Supplemental Brief for Appellees

    :.:+ia.*ril-'', t- -.:'r:. -r i- ' .-.'-

:.

i-

'-::.f--

--.-.= J-:!:.,

:i=-;=j;ii;:s.--,'.:.1t*-=5-;I;.,----5-:-Ei-T=-=f =-j.t+,'g

A- ; ;_;ff1{-.: -=*:-4 . .,.- +:=*i._ _:: =jffi=

. -:;',---- .

t

t
\.



ltlti fitu 
ilrtir 

ii;tl'ifi 
l,tt,1ffi!i1ii1i'l

irtii{iil'" il '

il
:,

till

rl t,

il,'

I

Cases

Anderson v. CitY
u.s.

TABLIi OI' AUTIIORITIES

of Bessemer CitY,
( le8s) ...

Page

t5

Brooks u. AIlaln, No.8l-1865
. (l9s{} J,l5

'llunter v . Ultderwood, u.s.
( l98s) ...

Pul Ihran-Sl:andard Co. v . Swtnt , 456
u.s. 273 (lgtll) ..-

Rogers v. Lodge, {58 U.S. 6 1 3
2

3, l5
v. Seanron, No. B l- I823

r90{)

Whlte v. Regr.sl-er, 412 U.S.755
(1973) ... 9,17

trtitt v. l{alnwr:iglrf , u.s.

l{

SE rake
(

l5'

l0
Zlrnnrer v. HcKelLlren,

(5th Cir. l97l)
48 s r' . 2d 1297

-l



st a t uteE

Sectlon 2 of Lhe Vot lng ltiglrta Act of
1965, as alnended ' 12 lt'S'C'

I

Page 
I

16,17

3r6

g.l0

s l97l(b) 2r7.B

l2rl5rl6rl?

. Section 5 of' tlre Voting Rtghta Act
of t 965

OEtrer Aul-horlfies

RuIe 52, l-ederal Rules of Ctvil
Procedu re

S. ReP. 97-{l? ( 1982)

- tt

' No.0l-1968

lN Tllti

SUPIIEHE COUIIT OF 'T'IIE UNI'TED STA'I'ES

October t'erm, 198{

- ga=zar==zz---a-aB-aB=---=z=-==E-

LACY ll. TtlOllNlluRG, et al -,

APPeIlants,

v-

RALPII GINGLES, ET AI . ,

lpPe I Iees .

-a g--a, EE za = -- -=-E-------= a-EtEt

On Appeal f rom Ehe United St'ates
Dlstr Icr Court tr)r Ehe Eastern

Districr of North Carolina

SUPPI,T]HENI'AI, BItISP FOR APPELI..EES

^rl"llees 
subrnit this St'' 'ternental

llrtef'tn re$l)orrse t-o l-he li. ...r by

the United SLatcs.



-2-

'Ilre control I lng questlon ralaed by

ttre brlef of the Untted 6tatee concerna

tltesl-andardl-obeapplledbyt,hisCourt

tn rev iewlng appeals whlch PresenE

es6entlally factuaf lssues' A sectlon 2

act ion such as th I'b requlree lrhe t rlal

courL to rjetertnlne whether

the polttlcal Proce.sses Ieadlng to
notnination or Jlectlon ln Ltre Stal-e
;; PoI tt'ical subdlvlslon are not
eqtrallY ";;; 

to trprELclPation bY Ia

Profected groupl '

Tlre preBence or absence of such equal

opporl-un i Ly , I tke the preaence or absence

ofarliscriminatorymotlve,isafactual

quesb lon. See llunl-er v - Underwood '

( 1905); Rogers v. Lodge,

* ,.r. 611 ( l9S2) . Correctly recogntzlng

the facLual naEure of thaL lssue' thla

Court lras on two occasiong durlng the

I tt u.s.C. S l97l(b) -

u.s.

l-

present term sutntnartly afflrlned appoals in

aectlon 2 actiona. Strake v. Seamon, No.

Sl-1S23 (Oct. l, l9S4l; Brooks v. Alla'ln

No. 0l-1065 (Nov. 13, lg8a). If an

ordlnary appeal preeentlng a dieputed

gues[lon of fact ls now to be treatod for

thae reason alono as present.lng a 'eub-

stantlal quesElonr' Ehen ttrls case, and

almost all direct appeals Eo thts CourL,

nllI have to be set for full brteflng and

argument. lle urge, ttowever, that to

rout lnel y t reat appeals regarding such

factual dtsputes as presenting substantlal

queatlons would be inconsisEent wlth Rule

52(a), Federal RuIes of Clvll Procedure,

and wlth tlre efficient managemenE of Ehls

CourErs rlocket.

