Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellants

Public Court Documents
July 1, 1985
Cite this item
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellants preview
Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.
Download
By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:
For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):
Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.
LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.
If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.
NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.
Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.
I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.
If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at
Date is approximate.
LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorney
- Leslie J. Winner
Organization
- NAACP Legal and Educational Defense Fund, Inc.
Matter
- Gingles
Case
- Thornburg v. Gingles
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 116c0f4c-e292-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873
Cite this item

Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellants, 1985. 116c0f4c-e292-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/d906d654-5331-4315-8fe9-5a0764cd1300/brief-for-the-united-states-as-amicus-curiae-supporting-appellants. Accessed April 06, 2025.

Copied!
    l'

i. :'- - -, :-';,,iri};,'fu*; ennsies,y4_;'";il;f1ilii,+ii:ffi
,-i#tirlf;r*l#r_.H*=f il.,;ffi i+:l'iffi
,tii1.ti+1u*#*t#{;;;ixb;i;;;.I iii "1ffi
;:.1ii;r,1*!'.;-gjr*;:i.!y;a'iI.:*c{:yy,;pu.wo11tr{,..;}i#
,, r,.: ':'. 

-:"esi 

iiiii..+,,.s t:,;..-1., 1: t.:i ; ;:;,gIi,,,5 ,l,t.t=",i,- -:.;,. ;; i;.,,:;;1,;".:ri,

l{ j, 1}ii;-r. 
i 
r: rit,,*+ltrtl-ffi .' ;;' 

: 
-,,-i' : ;:,, *i litl;

'' :',.;,*,;gili:':. 
-4;i.. :,ngrnE FoR TEEIUNmED srA,TEs -' "' : lr- ... 1-,.:r r.!l:--'Id. arfrnr?cr /trrttraEn crrDDaltimylJd aEDETTT alrtFcg l;:rr-;l+io #9YF,,._F.3,3 

srlIPPoRrrNG '{PPEf,r'A}ns - ,

;,'..fri:;,:i;:li.]'. .,;,;.:i;'ii;;-r;i1,:air,;i't.' .t "- 
i. 

1'i': 
"'"""';1;;i ''' 

t:t.':,::'.''-' i+
.t;..lrii;:l:i,,..;.,--,i'r,'., *t.:-,i;jrt'11..,:. ,j.'', ,'' ;.' ,'. ' ,- ::::; :'li:::'-1':

,..i.;-ir*_f.--,,{.:i1,*:j,,..,..,_-._ j.. oanarrsFbm , .: .'.

-,,. it.:._-".-ir":\ri, i1;r, .:...-_. ActdngSiWatmGenerol . , -. .,'

, ,.' -. ;, ,tr,t.:'a , :t.. ), 1. r,.:. 'r' .:....tri.; j, ,--,'..., : .1 
, l'...,' .'].:. i' ;

,:., . -.



QUESTIONS PNESENT};D

1. 'lYhether the district court correctly construed

amended Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1966,

42 U.S.C. 1973, as invalidating certain multi-member
legislative tlistricts in whieh minority candidates had a

pioren opportunity to partieipate in the electoral proeess,

on the giound that there was no guarantee that minori-
ties would enjoy the continued electoral suecess guaran-

teed by "Bafe" districts.
2, Whether racial bloc voting exists as a matter of

law whenever less lhan 60% of the white voters cast

ballots for a minoritY candidate.

I'i

;

tt

). '.'; ,. i. .. .'. "'; (r)



TABI,E OF

Interest of tfte United States

CONTENTS
Page

I

Statement

lnl,rotluctiott antl summary oI argument

Argumen[:

The dislrict: cottrt errotleottsly held that the re'
disl,ricl;ing plan at isquo violates amended Section

2 of the Voting RighLs Act of 1966 -"--"""

A. Amendetl Sectiorr 2 guarantees every citizen

the right to an equal opportunity to partici-
pate in the Politicttl Procass

B. The tlistrict eourt misapplied the factors ap-

propriate l.o an analysis of appellees' claim.of
unlawful vote dilution -----------------

Conelusion

1

6

7

19

34

TABLE OF AUTIIORITIDS
Cases:

Be.er Y. Uttitcrl' Slofes, 426 U.S. 130 -- . --- "" -' ' - 1?, 31

Blaclc Voters v. lIcDortough,, 6GS F'zd 1 -'-"14,24,2,8,33
Bose Corp. tt. Con.su,nr,et's Uniort of Uttited Sfotes,

fzc., No. 82'1246 (Apr. 30, 1984) -- - - ' " " 18, 19

Brada,s v. Ro.pittes Porislt Police ,Iu'ty, 608 F'Ztl
1109 .--.-.- -19,26,33

Broolcs v. Allai.tr,, No. GC82-80-WK-O (N.D' Miss'

Apr. 16, 1984), alT'd, No. 83-1865 (Nov' 13'

1984) -

Buslcey v. Oli.aer,665 F. SuPP. 1473

Ci,ttt Council v. Ketcluml, cert. denietl, No. 84-627

(.Iune 3, 1986) ... -.

City of Locklrurbv. lJni.ted Sfofes,460 U.S. 125

Cil,tt of lllobile v. Bolrlen,44C U.S. 65 ------ -- '--- '

City of Romev. Unit,ed States,446 U.S. 166 '-- ---- " 3

Do,aii| Y. Garrison, 663 F.zd 923 ------ ------.----------19, 2G,28

20
t7

2l
t7

.Ttassint,

(m)



-T

Cases-Continued : Pago

I)otse v. Moore,639 F.2d 1l62 ------ --------------'--14, 18,28,31

Durtstonv. Scott,336 F. Supp.206 2G I

Ca.ses-Continued: Pnso

lVo'llnce v. Ilorrse,5l5 F.z(l 619, vacatecl anrl re-

nrancled, 425 U.S. 947 -- ------- " 24'33

Dl'e.Ilers v. Nationnl Ass'n of Radiati'on Sut'aiuot's'

No. 84-6?1 (June 28, 1986) 18-19

ll'lr,iLcomb Y. Chauis,403 U'S. L24 '- " ' -"-""'-"'Ttassitn'
llhite Y. Regesl,er" 412 U.S. 765 " "" '---9,10, 72,14'20'

25,20,31,33
lVttche v. Il[Qtlison' Parislt, Police '|ury, $36 F'Z<l

I 151

Zinr.m.er
llolll,.
slro,ll, 424 U.S. 636 14,24,26,33

y. l[cKeilhcn, 485
Da.st Corroll l'o.t'ish'

Ir.2tl 1297, a[T'tl .srrb

Sch.ool Bd. v. It[ar-

Granil Rapids Sch.ool Dist. v. Boll, No. 83-990

(July 1, 1985) ---.-- 19

Groue Ci.tA Cottege Y. Ball, No. 82-792 (lreb' 28,

r 984) --...-.- 16

Ilarpe,r & Roro, Ptr,bli,slrcrs, Ittc. v. Nal'iott' Iln'ter'
pri^ses, No. 83-1632 (May 20, 1985) ---.-- 18

IIittitrix Y. Josevtlt,,669 F.zd 1266 .------------'-"14, 19,26,28

.lones Y. Ci.tU of Lubboclc,727 T.2d 364, opinion on

reltearing, 730 F.zd 233 .------------ ---'-19,29,30
I{etcltu,rnY. Byrne, ?40 F.zd 1398, cert. denied, No'

84-627 (June 3, 1985) --------- '-""" ""'- t7,2t
Lee Cortrtty Branch of NAACP v. Ci.ty of Opelilca,

?48 F.Zd t47B .......... -.. .- 29,30

llcCarty v.Ilend.erson,749 F.zd 1134 " 2G

I*IcCtaslcey Y. Zant,680 tr. Supp. 338, afi'd, ?63 F'Zd

877 .-.-.---.... 30

McGitl v. Ga.dsd.en County Comtn'n, 636 F'zd 277 " 28

IvI ctl itlm. v. D scambia C aunty, ? 48 F.Zd 1 037 - --- - "'- - 24, 29

Ille.tropolitan Dd.ison Co- v. PANE, 460 U'S' 766"" 18

Norl,lt llauen, Bd'. of Dihtc. v. Bell,466 U'S' 612 -- 15

Patton v. Yount, No. 83-96 (June 2G, 1984) 18

Puilmon-Stattd.aril v. Swint,466 U.S. 213 - - "-' ' 34

Rogers v. Lodge,468 U.S.613---- --- ----- ----- "-'-'- 
'l4,27,31Seanrott,Y.l)phant., No. P-81-49-CA (E.D' Tex' Jan'

80, 1984), afT'd sub nom. Stralce v. Seomoz, No'

83-1828 (Oct. l, 1984) --------- """-""18, 20, 30

Stt'ictetand v. lYustdngfom, No. 82-ltt64 (Mty 14,

1e84) -....-..- 18

To.11lor v. Il[cKei.th,en., 499 F.zd 893 --------- ------ -:-- -- 3l
Terrazas v. Clements, 581 F' Supp. 1329 29-30

Tut'ner v. Mcl{cith.en, 490 F.zd 191-- - ----- ----'---"--- 31

Ilnitcillewislt' Orgs. v. Carey,430 U.S. "l'44 .---"" ' 28,31

Uni.tett St'ates v. Board of Supertsisols, 671 F'Ztl

Constitrrtiort, sl.nl,trl,e ttttl rttle :

U.S. Const. Ametttl. I (Ilstablisltment Clttrse) '

Voting Rishts Act of 1965,42 U.S'C' 1971 et seq':

92, 42U.S.C. (1976 erl.) 1973 -

82,42 U.S.C. 1973 .. ---

$ 2 (b) , 42 U.S.C. 19?3 (b)

$ 6,42 U.S.C. (1976 ed.) 1973c ' "
$ 6,42 U.S.C. 1973e -- - - -

Fed. R. Civ. P. 62(n)

l9

2

Tto,ssint
27

2
17

I7, l0

Miscellaneotts:

Boytl & Markman, Thc 1932 Amendmetr'ts l'o t'h'e

Voting Righl.s Act: A Legislatiue Ilistortl, 40

Wash. & Lee L. Ilev. 134? (1983) 9,'10

127 Cons. Rm.:

rr. 5153?2 (<laily etl. Dec. 15' 1981) -

p. S16694 (tltily ed' f)ec. 16, 1981) --

128 Cong. Ree.:

pp. II3840-II384l (tlaily erl. Jtrne 23,1982) l:l
13,14,17p. II384l (rlaily etl. Jttne 2,3,1982)

p. II3842 (daily etl'.lttne 23,1982)
p. II3844 (rlaily etl. Jurte 2X,1982)
p. II3S,|G (tlaily ed. .Ittne 23,1982)
p. 56500 (tltilv etl. June 9, 1982)
p. 5665? (rlailY etl..Iune 9, 1982)
p. SG560 (tlailv ed. Jtrne 9, 1982)

!)

I

961 .. .

Un.i.ted States v. Ifiot'cttgo Cottttty Comm'n, 731

F.zd 1646
(lplmnt Y. Seo,trtott,456 U.S. 37

Vclasqu.ezv. City of Abilene,726 F.2d 101? ----"."
lVai,nutt'igltt v. Witt, No. 83-1427 (Jan. 21, 1986) -'

2l

29
2l
19
18

13
13

12, 13

l6
t6
16



p. 5664? (tlaily ed. June 10, 1$82) -- 13, 16 I Ocrotlt R Tnnm, 1985

p. SOOaA iA"itv ed. June 1?,1982) 18 
Il..,......---

p. SoOff iUoity ed. June 10, 1982) --- lG 
I

p. sozlz (daity erl. June 14, 1982) . 16 I No. 83-1968

p. S6ZZO (daily ed. June 16, 1982) 16 t bnuY rl' r- rt(,,rtt\r'u^\" '"t rru''
I

p. SOozo iaoitv ed. June 1?,1982) 13 I ,.
I

p. SSg:lO riaily ed. June 1?, 1982) " l7 I

--^ rd rooo\ li I nllrtt Gtt'lcl,Ds, DT AL
p. SOcaf (dailv ed. June 1?, 1982) 14 I ltALrII ulNGLos' u't' Ar"

,. Segcf ia"itv ed. June 17,19821 '-""' ' '13, 14' 16 
i

rr. SZf fO iaoity ed. June 18, 1982) 16 | n 5 /ll'rrur'rD ut-'rL!/\rr r'ur r v.
d,inn ta^.t-- ^.r r..n^ 1a 1oe9\ 16 l

II.R. Rep.97-227,9?th Cong., lst Sess. (1981) -- " 9, 13' ; 1985'

Seno,te Comm. on the Jutl.iciary, g?th Cong', &l
sees.(1982): I s'rATIfl\{tNNT

Mtuceueneo E-continu€d: Pf,se I Att f tfr Srqlmtu Olrurl rrf llp llhritr'ir Slut'rr

pp. SC?1?-S6?18 (tlailv ed. Jttne l?, 1982) 16 I

._^ rE rno.rr rc I Lncv II. THonNnuttc, ItT AL., API'I'{,LANTS

p. sesoz ia*iri"d..run" 11, 1?1?l -- - 1I,:: | ,n orr1^r, FR1M rEE uNrrDD srlrrrs Dtsratcr coulr
p. 56964 ianityed.June 1?,1982) " 16'26 

