Correspondence from Chambers to Lorsen; Draft of Supplemental Brief for Appellees; Correspondence from Chambers to Wong; from Wong to Chambers

    December 6, 1985

The Honorable Francis J. Lorsen
Office of the Clerk
United States SuPreme Court
No. I First Street, N.E.
Washington, D. C.

RE: Thornburq v. Gingles, No- 83-1968

Dear Mr. Lorson:

I was arguing counsel for appellees in Thornburg v.
Ginqles. On December 4, 1985 at the oral argument I
was asfed if after 1970 there was evidence in the
record of official barriers to black voter registra-
tion in North Carolina. I said there was not. I
have since ascertained that is not correct. The
record reflects evidence of official election prac-
tices at the county level which obstructed black
voter registration as recently, in Durham County,
for example, as L982. See Brief for Appellees at I05-
106 and note 103. Those problems are also described
in the Amicus Curiae Brief of Legal Services of North
Carolina at 11.

I would very much appreciate your circulating this
letter to the members of the Court.

Sincerely,

Julius L. Chambers

/r
cc: Lacy Thornburg, Esq.

Charles Fried, Esq.

NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET (212\ 21 9-1 900 NEW YOBK, N.Y 10013



ir .Gingles - Draft SupplemeDral Brlef (Pt. 1)

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FOR APPELIEES

AppeJ-lees respectfully aubnlt thls 6uppleuental brlef pur6uant to

Rule 35.5 .6, Rules of the Suprene Court of the Unlted States, to

bring to the Courtre attentlon two matters that have arleen slnce oral

argument.

1. The Courtrs recent declslon ln M111er v. Fenton, No. 84-5786

(Dec. 3, 1 985) , strongly confirms appel.lee t s posltlon r that a flndlng
f lnd lng

of irnpermisslble vote dtlutlon under Sectlon 2 Ie an/*seue of fact
the standard-c f

sub j ect toy'e*earily-erroneeue/ru*e-on-appei[1ate revlew under the clearly

erroneou6 standard of F.R.C.P. 52(a). First, ln hnl deteruining whether

the t'voluntarj.ness" of a confession 1s a question of fact or 1aw, Mi11er

found t'stare decisls concerns compelling." S11p Op. at 11. Second, the

Court looked to congresslonal intent. Id. Third, the Court considered

"the nature of the inquiry itself...." Flna11y, the Court expLained that

"the factllav dlstinction at times has turned on a determinatlon thatr BS

a matter of the sound adrninistration of justlce, one judicial actor 1s hr

better positioned than another to declde ther lssue in question.r'S1ip Op.

at 9. Each of these consideratlons point unerringly to the conclusion that

a determi.nation of vote dilution under Section 2 1s factual.

First, the Court t s precedents unifornly treat questions of discrj-ni-

nation in voting as factual, both under the fourteenth amendment 1l and

the Votlng Rights Act. 2l Second, it 1s clear that, ln adopting amended

1 / Hunter v. underwood, _ U. s. _, 85 L.Ed.2d 222, 229 (1985) ; Rogers
v. Lodge, 458 U. S. 613, 622-23 (1 982) .

2/ City of ll.orne v. Untted States, 446 U.S. 156, 183 (1980).



2-

Sectlon 2, Congrees lncorporate the BtaDdards of White v. ReRleter, 472

U.S. 755 (1973)' and that Whtte viewed the vote dllutlon deternlnarlon

as an easentlally fact bound questlon. llhite, 412 U.S. at 766 ("The plain-

tlffsr burden 1s to produce evldeDce to support flndlngs that the po11t1-

ca1 proceases rrere not equally opeD...."j; see also id. at 761 ;ld.
at 769. ttlt ls alwaye appropriate to assune that our electlve represen-

tatlves know the 1aw rnd and that that interpretatlon refl-ects

thelr lntent.r' Cannon v. Unlverslty of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 696-97 (1979).
aad flnaJ.ly

Thlrd/ the nature of the lnquiry is not only fact lntenslve but also

one ua*qu*ily uniquely sulted to determinatlon by the district court

whlch t "ls better positloned to declde the Lssue ln question, " Ul]E,
olrn

51lp Op. at 9, because of "itslspecial vantage point," from whieh to

make I'findings representtng as they do a blend of hlstory and an

lntensely l-oca1 appraisal of the deslgn and lmpact of multlmember

d!.strlct(s) in 11ght of past and present reality, po11tica1 and otherwlse."
determinations of

I{hite, 412 U.S. at 769-70. Thus, unlike thoee-questieng/actual malice made

Cetera*aed by a Jury 3/ or voluntariness of a confession made in the face

of ttlnevitable and understandable" pressures, M111er, Slip Op. at 13, there
Ls nothlng about the
x.ht/determiaatlons of a three judge district court comprlsed of federal

Judges who sit Ln North Carolina preseat to "elevate the rlsk (of)

erroneoua resolutiont' sufflciently to justlfy a heightened standard

of appell-ate revlew. M111er, S11p Op. at 13.

2. (Discuss the factual issue, r enphasizing ttrat the very factual

compelxlty supports the discussion above. )

3l Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union, 466 U.S. 485 (1984).



November 7, 1985

,r'

,:.

ffiniiliildgs,tltl

6 s{ 12..n250
't '

:i :t.

[i
Honorable Alfred Wong (,...

Marshal ,i'
Supreme Court of the United States r'1. 

,

Washington, D.C. 20543

Dear Mr. Wong:

I am arguing counsel for appellees in Thornburg
v. Ginq1es, 83-1968, scheduled for argument on
December 4, 1985 at 10:00 A.t{. I write to reserve
space in the public section for the following
guests:

William Chambers ' -llatilda Chambers Y -Joe Moody )
Sippio Burton u -Vivian Charnbers r-
Julienne Winnerl 

-Barbara Atwell 7
Frank Ballance f
Sheila Bair 1
AlPhonso McCoY ro
Mary I{cAllistertl
Clinton Harrist?
Theodore Kenney l)
Ernest Smith I ra 

-James F lorence f,
Ralph Gingles /9 .
c. K. Buti,erfield rT

Please advise me at your earliest convenience whether
additional information is needed to reserve seats for
these persons.

Sincerely,

cc.: Lani Guinier, Esq.

O
utu
An

D€C

2 o" /o,^-/ Wt^'-

NINETY NINE HUDSON STREET (2121 21 9-1 900 NEW YORK, N.Y. 10013



@ffut at t\e.lflarr[d
Suprcnr $rut of t\e$*ntnSffies

FestingtotL &. 9. zsgr$B

November 19, 1 985

JuIlus L. Chambers, Esquire
Ninety Nine Hudson Street
New York, N.Y. 10013

Re: No. 84-1968
Lacy Thornburg v Ralph Gingles
Wednesday, AM 1 2-04-85

Dear Mr. Chambers:

As Arguing counsel in the above referenced case wherein argu-
ment is not divided, you are entitled to request reserved seating
in the Public Section of the Courtroom for 6 guests. Confirmed
for 6 seats.

Tickets are not issued, therefore you shourd furnish the
names of your guests on your letterhead. Confirmed

Members of the Bar of bhis Court may sit in the Bar Section.
No reservation is necessary but appropriate identlfying data isrequired for seating.

Guests attending 0raI Argument for aII morning cases shouldreport to the Marshal I s Office for check-in and ushered seating
between 9:15 AM and 9:30 AM. Afternoon guests are to report
between 12:15 PM and 12:30 pM.

Court
Alfred Wong
Marshal of

ENCLOSURE: LETTER CHAMBERS