'l'he Soltcitor General, h;i inq l:on-

ducted lrls own revlew of Bo$e portions of
2

the record, aclv i ses the Court t.hat , had he

T-.' the tiot icitor Gencral, undergLandably Iess



been the

-l

tr laI Juttge, he would have

lrraccurate uutuiL iott" about- Lhe record '
't'lre govear,,ntnL- aaserts' for example'

" Ilrere le n()l- iftu s I lghtests suggest lon'
arr.a-Li..r cu"aidates were elecLed because

wlril-es coneide"d tttunt'safe" (t''S' Ilr''
It) n- l7). In fact l-here was ullcontra-
ii.;;; Lesttmony tttat only blacks who werq

safe corrki be eiecretl' (;tr ' 625-26' 691'

;1 i, -{l5t 
t . 'l'}re sol ic I tor al so asse rts '

irrcorrectly, (uls-. Br' l7 n'14) that tlre
1902 electlon "u" Ltt" only election under

Lhe PIarr ln *u"r:i'gn'- I" facE' t'he

riistricts have iuo" the same slnce l97l'

cleclded Portlons of tlte case dlfferently'

'Ilre Juriges wlto actually Lried this case'

alI of them Nortlt Carollnlans wlth Iong

personal unrlerstandlng of clrcurnstances ln

thaL a tate r. concluded that blacks were

rlenle<lanequalopt)ort.untLyLopartlclpate

in the pol L t lcal procesaea ln alx North

CaroI Ina multi-member and one otngIe

menrber leglslatlue dletrlcL6' The

SoI lcltor General, oo the other lrand, Ia

of the oplnlon thaL there ia a lack of

f amtl iar wlth the detaile of tltls case

t-han rlte Erial """t' 
makes :'']"T:::-:f

(J.S. APP. l9a)

!
I

I

I

-5-
l

equal opBrortunlty irr 2 distrIcts, that

'there rnay. rell be' a lack of opPortunity
4

in 2 other.rllstricts, but that lrlacks in

fact- enjoy equal opportunity l-o partici-

pate In the poltEtcal process [n Lhe three

rematning dlstrlcts. orher SoI lcttors

General- might corne to still dlfferenE

concluslons wltlt regar<l to the polllrlcaI

and raclal reali'tles in various porElons

of North Carol Ina.

_--J llo.,tu Dlstr ict B and Senate tlistrict 21

U.S. Brief. 2l .

{ ,1.rl,,". trletrtcu 36 antt SenaLe DistrlcL 22t
. u.g. Brief 20 n.t0 The appendix to Lhe

jurtedicf IonaI st-atement' whlch conLatns
lf,. DlEt r ict Courf 'g opl n lon ltas a

[ypographlcal et:ror sl-at ing errottl'ousIy
ttiit two black cll- izens have ;'un 'success-
futly' for the Senate frolt Heuklenburg
County. The correct word ls 'unsuccess-
fully' . J.S. APP. l{a -

5 ,,o,,"o Distrlct:r 2l , 23 antl 39; U.S. Brief
16.



I
:

-6-

The goverlrment 'g f act-tround and

Btatletl'c-Iaden brtef, notlceably devold

of. any reference to RuIe 52, sets out aII

of ttte evldence ln btrls caae wh lch

supported the position of Ehe defendante'

It omlts, however, any ref erence to ttte

gubstarrtial evldence uhich was relied on

by the trial court ln flrrdtng discrlrnlna-

L lon tn ttre pol lcical procesaes ln each of

Lhe aeverr dlstrlcts ln controveray' The

I isted seven prlmary factual factors that

elrould lre considered in a secElon 2 case

antl ttte government does not chal lenge Lhe

flrrdlngs ln the dtstrlct court'5 oplnion

Llrat aL leaaL s lx of tho8e f a6tore

supPorted appellees' clalms ' On the

conLrary, the governlnent candldty acknowl-

e<tges 'ltlhe dtsLrtct court here taith:

-

o J .l. APP. 2 l a*52a '

-7

fully conoldered these obJectlve 'factora,

and tlrore le no clalm that lts flndLnga

ntEh reaPect to any of them were clearly

erroneoug.' (U.s. Br. lll.

The government apparent. I y contends

t.hat afl Ehe evlrlence of dtacrtmtnaEton

an{ [nequal.t ty in the poI (t tcal p.o"ut"

,o: outwel.ghed, 6t IeasE as to House

Dlatrlcts 21, 2l and 39, solelY bY the

fact thau blacks accual IY won aome

:

electlonq Ln those multl-member dlstrtcLs.

