':il.ir.lsl.er.:F:;.:,:j; i.'j.:i.i-:; I

--7--

onc candidate can hrin. By requiring candidat,es to specify the
Posts to which they seek election, nunbering individuarizes the
contests and insures t,hat, only the.candidate garnering the high-
est'nuruber of votes for a particular post will secure i7.?!
similarly, by staggcring the terms of offi.ces, fewer posts are
at stake j.n any given election, and the number of top vot.e_
getters who can win is correspondingly ss6,rqq6.E/ If the
terms are completely staggered_-that i.s, only one post bc_
co'rcs vacant in each election year--any potential that single-
shot voting might otherwise have is entirely eliminated, just
.rs it is.by post numbering.E/ Both procedures arso tend to
highlight raciar- identities of candidates in murriraci.al cam-
gaigns, increasing the liker.ihood that urajority voters will
vote against ninority candidates simpry because t,hey are minor-
i.ty mernbers, rather than fcr candidates on the basis cf pe;_
ceived merit.l1/ when numbered posts and staggered terms ex-
ist i'n tandem, the racial factor becomes beightened even fur-
tner.E/

That nunbered posts and staggered terms can, and fre_
queatly do, impact minority voting adver.sely, however, is noE
the end of the analysis demanded by section 5. As Becr in-
structs, Section 5 bars voting procedures only when they are
"changes" within its meaning and as such they.would Lead t,o a
retrogression in .he position of racial ninorities with respect
to thei'r effective exercise of the er,ectorar franchise .,36/

!./
32/

i,our of f ices
must place at

x/
4'/

rd. at 207.

Scc id. at 208. Thus, ifare open at election time,least second.

ld. irL 20U.

only two rathcr than
the minor j.ty candidate

2 E/an electi,on is

see Maj. cli ut e
I

RaciaI iOJotities.obviously are most visible whenfor only one office

141, 
"u 

*li. ffirl;,,Ei##Hi ;t6- nore I , a2s u.s. ar



,o

--8--

I thus proceed to consider the procedures here under assault in
Ii.9ht of these statutory linitations.3T/.
B. The Numbered posts

for the office of mayor, numbered seats bave been

standard in Lockhartrs elect,ions since r9r7--armost 50 years be-
fore passage of the voti.ng Riglrts Act. Nonet,helessr Dy coLlea-
gues deent the chart.er provision perpetuating numbering of the
t.wo original seats on the cityts governing bodlz a ,'change" in
voting procedure subject to Section 5 sseigr.!3/ They would
si.destep the supreme courtts teachi.n2 on that scole by distin-
guishing Becr on two grounds. pirst, thcy point ouL Lhirt wtrirc
the two New orreans at-large seats estabrished in 1954 were not
mentioned in that city,s 19?1 redistricti.ng plan, Lockhart,s new

charter ushers in a new form of nunicipal goverrunenL.?2/ That
i.s so, but tbe net,hodorogy of elccting two aembers of the goveE-

ning body--the new counci.r--in even-Dumbered years remains ex-
actly as it was for tbe old corrunission.9/ Nothing in the
record suggest.s for the occupants of tlrese two seats anything
more than new titres.!/ r fair to see how mere renarning of

C (

.. jai,rj.!s'rs7..igiosip,i:-,*ix., 1,;.;lii *..:u:,,,:

??/ Under-g 5,.the city bears the burden of provingboth an absence of discriminatory purpose and a lack of ai.scii-rninatory ef f ect. Sec, 9:9., City of nome v. Unii.a-S."t"",---
:'upra nore 25, 446 u.s.-e r8m-E; roo-s.ct-r_ n.18, 64L.Ed.2d at,144 n.l8; Beer v. United States, supra fr6Te I, 425u.s. ar 140-141, 96 sEE; at TT6TaTEa.zE-?Foie-osg;
99:o_It+-v- grlilqd.ilaregr 411 q.s. s26, s38, 93 s.ct. 1762,LtQe. 36 L.Ed-2d 472, 483 (1973). we bifurcated Eriar_ of Eheinstant case for initiar consideration only of the-new charter's
:il:?:,-]eayins ri:e purpose in adoprins ir roi iaier inquirysnouJ.d the occasion arise. Accordingly, I restrict rnysetf itthis stage of the ritigation so1e1y io-the issue of cifect.lJut scc text infra at note ?I.

19-/ Ma j . op. at 8-11 .

y-/ Id. at 9.

!9-/ See text supra aC notes L6-22.
g./ Delbert {r.r Taebel , an expert,, testif ied that, Lock-hartrs pre-charter chalact,eristj,cs were sinilar to those of acrouncil-manager form of govcrnmcnt; TriaI Transcript (Tr.) 6B;urrc cornnlrssroncrs, he 5aid, did not perforrn administrativetasks. Tr. 75. ,A co[unissioner in thj.s sense," the Hitness ex_plained, "was actuarli' a council menber. rn Tcxas wc usc thcw.r rl 'ccrrrrrni:;giorr' a.rrrc|council" ruqrrrbcrs' inLcrclr.rngcltrry f rc-



,o

-.-9--

the two posts renoves this case from t,he conLrolling authority
of Beer ..

My colreagues furtber say that shire New orreans had
"legitimate[1y]" acgui,red the two at-large seats by its city
cbarter in 1g54r Lockhart origi.nally had instituted and 10ng
had maint'ained nurnLerecr commissioner seats,,wi.thout authority
and in viotation of state raw."9/ The city horry disputes
this premise, but I need not enter the debate, tor it is com_
pretely beside the poi'nt. section 5 subject.s voting procedures
to need for preclearance only to the extent that they nay be
"different from It.hose] in force or cffect on. thc dat,e statu-
torily nade rerevant-s/ congress expricated no di.stinction
between valid and invalid preexisting procedures, and thc
SuPreme Court has stated unarubiguously that ., [d]iscrininatory
practices-. -instit,uted prior to Ithe date stat.utorily pertinent]
"'are not subject to the requirement of precl€3E6irc: lunder s
51."'n'4/ More importantly, the Court has nade plain enough
that a voting procedure is "i.n force or effect- for purposes of
sect,ion 5 coverage notwithstanding even gross i.nconsistency wi.th
state law. rn Perkins v. Matthews ,E/ thu Ci.ty of canton,
MJ'ssissi'ppir switched in 1g6g from ward to at-rarge elections
of aldcrrncn. That very changc was cor*nandcd by a J.g62 trtissis-
sippi statute, but canton ignored the statute ancr in 1g65 elec-
ted aldermen by wards, as previously it had done in Lg6L.g/

quentIy," Tr:75, g1p the change in narnc from comrnissioncr tocouncilperson is without signiiieince. Tr. 75.
g./ Maj. op. ar 9.

E/ 42 v.s.c. S r973c (1926)

13e, e6. #L. ffirl;,T#81ffit #rllj5*"'i"jr,i"f;ii"i.,"original) r quoting rcn 
FfS lf tcr r supEo notc 7, at 342.

. E/ 4OO u.s. Fzg, 91 S.Cr. 43r, 27 L.',d.zd 476 (I9?1).
!S/ rd. aL y? gt s.cr. .. nrr-noo ,;; 

".ro.2cr 
ac48u .

