LDF Suit Charges Bias in Federally Aided County Nursing Home in Alabama

    DRAFT OF LETTER

OBJECTING TO

NoRTH caRoLINA nreppontloNMENT :l

HB 415 --1981



CEANGES TN THE NORTH CAROLINA POPIJLATION FROM 1970 TO 1980

Si,nce; Ul70 the uunber and proportion of North Carolina,s
black population has increased. In L}TO one million one hundred

twenty-six thsus=nd {L,126, 000) blacks constituted twenty- three
(23) percen't aE the staters population, but by 1980 the numbers

had incre'ase.d. to 1,316,000 constituting more than 24 percent of
the state,t,s, total. popu1ation.

Most of North Carolinars black population are now congre-
_.r 6/

". gated in metropolitan areas yn/tne rura1, coastal counties in the
,\

eastem patt of the state. The percentages of the black popula-
tion have.grohm in these two areas since 1970. For example,

eastern, rural Bertie County had a 56.6 percent black population
in 1970- Ten yea,rs 1ater, the black popularion of the county
had growru to 59.1 percent

ra charlotte, North carolina, the percent,age of the black
population. increased from 721972 blacks to 971627 an increase
of about one Percent from 30 percent of the population in L1TO to
31 percen.t: i'n 1980. In the township of Durham, North Carolina,
the total population increased over the last ten years by ibout
6,000 people. while the white popularion decreased by 6,000

residents,r, the black population increased by roughly 12,000.

Hence, the'black population in Durham township increased from

I.



37.4 perc.eot to 45.6 perceat over the last decade.l
l

In, su', rhen the regular session of the 1980 North
4

Carol-ina Gbneratr Asseubly net to reapportion accord,ing to the

1980 cen$u,s the district lines of the State House of Represen-

tatines, tfi'e State Senate, aud U.S. Congressional Districts,
the state had- i.u.creased its nr:nbei! and, percentage of black

populatign nhich ras increasiugly concentrated in metropolitan
a-- J

areas\/ite rura1 urban counties of the east.
A

See Geueral Population Census 1970 North Caro_l.t-gg, P. C.(1) -- B ancl uensus o

,.I

Carolina, AdvaaEe R-ports,

-r-

t



II. THE HISTORY OF MCIAT DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING IN NORTH

CAROLINA

Although the efforts to disfranchise black voters in North

Carolina at the turn of the century were profor:nd1y successful ,1

the barriers to black voting in a1." state have never been abso-.

lute as they were in many places in the south. North carolina
repealed its pol1 tax in the 1920rs, and by 1950 blacks were

allowed to qualify to register in finitea numbers in some

locations .2 By 1941, Raleigh, North Carolina, had two black

registrars and two b1ac.k judges of election for two predominantly

black precincts.3 During this time, ten percent of the

eligible voting age population of blacks were registered

in the state. Indeed, from 1940 until the niddle of the

1960rs the number and percentage of the b1a:k registered voters

in North Carolina exceeded the registration of blacks in most

other Southern states.4

1 See J. MgIg3. Kousserr The Shaping of Southern Politics,
(Ney Hayen, L974), pages f03 ar

2 Raleigh News and ObseE, June 2, 1950, quoted in Work,
page ruo.

3 Jesse Parkhurst Guzman, Negro Yearbook: 1941-1946 (Tuskegee,
1946) r page 26L.

Margaret Price, The Negro Voter in the So-:t!h (At1anta, 1957);
, The {egro and ThEBEllfoTTt@oter Registra-Price, The Negro and The Ba1-Tot (Atlanta, 1959) : Voter Registra-...tron rn the South. publi-cation of the Voter ECucation Proiect oft19n in of the Voter ECucaffi-n-ffijEEi-E

The Southern R.egional Council (Atlanta, 1966) I Donald A. Matthews
and James Prothrow, Negroes. in the New Sor-rth Pglitics (Chapel Hi11,

-19ffi,)



This tradition of permitting limited black voter registra-

tion in North Carolina was never extended to permit black ci.tizens

an effective voting strength. From 1910 until the late 1960's,

the nr:nber of black elected officials at any 1eve1 never grew

more than'a handful and held office only when the jurisdiction

applied almost exclusively to br"* citizerLs'. After the passage

of the Voting Rights Act of.1965, the North-Carolina legislature

continued to legislate attempts to dilute the vote of black

citizens who registered. The legislature has enacted laws or

permitted local governments to maintain or adopt multi-member,

at-large electoral schemes for governing boards. In the late

60ts the General Assembly enacted anti "single shot" voting laws

in the majority of the staters counties.

