Correspondence from Chambers and Greenberg to Bradford Reynolds and Jones

    CHAMBERS, FE.RI :CN. WATT. WALLAS. ADKINS & Fi. -E.R. P.A.

ATiOFINEYS A? IJW
SUITE 73O EAST INOEPSNOENC= FI-A7J\

95I SOUTI{ INOEPENOA\C= 3OULEVAFO

tuLrus Lsr'oNNE eiaHrEes CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLJNA zazoz
l MC.s E FE;IGUSON. ll :EE t{ONtt (7O4r 37!.€4(! I
{E.VIN L WAiT
,ONA?HAN vr/AL!-AS
(aFL AoxrNlr October 22 , 19 81
,AHES C- tur I Fi. Je.
:. Y1'€NNE }'IMs
,oHN w.GRESHAM IIon. Willia:n Brad.ford. ReynOldstoR^LoLcresoil Assistant Attorney General
Srrja F GL,AZSii
j:,LrEJ..wrNN€i Civil Rights Division

Uniled States Department of Justice
Washj.ngton, D. C. 20530

Mr. Gerald, If. Jones, Chief
Voting Sectj.on
Unit,ed States Depar+:nent of Justice
Washington, D. C.20530

Re: Submi.ssions of 1967 Amendments to the
Constitution of the State of North
Carolina for Pre-Clearance Under
Section 5 of the Votj-ng Rights Act.

Dear Messrs. Reynolds and Jones:

On Septenber 15, 1981, black voters j.n the State of
North Carolina filed a class action lawsu-it in the
.EasE,ern Dl_str].ct ot North caroll_na, Ral_eigh Dj.visron.
One purpose of the lawsuit was to restrain the imple-
mentation and enforcement of certain arnendments made
in L967 to the North Carolina Consti.tution insofar as
the amendments applied to counties of the state covered,by 55 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965r a'S amended.

These amendments were, in Lg67 and, 19G8, desigmated as
Article II, 54 and Artj.c1e II, SG. (The sections are
designated in the present North carolina constituti-on
as Art. II, 53 and Art. II, S5.) The amend:nents pro-
hi.bit the division of counties in the delineation of
election districts for elections to the two houses of
the North Carolina General Assembly.

The purpose and, effect of the 1967 amendments were to
d,ilute minori.ty voti.ng strength and thereb! prevent the
election of minority ci,nd.i'dates. Numerous ind.ividuals
and, organizations intend to present their objecticns to
any Pre-clearance by your Department of ti:ese amendrnents.
we understand that some groups have already fo::vrard.ed toygg-their protests. we assume that the Justice DepartnentwiI1, in the name of justice and accord.ing to its iegula-
tions, afford these organizations and. ind.ividuals suiti-
cient tj.me to present their objections.



Hon. william Bradford Reynolds
!,1r. Gera1d W. Jones

October 22, 1981
Page firo

In any event, we do not expect the Department to
act at the political behest of the State of North
Carolina, and thereby violate fed,eral law, by
acting to preclude the occurrence of a meaningful
opportunity for the protesting grouPs and individ-
uals to present their objections in a fair and
timely manner

Mr. Steve Suitts, Executive Director of the Southern
Regional Cor:ncil, has provided me with a copy of
your Augr:st 24, 1981 letter to him.in which you
state that:

Our records ind.icate that on April
20, L97L, the Attorney General piecleared
all sections of the North Carolina
Constitution as revised in 1959, with
the exception of Arti-c1e VI, Section 4 ,
to which an objection was interposed.

The facts stated in this letter are wronq and have
been ad:nitted, to be so by both the Attorney General
of the State of North Carolina and the Secretarlz-
Director of the North Carolina State Board of
Elec-'ions in a sworn affidavit and. a memorandum
filed in the United States Distri-ct Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolinai nateigh Division,
in the above aetj-on. I arr enclosing for your in-
formation a copy of the affidavit by Alex K. Brock,
the Secretarlz-Director of the State Board cf
Elections.