(-(

.,. ir *i',jg.-ri":5rr;$f; i--.J.r ;; ;'' i.i:,/j:,r*tu:-)*:

:-;1 .r,!i.;1:.2ie;11;,;... il:l'ri.i.it*



o ,o
(C

The guestion

1,1954) when

cluding that
reasoned:

--10--

was. the procedure .in torce or effect, on NoveBber

Canton becane subject to the asi.U In con-
the change sas covered by Section 5, the Court

Tn ouJ.view, S 5rs ref,erence to the proce-dure "in force or eftect on November l,1954,' troust be tgken to mean the procedure
t,hat would trave been followed if Ehe elec_tion had been held on that dare. rtrai-juag-ment is necessarj.Iy a natter of infer- - -
ence in this case since Canton did not holda uunicipal election on Novenber 1r I9G4:;..

with the benefit of hindsight, .. o uB
know that Canton elecred its aiaeinen bywards in its June 1955 nunicipal electi-on.Thc record reflects no relevairt change
between Novenber I9G{ and gune 1985 [oBuggest that a dlfferent procedure nould
have been in efEect if tha elections hadbeen held 6even nonths earlier. -Conse-
quentlyr ee conclude tbat the procedure in

j-q:':, ....' . - '. '-.- " : -'.1,

r, ,, .. -'.

fact 'in force or ef,fecs. in ciniJn-;;- -NoveDber l, 1964, was to elect aldernen bywards. That suffiqgd, to bring the 1959
change within S 5.4E/

' The significance of perkins for the case at band can
nardly be nist,aken. The court her.d that the procedure .in force
or effectr on Novenber Ir 1964, was ward elect,ion of aldermanr.

even though that procedure directly contravened a state statute
enacted two years earlier. That an existing procedure violates
state law, then, is not itseLf an escape route f,rorn section 5

coverage. Moreover, the procedure trin force or..effectn in can_
ton on the date relevant was "necessariry a Datter of infer-
ence.'3-g,/ Tbe case now before us is much stronger, for we

know that, Lockhart actually had assigned post-numbers to the
two original seats on its governing bdy, and had done so for
rnore than a half-century before the hone-rule charter caae

47 / rd.

48/
488-48. -

!9/
I

The infeYence vas compelling enough to overcone,
the normiT' pr ci u,npi i;;- ail;i p"uriI'-5i iii iiri"IIE "i i-.!JIi;;["



('C.

;;q'.,'t;"--aL4}i,,i,-',ir{$Rt}r;l+i+jx,,i*

--11-- >,.

u5eug.:y No less in Icckhart than ln Canton, lt ls .the pro-
cedure 'in fact ln force or cffectr. ebatcver rts rcgal strtus
under Etate lay, tbat aeasures the coverage of Section 5.

d by an interpreiation so clear r I cannot agree that
the Lockhart charterrs adoption of an ongoing pre-rg5{ voting
procedure--even one that until then roay have been unrawful under
state'rarl--is a change 1:1 that procedure uithi.n tbe contenpla-

' tlon of Section 5. for that treason, I do not Join ny colleagues
ln their hazardous undertaking to deternine whether rpckhartr6
uEilization of nunbered connission seats sas ultra vires.under
atate lan, and thus yas vulncrablo to att,ack on t,hat,
ground.lv r sinply cannot concur tn thelr conclusron tbat,
for purposes of section 5 coverage, tbe nuobered-post procedure
applied to those two aeats ls to be treated as though it was not
r.in force or effect. during the pre_charter era.

My colleagues aLso say that .[eJven assuning the va],id_
ity of the originar. two nnrnbered-post provisions, tbe provision
for an additionar two nurubered posts in conjunction with the
provision for staggered terns have a synergistic discrininatoEy
effect"E/ llhire r berieve the numbered-post techni,que as
applied to the two council seats ttut 

"iu originals is not sub-
ject to Section 5 preclearance, the expanslon of I€ckhartrs
governing body to four numbered council geats a&rittedly is archange' intercepEed by Section 5 for preclearance.!L/ But 

.

the conclusion that this change will deny or abridge ninority

with Iaw, and to sg! f9I-naught Cantonrs argument that it didno more than obev the 1962 s[atute in-its-iiii-"i""rion". rd.ar 394-39s, 9r s'.ct. "E-llol-zi-ileo.za ar 488_{89

29/ see text supra at nore lg.
5L/ See Maj^Op. ar 9_IO.

E2/ rd. at Lr.

t s3/ seq L'
u'. s. *o7r22-i,i;_3f;;9#_.-Eiffi,I, BBe"-:- it#iuf]tI51 (f9?8), and cases there cit.a.



,o
I

/(-L \.
--12--

voting rights within lhe ureaning of section 5 runs afoul of
another branch of the Beer ru1ing,4/

After reviewing relevant aspects oE the Actrs regisla-
tive history, tbe @ court made known that Ehe cruciar inquiry
under section 5 is irwhether t,he ability of ninority groups to
participate in the political process and to eLect their choices
to office is auqmented, diBinished, or not. affected by the
change affecting voting. r.W Tbat is because rthe purpose
of S 5 has always been to insure that no voting-procedure
change would be aade that, wourd lead to a retroqression in the
position of. racial minorities wit,h respect to tbeir etfective
exercise of the erectoral 63Ens61ss..gg/ rt is abundantly
clear that tbe addition of the two numbered couacil-si.a, ao ,u

'' 
''e'-'fired in odd-nurabered years in no ray deterlorates the strength

of Ebe ninorlty vete in 1,esi5ssg.-:-y por oany yearg 'uetor"

the .city adopted its hone-rul.e-charter, candidates lor connis-
sioner posts were reguired to designate whicb of tbe two seats
then available they would caropaign tor rW and conseguently no
opportunity for single-shot voting i.n those erections was ever
Presented.2/ under the 1973 chart,err counciloanic candidates
nust sPecify one of the seats now providedr!!/ and single-shot

.rjl:.i: 9.:',ir-.<-i ii:i. <.:- :

.^:ri-{ $\; -t;}+', L'r':'i.fi 3;r; 
-

. l-;-.; :,:;.:.; r. i r1-.

54/ I 13!gI consider roy colleagues. argunent on syner-gisnr. sEE part rr (c) int-ru:-- -'
55/ Beer v- tlni tFd st,rt,ac crtn,. h^r^ r

14r, e6 t'6t. Efirll,ffii €$frHli,nr,rlil H;i: fii.196, 94th Clrng., lst Sess. 50 iiiZSt (enphasis in original).
56/ Beer v. United Stateg, supra note I, 425 U.S. atr4r, 95 51rct. afrroi,ffiar G39 (enphasis suppr.ied).
57/ Mexican Americans arg. by far the largest ninorityin LockhE?t, ses nuj. bpl-;i-i; ina, Ei,u-rr^oiiti-iri"n whicrr rhisIitigation directs its lrincipif-io.us.
g/ see tefi supra ar nore 18.

E/ see teLsupra at nores 25-33.
a Sg/ sce t,cxt, supra o. noiu" ZL-22.



!

I

.. ..,.,; ;:4*r-ird++i,.i4FibtAlaiilfra

( (
--1 ?--

bailoting renains an inpossibirity, but the decisive guestion
is whet,ber Lockhart's ninoriEies are uorse off than they vere
before. My correagues point out that since the tuo new council
seats, rike the two old connissioner seats, are nuabered posts,
"the discrininatory inpact of tbe nurqbered posts...affects twice
as nany elections for a larger number of positions..9!
That..of -course, is true, but only because Ipckhart uourd now

erect two council nembers every year instead of tr.ro connissio-
' ners every other year, and ny colleagues do not say why they
believe ninority voting power is thereby reduced fron the pre-
charter revel. Nor do tbey corunent on the possibility--which
draws support fron evidence in this case--that, by tncreasing
the nunber of seats on the governing body, lhe nes
otier ninorltie3 . lrore cltect,ive role-rn th.-;-.f"fl".t.t ;:
nenbership than they had before

rro, Dy standpolnt, tllfgus on nuobered councll seats
narrous to ttris. In pre-charter daysr LockhartrE voters etected
two merobers of its governing body in even-numbered years Erom

candidates decrarinS their aspirations for a speciflc seat.
Under the charter, exactly the sane thing will also occur in
odd-nunbered years. rpckhartrs voters wourd go to the porls
twice as frequently to ballot on councii nenbership, but, the
voting strength of rcckhartrs minoritiesr.whether or not en_
hanced, uould not be dininished one whit. Every year, as a
councilmanic election in Ipckhart approacbesr ninorities would
occupy tbe same relative position they fornerry did in every ar-
ternate year--perhaps no stronger, buE certainJ,y no weaker. The
unnistakabre thrust of Beer is thatlsectlon 5rs ban ls directed
exclusivery toward Ebose changes that, inaugurate new discrini-
natoiy practices desSuctive'of gains arready achieved in ninor-'t
ity pptiticar parrici!9rion, nor, at, changes loaving the situa-

9J/ see r'isj. oP. at, 10.



