Letter to Alex Brock From William Reynolds RE: 1968 Amendment

    u.5. uepsr[rlenl oI Justrce

CivilRights Div. it

Officc of the Assistant Attorncy Gcncrol Woshington, D.C. 20530

3 0 fioy ,g8t

Mr. Alex Brock
Executive Secretary - Director
State Board of Elections
Suite 801, Raleigh Building
5 l^Iest Hargett Street
Raleigh, North Carolina 2760L

Dear Mr. Brock:

This is in reference to rhe 1968 amendment (H.8. No. 47L(1967)), which provides rhar no county shall be divided in rheformation of a Senate or Representative district and which wasrece-n[Iy subuiitced to Ehe Al-Lorney General pursuanE to Section 5
_of the Voring Rights Act of 1965, 4s amendeb, 42 u.s.c. Lg73c.Your submission was completed on October 1, ig8f.

ws rravs rucrrrlE <r L:.r.I.crtJr revrew oJ- Log Lnlol:InaELon Enatr you
h3ve provided, the events surrounding the enactment of the chinge,the application of the amendment in last legislative reapporriot-'
ments, and cornments and information provided by other intlrestedparties. On the basis of that analysis, we arL unable to concludethat this amendment, prohibiting the division of cor:nties in
reaPPortionments, does not have a discriminatory purpose or effect.

Our analysis shows Ehat the prohibition against dividingthe 40 covered counties in the formltion of senaEe and Housedistricts.predictably requires, and has led to the use of, large
multi-member districts. -Our analysis shows further that if,e uieof such muLti-member districts necessarily submerges cognizableminority population concentrations into lirger whlte elEctorates.In the context. of the racial bloc voting that seems to exist, sucha phenomenon operates and would continuE to operate "to ;iniririr"-or cancel out that voting strength of racial- . elements of thevoting population." Fortson v. Dorsey, 379 u.s. 433, 439 (1965).



2-
Ttris determination with respect to the jurisdictions

covered by section 5 of the Voting Rights Act shourd in no
way.be regarded as preclud.ing the state from foLrowing aporicy of presenzing county lines whenever feasi.bre i;formulating its new dj-stricts. Indeed, this is the poLicy in
many states, subject only to the preclearance requirements ofsection 5, dhere applicabre. rn the present submission,
however, we are evaruating a regar requirement that everycounty must be included in the plan as an undivided whore.As noted above, the inescapable ef fect of such a requirernent
is Lo submerge sj-zeabre brack communities in large murti-
member districts.

LJntl<: r l-lrcscr ci rcurrrs Ldnccs , ar rrd guidcd by t}rc sl-ancla rcls
established in cases sudr as Beer V. United States, 425 U.S.r30 (1976), we are unabre to G?tuae-EaffiE]E8 amendmenrrequiring nondi.vision of counties in legislative redistricting
does not have a raciarly discriminatory purpose or effect.Accordinglyr on behalf of the Attorney General, I mustinterpose an objection to that amendment insofar as it affectsthe covered counties.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act, you have the right to seek a decraratory judgment
from the united states District court for the District of
corumbia that this ctrange tras neither the purpose nor wirr
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race, color or membership in a language minoritygroup. In addition, the Procedures for the Administration of

v \vv J-.44, =v .ss. r\sy. ota, yEl,ftlll. JtJLf LL
request the Attorney General to reconsider the objection.
However, untir the objection is withdrawn or the judgment
frqn the District of Columbia is obtained, the etieci of theobjection by the Attorney General is to make the 1968 amend.ment
legal- 1y unenforceable .

If you have any questions concerning this matter,please feel free to call Carl W. Gable (202-724-7439), Directorof the Section 5 Unit of the Voting Section.

Sincerely,

Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division