" 

ut\ tt' u Dtt" '
I FOR TITT' DASTIIRN DIST'RICI' OF NONTII CANOLINA

p. Szocf iO"ilv ed. June 18,1982) l7 I '

p. izrfo ia"ifv ed. June 18, 1982) 16 I

ac i llltltiF FOn TIIft TINITLD STATLS
p. srtts ianitv 

"d. 
run" 1I'11f1-- -- '-- l: i n* n*t"ii]!'t,iriii,,'liilr,'i,oiirini',rn'nl.r.nrors

p. 5?120 (tlaily ed. June 18' 1982) rD I

p. 5?138 (daily etl. June 18, 1982) 16 IN'l'DltEST OIr TIIL UNI'IED STATES
p. Szfac ia"it"d.,rrne 18,1982) -..-----..-.- - 12 , On October 1, 1984, the Court entererl an order invit-

Entrr*io ol t!.e_ voti,ts lttol:f ,,A!,, yy::,o.: i i.* it " Soti"itn. cenernl to expr€ss the views of- tle
Retoft. th? s,Lt'comit:- ot cioi.t an'l c.o,tstitl'- i iiitt"i" si;;;"1; ;i; ;;.". 1{i re"pon,le,l in a briel
Li;mt Rilthti ol the Howe Conon- on the Jlrili' I

ciorl,9?th cong, lst sess. Pt. I t,oa,l'].1.'1"]-' s I ursihs srtmmary allirmance on two queslions an(l llc-

II.R. 311a e?th cons., 1st sese. (roart - """""" ""- e' s I y;l ,':":i"* :1 Y: lt].:l"i i:l '*::::: '::"'^l',:'l-ll"
ii.f;.iiifliliilElXI.:iilEH: iiilii ,....... ..-.- "; i ;'-'il.tttion on the ratter two question'q on AP.ir 2e'

14, BB i This cnse presents several questions concerning the

s. 1976, $?th Cons., 1st s€ss. (19s1).. .-.-.'' -.-... I I ,"or"t construetion of.th.e 1-g!2^ 
-1m91dlclt^h. P::tl":.?

s. iiii, miiic.,i., r-t se"a. irost) I I fu ihu voting nishts Act ot tsq6,42 U.s'C. 1s73. The

S ii1r, i,iit' c*-*., l"t se6s. (1981) .9 I United Stgtes haa the primtrv res-ponsibilitv tot :'f9ii
L n"p.'dz-lii, s?ili c"ns., zd sess. (1$82) ''- -.--- .no'.sin i ing the Voting Righl; Act and thus hrrs n substrntial
Votino nithts Act: Ilearings o ,5.53, ct al' Bc- ' inLrest in ensuring that l,he Act it construed in a mnn-

lorc tha Sr.bcornrn. ot the Colt tit tion' ol l'hc ner that atlvances, iathet than impedes, ils objectives.

vol. I . .-.-......-.- -.-,,..--........ .-................... . -..po'.sirrl 1. In July 1931, as a relult of the 1980 census' Nodh

vot. z.._...., -.-.....,-.-.-.-.,., ... ]z,fi,m . Carolina enacted r.edistricting plsnr lor the stnte'6 l{ouse

Yotihg nishtr Act: neport of the subcomm on the ol Repres€nt*tive$ and Senate' In-septembor 1981' alr'' 
Co,i"tit*fo" "f 

tf," S"nste Judicisry Comm., g?th pellees lited this suit, xlleging that the plans hRd be(n

Cons.,2d Sess. (l$82) .... -...-.''. .. -..- ......... . 10' tg
l8 Weekly Comrr. Pr€s. Iroc. 8'tG (Jrne 29, l$82)-. 1'I (1)



2

enacted pursuant to provisions of the North Carolina

constitution that required, but hatl not receivecl, pre-

clearance pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights

Act of tgeS, aZ U.S.C. (19?6 erl.) 19?3c, and that the

use of large multi-member districts subttter[etl concen-

trations oi blach voters and tlilute4 nrinority voting

strength in violation of the constitution trntl section 2

of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 II'S'C' (1$76 etl')

19?3 (J.S. App. 3a-4a).t After the plans wele rrltimately

adoptetl bV the state legislature,2 appellees amenrlcd their
pleadings to challcnge five House Districts (Nos' 8, 21,
'23, 

26,"on(l Sg) on,l t*o Senate Districts (Nos' 2 and

zzl antl to confor.m their pleadings to the newly-irmenderl

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act." The "p;r'avamen"

of appellees, claim with reference to these mtrltimember

rlistrlicts whs that the State's plan "makes use of multi-
member rlistricts with substantial white voting major-

ities in solne areas of the state in which there are sttffi-

cient coneentrations of black votcrs to form majority
black single-member districts i r *"' (J'S' App' 4a)'
The plan 

-was in this respect claimcrl to violate atnenrled

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
2. The case was tried before a three-juclge eottt't. on

the basis of extensive stipulations of firet, rloetttrlentat'y

evidenee, and oral testimony (J'S. App. 8a)' Tlre eout't

entered an order ancl opinion containing extensive frnd-

ings on the various factors identified in the Iegislative

his'tory of amenderl Section 2 and case law as relevant

to a vote dilution claim. J.S. App. 21a-51a' The cout't

hekl that ,,it has now become possible for black citizens

to be elected to all levels of state govel'nment in North

Cat'olina" GcI. aL 3?a). I-Iowever, the court further held

3

that, untler the t0tality of the relevant circttlnstances,

the redistricl.ing plan in all seven challcngetl districts

diluted rninoril.y votes in violation of arnentled secl,ion 2

and enjoined ellctions in the challengetl 4isl"r'icts Ubid.).1

Thedistrictcourtalsoreviewedatlengthther.acial
<lemographics anrl voting history of each challcnged mul-

timember tlistrict.
Ilouse District 2,1. Ilouse District 21, itt Walte County,

elects six tlrembers to the General Assenrbly on an at-

large basis (J.S. App. 19a). The poptrlal'ion of .th9
tlislrict is Zl.8% blacir, anrl black voters c,.stitute 15.1%

of all registered voters Ubid.).n 7Z% of the white vot-

ing age 
-population is registered to vote, antl 49'7/' of

ttre Utacfi voting age population is registeretl to vote

{id. aL 24a n.22). The black population is so situated

tha[ one single-mcmber legislative districb could be drawn

within the present bounclaries, with a black population

of 67% $rt. aL 20t1. Under the challerrged plan and

its predecessor,. one black legislator was elected in 1980

r The tlistrict court fountl (J.s. App. 5la-52il) thrrt [lre totnlity oI

the fotlowirrg circumstances, in combination rvith the use of large

multi-member districts, dilutetl minority votes in ear:h of the clral-

lengetl rtistricts: (1) "the Iingering ellccLs of seventy ycars of

oltici[l discrimination against black cit'izens in matters touchirrg

registration anr.l voting," (2) "substantial to sevcl.e r:rcirtl polaliza-

tion in voting," (3) "t.he e{Iects 0f thirty years of pelsistent racial

oppeats irr politicat canrpaigns," (4) "a relatively rlcpresscd socio-

e"onomiq sfatus resulting in significant degree fr,nr a celrtury of

ile jure and rle /'orlo scgregatio[,":rntl (5) "the contiiltring elTect of

a majority vote rcquiremcnt." The court also found thlt in creating

the sole single-member district chtllengcd-senate District 2--the
State hatl diluted black voting strength by fracturirrg the blflck

community into two tlistricts containing black vol,ing minorities
(J.S. App. 52a).

Subsequent proceerlings are tltrscribed in ottr e:rrlier brief (at 3

n.l).
6 The court tlirl not ntake a finding for any of thc rlislrit:ts regatrl-

ing voting age populttion, rvhich is the prefelrctl ntersttre. see city
of llome v. United Statcs, 446 U.S. 166, 186 n'22 (1980) ; lUyche v'

Llodison Pat'ish Police Jurv, G35 F.zd 115f, llGl-l162 (5th Cir'
1$81 ) .

o The challengetl nrulti-membcr rlistricts continuetl pre-existing

districts anrl their apportionments (J.S. App' l9a)' Thus, it is pos-

r The state consl,itutional provision to which the suit referretl was

a provision ntlopted in 1068 prohibiting the division of coutrties for

the purpose of creating electoral districts'

2 Tlre procecdings are rlescribed in our earlier brief (nt 1-2),

3 Only trvo of these tlistricts-Ilouse Distric[ 8 and sennte Dis-

trict 2-werc subiect to and had receivcd preclearattce trntler sec-

tion 6 of the Vot.ing Rights Act. :



4

antl r eer cct'l, 
I : .."n'J,,f :1.,;',l,t 

t't 

fjj k i kt 
jjl 

Xl},tio.s, r'espectively"i"n'i* -nr.imary, 

11"u.rr,t elecl,ion (ur.
of the white Y3t-"t-:hl';""""il,- in it,e g
anJ 46% of Llte w

"t 
aa*.) %. Ilouse Districi 23, in Dttrham

Ilouse Distt'tct

fftrr,"ti{ffi .il}}t;,,;.ffi ?,;l'dit
li?r'.T,.' 

"rt:l?l'' l" in "'*ii' 
te' *t' u o-Tn 

i *,". "d 
to v o te, an tl

;;;.#;' ii 1xt' mr ii Hli 
: 1+ *irfl il,:T) ; 

t:",,rl*
",|ii.'i, iaa n.zzt. rhe !J':t: .P"l,YitT; ,r,."*n within

1,,:i i,'J . i 
i er "1'; ;iH -1'{ll, i:* 

"llJ.l] 

tlT i: i:, :i;
l*.'litt: I'il;;:"ir'e 

- 

ch ar I en 91t,1,,.u rep resen tativ o

:-:#, t''i*' ai'u'i't has elc'cted ":i#i:"t't'"J'r'io'r' r"gi'-

;f;;;r;itction since 1s'i3 (id'*''.,."r,un 
in 1e?8' and

lator was unopposed in l'ho BeD€rnl.€Iuut'tu" i, lgg0. In

ut t l*,""'.mi";:i"i*fl' i$. tf ' 

'' 

It-: *:
il 

i #;- nl# l,li', l a :qii)l *,,,,.,.# T*T ;li,,:' ^-

".oi";J.ti",r.,$"3,""","J"{:tf#1;,1'Xl;,;","orlTJ'i#Zg% of the wt
44il. rr^rroo Districb 36, in Mecklenburg

u'l*u'*fi.,ng*tffi
i"roa t. vote, antl 

",u,;o/ir";;:'":;;;.' fnu 
-btack popula-

tion is registerxl (id" at '?4"'!; thab two singlemember
tion of the tl.istrict is so'siLuated ut;;;;;;l; 

bo (t6'r/o

i.*ili"1'" clisLlicts could be dra'

l*[-**'uate the plan's'tlilutive irnpacl" it any' by looking at'

H*l':i qrru r#r,iillrr,ff :" ;"t1 i.*: ;itll'^*''
two of whom r

md 712% ur'lcr< fff,,i: .i!i:,,{iil":;",,r,:?}; m:one black represelrl'atu" 

"r*Lo 
* |]: at 43a). Ire re-

first black citizen.t^' rii- .""*ry (id.

:'"llx*;'#'tn-'Jli"'""i'"'rY,ll'iil]::^^i:ii"^.
ii," *n1," """ li,il,- fiil;'1il'?lii#,.,,:t il i! r::sccond,. unsrlcc:ltir? i;;; r,r.imary a
Lho whitc vote tn 

-t

o',)1,' L*tt * r#:iJr; - 
r rou se,'p i s t' 

llt.,l' i.' in: [ilHl

^ *;ttl'jff 
Tl,:' fi::h;;#;,1j*o:, T;;

iliii'ir'iu.i'2, r,r^"rt' antl blacks tol'*," 
white vobi'g.age

,=*ili",,r r,:,"-,:*li,f di"ll#"fif lfrf lnt
Hi#'luli",li-m;isarsoregi-':'iiu.J'l';J:'?--1"L'""-

Il: iJxll "r#'itrji ';i. 
*:{,;t ff ,ffi lr"$'*,'"1"*i

fl'J:J'lq*i' J",fJ'ffi *,.;*t'ffi il;;;;J; fr *I;, :T:lt,T I,';;
rePresent'ative I

ffi,;({},lYild:",J[ffi",,-;:
viously won 'the l)ernocra'tic Lo^L ,n 19?B antl l'O% yf-

*:'-l*1, :::\T'ffi ,lx'ruru *;;'i ;"ction i "
ilu#;,;:k,i';;:^::];"Jf 

t:l',i;,.il",Y,ff 5'i,1;

Ug 11":11'xil-ri:'lif"'ii.li"i iJ"'q"iir" brack' and

-fi*-'u wcre only seven' whitc cantlitlates for eight positions in

.: 
i* * ;lii': ri,ilm ::i jr* rt* ;ilt ",[[ii[.IiHbeen elected mr

irnii""'"t" in the gcneral elecl'iott aga

APP' 35t) '



6

1G.8% of the rcgisteral votet's are black (ibid')' In
Mecklenburg Counfy, 73/, of the white voting age popu-

lalion is register*i to vote, as is 50-B/' of l'he black

voting ago population (itl. aL 24a n.22) -to 'Ihe blaclt

poprLtio, is so situaterl that one single-tnember district
.orta U" created with a 70.0% black populaLion (id' aL

20aJ. Under the present 1llan, no black Senator is part

of the delegation; however, a black cibizen was electetl

flom 19?5-1980 (id,. at 34a). Tho blacli senatorial in-
cumbent (Alexander) received 47% of the white vote in
the 19?8 ltrimary, and 41/o of Lhe white vote in the gen-

eral election; his share of the white vote dropped to 23%

in the 1980 prirnary (irl. at 42a). A second black candi-

date (I'olk), running in 1982, garnered 32/o of thewhite
votes in the primary arld 33/. in t.ho general election'

Ibkl.

