Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order
Public Court Documents
April 29, 1982
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Williams. Brief in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order, 1982. c3d8db50-da92-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/c0035840-fcc8-41b7-8486-f51939997a0a/brief-in-support-of-motion-for-preliminary-injunction-or-temporary-restraining-order. Accessed April 06, 2025.
Copied!
ll"')
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIIISION
,lRALPH GINGLES, €t aI.,
Plaintiffs,
No.81-803-CIV-5
vs.
RUFUS EDIvIISTEN, €I A1.,
Defendants.
ALAN V. PUGH, €t dl.,
Plaintiffs,
No. 81-I066-CIV-6
vs.
JAIIES'B. HUNT, JR., etc., et
dI. ,
Defendants.
BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
Plaintiffs (AIan V. Pugh, e! aI) have filed mot,ion for
preliminary injunction asking thl Court to erijoin the State of
I
North Carolina from accepting ca4didate filings for the North
Carolina House of Representativeq and the North Carolina Senate
on April 30, L982 or thereafter 9n the followj-ng grounds:
1. The filing period has ngt been pre-cleared by the United
States Department of Justice undqr its authority under the
Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. f971 (c).
2. Regardless of whether of not the United States
Department of Justice pr_e-clears the filing period, the opening
and closing of filing for candidates aII within ten (10) days
of the enactment of redistricting plans in unconstitutional.
JURISDICTION
A three judge panel has been previously assigned to hear
this case as required by 28 U.S.C. 52284. tiowever, under the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. 52284 (b)(3) a single judge may conduct
all proceedings except the trial. . except as provided in
the subsection. A single judge may grant a temporary restraining
order until a hearing and determination of by the District Court
of three judges.
MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
OR TEMPORARY
STANDING OF
A
Voting
supp.
private litigant has sta ing to seek an injunction in
Rights Act cases. Webber . White, (D.C. Tex) 422 Fed.
4L6 (L976); A1len v. State Board of Elections, Miss. and
Va. 1969, 89 S. Ct. BL7, 393 U.
EFFECT OF LACK OF
544, 22 2d.
RE-CLEARANCE
BY JUSTICE DqPARTMENT
A change in standard nractile or procedure with respect to
voting is rendgred inoperative urltil the procedures of
42 U.S.C. 51973 are employed. Clayton v. N. C. State Board of
Elections, D.C. N.C. 1970, 3L7 F.t Supp. 915.
Respectfully submitted, thiq the 29Eh day of April, L982.
l
i
l
I
Arthur.J. Donaldson
BURKE & DONALDSON
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
et aI.
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, North Carolina
Telephone: 704-737-1500
Robert N. Hunter , Jr.
HUNTER, HODGMAN, GREENE &
Attorneys for Plaintiffs,
et al
P. O. Box 3245
Alan V. Pugh,
28l-44
GOODMAN
Alan V. Pugh,
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402
Telepho4e: 919-373-0934
-2-