Attorney Notes

    U.S. Ihpcrtmcnt of Jusrhe 
O

CivilRights Dvision

Ollice oI thc Attistont Allorne.v Gcnerol Ueshiagton, D.C. 205t0

October 1, 1984

Kathleen Heenan McGuan, Esq.
The Farragut Building
900 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20005

Dear Ms. McGuan:

This refers to House BilI 2, Chapter I (1984), which
provides for the apportionment of North Carolina House of
Representatives Districts 8 and 70, submitted to the Attorney
General pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1955,
as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973c. We received information to
supplement your submission on July 31, 1984, and again on
September 28, 1984. While we have noted your request for
expedited consideration of this submission, as you are arrare
questions concerning it have PerSisted and, thusr lf€ have been
unable to respond until this time.

We have considered carefully the information you have
provided, as well as comments and information provided by other
interested parties. The proposed districting, occasioned by
the courtrs rulinq in Ginqles v. Edmisten, Civ. Action No. 81-
803-cIv-5(E.D.H]c.J_..m198ffitesonesing1e-member
district (69.1t black population) and one three-member district
(29.6t black population) for the Edgecombe/Nashf{ilson-County
area. While this plan provides minorities with a reallstic
opportunity to elect a rePresentative of their choice to the
Iegislature from the sin9le-member district involvedr w€ also
nole that, during this redistricting process, another Proposal-(plan N54), contiining only single-member districts and providing
for a second district in which the minority community likely
would have a significant influence on the outcome of elections,
h,as considered and rejected, rePortedly to protect a white
incumbent from such minority influence. In additionr w€ under-
stand that a second three-menber district proposal (PIan N62)
was rejected for sinilar concerns when it ras discerned that a



-2-

similar single-member district configuration would result
should the state be required to subdivide that multimember
district into single-member ones. The responses which, to
date, have been forthcoming with respect to this clain have
been conflicting.

Under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the subnitting
authority has the burden of showing that a submitted change has
no discriminatory purpose or effect. See georgia. v. United
States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973). If the evidence before us is
EiffTct ing and the Attorney General is unable to determine
that the change does not have the prohibited purpose and effect,
an objection must be interposed. See 28 C.F.R. 5I.39(e). Be-
cause of the conflicting nature of the information we have,
some of which only reached us on September 28r 1984, I cannot
at this time conclude that the State has carried its burden.
Therefore, on behalf of the Attorney General, I must interpose
an objection to the apportionment of Districts 8 and 70 as
reflected in House Bill 2. However, pursuant to our guidelines,
28 C.F.R. 51.45, lre will continue our analysis of this matter
to determine whether there is a basis for withdrawing the
objection.

of courser BS provided by Section 5 of the Voting Rights
Act, you have the right to seek a declaratory judgment from the
United States District Court for the District of Columbia that
these changes have neither the purpose nor will have the effect
of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or
color. However, until the objection is withdrawn or a judgment
from the District of Columbia Court is obtained, the effect of
the objection by the Attorney General is to make the apportion-
ment of Districts 8 and 70 legally unenforceable. 28 C.F.R.
51.9.

To enable this Department to meet its responsibility
to enforce the Voting Rights Act, please inform us of the
course of action the State of North Carolina plans to take with
respect to this matter. If you have any questions, feel free
to call Sandra S. Coleman (202-724-6718), Deputy Director of
the Section 5 Unit of the Voting Section.

S incerely ,
(Original signed by
Wm. Bradford Reynolds)

l{m. Bradford Reynolds
Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Division