TNTRODUCTION AND SUII{MAIIY OF ANGUMENT

This is the first case in this Court to accord plenary
appellate leview to a trial court's finding of a violation
oi the 1982 rnrendment to Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act. That provision, enactal after att intense legislative
struggle, r'epresents a studiecl contpromise that contlemns

only those electoral llrocedules tltat "r'esult" in a denial
of an "equal opportunity to pnrticipate in the electoral
process." That conclusion is a ma[ter of law, the proper

conception of which must be established antl assured by

this Court. This ultimate tleterrnination reqtrires deli-
cate judgments that can hardly be leached or reviewed
by any nrechanical standard. If the integrity of the Sec-

tion 2 comllrotnise is to be rnaintained, moreover, ltn ap-
pellate court must assure itself not only that a trial court
has consitlered the appropriate evidettce in reaching its
conclusion, but also that this evidence, taken as a whole

anrl properly balanced, supports the trial coltrt's an-
swer to the ull,imate question that Congress has pre-

scribetl.

ro The rlislrict cortrt did not make a findirrg for Cu'i:rbus County
(soe J.S. A1tp.24a-25a n.22) .

7

The district cour[ considered all of t]re evidence, but it
reachetl an ultimato conclusion at odtls with the correct

legal stantlartl. If left trndisturbetl, that' decision means

th"t *h.r'uver thel'e has becn discrirnination in thc past

antl some rneastllo of raci:rl polarization in voting in the

present, tlistrict cottrts will be free to strike clown vir-
iually any schemo that tloes not--ot' even Lhose thab tlo-
deliver elecboral succcsses proportional to ntinority vot-

ing sitength. That is no[ what Congress intcnrled' Spe-

cifically, we shall al'gue that the trial cotrrt, by ignoring
recent minority electoral successes in the dist'ricts in

issue, could not rea.sonably have found a violation rtnder

tJro proper "eqttitl opportunity to participate" stantlartl,
llut rather must implicitly havo sought to guarantee con-

tinuetl nrinority electoral success. Fulther, the coult be-

low adoptal and marle tlisposiLive a definition of racial

blocl< voting ihat, tahen literally, might, jusLify finding

this factol presen[ in virtua]ly any tlistrict with a ra-
cially ntixed electorato and thus could juslify requiring
proportional representation in all such districts. Con-

greis crafterl a precise standartl for intel'vention in the

electoral process, and fidelity to that, standard reqttires

that this judgmenl, he set asido.'r

ARGUII{ENT

T[IT' DISTRTCT COUITT ERNONI,OIJSI,Y }IDI,D I'IIA1I'
THT' REDISTNIC'TING T'I,AN A1' ISSUD VIOI,ATES
AMI}NDEI) SECTION 2 OII TIIE VOI'ING RIGHTS
ACT OF rS65 

I

A. Amentlcd Sectlon 2 Guarantees Dvet'y Cllizen The
Rieht To An fNqrrnl Opportunity To I'arlicipnte In 'I'he

Political Process

7. Tho legislative baclrgrottnrl of amendcd Secl,ion 2

untlerseot'es tho cen[r'ality of the principles noted above

to the compt'omise enacted into that law. Arnendetl Sec-

rr We rvill not rlisctrss llouse I)istrict 8 and Scnate District 2'

because appellants' clrallenge to the district court's conclttsion as to
those rlistricts is not within the llcope of thc Court's notation of
probable j uristliction.



8

tion 2 reflects the consensus of an ovet'whelming majority

of thc Congress, reached only after an intensivo and

tlsvisivo cleb-au, whsther to enrlorso or reject the holding

in City ol Mobile v. Boldnn,446 U.S. 55 (1980)' The

protluct of that tlebate was a provision that dom not t'e'

quire proof of racial animus to establish a violation of

arnenrlcrl section 2 anrl tloes no[ allow proof of electoral

failure solely or even preponderantly to establish a vio-

lation untler- the Act. Oongress choso an altogether tliffer-
ent approach: As atlopted, Section 2 guarantecs every

citizen- cqual ilccess to the electoral process anrl thtrs

focuses upon tltat pl'ocess itself.t'?
a. Amentletl Section 2 originaterl in the 9?th Con-

gress when II.R. 3112 was introdtteetl to extend eertain

featules of ths 1965 Voting Rights Act anrl to nrotlify

Setion 2 of the Act bc*ause of the decision in City of
Mobite. II.n. 3112 would have eliminated an intent
sbanrlard by forbidditrg any jurisdiction from imposing
or applying any electoral practice "in a manner whieh

results in a denial or abridgement of the right * * ' to
vo[e on lecount of t'aee or eolor ] t ]," tt a tesL claimed

0

hy its suplror[ers to stem f.rom Wlite v. Regester, 412

d.S. fss itgzg), and Wltitconfi v- Chaais,403 U'S' 124

(19?l). Most of lhe tliscussion in the ]Iouse regarding
II.n.3112 was rlevotql to otlor itspects of the bill; the

proposal to amend Section 2. at[racterl little tlebaLe't{ As

pasie,l by the 11,use, ILI1. 3112 containerl tho results test

in the original bill antl a disclaimer l.hat nutnerical un-

derrepresetttation itself violaterl Sec[ion 2.'o

b. Afier the Ilouse passed II.R. 3112, lhe Senato Sub-

commit,teo on the Corrstil,rrtion ltcgan hearings on two

bills, one that contained the t'esull,s test, in II.lt. 3112 (S'

3112) anrl one that wotrld havo tetainerl Lhe City ol
Mobite stanrlarrl (S. 19?5).'n The enstting debate focttsed

on ths pl'oper standard for Section 2. Proponents of a

results test chiefly argtted thal, the Court's holding in
City ol l'lobitc insulated discriminatory pracLices frotn
lsviow because of the di{Iictrlty of obtaining evirlence re-
garding the sulljeclive motivations of legislators, esl)e-

.intty when the practices fin question wet'e adoptetl long
ngo.lr They propsed that the analysis should be baserl

12At the same time, the legislativc histrrry of amentlerl Secliorr 2

is compticaterl, variegntetl, and, on occasion, contratlictol'y' The

language ultimul.ely incorporated into this provision was proposcd

by Senatot l)ole ns a means of resolving a tleadlock in tlrc Senntc

.Iudiciary comrnittee l.hat arose after the senatc constitrrtion sttb-

committee harl rcjectetl the Ilouse version of Section 2. In this set-

ting, undue ernphasis must not be given to the viervs of any one

faction in the controvtrrsy. The legislative history nrust be ttntler-

sl,ood in terms of its dominant movement and funrlamental pttrposcs.

Statements of the majority in the Senate llcport, while illuminat'ive

on many issues, must be evaluated against the recortl estnblishrrl

before the congress as a whole and particullrly agflinst stntenrents

of ilre arklitionnl vielvs of individunl menrbels wlro insistetl ttpott

nnd supported the compromise. The statements of Senator Dole, t'he

sponsor of tlte compromise, must also be givcn particrr'lar rveight'

's II.R. 3198, $?th Cong., lst Sess' (1981). See [lxtension ol the

Voting Rights Act: Hearings Be,fote the Srtltcotnm. on Ciuil and

Constittrtiottal Rights of the llouse C<tnnn. on tlrc Judiciary, 97Lh

Cong.. lst Sess. Pt. l, at 2 (1981) [hereinafter citrxl as l/ot'ge

Ileoings).

r{ See gelterally Royd & I\fatkman, l'\rc 1982 Anendntcnts to llrc
Voting Righls Act: A Legislatioe I'Iistory,40 Wash. & Irce L. Ilcv'
184?, 1354-13?9 (1083) [hereinaftcr citetl as Boytl & Mnrkrnan'1.

rE The disclnimer provitletl: "The fact l.hnt members of a minority
group have ttot been elcctcd in nttntbers eqrtal to the group's l)ropor-
tion of the populntion shall not, in and o t' ilsell, constittttc a violal,ion
of this sectlon." II.R. Itep. 97-227,07th Cong., 1st Scss. 48 (198f )
(emphasis added) [hercinafter citerl ag Ilouse Reportl' Altlrotrgh he

hnd sponsored the disclaimer, Representntive IIyde lal.er concluderl
that it fniletl to nchieve its purposes. Sce I Votinq Rigltts Act:
Ilearings on 5.53, et al. Refore thc Snltcontm. on the ()onstitulion
of the Senate Comm. on t.he Jtuliciaru,9?th Cong., 2rl Sess. 40?-408
(l$82) (testimony of Rep. Ilyde) [hereinrfter cited as SrLrttr.te

Ilearirtgs l; id. at 886-88? (letter from Rep. Ilyde to Sen. Ilatch).
r0 Srxators I(ennedy nnrl Mathias (antl nrorc than 60 co-sponsors)

introtlueerl S. 1992,O?th Cong., lst Sess. (1081 ), rvltich wns itlentic:rl
to II.R. 3112. 127 Cong. Rec. 515694 (dailv etl. Dec. 16, 1981).

Scnator Grassley inl,rotlucctl S. 1975, 97th Cong., lst Sess. (1981).
127 Cong. Ree. S15372 (rlaily ed. Dee. 16, 1981).

11 See, e.g., I Serufic Ilearingls I09 (statemcnt by Sen. Mrrthits);
dd. at 266,265 (testimony of Benjamin L. Ilooks, IDxec. Dir.,



10

upon the variotls so-called "objcctive" faetors ident'ified

ii wnlte v. Regcster and pre-city ol ltfobile lower court

cases applying that standard. Critics of ths results test

agrecd, in ur..n.", that a fintling of unlawfttl vote dilu-

ti,on coukl antl should be made on the strength of objec-

tivo evidence, but wete concerncd with, among otlter

things, the potentially-limitless scope of tho Uest''8 A
principrl .on.".n was the implication left by the dis-

"lnirlur: 
given its lirniLed terms--that numerical untler-

rcpresentation of minolities woukl not amottn[ "in ancl

of itself" to a violal,ion of Section 2--opponents of the

results tesL maintained that, propoltional I'e1tt'esentation

woulcl ineluctably follow sirnply from proof of sonte ad-

tlitional factor iclenl,i{ied in Wldte ot' elsewltere'" Atr-

ol,her rnajor criticisrn was l.hat the llouso vetsion lacked

:r "cole vulue" or an "ult imate or thresholcl criterion"
other than propor[ional representation for evaluating
vote dilubion claims.'o Supporters of the resttlts test re-

peatetlly assut'ed its critics that it was not a mandate fot'

NAACP) ; id. at 290-291 (testimony of Vilmn I\{artinez, Pres',

MALDDF) ; r:rl. at 813-819 (Prepared Stntenrent of Armanrl
Derfner). Another criticism was that the intent test fostered racial

divisiveness by requiring o person to be brantled as a racist before

n violation coukl be found. See dd. at 1181 (Prepared Staterncnt of
Arthur Fleming, Chairmnn, U.S. Comm'n on Civil Rights).

rs A complete discttssion of the objeetions to thc resrrlts test is
contained in the Strbcommittee's Report. Sce S. Rep. 07-417, 07th

Cong., 2d Sess. 108-IlI, 12?-158, 169-1?3 (1982) [hereinafter citetl
as Senate Reportl (Voting Rights Act: Report of the Subcomm. on

the constitution of the sennte Judiciary comm.) [hereinafter citetl

as Subcomm. Report'l ; see also Boyd & Markman 1396-140G (dis-

cussing Srrbcommittee's objections).

t0Sce, c.g., I Senate IIenrittlls 616 (statement of Sen. Ilatch); fd.

at229-231 (tcstimony of Prof. Walter Ilerns); dd. at 407-408 (tcsti-
mony of Rcp. Ilyde) ; id. at 424-432 (testimony of Prof' Ilarry R'

Gross) ; fd. at 665 (testimony of Prof. John Bunzel); id. at 1438

(tcsl,imony of Prof. Irving Younger)' See genertlly Strbconrm'

Report 142-146.

m Subcomm. Report 137.

11

lrroportional representation,z' that, it, was nret'ely & nteans

of ensuring that minorities were not e{Iecl,ively "shut
out" of the electoral process,22 and that, given the heavy

bur<len the test placed on a plaintiff-one supporter de-

scribed ib as "incralibly tlifliculL" 23-the tesb would in-
validate only those electoral practices that, denied mi-
norities an equal opporLunity to parLicipato in the poliLi-

cal ptocess. ''r As At'mttntl Delfner, head of fhe Voting
liights Project, put it, tlte "goal" of amended Section 2

"is t,o creato an opportunity-nothing mot'e l.han an

opporlunity-to participate in the political system." 1

Sennte Ileatittgs 82L (Prepared Statemen[).'u Nonethe'

2tSee, e.g., I Serutc lleot'ings 200 (Preparetl Staternent of Sen'

Kcnnedy) ("Ihe cotrrts huve macle clear tlrtt trndcr tlre stantlat'rl in
our bill there is no right to a qtrota or to propor'lional represcntation,
even in the context of at large elections") ; itl. at 243 (Iienjamin L.
Ilonks, Exec. Dir., NAACI') ; itl. at 283, 287 (Memorantltrm of Ilalph
G. Neas, It)xec. Dir., Lcadership Conf. on Civil ltights); id- at' 79ti
(testimony of Armand Derfncr, Voting llights Project).