It urgos

Judged s lnrPlY on tlre bas is of
'reguIta, r Ehe multtmemtrer plans ln
these dletr lctg have aPParentlY
enhanced ttot dllrrted mtnoritY
Erength. (U.S. Br. l6).

On t.he gov.erntnent's view, the only

'regult'whlch a court may coneider is tlre

numbe r of blacks who won even the nlost

recent. electlon. Sect lon 2, hourever, does

not authorlze a court to 'judgIel stmply



-B

:

on tlre basls of Ielectl'onl 'reguIts", but

requlres a lnore Penetratlng lnqulry Into

al I ev idence Eendlng to demonsLrate the

prctience or alrsence of lnequal lry of
7

opportunlty ltt the polittcal procesa'

Congreas lteeIf expressly emphasiaed in

secL lon 2 that Llre rate at whtch mlnorl-

t Les had been eIecEed ]'aa onIY '9"

ci rcumsLance whlclr may be conaldered"

ffi.urt found, t49r alta, that
the ttse of racial appeale fnTIedEl6ns traa

' been wldespread antl perslate to Ehe

present, .t -S. ApP. 32a 1 tlre use of a

rnaJority voLe requlrement 'exlsts aa a

"""tinuing 
practlcal lmpedlment to the

oplrortuntry-oi black votlng mlnortt les" to
e.i*"t candldates of t'helr cholce' J'$'
Apl).30ai a sttbstantlal 9ap between blaclc
oii,f wh lLe voEer regtstratlon cattsed by
past lntentlonal dlscrlminatIonI extreme-raclal potarlzatlon ln votlng patLsrns i-

atrd a blick elecLorate more tmpoverlshed
and Iess weII educaEed than bhe whlte
electorate and, therefore, Iees able Lo

part lctpate effecLlvely ln Ehe more
.*p.nuive mul-tI-member distrIcL electlons '
T trcre was also substant laI , rlncontradicLed
evidence l-hat racial appeals uere used in
Llre l9ti2 Durlram County congressional race
and Llre Lhen naacent' l9B{ eloct lon for
U.$. Senate.

-9

( Emphas la adtled | - The Ieg lelat lve h let'ory

of section 2 repeatedly makes clear that

Congreos intenderl Lltat Ehe courts were lrot

to atLactr cot'tclusive sign[[lcance to the

f ac t t-h a t some rninor I t ies had won elec-
I

t ions untler a chal lenged Plan.

Tlre clrcuflttlLances o( Elrla case lIItts-

trate Eho wlsdom of Congreser dectsion to

requlre cour[s to conslder a ulde range of

circumst.ancea ln asseasing whether blacks

are afforded equal oPportunlty Lo part'lci-

pate ln tlre poI I t ical proceas. A number

ffi,29 n rr5 (-Ehe erecLi.on of
a f-ew rnlnorlty candidateg does not
'necessartly foreclose the possibtlity.of
rliltrt iotr of 'the lrlack vof e', in vlolaEion

. o[ tttis sectlon"), r. I lB. ("The f allure
of plaint if'f to establ i8h any part icular
fatitor is not rebuttaI evldence of

'non-dilu.clon') . .See also S- ReP. aE 2,
16, 21, 22, 27, 29, 3l and 14-15. The

.fIoor <lebates are replete witlt similar'references. In addltion, see White v.
Ilerrester, {12 tr.S. ?55 ( l97lt aETl?rning
Graies v. Brrrras, l4J F. Supp. 7IT;T16;
7m-TFld;-Teia.5 ls't2l (dilution presettt
althour;h record sltows repeaLed elect ion of
rninor lty can<litlates ) .



- l0

of the Instances ln vhlch blacks had won

elect- lona occurred only af ter the com-

mencement of tlris litlgation, a clrcum-

stance whLch tlte trial court belleved
9

Ialnted thelr slgnlflcance' In aeveral

other elect lons tlre succeaefuI trlack'
t0

cantlitlates vere unoppose<i ' [n one example

re I ied on by Ehe Sol icttor ln nhlch 'a

black waa elected In 1982, every one of

the I I black candldaLes for aL-large elec-

tions ln that county [n the prevlous four
tl

years lra<t beeri de f eaEetl . In aaseos tng the

pot it lcal opportunlclee afforded to black

ffi". see algo, s-.Rep.at 22

n. I l5 r-;ttlnq ?lrnrrter v ' HcKetrhen' 'lB5
r'.2d t2gl,liomPosE-
litlgatlon sttccesg is lnslgnlflcant
becaise tL 'mlghf be attr lbuLatrle to
1>ol Lt icalsupport ,notlvated by dlf f erenf
ionsideratt"n" -- narnely ttrat' electlon of
a black candldate wiII thwart euccessIttI
chal lenges to electoral schemes on

dtlution grounds.')
lo .1.s. App. 42a, {{a.
ll J-s. App.35a, {2a-43a'

