Oliver v. City of Indio Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Proposed Consent Decree

    i

oa oo
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRfCT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION

RALPH GINGLES, et a1.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, €t aI-
No. 81-803-CIV-5

Defendants.

SUPPLEMENTAL SUBMISSION

Defendants have attached hereto Defendantsr Exhibits 84

and 85 as supplementation of their submission filed on

I"larch !2, 1984. Said exhibits relate specifically to new

Senate District 2t as embodied in Senate Bill L, Chapter 5,

Extra session 1984 (Defendantst Exhibit 70). Exhibit 84

is a memorandum opinion prepared by charles J. I'Iurray,

special Deputy Attorney General and Revisor of statutes, in

response to inquiry from the Legislative services as to how

Senate Bill 1 should be construed. Said bill erroneously

places Middleburg-Nutbush, Townsville and Williamsboro

Townships into two different districts. By way of the opinion

expressed in Exhibit 84, senate Bill I has been officially

interpreted by the North carolina Attorney Generalfs Office

to have the effect intended by the General Assembly and to

create the district previously represented by Defendants

to exist. Exhibit 85 is a memorandum from Alex K. Brock,

Executive Director of the state Board of Electj-ons, to



oo
elections officials statewide. Said Memorandum contains

instructions which comport with the views set out in

Exhibit 84. Defendants are informed and believe that

Plaintiffs are in agreement with the Attorney General I s

construction of Senate Bill 1, stipulate as to the accuracy

and authenticity of Exhibits 84 and 85, and will pose no

objection with respect to the action of Defendants regarding

the application of the 8i11.

In light of the Court's Order issued this d"y,

Defendants make no response to Plaintiffsr Response and

Motion of l"larch 14, 1984.

Respectfully submj-tted, this the 20th day of It{arch, 1984.

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
Attorney General

neral for

Justice

Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

Tiare B. SmileY
Norma S. Harrell
Assistant AttorneYs General

Kathleen Heenan McGuan
Jerris Leonard & Associates, P.C.
900 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 20005
Telephone: 12021 872-I095
Attorneys for Defendants

Jamerb M. Wa11ace,
ty Attorney

Legal Affairs
N.C. Department of
P. O. Box 629



OO
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the

foregoing SUPPLEMENTAL SUBI4ISSION by placj-ng a copy of same

in the United States Post Office, postage prepaid,

addressed to:
Ms. Leslie Winner
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt,

Wallas, Adkins & Fuller, P.A.
951 South IndePendence BIvd-
Charlotte, NC 28202

1,1r. Jack Greenberg
I"1r. James M. Nabritt, III
I\4[s. Lani Guinier
99 Hudson Street
New York, NY 10013

I{r. Arthur J. Donaldson
Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser

& KenerIY
309 North Main Street
Salisbury, NC 28L44

Mr. Robert N. Hunter, Jr.
Attorney at Law
P. O. Box 3245
Greensboro, NC 27402

This the 20th daY of March, 1984.

Raleigh, NC 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

y Attor General for
al Affairs

N.C. Department of Justice
P. O. Box 629



oo

RUFUS L. EOMISTEN
AITOR'TEY GTNEiAL

I5 March t9g4

SUBJECT:

REQUESTED BY:

QUESTION:

CONCLUSTON:

o

$trrte of $ort! (Iurolina
pepurtrnerrt of Uusticr

P. O. Box 6A9
RALEIcH
27eoz

Statutory construction.
Terrence D. Sullivanprrector Leoislative ResearchGeneral ess6mbly 'rLescr

Did Chapter 5 of- the Extra sessionof tea4 place arl ;i ;;;;; counryrn Senaroriat Di"tri"i-;i;
Yes.

Senate BilI I of the Extra Session of l9g4r dsdivided vance 99untv-uJii""n senatoiiii ri:-rrici r-";!.llixi'ii",District tl. .Digi;i"I-i"i""_to incirlJ r.riaareuurg_ilutoush,
i:iiiii'iioilu niii;;;";";"..T:r"[rpJ]-ura oi"t,i6t"ir was tor"trn"[ip;:""""' Henderson, xittreiii-6"nay creek and-wutkins

An amendment_by the Senate to the provisions relating toii-iiii:,:lr'l:fit*1.:il=,+^;;,;'J; in oi"r,irt'ir^, however,
I:s s rs i "; 

" 
il " :ji :il,,, el:li*;,q= fu i,fu 3 A;r*:*:; iiii;; "

iu:::';":ls'"Ei;ff:";ij;f,;il.;,!*lir i:,,srric,, 
-rna 

rhar

:l:r:o':"t;'i:l:,l:t law that a statute^rysr be eon-l5g s.E.s ; ;i,;;:ii'r;ffis, ;1f,, ;li' ikeverr where 9 statute, is. ambigrou", resort musE bei:iri: ;rgl"i"i 
-I"n-"E'r.:..i"" -iJ""'il"rrain 

rhe reqis-4s s.i.";l';rr ilftl;i:ri;fu, l,

DEENP4iITS

_oil',tf



oo
2

Ianguage to give effect to the legislative intent'.
rkerd vo R.R: , 2Og N.C. 270t 183 S.E. 402 (1935) '
ffiie must be construed to carry out the
legislative intent, that intenE must be found from
th; Ianguage of the act, its legislative history
and circumstanees surrounding lts adoption whlch
will throw tight uPon the evit sought to be remedied.
uilk Commissi6n v. Food Stores, 270 N.e. 323, 154