22 As Armund Derfner, hcad of the Voting Ilights I)roject, put it,
"Itllre precise proof might vary, but the essential cletnenI of proving
that the racial minority wtts 'shut out,' d.e., denied access---not simply
to winning olliccs but to the opportunity to parl.icillate in the elec-

toral system-was always required Iuntler pre-City of ltobile
cases]." I Senate llearings 810 (Prcparetl Slatenrent) ; see also,

e.g., id. lL 223 (Prcparerl Statemerrt of Sen. I(ennody) ; id. aL tt?ti
(testimony of David Walbert).

2s I Senntc llearings 368 (testimony of Llrrghlin lvlcDon:rld,

Southern Regional I)ir., ACLU).
2{ See, e.g., I Senate Ileatings 201 (testimony of Sen' MaLhias);

id. aL22l (I'repared Statement of Sen. Kennedy) ("effectivelv shut
out of a fair opportunity [to] participate in the election"); id. rtt
810, 819-820 (Preparetl Statement of Armand Derf ner).

26 Other supporters of the results stantlard made the samc point.

See, e.g., I Senote Ilearings 305 (l'repared Stt[ement of Vilma S.

Martinez, I'resident, MALDEF) ("The issue then, is not propor-
tional representation, brrt equal acccsg to the political process");
iit. tr| 372 (Laughlin McDonald, Southern Regiorral Dir" ACLU)
("What those [pte-City of tlobile] cases do is establish equality of
access"). Sce also iil. at223 (Prepared Statement of Sen' l(cnnedy) ;

itt. at 275-276 (Prepnred Statement of Benjamin L. Ilooks, Pres'
NAACI') ; id. at 283, 28G-287 (Memorandum from Ralph G' Neas,



12

Iess, the Constitution Subcommi[tee rcjectetl the Hgus-e

effects test in favor of the City ol Mobile standard' 2

Sennte llearhrys 10.
e. To brealc the deadlock, Senator Dole, with tlre back-

ing of the Plesitlertt, offered a compt"otnise vel'sion of

section 2 that responrlecl to criticisrns of the effere[s tcnt

by introducing "atlditional language" incot'porated from
linlte v. R lester "clelineating what Iegal standald
should apply untler tho resulLs test" antl "clarifying that

[this test] is not a mandate for prollortional representa-

[ion." 2 Senate llearings 60 (staternent of Sen. Dole) ;

iil. aL 58-59. The mos[ signilicanL feature of the com-

prornise was to mrxlify and expand the language of the

llouse.pussed bill to ensure that "equal opporLunity," not

"proportional results," woultl be the legal test. Senate

Ilepor[ 193-194 (Additional Views of Sen. Dole) ; id. at
tO9 (Supplemental Views of Sen. Grassley). As Senator
Dole put it, because his version of amendetl Section 2

"focus[es] on access to the process, not electiort resttlts"
(2 Sennte llearings 61-62), the question to be answeretl
is "not whether [minorities] havo achieved ptoportional
election resulh," but "whether metnbers of a protected

class enjoy equal access. I think that, is the thrus[ of
our compromise: equal access, whether it is open; equal

access to ilre politial pl'ocess" (id. aL 60; see also 2 Sem-

ate lleafitr,gs 46 (Sen. Leahy) ("[iJt is the opportttni[y.
to parl,icipate, trot the actual use of that right, which is

crucial * r *")). The Cornn-ritteo aclopted Senator Dole's
.conrlllomise (ftt. at 86), as did the entire Senate (128

Cong. Ilec. 5?139 (daily ed. June 18, 1982)). All,hough
the Senats bill differed from the llouso version, the
House dispensetl with a conference and adopted the Sen-
ate bill (iil. tr,t 113846 (daily ecl. Jttne 23, 1982) ).'0

Excc. l)ir., l,earlership Conf. on Civil Rights); id. * 305 (Preparcd
Statenrent of Vilnrn S. Martinez, Pres., MALDEF) ; itl. at ?OG

(Mernorandum fronr Frank ll. Parker, I.,alvlcrs' Comm. for Civil
Rights Untler Larv).

20 There was little rlebate in the Ilouse, and, rvith one cxception,
no one disagreed with the thrust of Senator l)ole's posil.ion that

13

2. The legislative history thus reveals that the com-

promise encompassed three key areas of consensus' First,
ih"." *ot widesptead agreement that direct evidence of

intent to tliscrirninate should not be necessary to eshrb-

lish a violation uttcler Section 2. House ll'eport 29; Sen-

ate Report 193 (Additional Views of Sen. Dole). Sec-

ond, tluring the courso of the debate, a consensus-Sena-

tor Dole tlescribed it as "a utranimous s611sg115sg"-

tleveloped agains[ permitting Section 2 cllims to be based

upon the inability of a group to achieve representation
in proportion to its population within the jurisdiction.2T

Rather, rnembers of Congress who favored '8 or opposecl s
the original results test and the compromise vet'sion of
amended Section 2, as well as private supporters of the

bill,so agreed that proof of minority undelrepresentation

"equal Bccess" and an "equal opportunity to particillate" was the
standnrd for amended Section 2. See 128 Cong. Rec. II3840-II384I
(tlaily ed. June 23, 1982) (Rep. Itrdwards); dd. at ll384l (Itep'
Senscnbrenner); id. at tt3842 (Rep. Ilyde); dtl. at Il384G (ltep.
Butler). But see dd. at 113844 (Rep. Lungren) (describing stand-
ard in l.erms of intent).

2? Senate Rcport 193 (Additional Views of Sen. l)ole) ; Senatc

Iteport 33; Ilouse Rcport 30;128 Cong. Rec. 56647 (dailv etl'

June 10, f982) (Sen. Grassley) ; id. at. 56020 (dailv erl' Jtrne 17,

1982) (Sen. Ilatch) ; id. at 56961 (Sen. Dole) ; 18 Weeklv ComD'

Pres. Doc. 846 (June 20, 1982) (Presideni's signing statement)-

28 As Senntor Kennedy explainerl his version : "Section 2, as

a.mendeil utould, not ntalce mere f ailtte ol minorities to win propor-

tional rcTresentalion a oiolation, eaen il thot came as the result of
at krge elec,tions. Plaintiffs would hai,e to prove atklitional factors
establishing that, in the total circumstnrtces minority voters not
only failed 'to win' but were effectively shut out of a fair opportu-
nity Ito] participate in the election." I Seruttc II eatings 223
(emphasis in original) (l'repared Statement).

20 See Subcomm. ItePort 139-147.

eo llenjamin llooks, Executive Director of the NAACP, mnde this
point during the Scnate hearings: "I would say that-and let me be

very frank-simply proven results would not be enough to trigger
the mechanism of Section 2. It worrltl only trigger it if the results
were caused by some practice. Results simply trigger looking at the



l4

w&s a necessary but not a sttflicient element of a suecess-

ful vote clilution claim, as the Court's decision in Wh'ita

and Wltit'comb had held.st Third, both sides in the con-

i.oro..y agreed that the concepts of unco,stitutional
vote tlilutio-n tlevelopecl by this Court in Wlt'ite anrl Wlil'
com,b and as applied by the lower courts priot to City

ol Mobite* shoukl govern amended Section 2 cases'"$

Amenderl Section 2, as the text itself mahes clear, thus

focuses not on guaranteeing election t'esults, but insteatl

on securing to every citizen the right to an equal "oppot.;

tunity * * * to pariicipate in the political process * * u"

(42 U.S.C. 19?3). As Senator Dole, whose views, as

practices; tltat is all." 1 Sernte llearings 2(i?; see also, e'g'' dtl' at

283 (M.,rru.antlttm of Ralph G. Neas, llxec. Dir', Leatlership Conf'

on Civil ltights) ; itt. at 420 (Laughlin Mcllonald, Southcln lle-
gional Dir., ACLU) ("I rlo trot know of a single case * * * that

says the mere absence of blacks from oflice is evcr enough to violate

eiiher section 2 of the 14th or the 16th anrentlment. Not only are

there no cases that have ever said that, but evcry case says precisely

tho opposite"); id.. tt 95? (Prof. Norman Dorsen) ; id' at 987 (Prc-

pared Statetnent of Joseph L. Rauh, Jr.)'
sr llecause the Scnate entlorsed this principle as rvell as the

court,s rlecisions in l{hitcomb and wltite which had enunciated it,

flre statement in the llouse report that the consistent defeat of

minority or mirrority-backetl cantlitlntes in at at-large syst'om itself

woukl estublish a violation of. umended section 2 (Ilouse Report

30-31) does tto[ express Congress' intent' See also page 1? note

39, infra.
sr See, e.g., Black Votets v. lllcDonouglt, 6$5 F'zd I (lst Cir'

fg??); Ilendrir v. Joseyth,559 F.2d 1266 (6th Cir' 1977); l)otte v'

Illoore:',639 F.zd f162 (8th Cir. 1$?G); Zint'mer v' IllcKeithen,4SS

F.2d 129? (5th Cir. 19?3) (en banc), afl'd otr other gt'ountls sttb

non. East Calroll Parislt School Bd. v. llarslmll, 424 U'S' 636

(10?6) ; sce also l sen'ate lleafirt'gs l2li-1226 (Appenrlix to Pre-

paretl'statement of l'rank R. Parker, Larvyers' Comm' for Civil

irigt,t" Unrler Law) (c.llecting cases). Tlre Court discussed tlresc

factors in llogets v. Lotlge,468 U.S. 613, 610-620 n'8 (1082)'

as See llouse Report 30 & n.104; Senate Rcport 27-30:l itl' nt 104

n.24lI6(A<l<titiorlalViewsofsen.Ilatclr);id.ntl94(Adtlitional
Views of Sen. Dole) ; id. aL 198 (Supplcmental Yiews of Sen'

Grasslcy); 128 Cong' Rec. 56941 (dnilv ed' Jurre 17, 1982) (Sen'

Matlrias);id.al56961(Sen.Dole);fd'atII3841(dailved'June23'
1982) (lteP. Edwards).

15

principal sponsor of the compromise Section 2 that

pu.*".i the bongress, provide an -authotitative 
guide to

ihe statute,s' constr.uctio.,rn statecl in explantttion of his

proposal, "Ic.litizens of all raees al'e entitled to have an
'.quut 

"t,ouce;f 
electing can(lidates of their choice, but if

they are fairly affordetl that opportunity, and lose, the

law should offer no retlress." senate Report 193 (A(l(li-

tional views of sen. l)ole). senator D0le mzrtle the satne

point tluring the floor debate on his conrpromis€ Il'zq
b;,;; nu.. Sagot (tlailv erl. June 17, 1982) ) and acltled

that (ibid.):
tTlhe standard is whether or not the political proc-

esses are equally "o1)en," whet'her there is aecess'

whelher they are op-en in that members of a pro-

tectetl class iave l,he same opportunit'y as othel's to
parl.icipato in the political process and to elect can-

clidates of their choice.

In resporlse to a qtrestion f rotn Senator Thtrrmond

whether "the focus on the section 2 standartl lisl on

equal access to the political process ol' is * ' * on

wirether a minority gl.oup has achieved equfll election

resttlts?" (iil. aL S6962), Senator Dole replied (ibid') :

'Ihe focus in scction 2 is on equal access, as it
shoultl be. I thank the Scnator for directing tle
question. I know of no one in this Chamber and I
hearrlnooneallywhereelseindicatethatibshoultl
be otherwise. It slrotrltl be on access' Is the system

opu* to people in I(ansas, South Carolina, North
iarolina,^Caiifornia, New York, wherever? Do tltey
have aecess and an opltortunity to cast their vote?

