Media Advisory

    Lesar@renseH.
COIfIACT: FREDA EISENBERG,/BRAD RODNEY

2L2/736-s0s0

** t{EDrA N)VISORY **

I.TEDIA BRIBFI}.IG WILI, FOLIOW ST'PRET.IE COURTTS EEARI!{G OF

TEORI{BTIRG v. GTNGLES,

PIRST ETGE COURT CASE TO IT{TERPREf 1982 VC'ITIT{G RIGETS ACT

E\IEM: Julius LeVonne Chambers, director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense
and Educational FundT Inc.7 and Lani Guinier, LDF assistant counsel
and counsel of record for the defense in Ehornburq v-_ :Gingles,will brief the media on the case and their argument.

WHEN: Wednesday, December 4, 1985
Immediately following the hearing, 11:05 am

WEERE: Portico of the United Stat.es Supreme Court building.

BACKGROUND: Thorgbu4t yg Gingles is the first case to interpret amrandments
made in 1982 to the Voting Rights Act, which prohibit practices
that afford minorities "Less opportunity than other members of
the electorate to participate in the political process and to
elect representatives of their choice.n

At issue is whether five at-large election districts in
N.orth Carolina are unlawful because they effectively discrriminate
against black voters. Should the Supreme Court uphold
North Carolinats three-judge District Court ruling that the
districts are discriminatory, its decision will pave the way for
numerous challenges to at-large elections throughout t,he country.

L2025 ^ NAACPAD

Con.tributions are deductible lor U.S. income tan purpo:tes

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIoNAL FLiN0 is not part of the National Association for the Advancement ot Colored People altho.rgh it
was lounded by it and shares ils commitment to equal rights. LDF has had lor over 25 years a separate Board. program, stalf, cllice and bu dget.

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE ANO

99 Hudson Street, New York,
EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC.

N.Y. 1 001 3 r (2121 219-1 900



L esar U&rense H" Ul i:H'""*"'"i:,i H1,3 iL: 
^? 

?: iJ.'l 3]a: ;'X'- I if.
FROT'I: EREDA ETSENBENC/BRAD RODMY

PUBLIC INIERES"I PUBLIC REI,ATIONS
225 West 34th Street, Suite 1500
New York, liEhr York 10001
2L2/735-s0s0

FOR II.'IMDU\TE RELEASE

ST,PREUE CIUNlt EEARS IERT{BTIRG V. GTIGT,ES'

PIRSI ETGE COT,RT CASE ID IIIItsRPREE 1982 \,uTIIG RIGETS ACT

Julius Cbafrers - Director-Counsel of I{AACP f.€qa1 t}efense Ptrd Arques for

ttbrth Carolina Bladr Voters Aoainst Discriminatorv, At-Iarqe Election Districts

WASHII{GION, D.C., December 4, 1985 -- The Supreme Court today heard oral argument

in Thornburg 51= Ginqles, the first major voting rights case interpreting amendments

made in 1982 to the Voting Rights Act. The Courtts decision will affect how the 1982

Act is applied in lower court cases ruling on a variety of election practices around

the country.

In Thornburq y. Gingles, North Carolina is appealing the ruling of a federal

three-judge panel that held the staters L982 redistricting plan discriminai:ed against

blacks in seven districts. The State has been joined by the Reagan Adminirstration in

a brief filed by the U.S. Department of Justice. Appellees, black voters in North

Carolina, are represented by the I{AACP Legal Defense and Educational Eund, Inc. (mf1.

Anici for the appellees include the Republican Party of llcrth Carolina, the Retrublican

National Committee and Senators Dole (R.-KS) and Grassley (R.-IA), alorrg with the

eight other principal co-sponsors of the 1982 amendments.

- tlORE -

Contibutions are deductible for U.S. income tat pur?oses

The NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EoUCATIoNAL FUND is not part ol the National Association for the Advancement ol Colored People although il
was lounded by it and shares its commitment to equal rights. LDF has had tor over 25 years a separato Board, program, staff, 0tlice and budget.



The District Court panel ruled the districts, six of which conducted at-Iarge
elections, unlawful because they violated Section 2 of the 1982 Voting .Rights Act.

Section 2 prohibits practices that afford minorities "less opportunity than other

nembers of the electorate to participate in the political process ancl to elect
representatives of their choice.r

Ibrth Carolina maintains that blacks have some electoral opportunity in five of
the at-Iarge districts, citing as conclusive evidence their 1982 post-lawsu.lt election

results where five of 30 seats were won by blacks. The Sthte is urging Lhe high court

to rule that such a recent electoral success automatically precludes the possibility
of a Voting Rights Act violation.

In defense of the District Courtts finding, Julius LeVonne Chambers, director-
counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, argued that t,he Statets

approach "disregards the rtotality of circumstances testr that must be used when

determining whether or not blacks are able to participate equally in the 5nIitical
process. The test requires the courts to consider a variety of factors, not just one

election. The 1982 election results in the challenged districts are clearly an

aberration. North Carolinats three-judge District Court found that, jln several
instances, blacks srere able to win only because of support by whites wh.o hoped to
effect the outcome of this litigation, initiated 14 months earlier."

