Petitioner's Supplemental Statement In Support of Their Application to Stay the Mandate of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina

    5

JEETIS LEONAFO

JAMES T. OEVINE

KATHI.EEN HEENAN MCGT,AN

LA\ ,OFFICES Of

JERFIIS LEONARO
A PROFESSIONAL COFPORANON

aurE lo"o
rHCrlmaclrta.l'.r\.|o

gq) SEVENTEENTH STBEET, N.W.

WasxrteroN. D.c.2OOOE

February 27, 1984

ffircfiyEdrfi*",,
F[d g 9 i*t

tmmmr*:n-

Mr. Alexander Stevas
Clerk of the Court
Supreme Court of the U.nited States
Ho. 1 First street, N.8., Room 30
Washington, D.C. 20543

Re: Rufus Edmisten, et al. V. Ralph Ging1es, et al'
No. A653

Dear Mr. Stevas:

pl-ease be advised that 'Ruf us Edmisten, €t al. , petitioners
in the above captioned action, hereby renew thEir Appl-ication To

stuy if," uandatl of the United Statei District Court for the
iu=t"r1 District of North Carolina to Justice Lewis PowelI, Jr.
The initial application was denied on February 24, 1984 by Chief
Justice Warr"i'Arrgut, Circuit Justice for the Fourth Circuit'

Ten (10) copies of the petitioners' apPlication are filed
herewi th.

Thank you for your attention to this matter'

Very tru1Y Yours,

Mer/-,- /ot'/4'^- 3t' /"*/
Jerris Leonard
Kathleen Heenan McGuan
Attorneys for Petitioners

Kl'1/ch

Enclosure s

cc: Leslie J. Winner, Esquire
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wa-1las,
951 S. IndePendence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Robert N. Hunter, Jr., Esquire
Post Office Box 3245
Greensboro, North Carolina 27402

Adkins & Fuller, P.A.



a

IN

SUPREME COURT OF

October

THE

THE UNITED

Termr 1983

STATES

Rufus Edmisten, €t 4',
Petitioner,

V.

Ralph Gingles, et al.,

Respondents -

No. A553
*fc*l,ep

ttfie:A 
rg{

qmmqa

PETITIONER' S SUPPLEMCNTET' STATEMENT IN

SUPPORT OF THEIR APPLICATION TO STAY THE

I1ANDATE OF THi UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NASTENN DISTRICT OF NORTH

onFebruary]. 4,lgS4,thePetitioners,RufusEdmisten,

et.al.,.filedanaPPlicationtostaythemandateoftheunited

states District court for the Eastern District of North carolina'

on February 21, 1984, the respondents filed a Memorandum in oppo-

sition to the staY. '

ThePetitionersfilethissupp}ementalstatementinorder

to inform the court of two developments which are relevant to

the court's consideration of the stay apPlication and to respond

briefly to the Respondentsr Memorandum:

I.OnDecember2!r1983'theDistrictCourtforthe

Northern District of l,lississippi entered judgment against the
:.

State defendanti in an action challenging' under Section 2 of

the Voting Rights Act, a Congressional redistricting plan for'

theStateofMississippi.Jordanv.Winter,No.GCS2-80-wK

consolidated with Brooks v. winter, No. GC 82-81-WK (N'D' Miss'
L/

Dec. 21-r 1983).: In that action the State defended a court-

ordered plan which the black plaintiffs craimed impermissably

The district court has not
fact or conclusions of law

issued an oPinion, findings of
in these consolidated cases't/



-2-

diluted the voting strength of black citizens' The state Republican

party was permitted to intervene as a defendant'

TheE'hree-judgecourtrulerjlthattheplaninquestion,

SPecificallyDistrictTwo,withablackpopulationof53.TT\v,as

inviolationofSection2.Toremedytheviolation,thecourt

red/ew the plan to increase the brack population in the second

CongressionalDistrictto5S.3t,thuscreatingablackvoting

majorityinthatdistrict.Theplaintiffshadarguedthatthe

districthadtobeatleasts5tblacktocomplywithSection2.
OnFebruary13rlgs4'theptaintiffsfiledanoticeof

appealtotheUnitedStatesSupremeCourt.Counselforthe

petitioners is further informed that the state Republican Party

will not onry file a notice of appeal but, on February 29,1984'

wilr move the district court to stay its mandate pending appeal to

this Court.