It is not a light, to elect someone of their t'ace btlt
it is eqtral access and having their vote counted'

Amenrletl Section 2, Senator Dole further explained,

woultl " Ia] bsolutcly not" provide alty redress "if the

I

1

I

s{ See, e.g., Grouc City College v. I}clt, No' 82-?92 ( Ireb' 28' 1$84) '
slip op. ll; Nor|lt llat'cn lltl. ol F)rItLc' Y' Bcll, 45$ U'S' 512' 627

tfilgZ). This is particrrlarly truc given Serral.or f),ltr's pivotal role

in the atloption of amcrrrklrl section 2 and l,he absence of n confer-

ence report on tlre Act. See Norllr Ilauen',456 U'S' at 627'



16

proeess is open, if there is equal access, if there are no

Larriers, dii'ect or indirect, thrown up to heep someone

from voting or having their vote counted, ot' register'-

ing, whateier the pto..*t may inclurle" Gbitl'\' In his

viJw, so long as "[t]he political process leading to ttom-

ination or election [is] * ' * equally open to participa-

tion by tnembers of a class of citizens without' r'egard

to race, color, or language minority" there could not

be "a denial or abrirlgement of the right to vote under

the amentlrnent" (l2B Cong. Rec. 5?120 (daily ed' June

18, 1982) (colloquy between Sen. Dole ernd Sen' Gorton) ;

see also iil. aL SZttg (Sen. Dole) ); cf' lYh'itcomb v'

Chnuis,403 U.S. at 1l-r3'

supporters of amcndetl section 2 in the senate echoed

Sonnlo. I)ole,s uncler.stanrling of his cotnpromise amend-

ment to Section 2. They repeatedly emphasized that the

ptovision guaranteetl "equal ilccess":r; or "an equal op-

portunity to participate," 30 but that it tlid not apply

ih".u minori[y voters or cantlitlal,es "failetl to partici-
pate given atr equal opportunity" rr to do so's These

.totun*rt. tlemonstrate that the suppoltet's of senator

Dole's complomise versiott of amended Scction 2 shared

his construction of it's terms. Accoldingly, the central

issue under amended Section 2, as all participants in

t7

the Sen:rte floor debate agteerl, is whether a challengetl

electoral practice ,,result[s] in the denial of equal access

to any phu*" of the electoral process for minority group

memliers" (Senate Iieport 30 (emphasis addctl) )''u
3. The foregoing discussion makes clear that appcl-

lees e* in claimin[ that rlistrie[ court's finding that the

multimember district plan tlilutes blaek votes is subject

to Ferl. R. Civ. l'. 52(a). I\{ot. to Dis' 21, 35-36' Like
proxitnate cause in the law of tolts, the tertn "results"
iequires an evaluation of the facts in light of the pttr-

!6 Il.g., 128 Cong. Itec. 36665 (rlailv erl. Jtrne 10, 1982) (Sen'

Boreni); accortl, rrl. at 56500 (daily cd' June 0, 1982) (Sen'

stevens) (.,the issue to be tlecided utrtlcr the resttlts test is whether

tlre political proccsses are equally opetl to nrinority voteLs")'

lo 128 Cong. Rec' 36660 (rlaily ed. Jtrlte 9, 1982) (Sen. I(ennctly) ;

rd. at 5665? (Sen. Stevens).

sI 8.g., itt. at 56??9 (dailv ed. June 16, 1982) (Scn' Specter)'

:rt Accortl, e.g., itl. at 3664? (tlaily ed' June 10, 1082) (Sen'

Grassley) ; itl. rtt S6?f 7 (daily etl. June 14, 1982) (Sen' Tower) ;

;tt. at iozrZ-S6?18 (dailv ed. June 1?, 1982) (Sen' Movnihan );
irl.ut56964(Sen.Kenrretly);iDitl.(Sen.Ileflin);iil.ltLS71l0(daily
ed. June 18, 1082) (Sen. Metzenbatrm); id' nt' S?118 (Scn' Sasser);

irt. at 57138 (Scn. Robert, Byrd). As Senal'or Robelt Byrd put it'
..[tlhe law seeks to protect the right to vote, not the atrility to be

guaranteed etect,ion." /DdtI.

39 The legislative bsckground to amenderl section 2 also milkcs

this point clcar in another way. Under amenderl Section 6 of the

Act, luristlictions with n listory of 4igcrimination torrching ttpon

voting may not obtain approval to enforce chnnges in tlrcir election

laws ihat lave the ellect of causing a retrogression in tlre position

of minorities rvith respect to their exercise of thc franclise. citlt of

Lockhat't v. lJnitcd States, 460 U.S' 125, 133-136 (f $83) ; Beer v'

Llnited.Stotes,42SU.S'130,13?(f9?6)'Thelegislativehistorvof
nmendcd Section 2, however, conclusively shows that the Section 5

r.etrogression stanrlartl was not incorpor:rted into section 2. senate

tteport 68; id. at 104 n.24 !l 8 (Supplementnl Views of Sen' Ilatch);
t2S Cong. Ilec. Ilil84l (daily ed. Junc 23, 1982) (remarks of llep'

Sensenbienner with Rep. Iirlwards concurrirtg); iil. at 57095 (tlaily

cd. June f8, 1982) (Sen. I(ennedv); itt. at 36930 (dailv ed' June l7'
1082)(Sen.DeConcini)i2ScnateHetringsS0(StntcnrerltofSen.
Dole); I Senate llcarings 414 (testimony of Laughlin McDonald'

Sorrthern Regional I)ir', ACLU) ; id. at 449 (testimony of Mayor

Ilenry L. Marsh) ; id. at 801 (testimony of Armand l)erfner) ; dd' at

89r.8-$2(colloqrrybetweenRep'senselrbrellnerandSen.Grassley);
id.,e&1254(colloquybetwcenStrbcornm'CounselMarltrnanand
Julius L. Chambers, Pros., NAACP Legal Defense Eund) ; irl' at

15?6-16?6(l'reparettstatementofNathnnZ'Dershowit'z'Amcr'
Jervish congress). 'fhe senate report cxpressly states that "l pllain-

tifts could not estublish a section 2 violttion merely by shorving that

& challenged reapportionment * * * involved a reLrogressive clTect

on the political strength of a minority grottp,' (Senate ltcport 68

n.224). In other words, while a retrogressive efiect may be relevant

evitlence, access, not elfect, is the touchstone of a Section 2 inquiry'

while some courts have said that retrogressir-rn alone may violate

amentletl section 2, those courts have fnilerl to consider the abovc

legislat.ive history. See l{etcltuttt:v. Byrne, ?40 F'2d f398' 1407 (?th

Cir. 1984), celt. tlenietl, No. 84-62? (Jtrne 3, 1986) ; Buskeg v' Oliaer'

566 F. Supp. 1473,1482 (M.D. Ala' 1983)'



18

poses of the policy bcing served. Cf.. Met,ropolitan Ildisort,
Co. v. PAND, 460 U.S. 7$6, 774 (1983) (construing
terms "'ertvirontnetrtal effect' " and "'envilonmental
impacl,'" in light of "the cougressional conect'ns Lhat led
to the enacLment of NEPA"). The tluestiott undet'
amentled Sec[ion Z-whether a particular electoral prac-
tice "results" in the denial of "equal access" to the polit-
ical llrocess-thus calls for more than a factual conclu-
siou not only because Congress eschewerl reliance trpon
a "lnechanical 'point counting' device" to resolvc Section
2 claims (Senate lleport 29 n.118; sce 128 Cong. Itec.
S6648 (daily ed. Jtrne 17, 1982) (Sen. Glasslcy) ); but
also beczruse the unrlertaking rerluires :l caref ul anal-
ysis of the challenged electontl lllocess, as infornretl by
its acLual operation, inclutiing the norrquant,ifiable, but
undeniable, fact that a numeticrl rninority mly exelcise
subs[antial, anrl sometimes decisive, inlluence upon ilre
process. See lVltitcom.b,403 U.S. at 149-155.'' The Court
has recognizcd in a variety of other situal,ions that a con-
clusion basetl largely upon the application of a rule of
lalv to a p:rrticulnr seL of facts is a legal, not a fac[ual
conclusion." ln adtlition, for plaintiffs as well as de-

{o Sce, e.9., llrltitcontu,403 U.S. at 160 (footnote onritted) (where
"ghctto votes wcre critical to Democratic I'arty success * * t it
set:rns unlikely that the Democral,ic l'urty coukl nlTord to overlook
the ghetto in slnting its candidates"); Doae v. lloore,533 F.2d at
1163, 1155 n.4 (noting that local voters "lrave a strong allinity for
incrrmbents" and that eirch eatrrlidaLe's 4O/s black constituency
"c:rnnot be ignorerl rvith irnpunity"). Sec also Sconrnn v. Uplrcar, No.
P-81-49-CA (lC.I). Tex. Jan. 30, f084), aff'tl strb nont. Sttalce y.

Seu,mon, No. 83-1823 (Oct. l, 1984); lttrge 22 noLe 4G, infrn.
{r Compare, e.9., Ila.rper tt Rout, Publishers, lrx:. v. Nation fr)nter-

prises, No. 83-I632 (Iflay 20, 1985), slip o1r. 20, antl Stric&lond v.
lVashingtott, No.82-1564 (May 14, l9tt4), slip op.27-28,u,ilhWain-
turisltt v. lyitt, No. 83-1427 (Jan. 21, 1985), slip op. 15-17, and
Pattort. y. Yotutt, No. 83-95 (June 26, 1084), slip op. ll-13 &
n.12. See genelally Rose Corp. v. Cottstnrters Union ol Utited
Statcs, /2c., No. 82-124$ (Apr. 30, 1t)84). In this respect, the in-
quiry undcr nmended Section 2 is sirnilar to the l,ype of analysis
that appellate courls follow in deternrining wlretlrer a particular
nrljrrrlicative procetlure is consistent with rlue process (e.9., lVnlters

l9

fendants "the sl;akes--in tet'tns of inrpact oll futttre
cflses an(l future eotttlttct-are too grca[ to ctltt'ttst thcnr
finally [o the jurlgrnent of the trier of fitct" ( I]ose Corp-
v. Consrtnt.ors Uniul ol Unitetl Stat,as, Irtc., No. B2-124(t
(Apr.30, 1984), slip op. l5 n.17;see fd. at I5-25). Wele
the ultimate issue ttndet' atnenrlctl Scc[ion 2 simply a
qrrestion of fact, plaintiffs woultl bc tlisabled ft'ont effr:c-

l,ively challenging decisions whet'e, on tn essenLi:rll.y

stanrlartllcss basis, tlre court detertninerl that the "totality
of the circumstances" ditl trol srtppot't their clrse. Ac-
cordingly, becausc is it clcar that an appelltte cotrt'I
must indcpendently resolte mixed rlttestions of fact and
l:rw (I]o.se Corp., slip op. 15), this Cotrrt, is noL bountl by
Rule 52(a) in tletermining whethel the ntttl[i-memher'
districts in the 1982 rezrpportiotttnent plan violttes Sec-

tion 2.{1

Il. 't'he District L'otrtt l\lisapplicd 'l'he Factors Appropri-
nle To An Analysis Of Appcllees' Claim Of Unlarvtul
Vole I)ilution

In voirling the uss of rnulti-ntetnber tlistricts in l"he

1982 reapportiontnent 1llan, the distlict coutl, matle trvo
fundarnental ertors in construing and applying amenrletl
Section 2, eithel of which is sufficient to rerluit'o t'eversltl.
Ii'irsL, tlre court fountl a violation of the stlt[ule in the

v. Nationtl. Ass'n of llndialion Sttt'uiuors, No. 84-571 (Jrrnc 28,

1985)) nnd rvhethcr a stute law violales tlre First Amlntlmt'rtt
Itrstnlrlishrnent Clause (c.9., Grontl Rapids School Disf. v. Iitll, No.
tl3-000 (.luly I, l!)85) ).

'2'fhe decisions of this Corrrt and the lor';cr cottrts bolh [reforc
City of llobile anrl after pitssnge of amenrlerl Strr:tion 2 nlso mlkc
tlris ;xrint r:lear. Thcse rlecisions have engagetl in a far m()re

searching revierv of n r-listrit:t cotrrt's nrrnlysis than applicntion
of Rule 62(t), rvhich appcllees atlvocatc lterc, rvoulrl perrnit. Strc,

e.g., l[hitconilt v. Chauis, 403 U.S. at 144-ll-r51' Jones v. City of
Lttbboe.lc,727 lt.2i 364,38:l-386 (t-rth Cir. 1084); Ilendrit,559 F.2d
at 1268-12?1 ; Dnuid v. (]ut'r'ison,553 F.2rl 92;t, 920-931 (5th Cir.
19??); Rrados v. Ilrrpirlcs I'atish Police .Iury,l-r08 F.2rl 1100, lll2-
llf3 (6th Cir. l9?5). 'fhe cortrt in Velasquez v. City of Abilene,
725 lr.2d l0l?, 1021 (6th Cir. 1984), thus erretl in statintr thnt an

ultimate Section 2 finding is a question of fact. 'lhe corrrt rvns

miskrken as to [he central question to be answered under the
statute. Pages 14-17, supro,



20

absenco of evirlence that the "l'esults" of the rnulti-
member legislative tlistricts challengctl hero denietl mi-

nority votcrs an equal opporttrnity to llarlicipate in the

electoral l)r'ocess. Secontl, the court adopLetl an el'l'oncous

tlefinition of racially polarized voting, one that tniscon-

ceives tho 1lt'oper fot'ce of that criterion as an element of
a successful Section 2 claim.