,o
(

t

i

--t4--
('

..!*,i<_, :,- -..!!!Eall.lGL

'-rr:y.,.s;,...- j,.--,.irir*act+aa..

tr.r:ar-.{riaffxl#-!l,ni1;r.7i';ai})'i' : I lr'i

tion essentially as it ras.62/ In my view, the fact, that the
t'wo nee'' council seats are nuobered posts' .can bardry have the
'effect' of diluting or abridging.tbe right to vote...clthin the
neaning of S s.,L?-/

C. The Staqqered Terms:

As nentioned previously, there is also objection to the
hone-rure charter's inauguration of staggered terms. This is a
concomitant of the cbarterrs arandate for elections of the city,s
t,o new council menbers in odd-nunbered years rather than at
the sane time its tbree other officers are chosen. fn condenn_
ing t,hese facets of tbe charterr Dy coileagues speak of the
'synergistic discrinrnatory effect, of the two aew nrrobered
Posts conjoined with the provision for-Etaggered-G!Ds.gl/ r
have already explained ny thesis that n'nbering of t,he two new
council seats is not a procedure that could lead to a retro_
gression of ninority voting p"r"I* 16sj5ssg.EV the gues_
tion now is whether the staggering, in pairs, of the terms of
those occupying ttre o1d and the nerd aeats on the city,s govern_
ing body will have the effect--either a10ne or together with
the numbering of those seats--of decreasing the -abirity of
ninority groups to participate in the politicar process and to
elect their choices to office.'w r conclude Fha: in Lock-
hart's circurost,anqes it will not.

f wouLd agree thar, a nunicipality cbanging fron (a) an
at-large erection every other year to firl four unnunbered coun-
eil seats to (b) arr election every year to firr two of the seats

-

52/ See Beer v. United Iar r4o-rE; ru-a1.ffi."ir3#*aliFilrffi ll.;rt:ur.3: u.'.

r41, e6 €*(.. StTr;\H##; eBE:" 
nore r' {2s u.s. ar

, 9,L/ Maj. op. at ltI
9:/ See part II(B) suora.

66/ Beer v- Unitori errlar4r, eG *6.. ffi.l:,ffi$$ffii fi!- note r' 42s u's' ar

-,!l!f,$:.



,o

--15--

could not preclear under section 5 beceuse thc balvlng of oppor-
tunity.Eor singre-shot votlng wouLd correspondtngly dlnlnish the
voting power of ninorlt 12s.9! But that ls not the situation
here, for rcckhart bas never had aore than two non-Dayoral seats
as objects in any erecEion. The only change the charter will
nake is the hording of dlections in o3d-nurnbered years f,or the
two nei, aunbered seats on the council. when contrast,ed rrith
the pre-charter elections bienniarly to fill the only trro nu&-
bered seats on the city's governing body, it becones irumedi_
atery apparent that all that rrirl occur is repetition of.the
pre-charter process of choosing two nenbers--nou every year in-
stead of every other year. put another way, each councirnanic
election in Lockbart would involve two nurnbered scats just as
before, the onry ctifference being that eLectioas eirl occur
annually rat,her than biennialJ,y.

To be sure, Ipckhartts new charter does not enable mi_
norities to cast singre-sbot votes and thereby increase their
infruence at the polr.s.E/ But it is too rate in the day to
contend that the voting Right,s Act requires the city to find
and inplenent ways to naxinize the politicar strengt,h or repre-
sentation of its uinority citizens.sg/ The pivotal considera-
tion here is that while ninorities cannot--because council seats
are nurobered--resort to single-shot barrotlng ia counclrmanic
elections, the stark fact is that they never courd, for the.non-
mayoral. seats have always been nurabered. And it seens obvious
that the ch'arter provision for erections to the two new council
seats .in odd-nurnbered years--and its accompanirnent, the stagger_
ing of terus--wilr tend no nore to ,highlight raciar identities

e
S3-/ See $rt II(BI supra.

\C

, .-,r;ji.rtg&rrti#|t4irri.*'frlitAhl.rflill

,:,r, i:i^,r*Uf+*,;irf}erisfilii*id4{

Ly sce pM rr(B) supra.

t zu _r. e . 
q( . o ii" 6 u?..i . Y,.Ii rSiSiH;S; . ;.!Et Eiii t i .,

:513*$3#, I ; offi #ii:e i ot1' ruu e2 i, ;' i i, ; I i ; 
r: 

? i ;: : ;,u ; :r'



O
!

j (C,.. t

--15--

of candidates for those seats than did the pre-charter practice
of firling the two original seats through elections in even-
nunberec years. The election procedures for both peirs of seaEs

are identical, and no dininution in ninority voting power is
d is'cern ibIe.

Under t,he binding authority of Beer, then, f conclude
tbat the nunbered-post and staggered-tertr features oE rock-
hartrs proposed schene of councilnanic erections wirl not have

'the effect of denying or abrldging the right !o vote nithin the
proscription of Section 5.19 Accordinglyr f woul.d not deny
sect,ion 5 preclearance on the basis of either. gather, slnce
ce bif,urcated tbc trlal of tbis 

"o"s]V-1itriting tbc evi-
dence to the effect of the contested chartcr provisions on the
votlng pouer of rpckbart Elnorltlec--r rould reopen Ehe pro-
ceedings to aff,ord the partlos the opportunity to subait addi-
tional evidence bearing upon the guestion wbetber tbe city roay

bave, had a diserininatory purpose in adopting then.

.i:r+ltBti}? :r,!.--'...-- .it{i<itrt-,.:. .,

.1-fH*-^n.'-r{lrdifraaatJrii}' ! >;. | !.? \' - i r', i

Elerrett, 509 F.2dE'IfT6-s.cr. 323 ,
1389, 1394 (5th Cir.), q.ert, denied, 423 U.S.46.L.8d.2d 288 (19?5); @:-g9E, so3 8.2d 9r2, 92ITh cirJgner u Council of Citv of t{zu u.s. 992, 95 s.ct. L4zg, 43 t.Ed;24-6ral

McKeithen, {90 F.2d 191, L97 (5rh ci;.-rizjr. ) i ?urner v.

.. LiJ _ f aur mindful that even ran anellorative Dewryotilq procedure witl rviotile g s tifl rhe ;a;.i;iocedurelitself so discriroinares on rhe 6aiii-oi ;;;"--;; .l6io, as toviol'ate the constitution." geei-v. united stii.il-supru noteL, 42s u.s. ar r,rr, 96 s.ct.-F1364;A7me-a-ir 63e. seealso id. ar 142 n.1{,96 s.ct. at-f:en n.il,-ti-r,.ia. Za at G4On.1{.--To ole has sulgested in iiris litigation that either thenurnbered coincir seaEi or the staggered terns of uer.rbers courdaccomplish so nuch

' LV see note 32 supra.