In L967 the General Assembly reapportioned its own two

houses and Congressional Districts in response to a federal court

order to achieve greater adherence to the principle of "one

purron one vote."5 The Legislaturets new plan created

nulti-member districts where the aggregate voting strength of

black citizens were lessened by including enough white citizens
within most districts to constitute a majority of the vote.rs.

Until its Acts rirere disapproved by the Department in 1971, the

legislature maintained numbered posts for many of its multi-member

districts created in L967 in order to reduce further the

249 F.Supp. 877 (l{ 1965).Dru.n v. Se awe 1 1 ,

-z-



effective voting strength of black citirurrr.6
As evidenced by the long absence of any black members in

either of its houses, the North Carolina legislaturets use of the

numbered posts was an effective device for diluting black voting
because it was built upon an electoral system of bloc voting. In

its report on inplementing tire Voting Rights Act, the U.S.

Coruni.ssion on Civil Rights d.ocumented, in 1974 the existence of
bloc voting in North Carolina elections. Electi.on returns

and, more recent reports on voting in North Carolina confirm the

continued pattern of voting in which the white najority of voters

refused to support candidates who are responsive to the needs

and interests of black citi zens.7

The results of the continued use of these means of diluting
black voting strength by the governmental units of North Carolina

and, t,he persistence of bloc voting has had. a startling effect on a

6 See Letters of July 30, L97L, and September 27, LgZl-, to
Mr. Alex K. Brock, Executive Secretary, State Board of Electi.ons
of North Carolina from David L. Norman, Assistant Attorney General,
civil Rights Division, u.s. Department of Justice, DJ 166-0tz-3,
issuing leEters of objection to general and 1oca1 legislation
creating numbered posts in the General Assernbly.

7 See Tbe V:_ting_Bigtrlr_Act: Ten Years Later, report of the
U. S . Comm ing iti ght s Act :
Unfq1filled Goa1s, a report-of the U.S. ghts,
S6'FffiE-er-;-TgEE--and Alpend.ix II - A.

-3-



:,

Politicaf. EDaaficipation in a state where one in four citizens
are btrack- . [r ]-9tO ouly 247 blacks held elective office in any

capaci.t.r iu'ltorth Carolina. BLack elected officials last year

compri.sed onry 4.7 percent of. all the 5,295 elected offices of
state aad. I*r.car govexnnents.

t- lY
.L'

Itr" t&cr ltorth Carolina General Assembly, only'one black
Z,
;!

senatolr anrd four black state representatives'sit among fifty
ar

members in ifte upper chauber and 120 meurbers in the lower house.

One of, the first two black state representatives since the earLy
l^

1900ts was elec"ted iu the dist'rict representing Robeson, Hoke,
i--

and Scottamd. Cormties
:r

*'.
E
G
F
1:'-
*.'
F
!
r''r1

aE.
t..

';!*

r
F
l.
Ii



III. NORTH CAE9!]]{A GENEML-AqSEI,IBLY'S PLAN FoR THE STATE

HOUSE OF-REPRESENTATIVES DILUTES BLACK VOTING STRENGTH

Tte North Carolina legislature adopted in HB 415 during the
1981 re'gular session a reapportionment plan which created in
the state house of representatives. forty-five districts, one more

than erists presently. of the forty-five, gnly nine are single
member districts' .and none is located in the metropolitan area
of the state'where there are large numbers of bracks living
within smaLl' contiguous areas that could constitute majority
black legislative districts. In charlotte, North carolina, for
exampl.e, an analysis of the population by census tracts from L}TO

data shows that at least three majority black d.istricts could be

created, easiry and naturally if the legislature established
single memb:er districts for the house and senate in metropoli.tan
areas (see' Aprpendix III-A) .

Indeedi' there is only one rnajority black district and one

other district with a non-white rnaj ority among the populations of
the forty-five d-istricts in the state House by the 19g1 p1an.