1. a. Each of the disl,ricts is a multitnember district.
Ilowcver, it is finnly setl,led tha[ multilnember rlistricts
are noL inherently unlawful. Senatc Reporb 33; lVltit.c,

412 U.S. at 705; Wlitcomb v. Clnuis, sup'a; see also 2
Senate llcalirtgs 8l (statetnent of Sen. I)ole). While it
is true thaL in each of the disl,r'icts a[ isstte hcle it would
bo possible to ct'eate one or tnot'e single-trtentbet' tlistricts
with effective black voting majolities (see pages 3-6,

supra), this point cannot be dispositivc. l\{inority voters
havo no right to the o'eaiion of safe elecloral districts
rnelely because they coultl feasibly be dt'awn. Whitconr,b

v. Clmais established that principle priol to the 1982

amendtnent to Serction 2, and the CottrL's t'ccenb summal'y
a{lirmances in Broolcs v. Allain, No. 83-1865 (Nov. 13,

1984), and Sfln/ce v. Seamoz, No. 83-1823 (Oct. l, 1984),
have re:r{Iilmetl thaL principle uncler amentlerl Section 2.'3

axln Seam.on, the district court rejectetl a Section 2 claim thnt
rnirrority voters were entitled to a "'safe' district in rvhich thc
minority population npproaches 65% of the overall population"
(No. P-81-49-CA (lI.D. 1'cx. Jan.30, 198,1), slip op. 1l-12). Untler
tlre challenged ptan, minority voters, while not guaranteed the
ability to ehlct one & represental,ive of tlreir choice, rvere fottntl to
"exert a significant impact" and to "play pivotal roles in key elec-

tions" in two high minority impact districts (dd. at 16). Sirnilarly,
in Drooks, tlre plaintiffs trrgcd the three-jrrdge district eourt to
create a congressional district with a 64Vo blnck poptrlat'ion mini-
mum on the ground thnt, becausc of lorv voter registration and

turnout nmong blacks, they would be unable to elect cantlitlates of
their choice rvith a lesser percentage. In rejecting tlre sttper-
mnjority yrlnns proposetl by the plaintiffs, the court notcd that
"[almentled $ 2 * * * does not guarantee or insure desirerl results,
anrl it goes no further than to affortl black citizens nn eqrtal ol)por-

tunity to participate in the political process" (No. CC82-80-WI(-O
(N.D. Miss. Apr. 16, 1984), slip oJr 16). This Cottrt's strmnrary

nllirmances in Seom.ott and Broolcs establish that nlinorities do not

2L

Nor can it be presumcrl without nlore Lha[ "safe" selt;s

for minority oflicehotders would necesrsarily bo in the-in-

terests of rninolity ttntets. See [Jnitcd Statcs v' Iloard of

Su.peruisurs, 5?1 F.z(l 951, 956 (5!! Cir' l9?8)' Ac-

cor:dingly, ii ttre ,,gr.avamen" of appollees' claitn is siln,ly
that North carolina chose to use mulfimember districts

where ,,there ar.e sullicient concen[r'ations of blach voters

to form rnajority btach singlc''member tlistricts" (J'S'

App. 4a), tlleir clairn neccssalily falls short of establish-

ing a violal,ion.''''ir. 
Mot.eov,., i, three of the challengerl tlistricts, hlztch

candi(laLes strpporterl by the blach comrnunity have been

elected undet' tho challcngexl plan in nttmbet's tts gt'elt as

or great,ar t/tara wottltl be ex;lected untler a single-melnher
plan, anrl black voter-s have wiekletl influenco ovet' other'

have a riglrt trntler Scctiorr 2 to the creation of "safc" minority-
controlled rlistricts, even rvherc other objectivc faclors contribttte

to the finding ()f a violatiorr of section 2 untler l.he "totnlity of the

circumsl.ttnces." Moreover, ns wo exptainerl in ottr brief (nt 8-19)

in CitU Cotmcil v. Ketchtntt., cert. rleniett, No. 84-62? ('lrrne 3' l98ll)
(a copy of which hns bcen serverl ttpon the parties), ct'eatiotr of

super-majority tlistricts as a mntter of larv is innppropriate to

remcdy n Section 2 viol:rtion.

rr The district court correctly rccognized that :r lnrvfrrl st:rt.e

policy regartling a particular etecLoral plactice is cntil.lcrl t0 rveiglrt
'(wttltcoitt,403 

U.S. at l49i ar.:e Uphntn v' Setrilrttn, 45(i U'S'

s? (1082)), but erretl by tlisregarrling thr: North ()ar<llinlr policy

against splitting legistative tlistricts (J'S' App' 4t)a-t-r0t) ' 'f lrt:

court acknolvlcdged tlrat "the state adtluced fairly pcrstrasive evi-

tlence l,hat tlre ,whole-county' policy was well-establishetl historicnlly,

had legil,irnate functional pttrposes, and rvas in its origills collr-

pletely-wit,lrout racial fountlation" (itl. tt 50a). Rrrt the corrrt hcld

l.hat ,,thnt all became irretevant as mntters tlcvckrptrl in lhis ptr-
ticular legislative plail" (ibid.) because the lt:gislatttrc chose [o

split courrties ,,onl11 wlrerr nccessary to mcet poptllation rlcvi:rtion

requiremen[s or to obtain $ 5 precleflralrce" (ibiil. (ernplrasis

ndrlerl)).Thalreasoningisptninlyinerror.Thef:rctthattlre
state arlhered to its potit:y except where necessary to enstrre thnt
each voter-blrtck and rvhite-harll his vote coultted eqrrally nntl trr

ensllro that the reapportionment plan did not eause o l'etrogression

in thc politicnl strengtlr of trlnctr voters (sec page l? lrote 31), snp1/a)

surely counl.s in the state's favor.



22

seats as well. fJven sincs 19?3, blacl< vo[ers in Ilouse

District 23, who rnahe up 3(i.:l% of tlre poprtlzrtion antl

28.6% of the registeletl voters, have elected a black mem-

ber of the threelpcrson delcgation. Pago 4, stlTtra't". In

Iltruse Distlict 21, the 2l.B% black rninority, constitut-

ing 1{-r.l /. of Llte registeral voter.s, elected a blach repl'e-

*orLntiuu to its six-membet' tlelegnt'ion in 1980 unrler a
srrbstantially-itlentical ;il.edecessol to the challetlged plan

(J.S. App. 194) anrl reelectal hirn in 1982 trnrler thc

clrallenglil plan. Pages 3-4, suTtra. The district cortrL's

errot is even clearer in I-Iouse District 39. In that tlis-

tt'ict, rvhet'e 25.1,/o of the poptrlation is black and 20'8/o

of the registererl votet's are blaek, a black candidaLe was

electsl to ttro {ive-member delegation in 1974 and re-

electetl in 19?6. In 1982, ttndet' the challenged plan, two

black rcpresentaLives, or 40/o of t'he delegation, were

clecterl. Pagc 5, sttpt'a. lly contrast, untler the alter-
naLive plan favot'etl by appellces, in each of thcse tlis-

tricts black voters would be relegated to one single'
rnetnber tlistricL with a largo black nrajority. Tlte abiliLy

of blach voters to contesb the remaining seats woultl be

lessened-inrleed, in llouse Distlict, 39 rninority voters

could have a retlucetl nttmber of tlelegate*-and (more irn-

portantly) theit' electoral inflttencc oll the other I'ept'e-

sen[atives wortkl be rerltrced.'0 Accot'tlingly, judged simply
on t.he basis of recent electoral "I'esults," the multirnetltber

2g

plans in these districts lrave apparenl'ly enhanced-trot

ililute,l-,ninotity vo[ing stlenglh'
In the lenraining ,lLt,'i.tt-Hnut* DisLrict' 36 and

sonalo I)istrict 22-black cnnditlates hztvo been lcss suc-

cessful. Itrven there, however, Lho 2li'5/' black minority

irr tlro llouse tlistrict, consLituting t8% of the registeretl

voters, elected a blacl< tnember to the eight-rnember dele-

gation in 1982, antl a second black candidate (who lost

i, U,o general clection) received 39/' of [he white vote

in the [,'i,nnty. Pages 4-5, suyn'a. In Senate District 22'

althnugh Lhe 
-24.3'/' 

black rninori[y, constituting 16'8'/'

of l,he-registeretl voters, has noL been able to elect a black

Senator i, tlru 1980s, a black candidate prevailed through-

oub tlre period 19?5-1980. f'ages 6-li, supra'"

rr The population percentages in the five counties ntay overcsti-

mate the actunl voting strength of minorities, btrcattse the pcr-

centage voting age population irr tht'se tlistricts may be less thnn

the population petcentage. See page 3 note 6, supra.

{0As Prof. Archibnld Cox ittforntcrl the Sennte Subcommittee,

"[v]oters in a minority grotlp may have exnctly t]re same oppor-

tunities for participation as ol,her votcrs, even thorrgh no mcmbcrs

of the group are elected to ollice. The nrinority may not vote as

a bloc. The minority may vote as a bloc but make its infltlence

felt in l.he sclection of non-min.rity cantli4ates fbr elecl,io., in
framing their programs and policies, anrl in sttpport of one or

more candiates against their opponents." I senate Ilearingls 1428

(Prtrparetl statement). Indeed, in the 1982 llrimarics in Ilorrso

nistricts 23 and 36, whites did not fleld a candidate for each of the

open positiolts. l'ages 4-6 ltol,es 7-8, stqtra' That fact reitlforces

the conctusion that btacks havc not been denied eqttitl ttccess ttr

the ctectoral process in these tlistricts by virtue of tlre rnulti-member

plan, because thc make up of the cantlirlate state is itsclf n reflection

of antl a response to the voting strcngth of the variotts constitueltcies

in a district.

'? Appellces seelt to mittirnize the significance of this elet:tolal

,,"""," on tlre ground (I\{o[. ttl Dis. 26.27) tlrat l,hc 11)82 electirrn

ycor was ,,obviously aberrntionnl"-ilttributillg this c<tltclttsiott

io 6re district cour.[. Il.wever, the district court's words ]tave ltecrt

takcn out of context. 'I'hc corrrt's finding (J'S' App' 3?a (footrrot'e

omitted)) rvas as follows:

'fhere are intirnations from lr.ccent history, pnrticrrlarly fronr

tlre 1082 etections, tlrat a ntore subsl,antial breaktlrrouglr of

Euccess coultl be imrninent-but there were enough obviously

nbcrrationltlaspcctsprcsentinthemostreccnteltlctionsto
rnnke that a nratter of sheer speculation'

In o footnote, tlre cour[ observetl that both parties lrad ollcred

evidence to establish either that the 1982 clectiotrs presagerl a
,.breakthrough" or thlrt they were "ttberrational." The corrrt stated

tlratits"frntling"intext(qrrotetlabove)"reflectsotrrwcighing
of ilrcse conllicting infcrences" (irt. at 3?a n.2?). It is thus ilrac-

curate for appellecs t() assert that the district court atlopl,etl their
view thlt the lg82 elections should be rlisregartled as "abcrrational."

In fact, the most that can be sai(l is that the cotrrb rejecterl l.he

opllosingvierv-thatthe1082electionresultsshouldbedeemed
evidencc that black canditlntes rvr-ruld aclrieve evcn gre:tter sttccess

in ilre "imminent" future.



24

This expelionce cannot be recottcilctl with the district,

courL's troiding thal, the challengetl plan tmults in vote

diluti0n." Intleetl, l,he district courL never arbiculated a

sLanrlard under which "r.esulLs" such as these coultl sup-

por.b a conclusion thal, the multi-tnenlber electoral system

in thme 6istricts-whicl is the procedure utrder challenge

-is "not equally open to participaLiotr" by lrlach votels'

The court only stated-wiLhout l.efelence to actual resul[s

in any of tlre challellgal clistricts-tl[tl, "thc success that
has bcen achievetl by black canditlates to tlate" is "too
minimal in total nuntber and too Lecellt" ttt sttplltlt't a
finding that a blach eantlitlate's t'ace is no longet' "a
signilicant, aclvet'se factorJ' (J.S. Aplr' 37a-38a)'r' [Iow-

{8 It is inappropriate [o conclur]e, as some courts have tlone, tltat
tlre state must provc that the existencc of past discrimination has

not r.etlrrcetl the currenI potential electoral success of black cantli-

rlatcs. ilcillillan\. Dscunbia County, ?48 F'2rl 1037, 1045 (5th Cir'
1984). That approach ntist:onstrues the govelning legal standartl,

improperty shifts the burden of proof, atrd requires proven artd con-

tirruetl minority elcctoral success to avoid section 2 liatrility. Neither

Congrcss nor Senator Dole hnd any sttch rerluirement in mind'

l'ages l2-1?, stt2r'o, antl lnges 27-28, inf ra.

r0Appeltees claim (Mot. to Dis' 27,41; Supp' Ilr' l0 & n'0) that
the district court's rlisparagement of black elcctornl success in the

chnilerrged tlistr.icts is supporterl by lrrngrtirge irt the senate tnrt-

jority report, a tloctttnent lvhich, rve have nrgrlctl, cannot be taken

as determinative on alt coults. In any event, l'lrc report simply

notes (senate Ileport 29 n.115) that the election of a "few" minority
candirlates shoitld not be deemed conclusive ltccattse it woultl enable

elc'ction oflicials to evltlc amentled Section 2 by engineclirrg the

etection of "a 's:rfe' minority candidate." 'l'he case cit'etl by the

roport tn illustrate this caveat, zimmer, ilrose itt :t context "wltete
the mult.i-mcmber systenr wfls devised, despite historic policy arrd a

state statute forbitkling it, in rcaction to a tlrflmntic voter regis-

tration drivc rlirecletl rt blacks, rvho, althorrgh cornprising.53 pet'

cent of ure parish,s population, had not been pcrnti[tetl to vote

rrntil 1962" (Black Volers,565 F'2tl at 4)' Given l'hr:se circtrm-

stances, an ,.abrupt change in policy-which coirrcirled with in-

clcrrsed black voter registration" (Walluce, 615 F'z(l at 6itl ),
zim,mer declinetl b treat recent black electoral success as dis-

positive.
Appellees have failetl to prove that blflck electoral success in tlrose

rlistricts is attributnble to llth hour efforts by the General As-

25

ever, tho election of relx'esentat'ives in numbers as gl'e&t

o. o, g.u*ter than the approximate black propoltion of

the poiula[ion, as in llouse Districl's 2L, 23, and 39' is
sureiy'not, "tninitnal." And in flottso Dist'ric[ 36 and