In his affid.avit, Mr. Brock swears, a€ter first
stating that, he has been Secretary-Director since
Augnrst 5, 1965 and was serving in that capacity in
L967 when the L967 amendments were adopted'and
modified, that:

5. As best I recaIl, I did not deem
these amend.ments to the State Constitution
to be subject to the submission require-
ments of 55 of the Voting Rights Act of
1955, at the time of their ad.option, and'
therefore, I did not submit.the. amendments
to the At,torney General o'f the United States



Hon. William Bradford Re1'no1ds
ltr. Gerald W. Jones

October 22, 1981
Page Three

for approval or seek their approval by
the United States District Court for
the District of Colurnbia;

Moreover, the Attorney General of the'St,ate, in his
Memorandum of Moctness ad:ni-t,s the faiLure and
merely pleads that it was excusable on the ground
that "Failure of the State to submit these con-
stitutional provisions for approval pursuant to
55 of the Voting Rights Act was at least unCer-
standable. "

Furthe::urore, the 1ega1 papers filed by the Attorney
General of Noreh Carolina states definitively
that "the State chooses not to contest plaintiffs'
contention that these provisions should, have been
submitted. "

The above d.emonstrates that there is no rational
basis for your tentatj-ve conclusion that the 1957
amendments, which are the subject of this letter,
have been previously cleared by your Department.

In addition to the above, there is a more serious
reason why these amendments cannot be deemed to
have been precleared, by you when your Department,
on April 20, L97L, precleared sections of tiie North
Carolina Constitution as revised in 1959. That
reason is made apparent by the Report of the North
Carolj,na State Constitution Study Commission, p. 30
(1958) , the Editors' Notes on the 1959 Revision of
the Constitution, and a September 24, 1981 memoran-
duro by John Sanders (excerpts of which are attached)
Submitted by the Attorney General of North Carolina
in his Memorandum of trlootness.

The Report of the Study Commissj.on, suprar talks
about both the L967 amen<lments (ratified in 1968)
and the 1969 amendrnents (ratified in 1970 and
approved by you in 1971). The latterr &S the Report,
g3g., makes c1ear, was nerely a set of revisions
of the former. The Report states that:



Hon. WilLiam Brad,ford, Reynold,sMr. Gerald t{. Jones
October 22, 1991

Page pour

the provisions governing apportionrnent
of the two houses, adopied-Ly the peoplein Novemher, 196g, havi been Urought' for:ward, in i.rr. p..posea text with'nosubstantj-ve change.,, Report, p. 30.

Moreover, as Mr. Sanders makes clear in his mexoo_randum, the 1969 a.urendments ,'mad,e only very minor
ghanSgs ii the provisions of Articfe-ir of theconstitution dealing with the alportionment ofthe Senate and House of Representatives,, (see'attached).

In view of the above, it is clear that the changesapproved-!y yoor Department in 1971 with respectto the 1969 amendments were mad,e under the aisumption,as supported by representations of the state of

!ha?-Es =+om 
the 1967 amendments to-Effi",end-mpnt:-

EETssue of ;h:,4h";-U;,;";;;;-;;H il'.f;X''i;lia-mendments which were different from those in theprior Constitution of tl.e State.
This view i-s further confirmed by the introd,uctory
9d+tors: lloreF to rhe presenr Constirution of thestate of North carolina wlth respect to the presentState Ccnstitr:tior. Those Notes state that:

Session Laws 1969, c. L2Sg proposed,a complete edj_torial revisj-on 6f LUeConstituticn of North Carolina, to besubmitted to the qualified voters of theState at the 1970 general election. Therevised Constitution was adop-red, by vote
9f the people at the general electionheld Nov. 3, Lg7O, to take effect JuIy 1,L97L

AE best,. there were only ed,itorial revisions sub-nitted to you for approvar in LITL and those re-visions were subm,itted on the working aisumption,



Hon. Wiiliam Brad,ford, Revnolds
I1[r. Gerald W. Jones

October 22, I98I
Page Five

Accordingly, we do hope that you will reconsider

shared, by you and. the Stater that the revisionsconsti-tuted no chhnge from i,he *."--pr"-existingL967 a-mendnents. ai no time, therefir", haveyou ever been presented with an opportun:_ty toconsid,er whether-the changes aaopila-Uy ti."tegisrature in L967 to th; state constituti.onand ratified by th? people of the Staie in 196g,had.the purposi ana ettict. of airuiing-minority'voting strength and otherwise a:.scrinir,itirrgagainst minority voters and citizens
To regard. your 1971 approval of the 1969 amend_ments as tantamount to approval of the Lg67consti-tutional. Amendmentl - would tr:us- tresent agrave lega1 crisis concernj.ng the proi"i admj_n_istration and implenentation-of 55:

our 1et
disclosures of this let,ter.
Respectfully submitted,

kd:;k.,JM
Lesli.e Winner

- Chamirers, Fergrrson, Watt, Wa11as,Adkins & Fuller
951 S. Independence plaza
Charlotte, rrlorth Carolina 2g202
704/375-8451

u-ACK GREENBERG
JAMES M. NESRTT, III
NAPOTEON B. WILLTAMS, .IR.
I.ANI GUTNIER

10 Columbus Circle
Suite 2030
New York, New york 10019
2t2/586-839 7