These jurisdictirms are:

Dtstrict S - S4Z black population;

Dtstrict 10 - zsz black population and 3s% rndian
popula ti on

While the trrro di5lricts have a majority of non-white resid.ents,
only on.e has a majority of non-r+hite registered voters or probably



a majoritf of the voting age population.l In effect, the State

House prlas is desigred without any actual majority black vot,ing

population in the state where nearly one in four persons

is b lack..

Atrtlrough the total absence of an actual majority black voting

d.istriet contiaues a pattern in the 1971 reapportionment p1an,

the 19801 re:-Ci-stricting goes further to reduce the strength of

black roters - ltlthough the number of .representatives from

Distrigt 5'remains the same in the proposed plan as i.n the 1971

p1an, Dist"ri.ct 2l had a 52.92 non-white population in 1970 and

elected three representatives. In the 1981 plan, District 10,

involving nuch of the same population, with a non-white popula-

tion of 60?,, el.ects only two representatives. The net effect of

the change, is fund.amental: the new legislative reapportionment

proposes that one of only two legislative districts with more

than 50? non-whi-te population lose one state representative.

The tregislature had to go out of it,s way to achieve this 
t

effect in the 1981 p1an. Presently, District 27 is composed of

the cor:aties of Hoke, Robeson, and Scotland with a total popula-

tion of 12.8,2OT persons and a 5?.9? non-white population. If

1 The 1980 i"n.s,rs data on population by age has not been re-
leased. by the Bureau of Census as of this date; however, the
differential between the total population and the voting age
population among non-whites i-n the counties composing these two
districts in 1970 suggests that there does not exist a majority
of blacks who are voting age in District No. 5. (See Appendix
III-8.) 

,;.
-2-



this distriet had. kept the same boundaries in the proposed
ri'/ , i ? i - f 5

the total poprraation would have been L7,5,700 (?'\ with a ql%

non-white pnpulatioa. T I 'l 'h'/ ' -l-/ )ri-" -:i "'a 3 u\'\"ri\' t^ i^7

F 1iln,
-cR)-

The 198rI. proposed reapportionment Plan splits the three

counties of. District 2L and creates a new District 10 entirely

out of R.obesan. Cotmty and. keeps only Scotland and Hoke Corrnties

in Dist:rict 21. Essentially, the legislature took the same

nultimembe,r' ,{istrict and. d.ivided it. Thereby, the legislature

eliminated the possibility that the non-white population of

the three cpr-rnties can elect two representatives to the state

legis lature'..

Clear:Lly'Eot required by shifts in population, this change

was enactedj. purposefully for only one result: to diminish

to practica,Ily: nothing the voting strength of a non-white popula-

tion in thes.e three counties.

The &tlucion of black voting strength in North Carolj.na has

also been arc'complished in the proposed legislative plan by reducing

the.possib,ificy of black citizens using effectively the vote as a

ttsingle shotl' in nultimember elections. In the LgTL legislative 
.

scheme, Nor.th Carolina House had twelve districts where the

percentage of b.lacks or non-white was sufficient to pernit black

and other nou-white yoters to use the single shot vote in multi-

member distri.cts r:nder the best of circumstances under bloc voting

(Appendix I.II-C)- In the proposed p1an, the Nort-h Carolina

Legislature diminishes the number of such .electable districts for

blacks to a. total of ten a redtction of two.

-3-



Iu District 6 of the proposed reapportionment p1an, for
example, the legi:slature reduced the number of state Tepresenta-

tives rrouu rwo ro one ,?3iluiy 
*:'i;;;;?r,"ii"af';(r;1i 

' |Ii;*,
S- - " lfr-, .-L.o-;, C, lr, 'L/n-/- ,ot,.f ) r..:, 1- 4,'who represea.t 478 of the proposed district's populati.on. The

other loss occurred wheu the legislature redrew District ?l and

dropped the number of representatives from.three to one while

creating & new District 10 with only two representatives.