Sena[e District 22, while tho results adrnittedly fall shor[

of a stan<la.r'd of "proltot'tional repl'esent&l'ion"-which
Congt'ess lejected as l,he governing legal crit'erion-mi-
norily candidates eithcr ar.e or have bectt successful atld

lrlainiy ilr.e com,eti[ive.o, In faet, the t]istrict court itself
.onclitletl that ,,ltlhirty-five years afLer tho first success-

ful canrlid:rcies for public oflice by black citizens in this

celltrfl.y, it has lrow become possible for blach citizens to

be elected to oflice at all levels of state govel'nment in

Norlh Carolina" (J.S. APP. 37a).
The district court also en'ed by discounting the proven

lninority cleclnral success on the gl'otlnd that it' was "too
recent in relal,ion to the long hisl'oly of completo denial

of any electivs op;lorttrnities" f,o sttpport the conclusion

sembly to enginecr the election of "safe" rnitrority cantlitlates to

ilrwart a section 2 claim. Indeed, the district cortrt marle no melr-

tlon of any evitlence that would tend to support such a claim' More-

over, the district court notetl that "in rccent ycat's there has been

a measurable increase in the ability and rvillingness of black citi-
zens to participate in the state's political processcs anrl in its
government nt statc and locnl levels" (J.S. App. 47a)' Thc distlict
court tliscountetl this increased participation because of its finding
of racial polarization (ibirl.), but that finditrg is llawerl in several

lespects (see pages 28-ll, inlro).
60'fhe cottrt's relsoning is also tlawetl in another respect' Al-

though the district cottrt made factual findings on a district-by-
district basis, it rlrew il.s ultimate legal infercnces regarding racial

bloc voting and the elTect on nrinority ctectoral opportunities on the

blsis of ..[t]he overall results lchieved to date at all levels of

elective ofl-rce" (J.S. App.3?a). It is only on such a basis that the

court could htrve hekl l;lrat black elcctoHrl stlccess is "minitnal" in a

rlistrict such as llouse I)istlict 39' where Lhe 25'l/e blnch minority
has, rvith substantial rvhite support, etected 4O/s of the atJarge
r.epresentatives. To invalirlate a specific district on the basis of
generalized statewide results at "all lcvels of elective oflice" is n

ctear legal error. Sec lYhite v. Ilegester,4l2 U'S' at 76$ (requiting
an "intensely local appraisal" of the electoral scheme)'



26

that ,,a black cantlirlatc's race is tro longet' a signilicant
:ulverse factor"' (J.S. App. 3?a-3$n). That nrling is over-

broatl. 'I'o the extenl, that the court' lreld that past dis-

cl'iltrinal.ion canno[ be ovet'cotne by plovidirtg minoriLies

rvith contempolary access to the process, that luling is in
error. 'fhe lowel court decisions priot' ln City ol Mobile

repeatedly ernphasizerl [hab the key qttestion is not
wlie[her there was past rliscrimination but whether l,hat

rliscrirnirration prevents minoriLies fronr cu'rett'tly ptrt'-

ticipating in Lhe politieal process. See, e-g., IIendrir,
559 I,'.2t1 aL 1270; I)auicl,553 tr.zd at 930; Btatlas,508
Ii'.2t1 ab 1712; Zinrnrer, 485 F'zd at 1306; tccord, Mc-

Carty v. Ilenrlerson, 749 F.zd 1134, ll37 (5th Cir.
1984 ) ."' [IisLorical discrimination that has resulted in
a curt'ent lower rninority legistration rttte, for"instance,
as [he rlistr:icl, courl, fotlnd to be thc case here (J.S.

Itpp. 22a-264 & n.22), is an enlit'cly applopriate con-

sitleratiort untlcr antentletl Seclion 2.'2 But past dis-
criminaLion [hat tloes, not deny nrinot'iLies cttn'ent access

to the political process cannot suppor[ a violation of [he

Act.u" Antl to the extent that' the districb coult, held that

6r As Senator IIeflin statetl, "It.lhe l)ole compronrise has.a now

npplication but allorvs for tr consitlelation of yestcrday factors
ns welt as present day good faith ellorts to renredy past nristakes

if thc yesterday flctors totrch on the trew resrtlt." 128 Cong. Itec.

36964 (daily ed. June 17, 1982).
('x This history mty have htd an effect in Ilotrse District 36 nnd

Senrte District 22, given the olectoral results in those tlistlicts;
but, vierved in combination rvith other frtctors, it appears not to htve
shut blacks out of l,he electorat process there (see pnges 32-34, inlra) '

Given the fact that nrinorities have beerr electetl to ollice in llortse
I)istricts 21, 23, arr<l ll$ in rtutnbers at least as grcat ils rvottLl be

expected under a singlc-nrember systetn, the historical tliscrimin:t-
l.ion founrl by the rlistrir:t court does not aplrear to have alTcctcd

l.he electourl opportuDities thnt black voter.s enjoy itr those districts.

ssThe district cottrt thus plainly errerl by relying (J.S. App.

29a) ulxrn inoperntive nttmbered seat :tttrl auti-single shot voting
reqtrirenrents of state tilw. As the court itself notctl (itl. al 23tr-24tr),

those rcquirements wcre invalidtted ntore than a tlecadc lrgo

(Du.nston Y. Scott,336 Ir. Supp. 206 (E.I).N.C. l$72)), anr.l t'here

is no basis in amended section 2 (or logic) for concluding thst these

27

past tliscrimination persists in the fortn of racial bloc

voting, the court relietl upon an ol'roneous definition of

that concelrL, as wo will later explain'
Congrcss cottltl not havc expressetl mot'o clearly its in-

l.ent,iori no[ Lo invalidate mulbimetnber clistrieting pllns

wltero minoliLies have hatl an cqttal opporttrnity to par-

t.icipato in the electolal process, even if rninoril'y candi-

rlatm dirl not rvin a pr'ololtionate shal'e of the seats.r'4

Congt'ess adopted SenaLor Dole's contpromise precisely to

ensl;.e that Scction 2 would fJ*arantee rnino'ity v.tet's

acccrss to the electoral l)r.ocess-not ensul's victot'ies for
minority czrnrlitla[es-as the senzrte floor. debate plilinly

tlemonslt'ates. Pages 15-t?, su?ra- See also lloqars, 458

U.S. at 616; lViitcontb, 403 U.S. a[ 158-159 (mtrlti-

mernber rlis[r'icts challengetl for "their winner-take-all
aslrects").n' 'fho pre-City of Il[olile decisions of this and

other courts bear out that rnulLimenlber clisbricts are not

Llnlawful wltet'e, as hel'e, rninority candidates ill'e not

effectively shtrl out of the elecloral prmess' The closest

now-repealetl lcgal measurqs cout(l hnve nny currtrnl, trlfect on l,he

multimernber system. Sce pitges 72'17, s:|-pra (rliscrrssirrg Sen' l)ole's

compromise).

6a'I.lrc district court trlainly misconstruetl the signifi<:an<:e of

congress' rcjet:tion of the proportional leprescntal.ion stantlartl.

The cotrrt rlismissed tlre "prolrortional rcpres<:ntation" rlist:laimer

in Section 2(b\,42 II.S.C. ll)?3(b),lrs menning llo morc thln that
the faet that blacks have not becn electerl in nrtnrbers proportional

to their pcreentage of the poprrlation "does noL alonc establish that

vote dilution has resultetl" (J.S. App. 15a & n.13 (crnphasis :trklerl)).
As rliscusscrl above (pages 9-17), the distlairner rvas cxJrrcssly

rlrnfted to avoirl any such nfirrow iuterpretatirtn. In elTcct, the

district court has interprcted the Act as itnposing a "proJrortional

representation plus,, stanrlnrrl, rnther than :rn "et;ttal oppolttrnity"
standard, ns Congress intenrled.

6sAsArmnndDerfnerexplainetltotheSenatcSullcrrnrrnittee(1
Senate llearings 803):, "tlre ntJnrge clections that I * '' + have

been focrrsing on are those in whiclr the restrlt of those lrt-large

elections is bnsicnlty to shrrt orrt tlre minority voters. It is not a

qrrestion of whether they will get more or less or whcther t.he ma-

jority voters rvill get more or less. It is t question of some verstls

nothing."



28

analogy to this case is Doae v' I|[oore' l'tl'pl'a' in which

the ciurt of appeals upheld tho validiby of an at-large

;fu.,; untler *iti.tt tni ao% black nrinority electcd one

,ie*be, to an eight-member city council' Indeetl' in many

.u** p"lo, Lo City ol Mobile involving at-large voting sys-

tems where the aggl'egate of factors was unquestionably

Iess favot'able to #roi'ity voters than in this case-most

particularly, where no black citizen harl ever been electetl

unrler tJre system---challenges to the voting plans were

nonetheless helrl to be insuflicient. see, e.g., Black voter.s

y. McDonau,glt, stqrra; Ilentbir v' Joseyth, supt'il; Dau.id

Y. Garrisot, ,rrTrri; McGitt v. Gadsden' County Cotnnt''n'

535 F.zd zit (sttt Cir. 19?6). And it' is significant thaL

the Senate majority anrl other supporters- of am-enderl

Section 2 pointal to these eases-including Doue v' M.oore

-as indications of the way in which the new provision

woultl operate. See, e.g., Senate Report 33; 1 S-enate

Ilearingi ?95-?96, ?9? itestinrony of Armand Derfner) ;

id. at 1?01-1?02 (colloquy bet'ween Sen' MaLhias anrl

AssisLant Attor-ney General Reynoltls regarding Doue) '

Accortlingly,giventheprovenelector.alsuccessthatblack
canrlidatJs-have had und"" the rnultimember systetn, the

rlistrict court erred by concluding that ttso of thab systetn
,,results,' in a deniai of ,,equal access" to the electoral

process for minorities'
2. The distric[ court correc[ly helcl (J'S' App' 15a)

that proof of racial bloc vol.ing is the "linchpin" of a

successful vote dilution claim. See Senate Repor[ 33'n0

29

llowever, the tlistrict court adopl'erl a definition of racial

bltrc vnting ttnrlcr' *hittt racial polarization is "suhstan-

tively significant" ot i'"'"te" wllenever "the results of

the intlivitl,rtl elcction woultl have becn tlifferenl' <lepend-

;;; ;;;,, ;hether ii t'att bcren heltl amons ony t: wlrite

;"L; or only tl,e l'iocir voters in the election" (J'S' App'

39a-40a (footnote omi[l-ed))' This means that' even a

minor tleglco of racial blnc voting wotrld be suflicient to

make out a violation, regarrlles* of *h"ther it actually

r*rit- in trlach electoral t"lefeats' For instirnce' in a twr

;;;; Lt."tion where there is a small white voting ma-

fity; if the rvhite canclicla[e receiv es 5l/' of the vo-t9 i1

tlrs white "or.,*rnity 
ind 49% of the vote in tlre black

"r*,"ir"ltV, 
antl the blacl< canclidate receivcs the revet'se'

[he district court woultl hokl that the cornmunity is

,rirray racitlly polalizerl' That defini[ion is unaccept-

able becattse "'thero will almos[ always be a raw correla-

tion wibh rtee in any f:riling canrlirlacy-. of a rninoriby

whoso racial or e[hnic grouP is [a] small Percenlag€ ol

tlre total vot.ing polrrtition; " (Lee Cotttr'ly Branch of

NAACP v. Cit'v i7'Opctltca, 748 F'zd 14?3' 1482 n'15

(11th Cir' 1984) (q,oting J'ones v, City ol liubbock' 730

li.zrl zzz, zgt (stti cir.-tsaa) (Iligginbotltatn' J,'' 
-spc-

.inffy concttrring)); see T'erraz'as y' Clemen'f's' 581 Ir'

* **-nli.n a violnl'ion of amentkxl Section 2' as some courts have

saitl.seeMcllillan,?48r.2(lat1043;unitctlstotcsv'llaretrllo
Countll Contm'n, ?31 li'.zd 1646, 1666 (llth Cir' l!)84)' Supporters

"ttr'oActstaterlthatproofofmoretharrntrmcricalttnllerrcptc-sentation antl racial t'in"'nti's is essential to establislr a Section

2 violation. Sce f Sen'te Ilciings 819-820 (I'replretl Stntenrcnt

of Armand tlerfner) icmphasia in original) ("amenrletl section 2'

likelVhitev.Regester,nppti"tonlyinthatslnallcategoryofplllces
where thcre i, nn fun.iiunine,vrtu* of politics for rninority voters,

where there i. nf."n,iv 
"uuo'"" 

t"tiot division' and rvhere it is simply

impossibte for minority voters to have any significnnt o\tpothmity

under thc election,yst"t as it is"); accord' c'o''irl' at 287 (Mctno-

rnntlttm of Ralph C' Ntnt, Ii)xec' Dir'' Leadership Conf' on Civil

Itights); id. at 564 (testimony of 'Ioaquin G' Aviln' Assoc' Gen'

Counset, MALDf'lF) , itf' nt rrAi (testimony of Irrank Patker'-Dir''

Voting Rights Project, Larvvers' Oomnr' for Civil Rights Under

Law).