- tt

voterB under those at-large ayatems, tlre

SoIlcl[or General evldenrly dtsagreea wlt'h

the comparative welgttt which tlte trtal

court gave to Lhese electlon reeulLs and

Eo t.he counterva I I ing ev ldence ; the

aaaesgmertt of that evldence, however, lraa

a matLer for ttre trlal court

The Sol I cl tor General eeeks, in Elte

alternaLive, to portray hts dlsagreemenL

wtth the trlal courtrs facEual flndlngs as

lnvolvlng some dtapute of Iaw- l'hls lte

doee by the e lrnpIe expedlerlE of accuelng

the dlatrlct court of etEher dtaaembling

or not krtow ing wlrat tt ua8 doing. ( U.S .

Brtef l2) Thus, desplEe Ehe dletrlct

courE'B repeated statemonts that secElon 2

requlres onty an equal opportunity to
.12

parttcipate ln the pollttcal process, the

Sol. icttor General inslsts tt'lat 'the only

E -*lpp-ru, l5ar 29a n.23r 52a.



l2

explanaElon for the dlstrlct court'e

concluslon lg that tt erron€ouoIy equated

the IegaI standarrl of Sectlon 2 wlth one

of qgIgglggg elecEoral succegg in

proporLlon to Ehe black perceneage of the

population.' (u.S. Brlef 12, emphasla

or lg lnal ) . Elsewhere , the SoI 1cI tor ,

a I though rtnable to clte any such lroldlng

by Llre l-rlal court, aaserts Lhat the courE

muc l- have been applylng an unstated

'proporL lonal representatlon plus'

standard. (U.S- Brlef lB n'10)' Tlte

actual text of Ehe dlsErlct court oplnlon

stmply doea not contaln any of the legal

holdlnga to whlch the Sollcltor' lndlcates

tre would obJect tf they l'ere'some day

contalned ln some other declglon''

The government doee noL aseert that

the t.rlaI cottrtrs [acEuaI flndtng of

raclally polarlzed votlng u'as erroneous,

or dtscues tlre extenelve evldence on uhlch

that

l3 -

tindl.ng was based. Rattter, the

governrnenL aaserts LhaE the trlal court,

alElrough apparelrLly iusttfied tn flndlng

raclally polarlzetl voLlng on the record in

tlr I B case , adoptcd an erroneoue -def inl -

tlon'of racial bloc voLlng- (U.S. tlr'

ll). Noclring ln tlre trtal courE'g detalled

analysls of. raclal votlng patterns,

howeverr purPorLs to seL any mechanlcal

standard regarding what degree and

freguency of raclal polarlzation is

necessary to aupport a sectlon 2 claim.

Notlrlng tn that oplnlon supporLs tlte

governm.ent's assertion that tlte trlal

corrrt voulrl have fotrnd racial polarlzaEion

wlrenever Iess tlraL 501 of vhlte vot'ers

voEed for a black candldate. In this

case, over Llre course of sor$e 53 elec-

t lons, lr, iverage of over B I t of white

'vote rs ref ttsed to support atry black

candidate. (.I .S. App. {0a). Prior t.o tltie



- la

I t C Lgat. lon Ehcre L'ere almoat no elecEtons

ln uhlch a black candldate got 'otu" 
from

as many as one-third of t'ho whlte voEere'

(J.S. App. 4la-{6a)' In the'flve e}ec-

t lons where a black candtdate u'aa unoP-

poaed, a maJorltY of whltea r"ere 8o

de t e rm l necl not to supporL a black that

they voted for no one rather than voLe for

the bI ack candldate ' (J.s. APP.4la).