Ttris i,rcreased limitation on the opportunity for black

voters to nake *single shot'r vote effective is clear retrogression

under current law;2 nevertheless, experience in North Carolina

shows that tEese particular changes may reduce not only the

Potential of black voting strength but also will cause a set back

in one of the few gains already achieved by North Carolina black

voters in state l-egislative elections. The:'e has never been

more than f.sur hl.ack representatives sitting in the lower'house

of the General Assembly and one of those forrr has always come r

from the cor:nties of House District ?L" Alr:hough the percentage

of non-white Pop r131iorr in that district was greater than 50?

(and. the percentage o,f non-white registered. voters was nearly

508), results of prinary elections show that the black candidate

usually re'ceived l-ess than 30t of the vote.3 For example,

with only L8.6t of the cast votes in the L974 general elections,

Beer rr. United States. 96 Sup. Ct. 1357 (1973) at 136i-1i64.

3 see pa.ges 445-446 of For thq Record: 1976, southern Govern-mentalMoni'toringProject,unci1(At1anta,1976)
-4-



black representative Joy Johnson was able to win only because

the District was electing three representatives.

With the division of District 2L under the L}TL plan, it
appears unlikely that black voters will be able to use single
shots to elect a candidate.

In its pending redistricting plan, North Carolina Legislature
also has created enormous d.eviations from the judicial rule of

"one person one vote."4 In the House plan, there exists a

maximum deviation of more than 232 with 12.83% in District LZ

under-represented and 10.68la in District 19 over-represented.

While substantial deviations from the average population per

legislator in each district dist.orts all citizens' rights to
vote, the general pattern of deviation in the lower house of the

General Assenbly has had a particularly racial impact that
d,isserves black voters. Among the counties with substantial
black or non-white population in the eastern part of the state,
the proirosed legislative plan usually creates districts that are

under-represented when they border other counties with substantial
black populations. 0n the other hand, when the bordering districts
include counties with less than 30% black population, the ,Jistricts
are usually over-represented (See Appendix Iii-D). For instance,

State House District 5 -- the only majority black district
composed of Northhampton, Bertie, Gates, Hertford, and Martin

4 See Reynolds v. Simms, 577 U.S. 533
MeieT, 420-f. SIr (1e75):

-s-

(1964) and !.beptrqn_va



counties in the northeastern corner of the state is under-

represented by 3.9% while surror:nded by cotrnties with no less

than 40et black population. District 1 which is located to the

east and south of District 5 is also uader-represented by L.TLz

and is surrounded by counties with no less than 332 black

population.

, Thu significance of this under-representation is not
d t r.:,iuu 9-<+\u+i+e. As Appendix III-E illustrates, if the under-represented

districts with 30% or more black population were provided with
their right,ful share of the voting strength, under one person

one vote, nearly one half of a representative would be due this
part of the state where blacks are concentrated heaviest in the

population.

The only major exception to this rule of und.er-representation

in eastern North Ca.rolina is District 2 which is over-represented

by 5.752. It is noteworthy, however, that this jurisdiction with
32t black population is the only district on the eastern coast

with only one representative. In this distri-ct bloc voting prevents

black voters from electing an effective representative. Thus,

in this district the over-representation does not add to the

voting strength of blacks as it might if there were a multimenber

district in whiih a single shot vote could help elect a repre-

sentative. Thus, the exception follows the effect of the overall
pattern: .it limits and dilutes the possibility of black voters

electing a rgp.rese,ntative to the State Assembly.

.

-6-



IV. THE NORTH CAROLINA REAPPORTIONT,IENT PI.AN FOR THE STATE

The proposed reapportionment plan for the General Assembly

creates 29 Senate districts, two more than presently exists, a1-

though the number of 50 State Senato.{s remains the same. 0f the

29 districts, none has a majority black population and only one
non -

has a majority/white population: Distri..ct 13 which has a combined

total of 60 percent black and Indian population. The District is
represented by one State Senator

District 13 has only a bare najority of non-white registered

voters. Blacks and Indians in the district make up only 54.9

percent of the regi.stered vo.ters. A black or Indian has never been

elected to the State Senate frorn the counties of District 13,

Hoke and Robeson.