Mr. Chambers cited several circumstances which put black voters at a distinct
disadvantage in elections held within the five majority-white districts, reducing

their opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.

-- MORE -



-3-

These circumstances include:

Polarized Voting: The proportion of white voters who ever voted for blacks

was ertrenely Iow, and those who did ranked t,hem last or next to Iast on

tbeir at-large ballots. This is due in part to the common practice of white

candidates in l{ortb Carolina of urging whites to vote on racial lines. In

additionr black candidates receiving the largest number of black votes

ordinarily received the smallest number of white votes;

lor l{inority Registration Rates: The lingering effects of a century of

virulent official hostility toward blacks who sought to register have

resulted in substantially lower registration figures for blacks than whites;

and

* Poverty and tor Eduaation L€vels Among Blacks: These factors harm the

ability of candidates fielded by the black community to wage a successful

campaign. An at-large campaign must reach eight times as many voters ils one

waged in a single-member district, and are more than twice as expensive.

Despite these conditions, a few black candidates have been elected to North

Carolinars State Legislature for t,he districts in question. fhe State hopes the Court

will read those token results as proof of equal opportunity. The appellees believe

that, even with the 1982 results, the numbers are not dispositive.

Part of the NAACP.Legal Defense Fundrs argument here is the issue c,f isingle-

shootingr" a voting practice where minority voters in an at-large electi,on forfeit
most of the ballots on their slate in order to weight their vote for one ca.ndidate.

-- Ii{ORE -



- -4-

Although single-shooting has been effective in allowing minorities a chance of
electing one candidate of their choice, LDF contends that it forces them Lo abnegate

their right to cast a corplete ballot and thus provides blacks with less electoral
opportunity than whites who can cast a fu1l slate ood, even wit,h single-sihooting by

blacks, cboose all the winning candidates, including which black wins.

Lani Guinier, an assistant counsel with the IIAACP Legal Defense Fund and counsel

of record for the appellees, said their position on single-shot voting 'is on the

cutting edge of law. Previously, courts favored laws allowing blacks to sl.ngle-shoot

because it gave them a chance of electoral successr and that was better than none.

Eere wetre challenging laws and practices that, though they may be partially
successful, do not provide fu1l and equal opportunity."

"If the Court decides in favor of the Stat,er'!!s. Guinier added, "violations of
the Voting Rights Act will be easily avoidable. Whites could throw their support to
blacks for a single electiont ot field black candidates that support the grsitions of
the white comrnunity. Such tactics could create situations that, from the vj.evpoint of
North Carolina and the,Just,ice Department, would preclude findings of a Section 2

violation. But any appearance of equal electoral opportunity would be just that,
an appearance on1y7 an iIlusion.'

In addition to Ms. Guinier and l{r. Chambers, attorneys on the case include
Eric Schnapper at LDF, and Leslie J. Winner, with the t'iorth Carolina firm of Ferguson,

Watf, Wal1as & Mkins; p.A.

The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. is the primary Iegal arm of
the civil rights movenent. Although founded by the National Associa!ion for the

Advancement of Colored People, LDF has had for over 25 years a separerte Board,

progrerm, staff, office and budget.

L2025 ^ TEACPVR



CONTACTB Freda Eisenberg/Arad Rodney
(2t2) 736-s0s0

TEORNBURG v. GINGLES

Fact Sheet

Brack Representation in the t{orth carolina Legislature
* North Carolina has long had the smallest percentage of blacks in its statelegislature of any st,ate with a substant,iil black population, according toa report by the Joint Center for political Studies.

Though blacks are 22.4 percent of North carolinars population,never held more than 4 percent of the seats-in either
North Carolinars legislature.

* Ihe first black state senator in North Carolina was not elected
* The first black was not elected to North carolinarsRepresentatives until 1958.

they have
house of

until 1974.

House of

North Carolina Election Districts
* North Carolina makes greater use

states: under the 1982 plan
representatives and 30 of the 50
multi-member distr icts.

of at-large elections than most other
being challenged, 98 of the L20

state senators rdere to be chosen f rom

* 40 of North Carolinars 100 counties, including the distrir:ts underconsideration in Thornburg y-Ginqles, are coverLd by Sectionr 5 of theVotin_g Rights Act which requires that proposed chinges in electionprocedures be approved by the Justice Depaitment.

History of Thornburs v. Ginqles
* In 1981 North Carolina submitted its redistricting plan to the AttorneyGeneralr who made objections, concluding that "the use of 1ar,Ee multilmember (?t-1arge) districts effecLively submerges cognizableconcentrations of the black population into a maiority white eleCtorate.n
* In 1982 a three-judge panel of the Federal District Court for EasternNorth Carolina unanimously ruled that six of the multi-member districtsand one single-member district effectively discriminated against thestaters black population.
* North Carolinar_supported by the current Justice Department, is nowchallengi.g, before the Supreme Court, the correctness of the bistrictCourt ruling with respect to five of the multi-member districts.