, 268
N.C. 577t 15i S.E:'2
v. Clevel-An-d County,, 15 N.C. APP. 5L2, 513, 5I4
@T

The legislative history of Senate Bill l, i.€.1 the amendment to
the language regardinq-District 11, makes it clear that the
i"qi;i;ti;; int6nt wai to place aIi of Vance County in District
11. Because th;--i";islatiie intent in regard to t-h" make up of
District 1l is so clear it is equally clear that the

"onti"aictory 
language regardin{ Oislrict 2 was inadvertently

left in the lct. -Because the intent is so clear the language
i"g".ding District 2 can be treated as surplus?99'.-llgTd v'-
lloittr Caiolina R. Co.1 2Og N.C. 270, I83 S.E. 402 (1935).

rThe object of alt interpretation is to
determine tha intent of the law-making body'
Intent is the spirit which gives life to a

legislative enattment. The heart of a statute
is the intention of Ehe law-making body. Trust
co. v. Hood, Comr., 206 N.e. 268t-s. v. F@rat,
ffittre language of Chancellor Kent:
t In the exPosition of a statute the intention
of the lawiraker will prevail over the literal
sense of the terms, aird iEs reason and intention
rriif prevail over the strict letter. When the
words are not, expl i ci t , the int'ent ion is to be

collected from tire context, from the occasion and
n"""="ity of the Iaw, from the mischief felt and
the remely in view, and the intention is to be

taken or presumed according to what is consonant
with reason and good discretion.r I Kent com. t 46L.

Clericalerrorsrwhichrifuncorrectedrwould
render the stat.ute unmeaning or nonsensical t ot
would defeaE its intended operation, will not
vitiate the act. They will be corrected bV.!h9
courE and t,he statute read as amended, provided
t.he true reading is obvious and the real meaning
of the Legislatirre is apparent on the face of the
whole enaitment. Black InE. Laws, p. 157'" Ftate
v. Humphries, zLO N.C. 406, 410, 185 S'E' 402'



ao

Therefore,Chapter5ofthelgs{ExtraSeeaioncan
as if the wordi pii-"ing p"ri of v"nc" county in Dietrlct
been deleted.

RUFUS L. EDiIISTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

C6 "0'7tl,y
Charles J. ltt(rraY
Special DePutY AttorneY
nlvisor of Statutes

be read
2 had

General

CJU,/e jm



oo

ALEX K. BROCK
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY -
DI RECTOR

sa'ATl, Il( ),\Itl) ()tf l':Lli(-'l'I( ):(Fi
SulrE 8ol RaLEIGH BUILDING

5 WEST HARGETT STREET

RaLEtGH. NoRTH Cenoltxe 27f,01

March 9, 1.984

T EL EPHOT{E
(0t9) 7t3-7t7!

STI&IECT:

rR0t'{ :

; House and Senate Distrlcts

TO

Alex K. Brock, O*"".,6rd 6'
: AII CountY Boards of Electlons

Thererl]-lbeaprlmarTelectionconductedonl{ay8,
1984 for au ofrii"" ""tEiL::v-"sctteauled' B onlv exeeptLon

trtll be those s;;;-S;[ 
"na- 

St"tc House c6-tcstt ln on\v thc

counties lnvotvJ i, iil r'984 sp"trt:- Beapportlonnent Iaglsletlve
Segslon.

j.r,- or rra te Pnd St'te HousP

SPECIAL NOEICE

IIe have attached a listirg to t'his
Senate Districts and Counties as weIL as the

;;;ii"" THAT wILt NoT HAVE A PRII'IART 0N l{AY

SCI{EDULED.

memorandum shodng the
House DlstrLcts erd
STH BUT WII,L BE RE-

DEFENDA]WS
EXHlBE

95
Attachnents (2)



oo

Dist,rict #?5

Meckleriburg

District #(6

Mecklenburg

DE-brict #<o

Mecklenburg

listrict #21

Wake

Dlgtrlct #6a

Wake

Djstrlct #?o

ForsYth

listrict #2a

Durhan

glstrlct #?0

Edgecoobe, Nash, Wllson

FtlTE Houss orgtRICtS- O gsJNrms
(tohave a:atur@u)

frae",

llstrict #<''

Meckler&urg

Distrlct #(?

Meclcleriburg

Listrict #50

Meclclenburg

Digtrict #5I

Wake

Digtrict #5rr

t{ake

Listrict #66

ForsYth

Dlstrict #68

Dlrhatr

DtsttrLct #5q

l{eckleriburg

Dlstrict #qB

Mecklenburg

Distrlct #62

l{ake

Dletrl.ct #6<

Weke

Estrict #6?

ForsYth

Dlstrlct #6q

Durtun

Verlfied fro 19&+ Beapport'iorunent Acts:

A*E&ucL
Srecutive Secretary-Dfu"ector



oo

(to have a pri.narlY for State te later)

Distrlct #1

Ca.dea, Cho*an, Crrrttuck, Da,re, tVde, Pasquotank, ^pergudans, $6reIL, Washington, Beaufort, Bertle, Geteg'

District #2

Bertie, Edgeconbe, Gs,tes, Ha1:lfax, Hertford, Martln'
Norttranpton, E, Ihren.

Djstrict #5

Edgeconbep MartJ,n,'Pitt, Wl1son.

Beaufort, l'l,artln, Pitt.

District #10

Nash, Edgeconbe, Ihllfa:c, lJeren, Wilson.

District #11

Franklin, Vance, Wake.

District #Llr

Harnett, Iee, l'Iake.

DisLrLcL #22

Cabarms, Mecklenburg.

District #??

Mecklenburg

District faL

l{ecklenburg

Verified fron 1984 Reapportlonrnent Acts:
Mecklenburg

6**rl'