Although the 1981 reapportionment plan creates two new senatorial

districts and four additional single member distri.cts, the legislature
went out of its way to assure that these changes continued the

pattern of dilution of black voting strength. The L97L reappor-

tionment the legislature created District 6 with Edgecombe;

FIalifai, l,lartin, and Pit.ts Counties which had two representatives

from a district w'ith 45.1 percent black population. The percentage

of registered black voters, in the early 1970rs, however, was only



approximatelf Z9 percent. In 1980 the four counties of existing

Senate District 6 ilcreased its propotion of black population and

the perceatag:er of black registered voters (Appendix IV - A) . With

this increase of black residents and voters, District 6 was split
into two distriets in' the L981 plan so that Edgecombe and, Halifax

represents Distirict 6 and Martin and Pitt represent District 7.

In this scheme.r. botlr have only one Sa"a" Senator

In effecfi, tJie proposed State Senate plan puts an end to the

possibilitf th'ae black citizens cou1d. use their vote as a single
If

shot to elect one out of two of the State Senators. /the Present

plan is app-roved, black citizens in these four counties will be in

two d.istricts -- eacA with one State Senator where bloc voting

will assure tlie. white majority controls elections in which the

winner takes all-.

., l. ,tv

t.

t t .' ,

iI-...t;

-r IFr



Appendlx III-C

lslative Di

Dlstrict No.
Percentage of Non-
l,lhi te Popul ationffi

ln the House of rclg[&ttves of North Carolina General Assenbl Created ln 19 andtives, Percentage olNo!!ffi ation Factor.

No. Reps.
I97I l98l

DeviatioLl! from One Person - One Vote

I
2
3

4
0

6
I
I
9

l0
ll
12
l3
l4
l5
l6
17' lB
l9
20
2l
?2
?3
24
25
26
27.
28
29
30
31
32
33'
34
35

q0,? 
%

34.4 %

3?,3 %t5fr
66,7 il
48fr
3g,g fr
24,6 X

33.5 I
347t,
36.4 fr
22,9 %

44.2 %

27.5 %

22.6 %

32.9 %

22.4 %

24.4 %

35.2 %

26.5 %

52.9 %

le%
22.s %

7.4 %

25.1 %

36.8 %

29.7 %

4.4 %

22.5 %

10.3 u
l6.l %

ll.0 u
17.4%
5.7 %

15.2 %

31 fr
32?l
3?fi
17t64r
4t%
39fr
35 I
329l
60 13rr
2", I
42f
26r
21 %

367,
20%
22%
33%
35?
47%ter
39?
6%

21 %

367l
267l
3%

247
l0%
15 %

ll %

t5 %

5?[
14%

-Jl,6 fr
- 1.9 %

+ 7,gtt 6,0 fr

"9,6[+ .B fr
-3,0fr
+4.99
+ .gI
-10.3 fl
+ 1.5 fr
+ Z,l %

- ,7%
+ 4.6 %

-10.1 g
+ 4.4%
+3.09
- 5.4 %

- 6.8 %

+ .1 %

+ .9%+ .4%
-2"7%
-8.9%
- 7.8%
+ .9y,
- 5.9 %

- 6.0 %

+1.2%
-10.0 %

+6.3%
+ l.l u
+ 1.8%
+ 2.9 %

+8.2%

tL70fi
- 5.64 %

+ ?,79 U
+ 4,77 fr
+ 3,97 t
= 6,28 #

' 4.87 fr
+Lgofl
- 0.87 X
+ 3.74 %

+ 1.04 fl
+ 5.68 g
- 6.82 %

+ 2.80 fl
+ 2.42 %

+ 4.03 g
+1?.83 %

- 1.65 g

-10.68 %+ .97%
+ 7.56 %

- 6.76 %

= 7.44 %

- 6.17 %

+ 3.16 %

- l.8B U

- 7.09 %

+ 6.30 %

- 0.44 %

- 6.19 %

+ 1.30 %

- .89%
+ 6.41 %

+ 5.43 %

+ 9.83 I

2
I
3
3
?
I
4
2
2
2
2
2
3
2
6
3
2
2
3
5
1

4
7
2
I
I
I
3
5
3
2
Jt
3
3'
2

2
I
3
3
2

?,
4
2
2
I
I
?
3
2
6
3
2
2
3
5
3
4
7
2
I
I
I
3
5
3
2
7
3
3
2



Appendlx III-C (cont4. I

Dlstrlct l{o.