COUNTY COUNCIL OF SUII{TER )

COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLf NA, et 4. , )

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,

Defendants.

Civil Action No. 82-0912

FILED
.rtril.i 0 191j3

MEMORANDUM ON SUI,IMARY JUDGMENT JAMES F, DAVEY, CIETK

(,Q
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

The County Council of Sumter Countyr South Carolina (Sumter

County), and two Sumter County officials brought this action

against the United States pursuant to section 5 of the Voting

Rights Act of 1965r €ls amended , 42 U. S.C. S 1973c ('the Act" ) .

They have also invoked the Ninth, Tenth, .Fourteenth and Fifteenth

Amendments of the United States Constitution. Their amended

complaint seeks declaratory judgnent, implemented by an

injunction, that an at-Iarge method of electing the Sumter County

Council is not subject to preclearance by the Attorney General of

the United States under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of

1965; that if such preclearance is required, the Attorney General

has already given it; and that, in any eventr the at-large method

at issue does not have the PurPose or effect of denying or

-1-

EXHIBIT D



abridging the right to vote on account of racer colort ot

previous condition of servitude. fn 1978r the two individual

plaintiffs and other qualified electors of Sumter County voted

in favor of the at-large method of election in a referendum.

Plaintiffs now also seek declaratory and injunctive relief to

protect the rights of the qualified electors of Sumter County to

vote for the at-large method of election for County Council in a

referendum, and to have the votes counted in the at-large

elections which they advocate. Finally, they challenge as

inappropriate and, therefore, unconstitutional, Congressrs 1982

extension of the Act as applied to Sumter County.

Defendants, who are the United States, its Attorney General

and its Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, have moved

to dismiss and for Eummary judgment on six of the seven counts in

the complaint. Plaintiffs have filed cross-motions for summary

judgment, including a motion for partial summary judgment on

Count Iff, the count on which defendants believe a trial is

required. Meanwhile, when defendants retreated from an earlier

contention concerning the interrelation between Sections 2 and 5

of the Voting Rights Actr! seven blacks voters of Sumter County

moved for leave to intervene and to take a limited role in the

proceedings henceforth.

]/ compare
to p1afiElEfs--'
17-19 rdith an

Memorandum of the United States in Opposition
Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 18, 1982) at

Amended Hemorandum (Oct. 27, L982 ) at 17.

-2-



(

All of these motions have been futly briefedr and aII

except the motion to intervene have been argued to this three-

judge court. For reasons more fully stated below, the Court in

an accompanying Order will deny the defendantsr motion to dismiss

and the plaintiffsr motion for summary judgmentr and grant

defendantst motions for summary judgmentT thereby leaving for

trial Count III in its ent.irety. The motion for limited

intervention is the subject of a separate llemorandum and Order

issued today.

I

This case is a sequel to litigation which culminated in the

decision of the Supreme Court in Blanding v. DuBose, 454 U.S. 393

(1982) (per curiam) revrg, dOg F. Supp. I334 (D.s.c. 1981). A

brief account of that case will set the stage for this on..U

In Blanding, a number of citizens of Sumter Count.y sought

to enjoin at-large elections for Sumter Countyts County Council

U Blanding had been consolidated in the three-judge District
Court T;Effi- Carolina with another action involving the same
subject matter as Bland:i4g and the same parties as in the case
now at hand. See Tnffitates v. Coun
County, No. ZA:16-6-l tion
Tor Summary Judgment (Oct. 1, 1982). The governmentrs appeal to
the Supreme Court evidently was not perfected.

-3-



in 1978. In 1967r the South Carolina General Assembly passed Act

No. 371, placing governmental Powers for Sumter County in a

County Council, rrhose members were to be elected at-large from

the County. By oversight, Plaintiffs allege, Act No. 371 was not

submitted to the U. S. Attorney General for preclearance pursuant

to the Voting Rights Act, and at-Iarge County Councll elections

were held in Sumter County ln 1968 , LglO, ]-g72 and L974.y In

1975, South Carolina passed the Home Rule Act, which permitted

each of South Carolina's counties to select by referendum one of

five alternate forms of local government contained in the

statute, and to decide in the referendum whether the county

governors would be elected from single-member districts or at-

1arge. The Act specifically provided that if Sumter County held

no referendum, the council-administrator system derived from Act

No. 371 in 1968 would remain in place. Section 4-9-10(b). The

Home RuIe Act of 1975 was submitted to the U. S. Attorney General

for preclearancei he interposed no objection at that time, but

ihe indicated that the outcomes of Home RuIe Act referenda or

assignments of forms of government under the Act would be subject

to preclearance.' 454 U.s. at 396.y Thereafter, Sumter County

1/ Upon apPlication by the plaintiffs-in BIa?diP?, the South
Caroltni oistiicr Court Enjoinia the at-largEEIEEETons scheduled
in 1978, S Defendantsr Uotion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 1,
lg82l , ExT, and County Council elections evidently have not
been'field in Sumter County since that time.

!/ The U. S. Attorney Generalrs letter of August 28r 1975, to
the South Carolina Attoiney General with respect to the Home Rule
Act had stated that such an "assignment of such forms of
government also constitutes a change which is subject to
preclearance requirements of the Voting F,-ights. A"-t^9J 1955."
Fi;i;aiif;.-uo[ion for Summary Judgment (oCt. 4, 1982) Ex. Q.

-4-



held no referendum and by assignment the council-administrator

system was elected at-large. In 1975, Sumter County submitted

for preclearance Act, No. 371 of 1957 and the County Ordinance

tmplementing that Act on authority of the llome Rule Act. The

Attorney General interposed no objection to the council-

administrator form, but 'nade a timely objection to the at-large

method of election of the Council.' 454 U.S. at 396. Private

parties in Sumter County then lnstituted suitr 6Dd on June 21,

1978, the scheduled at-large elections for County Council were

enjoined by a District Court in Blanding v. DuBose, No. 78-883

(D.S.C. June 22, 1978) (Defendantsr Ex. C). fn November 1978,

the County went ahead with a planned referendum, and a majority

of voters in Sumter County approved an at-Iarge method of

election for County Council, despite the Attorney General's L976

objection.

In 198Ir the defendants in BIanding, including E. M.

DuBose, one of the plaintiffs here, ton a declaratory judgment

from a three-judge Distrlct Court in South Carolina that the

County had obtained preclearance from the Attorney General for

at-large elections in June 1979, when the County had sent a

letter to him reporting that the 1978 referendum had approved at-

large council elections for Sumter County, and the Attorney

General had failed to respond until September of that year, more

than 50 days after receiving the letter. The District Court

stated that the 1978 county referendun had approved an election

method different from that ln effect on November 1' 1954, and

that the 1979 letter reporting its results was a request for

preclearance. The District Court concluded that the Attorney

-5-



Generalts failure to respond within 60 days as required by the

Act constituted preclearance of the change by default. 509 F.

Supp. at 1.336-37. On appealr the Supreme Court reversed, holding

that the 1979 letter had been a request for reconsideration of

the Attorney Generalrs 1976 refusal to preclear the changer ond

was thus not subject to the 50-day requirement. Blanding v.

DuBose, 454 U.S. at 399-401.

Having failed to persuade the Attorney General to

reconsider his 1976 refusal or to persuade the Supreme Court that

the Attorney General had precleared the at-large method by

default in 1979, Plaintiffs now invoke the alternate remedy

available to them under Section 5: seeking a declaratory judgment

from this Court that the at-large election method of electing the

countyrs governing body authorized for Sumter County by the

General Assembly and the 1978 county referendum is not a

ipractice, or procedure with respect to voting different from

that in force or effect on November 1, 1964r'or if it is, that

it either has been precleared or'does not have the PurPose and

will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to

vote on account of race or colorri within the meaning of Section

5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 42 U.S.C. S 1973c. The

complaint is in seven counts. We address them in order.

