Correspondence from Karlan to Spaniol (Clerk); Appearance Form for Steve Ralston

    No. 83-1968 

IN THE 

~upr.rm.r <nnurt nf tq.r llhtit.r~ ~tat.rn 
OcToBER TERM, 1985 

LAcY H. THoRNBURG, et al., 
Appellants, 

v. 

RALPH GINGLEs, et al., 
Appellees. 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

Motion for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae 

The Honorable James G Martin, Governor of North 
Carolina, hereby respectfully moves for leave to file the 
attached brief amicus curicte in this case. The consent of 
the attorney for the appellee has been obtained. The con­
sent .of the attorney for the appeUant has been requested 
but refused. 

The interest of Governor Martin arises from his posi­
tion as the chief executive of the State of North Carolina, 
and hence, as the senior elected representative of all North 
Carolinians. 

In the instant case the appellant argues that the recent 
electoral success of some minority candidates makes the 
District ~Court's findings of racial vote dilution clearly 
erroneous. The brief which Governor Martin is requesting 
to file argues that the District Court' s finding is clearly 

l 



11 

correct and that perpetuation of North Carolina's multi­
member district system, particularly in those districts where 
its discriminatory effects have been established, will hinder 
his efforts to open the political pro·cess in North Carolina 
to all of its citizens. 

August 30, 1985 

Respectfully submitted, 

' 
VICTOR s. FRIEDMAN 

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER 

& JACOBSON 

(A partnership which includes 
professional corporations) 

One New York Plaza 
New York, New York 10004 
( 212) 820-8050 

Counsel for J ames G. Martin, 
Governor of North Carolina 



No. 83-1968 

IN THE 

~uprrmr Qluurt nf tl}r lbtitr~ ~tat~n 
OcToBER TERM, 1985 

LAcY H. THORNBURG, et al., 
Appellants, 

v. 

RALPH GINGLEs, et al., 
Appellees. 

ON APPEAL FROM~ THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE, THE HONORABLE 
JAMES G. MARTIN, GOVERNOR OF NORTH 

CAROLINA, SUPPORTING APPELLEES 

The Honorable James G. Martin, Governor of the Sta·te 
of North ·Carolina, submits this brief amicus curiae in sup­
port of the decision of the United States District Court for 
the Eastern District of North Carolina invalidating six of 
North ·Carolina'·s multimember districts on the ground that 
those districts had the effect of diluting black votes in vio­
lation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

Interest of Amicus Curiae 

The Governor wishes to make clear to the Court that 
the highest elected official of the State of North Carolina, 
and one with extensive knowledge of and experience in 
North Carolina politics, does not ' share the views of the 
State's Attorney General as set forth in appellant's briefs 



2 

before the Court. As a former three-term Mecklenburg 
County Commissioner (1966-1972), during which time he 
was elected •Commission ·Chairman and served as President 
of the North Carolina Association of County Commis­
sioners; a six-term Congressman (1972-1984) from the 
9th •Congressional District, encompassing Iredell, Lincoln, 
Mecklenburg and part of Yadkin counties; and, since his 
election in N ovem'ber 1984, the 6hief Executive Officer of 
the State, he believes that his views will be of special value 
to the Court. 

The Governor's interest is two-fold. As a member of a 
minority political party in North ·Carolina (only the second 
Republican governor in this century), he is well aware of 
the disadvantages North Carolina's multimember voting 
system creates for any minority group where the majority 
group tends to vote on the basis of criteria other than the 
particular candidate's merits. As the representative of all 
of the people of the State, he is keenly aware of the need 
to eliminate as quickly as practicable the vestiges of past 
discrimination and to bring into the political life of the 
State all of its citizens without maintaining or erecting 
artificial barriers to full participation of any group. To 
the extent that multimember districts create such barriers, 
and the Governor agrees fully with the District Court that 
in the districts at issue (if not the entire State) they do, 
they should be stricken down. 

Argument 

We eschew the opportunity to enter the debate over 
whether ·the "clearly erroneous" standard governs this 
·Court's review because of the Governor's view that, far 
from "clearly erroneous", the District Court's essential 
findings were clearly correct. There can be little question 
that multimember districts in North Carolina dilute the 
effect of black votes wherever there are smaller included 



3 

districts with clear black majorities. The election of some 
blacks to the State legislature does not detract from the 
simple, but obvious, truth that, although in some circum­
stances the artificial barrier of multimember districts can 
be overcome, the barrier surely exis·ts. 

As the record below amply demonstrates, North Caro­
lina's multimember districts create additional difficulties 
for blacks seeking to participate fully in the <State's political 
process. The significantly higher cost of campaigning in the 
larger multimember districts (Pl.Ex. 20; R. 130-31, 133), 
coupled with the greater difficulty black candidates face 
in raising campaign funds (R. 437, 443, 468), act as further 
deterrents on black candidacies. Thus, the significant eco­
nomic disparity between whites and blacks in ·the State 
exacerbates the discriminatory impact of multimember dis­
tricting. 

This administration is committed to opening the politi~al 
process to all North Carolinians. In making appointments 
to State Boards and Commissions, the Governor is seeking 
to attract qualified ci·tizens regardless of race, age, sex, 
political party or geography. He has already made, and 
will continue to make, significant progress in broadening 
the base from which these executive appointments are made. 

Such progress necessarily will be of limited impact, how­
ever, if the State legislature (with its unusual powers)·» 
continues to be chosen by a proces·s which is, after all, the 
remnant of an earlier time when the government in North 
Carolina was conducted solely by white male Democrats. 
Black citizens of North ·Carolina, because of their economic 
disadvantage, feel the discriminatory impact of multi­
member districting even more than other minorities in the 
political process. The ·Court is thus respectfully urged to 
strike down this anachronistic system at least in those dis-

*North Carolina is the only state where the legislature alone 
can enact legislation; there is no provision for any gubernatorial 
veto. 



4 

tricts where the District Court found ample proof .of its 
discriminatory impact. 

Conclusion 

The judgment of the District Court should be affirmed. 

ROBERT w. BRADSHAW, JR. 

ROBINSON, BRADSHAW & HINSON, 

P.A. 
1900 Independence Center 
Charlotte, N.C. 28246 
Telephone: (704) 377-2536 

Respectfully submitted, 

VICTOR S. FRIEDMAN* 

FRIED, FRANK, HARRIS, SHRIVER 

& JACOBSON 

(A partnership which includes 
professional corporations) 

One New York Plaza 
New York, N.Y. 10004 
Telephone: (212) 820-8050 

Counsel for Amicus Curiae 
James G. Martin, Governor of 
North Carolina 

~·counsel of Record 










	NAACP0290
	NAACP0291
	NAACP0292
	NAACP0293
	NAACP0294
	NAACP0295
	NAACP0296
	NAACP0297
	NAACP0298
	NAACP0299
	NAACP0300
	NAACP0301