- 8,24 I
+ 7,48 t
+ 4.66 r
+ 3,80 f,
+ ?,21 I
+ ?,27 tr+ .76 flr 1.5{ tr
+ 8.16 I

+4,7 1
+7,3f,
+6.9 1
+e,0tr
t9,6t
+?,?fr
+ 1,0 !
+ ?,gl
+ 2,9 r'
+3.6 I

?67
9Xllr5r

16.7il3tr7ltlIT

?4,1 tr
8.9 [

ll.e r
5,3 r

16.4 I
q,? r
4,7 I
8,7 I
6.0 f,
2,8 I

9
?
q

?
3
I
5,?
I
I

36
3l
38
39
d0
4l
42
43
44
45

;
2
4
?
3
I
I
4
2

i

Devlati on



Percentage of Non-White Population and Non-White Resistered VotersFC-T97T aDTo-iTionment
@

Appendix III-

Percentagg- of Ngn-White Population

19 70 19 80

Percentage of Non-White Registered Voters-ristrict No,

1.

Z.

3.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

13.

16.

19.

24.

40.2q

34':42

32.3$

56.72

488

39.8t

35.s&

34*

36.4*

44.2*

32.92

s5.zz

' 3t%

322

32*

s4*

477^

39q6

3s8

szz

60%

st%

424

36*

s34

3s8

L97 0

24.s*

20.52

2s.14

47 .4t

32.2*

27.54

2L .9*

zL.9%

2A .4*

25.42

33.8t

23.7*

23.7q

2t.42

L 980

23.6e"

zt .6*

z5. s*

44*

36.5?

?.6 . Z*

28.42

24.2q

55.68

25.32

s6z

25.24

28.4*

23. s*

districts with 30t or more Non-White Population



Appen{ix .III-. _ fcgntdJ

Itistrict !fo. Porcgntaqe of Non-llhito Pooulaiion Percentaie of t{on-Ihlte Reglstered voters
1970 1980 t970 1980

21.

( 23.

2'6,

52..93; 38t

. 22.51 2Sl

36.91' 36t

25.4t 3s. 8t

15.61 17 .31

ztl 25.41

t



APPENDIX III- A





r- pap.

It- Fp.

tr - FsP.

-aE l -Fop.

tllr6tlb

Lllr-t85

gl)L{Z()

tlzJzlo

ELn6
BLrcX

BLFCK

BLA(K

35rQaf

3erblI
31 61t
'z(,F

t35,1 7()

'l&t%
\l.oz

oo bz'52,

HOUSA SEA15

Charlolte- C*D
uJeuld *- e-f\-Ujfed
-to B. [oi r

t'qrA JH ''

Cg,rsur-s
/
Lt R"p Pe t{z)3s(

...t'rn

,? . 38.01
)-

1,-'l:
.tJ



O7h"-,^n*
I.f l/ \arsss
= .' l/'tot r b\ I

C-horlott C-ily
PoP. \qao aql)ltr8

Btrcr( -lz rq:+L

crh/ A errt$re.&*o 5. L1 t€fe,

".3? 
Serr&n,o.

)5t
50
11

19,

5z
\5 .,

h'
9,

na
?\.9

- (0
I

I

a
J

n zlo
-4
- 2_

DlsrRt;f,s - -8, \ero Llerrle. sp-E.
39Gr (38<-r)
Szps (srr\ ) .'.'. - i, -.- : 'i.'

?Jr 6 (zttt")
az:b]- (Gzz-s)
Ssr+? (as+u)
zz-s.:. (rr+r)
I tl"3 (ur t )
3ltz \zouC

Lrq lz (=stt)
3s a LstrC -36cD\
I oGS (q=Q i,

€zs (@)
r?sz Qrcz)zqgq cz(.o

lE_____

L{\sL{s (=""o ?.z:1% aecK-

( Sr"ctf

,iD,. t



PLSTflCT
hcrs \=3
Burqer-

SiOu>n) \

4 \o\) bao
(jF2 861 - rou.L/-

tsoe,1

Se,m.-E Go-f
I per lot, bY I

Cr^o, \ot\e- Cfr/
Z..3+ S<no.tcr-s

'!.) i
,- -.-t' tg.Ot^ '--.'

r5.01
-

_)

!t':,
6.ot

- 38.01