A

Count I alleges that the at-Iarge method of election did

not establish a "practice or procedure with respect to voting Iin

-6-



.l ( ,o
Sumter Countyl different from that in force or effect on- November

I, Lg64r" 42 U.S.e. S 1973cr 8Dd that it is therefore not subject

to the requirements of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiffs allege

that before that date and until about 1958, the Sumter County

Board of Commissioners, the local forerunners of the County

Council, acted as a ministerial body only. It is a fact that

that Board was appointed by the Governor of South Carolina on the

recommendation of the Sumter County delegation to the South

Carolina General Assembly. The legislative functions

contemplated now for the County Council were al1egedly performed

prior to 1968 by the State Legislature which enacted local Sumter

County bills on the recommendation of the Sumter County

delegation. The plaintiffsr theory is that before November 1,

1954, the Sumter County delegation was the de facto governing

body of Sumter County, and was elected at-larger dDd now the

County Council would be the governing body and it would also be

elected at-large. Since each body was or is to be elected at-

large, plaintiffs argue that functionally there has been no

method of election change that requires preclearance either by

the Attorney General or this Court.

Plaintiffs' argument, although facile, simply ignores the

Governor's de, 'iure Power before November 1, 1964, to appoint Ehe

-7-



countyrs governing body"il the Governorrs de iure power to veto

legislation (lnctuding local bills for Sumter and other counties)

and the de iure power of the entire General Assembly to enact

local laws for Sumter County different from those recommended by

the Sumter County delegation. The plaintiffs' argument also

ignores the legal fact that the Governor and the majority of the

Iegislators who had the actual and legal Porrers to govern Sumter

County were not elected at-large by the voters of Sumter County;

they were elected by the voters of the entire State of South

Caro1ina. It may be that their lega1 powers were subject, by

some diplomatic arrangements and customs, to the political Power

of the Sumter County delegation which, in turn, had legal Powers

over the local affairs of other counties. Butr dt the very

Ieast, legal authority over the loca1 affairs and choice of

Commissioners of Sumter County was shared between the Governor

(elected statewide), the General Assembly (elected from aIl

counties, only one of which was sumter), and the county

Commissioners (apPointed by the Governor and confirmed by the

General Assembty on recommendation of the Sumter County

delegation).

In 1967r the

implemented by the

General Assembly passed Act No. 371 (later

Home Rule Act of 1975). By vesting the local

5/ Compare Unrted State? v. goun uncil of Charleston
countvffiI- e the

ion was elected at-large'

-8-



County Council with all local legislat,ive powers and making it

loca}ly elected, Act No. 371 stripped away the legal Polrer

theretofore vested in the Governor, the General Assembly and the

Sumter County delegatlon over local Sumter County affairs' It

eliminated lhe power of south carolina voters outside sumter

county over that countyts local affairs. The L967 law released

the 1oca11y chosen county commissioners from those actual and

legal restraints, and from out-of-county voter influences' and

vested in them all these legal Powers, subject only to the will

of the voters of Sumter County, voting at-large'

It may be that plaintiffs could prove at trial their

proffer that the Governor and the General Assembly universally

deferred (without any trade-offs) from 1895 until 1968 to the

Sumter County delegatior, *itt respect to the governance of Sumter

County, and that the County Commissioners were uniformly mere

ministerial agents of the delegation. But the laws of 1967 and

1975 which eliminated the legal Powers of the Governor and the

General ASSemblyr P€EsOnS elected by voters outside of sumter

Countyr over loca1 affairs and vested it exclusively in a County

Council elected at-large by Sumter County voters is too vast a

change to ignore. As Plaintiffs' counsel conceded at oral

argument a de'iure change as well as a de facto change in voting

requires preclearance under the Act. Hearing Transcript

-9-



(

(Nov.29, 1982) at I7-18.9 We note that both the District Court

and the supreme court in Blanding v. DuBose stated that the Home

Rule Act of 1975 (which implemented Act No. 371 of 1967) changed

the voting method involved in the selection of superviaors in

sumter county. 454 u.s. at 395 ('this changen), 399 ("change to

at-large County Council elections")i Blanding v' DuBose, No' 78-

754t tnem. op. at I (D.S.C. June 22, 1978) (DefendantSr Ex. c)

("The record in these cases establishes conelusively that in 1967

the procedure for electing members of the County Council for

Sumter County, South Carolina, was changed by statute")' Without

regard as to whether the change was good or bad for the people of

Sumter Countyr or for the advantage or disadvantage of any racial

or other group t.here, we are persuaded as a matter of law that

the institution of at-large elections for the unfettered sumter

County locat government required precleardnC€'

Plaintiffs invite our attention to an opinion of the

supreme court of south carolina holding that, under the south

carolina state constitution in place on November 1, 1964, the

General Assembly enacted 'many local laws' so that "for all

practical purposes the county government was controlled by the

L/ JUDGE BORK: . . . [I]s it enough to trigger
Section il tnat there was a de iure
change?

As f understand the case, itrs
either a de jure change or a
factual change.

TTIR. BELL:

(

-10 -



,o

Acts of the General Assembly" and "the General Assembly-l'as the

governing body of the respective counties." Duncan v. York

Countvr 267 S.C. 327, 334, 228 S'E'2d 92, 95 (1975)' The Supreme

court of south carolina noted that'it is common knowledge that

only legislative delegations from the counties affected concerned

themselves with rocar bilrs." Thus, 'ti]n addition to being

state legislators, members of the senate and of the House were

effectually the county legislature and governing board'" Id'

The foregoing statement of local law does not alter the fact that

during all the years prior to Lg67 the de facto Power of the

county delegation with resPect to IocaI legislation was subject

to the de iure Porrer of the entire General Assembly and the

Governor, just as its de facto Power over aPpointments to the

Iocal Board of Commissioners rras subject to the de iure Power of

the Governor. This de jure scheme was unarguably altered by the

1967 and 1g75 statutesr ind constitutes a change cognizable under

Section 5 of the Ac t.!

of Ed. v. United States,

Accord Charlton Countv (Georqia) Board

No. 78-0564 (D.D.C. July ,27, 1978) Horrv

Count South Carolina

at 6-7 (D.D.C. MaY 4, 1978).

7/ This resolution of the lssue makes it unnecessary-for us to
reach the faciual dispute ;; to whether the County Board of
Commissionet"-ippointla by the Governor (on recommendation of the
county aeregation) ag_of November 1, I954r tfES a cipherr is
contended by ;iai;titrs, ot exercised joint goverling
responsibility with the stite legislative delegation, as urged by

defendants.

-1 1-



Defendants urge us to preclude plaintiffs from litigating

the question of whether there was a change in voting methods

requiring preclearance because they raised (or could have raised)

and lost that contention in the District Court proceedings which

culrninated in the Supreme Courtrs decislon in Blanding v. DuBose,

sgpIg. The undisputed facts of the shift of power from the

Governor and the General Assembly to the new county council

require a ruling for defendants on the merits of Count I without

resort to the technicalities of collateral estoppel.