Wh Lle the Ievel' of whlte resletance to'

black candidates waa ln ot'her lnstancqe

Iess exLreme, the trlal court uas cer-

ralnly Justlfted ln concludlng that there

was raclal polartzatton, and Ehe SoIlct-

tor General doee not assert' otherrrlse '

The SoI lclLor Geneial urges thla

Court to note probable jurLs<tiction ao

tlrat , t ay ing ae lde the pol tcy of appol I a te

sel f -reatrainE announced tn -PuIlman-

Starrdard v. qtln-t, {56 U's' 271 (l9Bl)'

and lte progeny, Ehe Court can embark upon

- t5 -

u.s.
u.s.

tts own tnqulry lnt'o t'he dlverse nuances

of raclal.pollEtcs ln Cabarrus, Forsyth'

t{ake, WiIson, Edgecombe, Nash, Durham'

and Hecklenburg countles. Twlce wlEhln

the I as t *o,. an, however, Eh lg Court lras

emphat lca I ly adntonlshed the courts of

appeale agalnst such undertaklngs '

Anderson - v. City of Bessemer Cil-y ' 
-(1985)l@'-

( l9S5). Twlce ln the Preaent

terrn thls. CourL has eummartly afflrmed

slmllar Iact-bound appeals from dletrlct

cou rt dec is ions reiect lng sect lon 2

cl alms. SEarke v. Seatnon, No' lll-1823

(October l, l9S{) i .Brooks- v. AIIain, No'

Bl- lB65 (Nov- 13, l98{). No dlfferenL

standard of review sltould be applied here

rneru. Iy because in Elris section 2 case the

preva I I tng Party happened Eo be . the

plalntiffs.



- 16 -

AppelIeee ln t.hta caae dld not' seek'

and tlte LrlaI court dtd not requlre, any

guaranl-ee ot proport ional repreBentatlon'

Nor clitl proport lonal representaE lon result

frorn Ehat courErB order. Prlor Eo this

I I t I'qaL lon only '0 of the | 70 menbers of

the NorLh Carollna legl'alature were black';

Eoday there are stlll onIY l6 black

members, Iess than l0t, a far smaller

proporLlon Ihan the 22.1f of the popula-

Eton who are black- t{hlLes, who are 75'8f

of che staEe populaLlon, stlII hold more

Lhan 90t of the eeats in the leglslature'

Itr Ehe paot Eh [e Court has f requenEly

deferred to tlte vlews of t'he ALtorney

General tulth regard l-o Eho lnterpretatlon

of eectlon 5 of the Voting Rlghts fct' No

suclt <leferetlce ls warranted wlth respecE

t.o sectlon 2. Altlrouglr tlre Department' of

Jusl- ice tn 1965 draf ted and sLrongly

aupPortetl enactment of sectlon 5' tlre

- t7 -

DeparLment ln l9Bl and l9B2 led l:he

oppos l t. l on t o t.he amendment of eect lon 2 ,

acgu iescing in Lhe adopt ion of Ehat

prov Ie lon only afLer congresalonal

approval waa unavotdable. The AtLorrrey

General, although dtrectly reaporrslble for

the arlmlnlstraLlon of eectlon 5, has no

gimtlar role [n the enforcement of sectton

2. lllrere, as uhere, a votlng rights clalm

EurnB primarlly on a factual dlapute, the

declelons of tlria Court requlre that

deference be palrl Eo the Judge or Judges

who he.ard Ehe case, not to a Justlce

Department. of f i.claI, however weII lnten-

tloned, who may have read some porLlon of

the record. @' 412 U.S.

755, 169 (r971). The v lews of tlre

Department are enElEled to even Iess

wei<1 ht wlren, as in this case, the SoIici-

tor's present, claim thaL at-Iarge die-

trlcLs "enhallce'the lnterests of mlnorlty



.a

lB -

vote r$ t n Nort'h Carol tna repreoenta a

cornple Ee reversal of the l98l poa lt' lon of

the CLviI Rtghts Dlvlelon tlraI euch

dlacrlcte fn NorLh Carollna'necesaarlly

submerge I t cognlzable mlnortt'y populat lon

concenEratIonslnEcrlargerwhlt.eelec-

torateB . " ( SecI lon 5 olrJect ton Ietter '

Nov. 10, 1981, J.s. APP' 6al'

CONCLUSION

For the above reaaon'

the d ls t r tct court ehou

afttrmed.

Elre jrrdgment

Id be sumtuar

of

try

ReapecLfuIIY aubmltted,

LANI GUINIEII'
NAACP Le<;al Defense

Educatlonal Pund,
99 lludson SLreet
t 6th ['loor
Neu Yorkr New York
(212) 219-1900

anrl
Inc.

lo0l3

- 19

LESLIE J. T{INNER
Ferguson, UlaEt, t{aIlas

and Adklns, P.A.
951 Sourh IndePendence Blvd-

Charlotte, Nortlr Carolina 28202

AtEorneys for APPellees

rCounoel of Record