Correspondence from Smith to Lynn and Hebert

    IN
FOR THE

RALPH GINGLES, et a

Pla

F'ILEI)
COURT
CARoLINA NOV t !, lggl

vs.

RUFUS L. EDMTSTEN,

Def

Plaintiffs in

representative dist

Carolina Senate and

Article Tl, Section

Carolina. As requi

three-judge court h

Judge'Britt and the

Currently before th
plaintiffs' motion

being matters upon

pursuant to 28 U. S.

dants' motion to di

the Voting Rights

if without merit. by

Addressing the

Section 5 claims ar

apportionment plans

General for Section

acted. If the Atto

for additional info

three-judge court

new apportionment i

L982. In addition,

of the changes, thi

restrain implementa

to disrniss must be

UNITED STATES DISTRICT
ERN DISTRICT OF NORTII

RALEIGH DIVISIOI'I
!.,RICH LEONARD, vLEnr\
U. S. DISTRICT COURT

E. DIST. NO. CAR.
t

tiffs NO.8I-803-CrV-5

ORDER
tc. , et a1-. ,

dants

is action challenge the 19BI apportionment of the

icts for the United States Congress and the North

use of Represehtatives and the legality of

3(3) and 5(3), of the Constitution of North

d by 28 U.s.C. S 2325 and 42 U.S.C. S 1373c, a

s been designated consisting of Judge Phillips,

undersigned for final disposition of the action.

court are defend.ants' motion for a stay and

or leave to file a supplemental complaint, both

ich the undersigned may act as a single judge

" S 2284 (b) (3). Also before the court is defen-

miss as moot the claims brought under Section 5 of

t, 42 U.S.C. S 19'73c, which motion may be denied

the undersigned acting as a single judge court.

latter motion first, it is apparent that the

not moot. Although the state has submitted the

and state constitutional amendment to the Attorney

5 pre-clearance, the Attorney General has not yet

ney Generalrs action is delayed because of requests

mation or other reasons, this court sitting as a

uld have the power to enjoin implementation of the

the primary elections now scheduled for spring of

if the Attorney General enters an objection to any

court would under Section 5 be empowered to

ion of that change. For these reasons, the motion

nd is hereby denied.

#,. ..1 . -g



Arguing for a

Generalrs'action, d

not adjudicate the

tay of the proceedings pending the Attorney

fendants accurately contend that this court. should

nstitutional questions raised before the Attorney

General acts. E.q. , IvlcDaniel v. Sanchez , U.S. , 10r s.ct.

the July, I9BI ap rtionment Iaw for the North Carolina House of

pting yet another apportionment plan for that

2224, 2236-37 (198

primaries requires

ditiously as possi

covery deadline of

court will not add

Generalrs action,

preparation of the

Subsequent to

the North Carolina

Representatives, a

body. Plaintiffs

setting forth aIIe

on October 30, 198

Defendants are di

complaint and supp

November 19, 1981.

. Nevertheless, the imminence of the spring

hat the action be heard on the merits as exPe-

e after the Attorney Generalrs action. A dis-

ruary 19, L982 has been established. I^Ihi1e the

ss the merits of the action prior to the Attorney

e stay must be denied in order to permit fuI}

ase for expeditious adjudication

the filing of the complaint on September L6, 198I,

General Assembly met in special session and repealed

ave moved to file a supplement to the complaint,

ations which refer to the new apportionment adopted

. This motion is allowed. F.R.Civ.P. 15(d).

cted to file responsive pleadings to the original

emental complaint within twenty days of this date.

SO ORDERED.

.T.
/

TAIITED
DUPREE,

STATES
JR.
DISTRICT JUDGE

) ' 1" 1;/')i
1,.

- -,-a to L.e a trUe
I certtfY tl':e ic;c.eot1;#";;;,
.n:l corieCt coPY ol I

" -, -J,"h 
Leonard;,Clerk ,

'r.:', j ;,,'; District cor-rrt

Er.i.t" O'"trict of l'lorth Carolina

,:*'Pl-#*i;;Page 2