B

count II of the complaint, on which both parties seek

summary judgment, alleges that the at-1arge method of election

for Sumter County Council vras precleared by the Attorney

Generalrs failure to object'to two statutes (Act No. 1339 of 1967

and the Home Rule Act of 1975) relating to at-Iarge elections for

the Sumter County governing body. Undisputed facts show that

plaintiffsr preclearance claim is without merit. These

undisputed facts are that in 1967, Bill No.371 established the

seven-member Sumter County Commission, elected at-Iarge ' 1967

South Carolina Act No. 371. In 1968, Bill No. 1339 made a modest

amendment to Act No. 37I: it gave the Commission Pot'er to decide

for itself which members would aerve four year terms and which.

would serve two year terms, instead of directly sPecifying which

members would so serve. Act No. 1339 did not affect the at-large

method of election set forth in Act No. 37Ir and by itself the

-12-



amendment might well not be a change in voting procedures

requiring preclearance. For reasons which plaintiffs do not

entirely explain, the south carolina Attorney General did not

submit Act No. 321 of 1962 to the Attorney General of the united

states for preclearance, despite itS broad-ranging effect on the

organic relationship between the state Governor, the General

Assembly, and the government of sumter county. E P. 8,

_ry. on July 2g, 196gr dD ASsiStant state Attorney General

submitted to the u. s. Attorney General copies of seven acts

passed by the General Assembly in its 1958 session; one of the

seven was Act No. 1339.

The u. s. Attorney General precleared neither of these

Acts. Act NO. 371 was not Submitted to him. The. Ietter that

submitted Act No. 1339 did not request preclearance nor mention

any voting changes. Defendantst Ex' B' Cf' Citv of Rome v'

united states, 446 U.S. I56, 169 n.6 (1980). Nor did plaintiffs

claim in the litigation culminating in Blanding v' DuBose' to

which they rdere party, that the 1968 transmittal of Act No' 1339

had any preclearance implications. Nevertheless, plaintiffs nov'

claim that the Attorney Generalrs silence about Bill No' 1339

effected preclearance of the entire at-large election system'

This claim iS without merit. As the supreme court ruled in

United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield' AIa" 435

U.s.11O(1978)rapoliticalsubdivisionmuststatethatit
desires preclearance before it can claim preclearance by

-13-



silence. & at 135-38. That ruling aPplies here and requires

summary judgment for defendants on plalntiffs' claim that the

Attorney Generalrs silence about Act No. 1339 of 1958 precleared

an at-Iarge election system for Sumter County.

The other prong of plaintiffs I preclearance claim relates

to the Home Rute Act of 1975. 1975 S.C. Acts, No.283t codified

as S.C. Code S {-9-10 et seq. (1975 and SuPp. 1980) (Plaintiffsr

Ex. !t). The 1975 Home RuIe Act implemented Act No. 37 1 and its

counterparts applicable to other South Carolina counties. See

pp. 4-6, supra. When the Home Rule Act was submitted for

preclearance, the Attorney General reserved his right to object

to any referenda or assignment results adhered to by local

counties pursuant to that Act. When Sumter County submitted the

1967 Act No. 371 and its local ordinance implementing the Home

RuIe Act assignment of at-large elections to the Attorney General

for preclearance in 1976, he'made a timely objection to the at-

Iarge method of election of the Council." Blanding v. DuBose,

454 U.S. at 395. In 1978r the Attorney General declined to

withdraw his objection to at-large elections for the council even

if the election method were approved by county referendum;

nevertheless, in November 1978, a county referendum opted for the

at-1arge election method originally contemplated by Act No.

371. In Blanding, the Supreme Court held that a letter informing

the Attorney General of.the referendum results lras only a request

for reconsideration of the Attorney Generalrs I976 objection, and

-r 4-



that Sumter County's at-large method of election still had not

been precleared.

Despite the Supreme Courtrs ruling in Blanding v. DuBose,

and the terms of the Attorney GeneraLrs letter of August 28,

I975, see note 4, supra, plaintiffs persist ln contending that

the Attorney Generalts'attempt . . . to reserve his right to

reconsider the assignment lof forms of government and methods of

electionl . . . was ineffective.' Plaintiffs' llemorandum in

Support of t'lotion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 4, L9821 , at 16.

They contend that the Home Rule Act, itself established the form

of government and method of election for each South Carolina

county, including Sumter. According to plaintiffs, Et that

point, the Attorney General was obligated either to object or to

forever hold his Peace. They rely uPon a statement of the South

Carolina District Court nade before the Supreme Court strrcke in

Blandinq v. DuBose that the Attorney General was required to Pass

on "a11 componentsi of the Home Rule Act submission at the time

of t,he submissioni and that the subsequent passage of "adoptive

ordinances merely lmplemented statutes which had been Previously

precleared.n United States v. Countv Council of Charleston

Countv, South Caro1ina, 473 F. SuPP. 541, 646-47 (D.s.C. 1979).

plaintiffs also rely upon a District Court's decision in United

States v. Georqiar C.A. No. C76-1531A (N.D. Ga. 1977), aff'd.

!9L, 436 U.S. 941 (1978). lee Plaintiffsr Memorandum in Support

of Motion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 4, 1982) at 15-17.

-15 -



Significantly, perhaps, this same October 4, 1982 Memorandum of

plaintiffs fails to discuss or even cite the Supreme Courtrs

opinions in Blanding or Sheffield, -W-.
Defendants Point out in resPonse that when, ln 1976, the

Attorney General precleared the Home Rule Act, there was no way

of knowing whether Sumter County would hold a referendum or not,

or whether a referendum if held would select a new form of

government or method of election and, lf it did, which form or

method it would adopt. Defendants point to regulations

formulated by the Attorney General for the administration of

Section 5 which adopt the traditional, common sense principle

that he nay refrain from reviewing voting changes prematurely.

See 28 e.F.R. S 51.7 (1975); €. 28 C.F.R. S 51.20 (19821. So

here, defendants urger the laaorn", General precleared the "ripen

provisions of the Home Rule Act that transferred certain lega1

powers of the Governor and the General Assembly to local

governments and created the right to hold referenda, while he

reserved for future review those sequelae of the Home Rule Act

which depended uPon local decisions about whether to hold

-15-



referenda and the results of those heLd.! Cf. United States v.

Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, A1a., !.g2I9.

From the foregoing we are satisfied, again without

reference to principles of collateral estoppelr that the Supreme

Courtrs precedent of Blanding v. DuBose, the plain language of

the Attorney Generalrs letter of August 28, 1975, and ensuing

events in Sumter County all combine to require that we reject

plaintiffs' claim that the Attorney General precleared at-large

elections when he reviewed the Home Rule Act of 1975. An

accompanying Order therefore grants summary judgment to

defendants on both issues raised by Count II of the complaint.

c

In Count III of their complaint, plaintiffs assert that,

even if the at-large method of election did rePresent change in

met,hod reguiring preclearance, andr €V€ll if the change were not

precleared by the Attorney General, it Passes muster under

Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. ljlore specif ically, Count III

alleges t.hat the changes effected pursuant to Act No. 37I and the

2/ Ignoring Charleston County (as did the Supreme Court in
etanaini v. p[gmistinguish united States v.
ffi'[r,. ground thar rhe votin@ne
Ettorney Ceneral purported to reserve for review in that case
Lrere all in place when he reviewed Georgia's Home Rule Actr
whereas the Sumter County changes on which the Attorney General
reserved judgment were uncertain and yet to take effect when he
ruled on part of South Carolina Home RuIe Act and reserved on
other paris. Arnended Memorandum of the United States in
Opposition to Summary Judgment (Oct. 27, 1982) at 13-14. This
appears correct to the Court.

-17-



Home Rule Act of 1975 as implemented by the 1978 referendum, gave

all Sumter County voters an oPPortunity to elect the members of

the countyrs governing body, 'which oPPortunity no voter ln

Sumter Counter enjoyed on November 1, 1964r" Amended Complaint

(Aug . 23, Lg82l, i39; augmented the ability of black voters to

participate in the political process and to vote for their

county's governing body "which was previously appointed by the

Governor of South Carolinar'id.,r 140; does not abridge any right

to vote on account of race, colorr oE otherwise; will not lead to

"retrogression" in the position of racial minorities with respect

to the effective exercise of their right to vote; and does not

have the purpose or effect of diluting the voting strength of

black voters in South Carolln".