The.appealsinJordanv.Winterwi}lpresentmanyofthe
:

Sameissueswhichhavebeenraisedintheinstantcase.Inits

earlier opinion, which ordered into effect the challenged plan'

the district court found it to pass both constitutional and section

5 muster. counsel is informed that the Republican Party intends

to raise the question of whether section 5 approval precrudes a

challengeunderSection2'whichisanissuecentraltothecase
presently before the Court in this Stay Applicadion' l'loreover'

the constitutionafity of Section 2 as well as the qu"ition of

whethefthecourtfortheNorthernDistrictotr'lississippicorrectly

interpreted the statute is likely to be brought before this court

by the Parties in Jordan v' Winter'

2.onFebruary6,lgs4,thedistrictcourtfortheEastern.

District of fexas issued an opinion in Seamon v' Upham' P-81-49-CA'

Seeopinionattached.Inthatcase,ttrecourtupheldtheTexas

Legislaturers plan of apportionment for two congressional Districts

inDallasCounty.The.districtcourtinterpreJedand.applie,d



a
-3-

Section2inamannerentire}ydifferentfromthecourtinthe

instantcase.InSeamonthecourtgavenoweighttothefactsof

historical discrirnination, disparate socio-economic status' and

blocvotingwhichdidnotPreventminoritiesfromeffectiveexer-

ciseofthefranchise.Ratherthecourtfocusedonequalityof

accesstothepoliticalprocessandtheabilityofminoritiesto

electresponsiverepresentatives.TheoutcomesinSeamonandin

the case at bar cannot be reconciled'

ThisCourtmustaddresstheproblemsposedbySection2.

uniform guidelines are desperately needed to govern the aPplication

of the amended Provision and its interrelatibnsh'ip to section 5 of

the Act.

3.Therespondentshavecontended.thatpetitionershave

not met the standard for granting a stay pending appeal ' This

contentionissquarelycontradictedbythisCourtsIactionsin
previous cases. Most recently in Karcher v' Daggett -'- u's' :--'

lO2 S.Ct . ].,2g8 (1983), Justice Brennen gran-ted a stay in the New

JerseyCongressionalredistrictingcaSe.Thestatedefendantsin

the action be10w had 10st in their'defense of the legislaturers

Congressionalredistrictingplan,oDaoneman-onevotechallenge,

before the district court' The lower court ordered the state to

enactanewplanconsistentwithitsopinion.byadatecertain.

Ifthelegislaturefailedtoproducesuchaplan,thecourtwould

order its own Plan info effect'.

JusticeBrennanconcludedthattherewas.'areasonable

probability that jurisdiction of the appeal will be noted and that

thereisafairProsPectofreversal.'':-o2S.ct.L299.HeaIso

found sufficient threat of harm in the judicial usurpation of the

legislature,sreapportionmentfunctiontomeetthestandardneCes-

Saryforthegrantingofthestay..JusticeBrennan.wrote:

,i



-4-
-:\:, .: ,:: ..': ' I l'

,Under the Dist.rict Court order the Legislature
musteitheradoptanalternativeredistricting
plan Ueiote t'tarcn 22 .nexL or f?:t the Prospect
theDistrictCourtwillimplementitsownredis-
tricti;;-;i;". with resPect to the balance of
rhe "eJitili, 

rhis courr has repeatedly empha-
sizedtnutlegislativeapportionmentplansare
to be pi.f"rr"a to judicially constructed plans.
LOz S.Ct. at 1300

The present case likewise requires the North carolina

legislature to redistrict by !,larch 16, 1984 or be subject to the

reapportionment preferences of the district court' This threat of

harm is sufficient to meet the standard required for the granting

of a stay. see aIso, Wise v. Lipscomb, 434 U.S. 1329'(1977)' ,

wHEREFoRE the petitioners respectfully request the court to

grant its application for to stay the mandate of the court below'

Respecrf u1ly submirred, this tne?4 aay ", i,l^'{rgll.
RUFUS L. EDMISTEN, ATTORNEY GENERAL

Law Offices of Jerris Leonard, P'C'
900 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 20006
(202) 872-1095

James Wallace , Jt.
Deputy oa.a":":y General for Legal Affairs

AttorneY General's Office
N.C. DePartment of Justice
Post Office Box 629
na1ei9h, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377
*Counsel of Record

,l

Ed, Esqurre
thleen Heenan Mccuan, Esquire



f r 1-.-- -

-.- CERTIFICATE OF" SERVICE

. I hereby certify that a coPy of the foregoing Petitionerl

Supplemental Statement in Support of Their Application to Stay

the Mandate of the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North carolina was served by first class mail this

29th day of FebruarY, 1984 uPon:

teslie J. Winner, Esquire
chambers, Ferguson, watt, wd1las, Adkins & FuI1er, P.A.
951 S. IndePendence Boulevard

' Charlotte, N-orth Carolina 28202

Robert N. Hunter, Jt- 1 Esgui're
Post Office Box 3245
Greensboro' North Carolina 27402

een geenan McGuan, Esquire

I

;'t