Plaintiffs move only for a Partial summary judgment on

Count IfI: that the "change" does not have the effect of'denying

or abridging the right !o vote on account of race or color.n 42

U.s.C. 1973c.Y/ plaintiffs contend that before and after the

change black voters voted ln the election for sumter county I s

governing body: before the change the legislative delegation was

the governing body and was elected at-1arge; after the change the

County Commission was the governing body and was also so

elected. Secondly, plaintiffs suPPort their motion with proffers

!9/ Defendants make
and contend a trial is

no cross-motion with respect to Count III
necessary on that count as a whole'

-1 8-



(

of evidence that the 'black community . . . did not object to the

at-large method of election for members of the Commission, but in

fact welcomed the opPortunlty to be able t,o vote for members of

the Commission.' Plalntiffsr Hemorandum (Oet. 4, 1982), supra,

at 23. Third}y, plaintiffs urge that the pre-1964 Board of

Commissioners was aPpointed and no black had any role in

appointing a member of the Board, whereas the method at issue

gives all voters, black and white, a role in the process. Since

the black voters now have a right to vote for members of the

County Commission which they did not previously have, defendants

claim on authority of Beer v. United Statesr 425 U.S. 130 (1975),

and Charlton County Board of Ed. v. United Statesr C.A. No. 78-

0564 (D.D.C. 1978), that the minorityrs ability to participate is

actually increased.

Defendants point out that plaintiffs would test for

retrogression by comparing the role of black voters before 1967

with their role now, even though plaintiffs sought no

preclearance in 1967 and t,he matter is only coming to issue in

I9g3. Defendants contend that retrogression must be tested by

examining how the aPPointive system used prior to 1967 would

operate today as compared to how an at-large system in place

todav would operate. Defendants refer us for guidance to the

Supreme Courtts decision in City of Rome v. United States, 446

U.S. 156 (1980). Therer Ers here, the local jurisdiction had

delayed the preclearance Process, in that case with respect to

-19-



_l (o
several annexations to municipality of Rome, Georgia. The

supreme court endorsed the procedure, once the case finally came

to litigation, of responding "to the reallties of a situation as

they exist at the time of decision.' Citv of Rome v. United

states, 472 F. Supp. 22L, 247 (D.D.C. 1979), aff rd. , 445 U.s.

155, 185 ( 1980 ) .

fn traversing the plaintiffsr motion, defendants proffer

deposition testimony from qualified political historians and

loca1 South Carolina political figures that if an aPPointive

system were operative today at least two black Persons would be

serving on the countyts governing board, two more than now

serve. We agree rrith defendants and City of Rome that we should

consider a comparison of the appointive and at-large methods in

the context of the present. AccordinglY, t.he defendants' proffer

raises an issue of fact about retrogression which cannoE be

resolved without, an evidentiary hearing.

fn addition, defendants originally contended that even if

the change from the appointive nethod which previously obtained

to the current at-large system were not demonstrably

retrogressiver defendants are entitled to an oPPortunity to show

that the changed method is itself discriminatory, and that

plaintiffs have the burden of establishing that the at-large

o

-20-



.O

system does not violate section 2 of the Voting Rights Kct.4/

Defendants subsequently have abandoned their contention that

plaintiffs have an obligation to satisfy Section 2

requirements.l2/ Defendants Preserve, however, the contention

that, according to Beer, even if a change is not retrogressive,

it may not be precleared if it "discriminates on the basis of

race or color so as to violate the Constitution.' Beer v. U!!f!-98-

ltates, 425 U.S. 130, 14I (1975); see Busbee v. Smithr c.A. No.

B2-0G65 (D.D.C. July 22, 1982). Compare Memorandum of the United

States in Opposition to Plaintiffs' llotion for Summary Judgment

(Oct. 18, Lg82) at 17 n.7, with Amended Memorandum of the United

ll/ The Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1982, Pub.L. No.
97-205, 96 Stat. 131, amended Section 2 of the AcE to read that

No voting . . . practice or procedure
sha1l be imposed or aPPlied . . . in a
manner that results in a denial or
abridgement of the right . . . to vote.

See 96 Stat. at 134. The Senate Report on the 1982 Amendments
Fated that by amending Section 2r'it ts intended that a section
5 objection also follow if a new voting procedure itself so
disciiminates as to violate section 2.' S. Rep. No. 97-4L7, 97t'h
Cong., 2d Sess. (ilay 25, 1982) at 12 n. 31, rePri,nted aF 1982
U. S: Code Cong. & Aa. Neyrs 177, 189 n.31. DEffntant United
States has ar{ued in its Rep1y Brief to the Supreme Cour! i! 9ity
of Lockhart v. United Statel i Cano, No. 81-802, (Oct. 1982) that

ara of Section 2 can ProPerlY
b; imported into Section 5" should be determined "in the first
insta-nce" by a District Court. Id. at 4 (tiled in this action
together wiltr Defendants' AmendeE-Memorandum, Oct . 2'1, 1982) .

12/ This argument will apparently be preserved, however, by th9
intervenors i; this action lhose petition to intervene is granted
today in a seParate lrlemorandum and Order.

-2L-



States in Opposition to Plaintiffsr !,lotion for Summary Judgment

(Oct . 27, Jg82) at 17. In suPPort of their amended opPosition

argument that the new method is unconstitutionally

discriminatory, defendants proffer substantially the aame

evidence that they originally had Proffered in suPPort of their

Section 2 argument: €.!f., expert test,imony concerning the

historical evidence of racial discrimination in South Carolina

governments (lncluding sumter countyrs); the purPose and effect

of the institution of an at-large voting system in Sumter County;

alleged racial polarization of voting in the county; and

difficulties encountered by blacks seeking politieal suPport in

sumter county at-larger 6s distinguished from ln single member

districts. Defendantsr Amended Memorandum, -ggpg., at L9-22.

Defendants suggest that the retrogression, PurPose and effect

questions are inextricably intertwined, that decision on aII of

these issues should be postponed until after the trial on the

merits, and that therefore plaintiffsr motion for partial summary

judgment on retrogression should be denied'

We agree that decision on all of these questions depends

upon facts which should be developed at trial. Accordinglyr w€

will follow the example of our colleagues in Busbee v' Smith,

-*!E-, to the extent of reserving resolution of these issues

until after trial. In addition, a separate Order filed today

will grant the motion to intervene filed by interested black

voters of Sumter County thereby Preserving the Section 2 argument

-22-



now raised by them and permitting them to cross-examine witnesses

and possibly adduce rebuttal evidence.

D

Count fV of the complaint alleges that the Attorney General

wiII object to any method of election other than a single-member

district method, and that such a method would dilute the voting

strength of black voters in Sumter County and deny and abridge

their right to vote in violation of Sections 2 and 5 of the

Voting Rights Act and the First and Fifteenth Amendments of the

Constitution. Cross-motions for summary judgment dispute whether

we can, or should, anticipate in this proceeding the position

that the Attorney General would take, if we later invalidate the

at-Iarge election method at issue here. As defendants point out,

howeverr w€ have no authority either to reviewr of to Preview,

decisions of the Attorney General under Section 5. Defendantsl

trtotion for Summary Judgment (Oct. I, 1982) pP. 8-9, l9i see

Morris v. Gressette, 432 U.S. 491 (1977). Plaintiffs seek a

declaratory judgment in the nature of an advisory opinion with

respect to a matter over which we have no jurisdiction. Even if

the Attorney Generalrs intentlon were as alleged rY/ it is not

wit,hin our Power to anticipate or rule on it; this Courtrs role

under Section 5 of the Act is to examine the change de novo as an

13/ Defendants
true positlon on
Judgment (Oct. 1,

state that
this issue.

1982 ) , P.

plaintiffs have nisstated
Defendants I ltlotion for

9, t9, and Ex. D.

-23-

defendants I

Summary



,o

as an alternative to the Attorney Generalts decision regarding

preclearance. Accordingly, the accompanying Order wiIl deny

plaintiffsr motion for summary judgment on Count IV and grant

defendantsr motion thereon.

E

In Count V, plaintiffs claim that defendantsr refusal to

preclear the method of election for which the individual

plaintiffs voted in the 1978 referendum denied and impaired their

constitutional right to vote and the similar right of aII of the

other citizens who voted in the 1978 referendum for the at-large

system, and effectively denied their rights to vote in scheduleC

at-large elections pursuant to the Home Rule Act. Plaintiffs

invoke the First, Fifth, Ninth and Tenth Amendments, as well as

Section 17 of the Voting Rights Act'

Again, in count v, the plaintiffs are challenging the

failure of the Attorney General to preclear the at-Iarge method

of election for Sumter County. For reasons already stated, our

role must be Iimited to de novo consideration of whether the

method of election violates rights protected by the voting Rights

Act or the Constitution. We cannot sit ln judgment here uPon

whether the Attorney General I s refusal to preclear violated

r ights asserted by Plaintif f s. See l'lorr is v. Gressette, supra i

Citv of Rome v. United Statesr 450 F. SuPP. 378r 380-82 (D'D'C'

1g7g). plaintiffs are not entltled to any declaratory judgment

about the effect on them of defendantsr refusal to grant Section

-24-



,o

5 preclearance. The accomPanying Order will grant defendant'sr

motion for summary judgment on Count V.

F

Count Vf is a rather bold demand that this Court ln effect

overrule decisions of the Supreme Court validating Congressrs

decision to apply the Voting Rights Act to some States and not to

others. Since this issue has been resolved by the Supreme Court,

plaintiffs may be raising it here to Preserve it for

reconsideration by the Supreme Court uPon appeal. Our

accompanying Order granting the defendantsr motion for summary

judgment on Count VI will. accomplish this. !E Citv of Rome v.

united States, 472 F. SupP- 221, 235 (D.D.C. 1979), affrd', 446

U.S. 156r 180 (I980); South Carolina v. Katzenbachr 3E3 U.S. 30I,

324-28 ( 1966) .

G

Count VII of the conplaint challenges the constitutionality

of the L982 amendments to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of

I9G5 on the ground that Congress failed to make current factual

findings about the extent of voting registration in 1975 and 1982

comparable to the congressional findings made on this subject to

justify the Voting Rights Act legislation enacted in 1965. With

regard to Congressts 1975 extension of t,he Actr the Supreme Court

has ruled that it was constitutionally accomplished. City of

Rome v. United States, supra, 445 U.S. at 180. Defendants

maintain, in effect, that the voting discrimination that

-25-



,o

Justified the 1965 Act has been eLiminated, it least in South

Carolina and in Sumter Countyr Bo that the conditions found to

exist ln 1955 can no longer justify extending the regional

requirements of the Voting Rights Act in 1982. Specifically,

plaintiffs point to Section 4(b) of the Act which made the Act

applicable to a state or political subdivision only if less than

half of the statets or subdivisionrs voting poPulation was

regist,ered to vote on November 1, 1954. Plaintiffst Opposition

to Defendantsr tlotion for Summary Judgment (Oct. 18, I982) at

51. plaintiffs proffer without contradiction that while less

than half of the voting PoPulations of South Carolina and of

Sumter County lrere registered to vote in 1964, on May 28r 1982,

slightly more than half were registered. These circumstances,

plaintiffs claim, distinguish the 1982 extension as aPplied to

them from the circumstances relied upon in South Carolina v.

Katzenbach, E!pE, to uphold the 1964 Act.

Defendants respond that voting practices in Sumter County

have not changed so remarkably as to justify this Courtrs re-

examination of the factual premise for Congressrs decision to

include the county ln the category of political entities embraced

by the Voting Rights Act as amended. Indeed, defendants point

out that the Senate Judiciary Committee sPecifically mentioned

Sumter County as a jurisdiction which had not yet complied with

Section 5 as it was enacted ln 1954. ]!9g S. ReP. No. 97-4L7,

97th Cong., 2nd Sess., P. 14 (!fay 25, 1982), reprinted at 1982

U. S. Code Cong. e Ad. News L77, 191. Obviously, t,he preclearance

-26-



,o

requirements of the original act and its 1982 amendment lad a

much larger PurPose than to Lncrease voter registration in a

county like Sumter to more than 50 percent. We are not persuaded

that the difference between the background circunstances which

prevailed ln Sumter County in 1954 as related by plaintlffs in

support of their motion and those obtaining today, justify our

re-examinatlon of the firm conclusions made by Congress in

extending the ActrV and the Supreme Court ln City of Rome and

South Carolirla v. Katzenbach, -sgPI3., ln holding that, the

categories chosen by Congress crere and are apProPriate.

Accordingly, plaintiffsr motion for summary judgment on Count VII

will be deniedr ond defendantsr will be granted. This ruling is

without prejudice to reopening of the issue of the

constitutionality of the 1982 amendments by the plalntiffs or by

the Court, sua sponte, if the proof at trial should require

reconsideration of this aspect of the case.

Date:
D STATE CI

UNITED DISTRICT JUDGE

'1 /.-.!tL L, , -?-1 'u- | r-

T'NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

!!/ We note that both Houses of the 97th Congress held
hearlngs, Produced extensive reportsr dnd held lengthy debates
before-deciding to extend the Act in 1982. E, €.$.7 S. ReP.
No. 97-417. gZltr Cong., 2d Sess. (May 25, lgSZL reprintJd- i!
1982 U.S. Code Cong. & Ad. News 177-410i H.R. Rep. No.97'227,
97th Cong., lst Sets. (Sept. 1.5, 1981); 128 Cong. R€c.1 Nos. 74-
77 (daili eds. June 14-18r 1982) (Senate); I28 Cong. Rec. H3839-
H3846 (daiIy ed. June 23,1982) & L27 Cong. Rec. H6938-H7011
(daily ed. Oct. 5, 1981) (House).

-27-



.' I

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUUBIA

COUNTY COUNCIL OF SUMTER
cotNTY, souTH cARoLrNA, g!3!.,

Plaintiffs,

T'NITED STATES A}IERICA, g! 4.
Defendants.

Civil Action No. 82-09L2

FILED,

V.

OF
)
)
)
)
)
)

SUUMARY JUDGMENT ORDER

.l..Bi't I n 1983

{Y'''3Y'l: '::
For the reasons stated in the accomPanying Memorandum, it

. eo,is this le day of January, 19837 hereby

ORDERED: that plaintif f s I lrlotion for Summary Judgment on

Counts l, 2, 4, 5, 6 & 7, and for Partial Summary Judgment on

Count 3, are DENIED, without Prejudice so far as Count 7 is

concerned; and it ls further

ORDERED: that defendantsr Motion for Summary Judgment

Counts f, 2, 41 5, 6 e 7 are GRANTED, but without prejudice

reopening of the lssues under Count 7 if the proof at trial

requires.

on

toa
so

,4,',, .-7, ('i,i, */,,,7,',
UTTITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

IRCUIT JUDG

.5 b-
UNITED STA DISTRICT JUDGE
Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.
Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.
Group Exhibit (Exhibit A)

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorney

Organization

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in