60Ae l.he Court explained in lYh.itcom.b (403 U.S. at 153), where

"the failure of the ghetto to have tegislative seats in proportion

to its population emerges more as n functiort of losing elections thnn

of buiit-in bias against poor Negroes * * * [tlhe voting power of
ghetto residents may have been 'cancelled out' * * * but this secms

" ',*." euphcmism for political rlefeat at the polls.,, See also llnite,d

lewish orgs. v. Cuey,430 U.S. 144, 166 n.24 (19?7) (plurality

opinion) ("if voting 
.ioes 

not follow racint lines, t'he white Ior
frio.,Ll ,nte" has little reason to complain that the percentage of

nr"*itit.t [or whitesl in his district has been increasetl")'

It is erroneous, however, to conclutle that proof of racial bloc

voting atop numerical underrepresentation togetlrer are sulliciettt



30

Srpp. 1329, 1351-1352 (N.D. Tex' 1984) (three-jurlge

.o,i.t) (tes[ is whether "suclt bloc voLing as ln*y exist"

operates so as to "pet'sistently rlefeat Iminoril'yl cantli-

dates") ; accot'tl, Siamon v. (Jphant', slip op' l0 n'4''"

Under l,he tlistrict cout't's tlefinition, virt'trally itny elee-

toral distr.ict in the countly might be dcenterl to sttffer

"subsbantively significant" raci:tl bloc voting' Crttlgress

believetl that the cotttt'ary was tt'ue, however' See Senate

Repott 33 (in "most comntttnities" minority candidates

'teceive substantial sttpport frorn white voters")'nt

31

If whiLe votels are willing to cross racial lines irl suf-

ficient numbers that "minority cantlidates ltloJ not lose

elcctions solely becattsc of their race" (llo.gers, 458 U'S'

at ti23), then it is largely irrelevant whether the blacl<

candidate w0uld have won even if the electiorl "hatl beetl

held antolrg only the white voters" (J.S. App' 40a)' In
that case, i'aciaity pola'izecl voting, t'o the extenl' that it
exists, is not "the overritling criterion in votitlg" (Doue,

539 Ii'.zd at 1156). It was firrnly settled plior to 19BZ

that no person had the right to be t'epresetrte<l by meln-

bers of any parl.icular group to which he bekrngs ot' to
parl.icipate in an electolal process that tnlximizes his

.h^n.o, of success, either its a voter or a canditlate.

Ilather, tlte principle rcpeatetlly endorsed wtts the right
to participati in an electoral process-to vol'e, first antl

foremost, but also to join a political party, to participate

irr its affairs, to bccome a candidate (lVhitcomlt, 403 U'S'

at 149-150)-in wlrich there is no "built-in bias" against

tlre opportunity to patticipate (id- aL 153)'"t' Amentletl

Section 2 reaflirmetl these principles. See Senate Report

23-24, 30. It thus follows that where "blacks trntl whites

alike have rejecterl l'ace as the overriding cril'erion itt

voting" (Doue,539 f.zd at 1155-1156), l'hcn, since no

such l'built-in bias" exisbs, "minority candidittes l'ill I

not lose elections solely because of theit' race" (llogers,

458 U.S. at 628), antl tlte polifical process is, by tlelini-
tion, "equally open to participation" by minorities (Wlil'e ,

412 U.S. at ?66; see lVh'itcomb, 403 U.S' ab 153)' Irr
other rvortls, the t'elevant inquiry is not simpl.y into the

eristence of bloc vol,ing by raee; the court ntust erssess

Lhe ellect of racial polarization on [he opporl'unity for
blacks to participate in the politic:il process. Only where

the irnpact of racial bloc voting in combination with the

67 In most vote dilution cases' a pllintilf can establish a print:r

facle case of racial bloc voting by using a statistical analysis of

voting potterns l.hat compares the rnce of a canditl:rtc rvith the

,u." of-thu voters. A tlefentlant can thetr introtluce its own sturly,

which takes ol,her factors into aceottnt, to rr:but n ptnintill's pririla

facie case. For a discussion, in n rlifferent contcxt, of the type of

statistical sturlies that can bc usetl, see llcclesltey, v. zant, lt80

F. Supp.338,352-3?9 (N.D. Ga. 1984), alI'tl, ?53 Il'2(l 87? (111'h

Cir. f-Ciff) (en banc). Resort to such analyses has been ap;rrovctl'

As Judges Iligginbotham anrl Wisdom hnve cogently obscrvctl' "race

or national origin may mask a host of othcr explanatoly variables"

incltrtling "explanatory factors * * * as intuitively obviotts as cnnr-

paign expcntlittrres, party identificat'ion, incotnc', metlia use measuretl

Ly co.t, religion, name, irlentification, or dislance that a cantlitlnte

liverl from a parl.icular precinct" (Jones, ?30 F'2tl at 2il5 (IIiggin-

botlranr,.I., specially coilcurring); Lee Counll,748 lr'2rt at 1482

(Wisdom, J.)).
68 See 1 Senate IIeat'ings 821 (enrphasis nrltled) (Prepared State-

ment of Armantl Dcrfner) ("section 2, of course, rvill apply only

ln those plnces where there is already an ert'raot'tlizory antottnt of

Iracial]tlivision").Otherwil'nessesalsodescribcrlracinlbloc
votinginlessabsoluteternrstlranthedistrictcrlttrt.Seeirl.at
306 lPrepared Statement of Vilma S' Martinez' Iresiderrt'

MALDEF, (emphasis atltletl) ("'It is a sitrrntion rvhere' rvhen

cnnditlatcs of tliflerent races are running for the s:rme oflico, the

voters witl lly attillarge vote for the canrli<-late of tlreir olvn race,,,)

(citation o,nlttuO) i id. at 543 (testimony of Prof' Srtsan A' Mnc-

Manrts (ernphasis atltled) ("racial polarization * * * occurs when

citizens of one rncial group unilonttly vote for one canditlnte antl

citizens of nnother rncial group unif ollnt|y vote for anotlter. * * *

[T]hc basic purpose of tlre test [for cnlcrrlating racial polnrizationl

i, io Autu.n.,ine whethcr race is the ,n'imary a6 exclt-girte. deter

mirutnt of individual voting decisions across time in any given com-

munity").

rs See City of lllobile, 4'tO U.S. nt ?6-80 (plurnlitv opinion);
itl. at 86 (Stevens, J., cortcurring in the jutlgnrcnt); id' at 111 n'7

(Marshall,.I., tlisscnting); llnitetl Jetnislt. Orgs.,430 U'S' at 165-

168 (plurality opinion); Ileer',425 U.S. at 13G n'8; lYhitcotrtb,40S

U.S. at 149-160; Tavlor v. ItcKeithetr.,499 F.2tl 803,905 (6th Cir'
1$?4) (Wisdom, J.) i Tulner v.lllcl(eithen', 490 F'2d 191' 197 (6th

Cir. f9?3) (Brorvn, C.J.).



challenged procetlure-ltere' multi-mernbcr district's-tle-

nrives black votert o; t;;;i'access to the electoral process

is Section 2 o{Iended'

3. Given the ellroral suceess .l'hat 
black candidates

have attairor *itr'*il'iliu"tinr whito sulrlrot't in llouso

Disbricts 21,23,*H;;;;t"q"l to or greaLer than

could be expectecl ffi; 'itsiu-*"'q."r 
districts-it is tlif-

ficult to imagine tt;;';;i;?o"r inv"li'lal'ing thesc districts

untler SecLion 2'',, 
"1L;;;Hi* t'rutrt^c,rnditlttes have been

less successful in Ii;;"';i-;ricf 36 anrl Senatc District

22, Lherristr.ict ."r.it ii,"rings as to,those dist'icts war-

rarL no di{fore,t '*'it' 
'''i'-' 

't'o*.that 
black canditlaLes

Itave receivetl suuJi#ii*r^*riit" voting suppot't".r [n ono

-I t-Uou"e Districts 2l' 23' apd 3g' whcre black candidntes h$ve

been electetl i' "*r"'*-'i'ft^*r "' glt'nt ''* 
woultl be expected uuder

a s i n gle-mclnr"' pr""n'' ti^"rt-"t--rl d io"t"s' htve lecc ivetl srrbstanti al

white suppor'' 
'n ""'llJtiititi"i "' 

the llack canditlate in the 19?8

primarv ruruor '*iliJ";';A- 
ni' tl'o wnite votc' uut he later

incrcitsed l,it *tt^"'"1"f''tttl'#niiu vote 'itr 
1980 to 31/'' in tlre

primary and 44o/o i'i' il"" n""ltal ' 
electit'n tntl was electetl; in

l$82 lre ugnin i"'on*oi hiJtn"o to' respectively' 39/o ani 460/o

of l.he whitc uot" ln"til pti*nt' o1l g"lt"t^l clection itnrl was re-

electerl. J'S. App' i"'" i"';i;t;tt District 23' a blaclt Reprrblicatt

ran in the 19?8 *"t"t"i'"'""lion altf teceivetl morc rvhitc votes

(17%)thanblackfi;'(";;'fnoutott''tnrrrlidatervnsuttopposctl
in the l$?8 *t""t*'""il"'\"'11 ""u 

in-tlrc l$80 primarv nttrl general

clection- No"etttut"'J'i"''"tti'"a l(tto 
'and 

3i% of the white vote

in the 1e?8 ,''*""'*a';;;;;;i election' 4e7o of the wlrile vore

in the 1c80 *"""'""";:;'t;;'il it% una $% oi the vote in rhe

1 e 82 p r i mn rv 
" " 

a g Jn t "l eiecti o n'.'":T:::""eJI;,'j"l 
;,tJ,h T,t"'il

[.",:,,;{*'l,il ',?oi'i,:[! l,lill"Tn' ;';;;;;;"'v' dnd 42'/.

antJ 46/s of thc *"f ii" '"t" in the'general election' One of those

representativ"t nuli'""'i"ou"'tv''""ui*'a aoZ ona 32/" of the white

,oi" i,, rhe,s80 ;li;;;il ;:i::l::,,.i';.,\1:Tr1;:T[:"ll;l]
i;;, ; blnck reputlican cnntlitlatc recervc

tha, black '"*' d;;i;';;';;;nl election' r's' App' 424-43a'

0r In llouse District 36' the blnck rcpresentative elected in 1982

reccivetl 60Vo of ii""*'t"'*ie in the nrim:rry a:rxl 42/s in the

general election' Iilu;;: unsrrccessful black canrlitlate in thaL

race received uon^ii iiq';i*: white vote in tlre primnrv and

general election'""'pi"tiJ'' This was an increase frorn 1$80'

crlse, a black candidate ran unol)l)osed lol' a ut'rutidLU DLUL'

wlrich is signilica't';;t;;;o the make-un of the canditlate

slato is intlicativo "i-if'o 
voting strength -oI '' dl*!ti^*

constitttcncies' trri" iz note 41' :y!:"' 
I[ is also sig-

nificant, as the toti*'* opi'ion reveals' thab t'here are no

presertt barriers t" ;;""':il; r egistration',ar[y afnliaLion'

or cantliclacy; no 
'"ii-ti'"gr- 

ihou vot'ing or equivalent

requirement r,ot t"it "'"i'iivttrt 
canrlitlate slat'ing Itas not

been tlominatea tv 
"wr'liu''oLt"; and there is no rnajority

vote .equi'ement i;";;;;;;i-eiu"tiot'*' Somo or all of

tlress factor.s wer.e usrially lrresent in pte-Cit'U !!,y'y'!:
cases in which 'oofil*"*"t'er 

districts were invalitlatetl or

wet'e oxpressed i;;i;; c"gres:' consitleral'ion of the

1982 amenan o,t* l's'I :*t'tl'i":.f" theit' enacbment'

see, e.9., wh'ite,4il u'b'-"t $23-$24; wallctcc v' Ilouse'

515 F.zd 619, 623-c;a istft Cir' 19?5) ' vaeated i'nd t:-

mantled on other gt*"Ot'  Z5 y'S g47 (19?6) ; Zimnrcr'

485 tr.zd at reor]rioot if' Wlutcsmb v' Chaais' suwa;

Btack Vot,ms,565 ;;;'ni o; r''aos' 508 tr'Zd at lll2;
Senate Reporl' t0- n'22; Ilouse 

. 
Report 31 n'105' The

absence of such ili;;J to participation in the elector:al

process, coupletl 
-*iif' 

tt'" findings made by the court

regarding tt," sotteu* that black canditlates have had anrl

the white uoting tt'f'port that theso candidates ltave re

ceivetl in }louse riitii:rtt 36 anrl Senate District 22' sup-

ports the .on.tuJioi'"th;; ihe multi-member systetn has

** . n,r,erent black cantlidate receivetl 22"/s antl 28V" ol lhe

whitc vote in tn"';;i;;;;.nntt sen"tat.elcction' respectivelv' In

Senate District z', irt"'i'i^"L *"*b"' of the forrr-person delegation

from 19?6-1SAO ,"";ir"d 47% of thc white votes in l'he 1978

primarv antl 4l% i;Jh;;";to'ol ul"ttinn' A secontl btack candidnte

(Polk) ran in ros; ;;;';;;"t" d s2% of the wlrite vote in l'ht:

primary arrrl 33ol, i; ;i;;'*;;*"1 election'. J'S' App' 42a' Moreover'

while blacks n.,r, onrv"ai7, "i tn" poputation of the citv.f char-

lotte, a black Dernocratic cantlidate rvas-electctl m&yor with 38/6 of

the white ,ntu *gu:''; " *i'it" 
Republican' J'S' App' 35a' 'rhis

fisure is ,ig'in"nni;;;^;t; it "rto*t 
that in a heatl-to-heatl contest

moro than uno-tt'ita oi the white voters were willing lo vol'e for a

black canditlntu in'ir'"o'fliio' stntL' also heltl 28'6% of the district

and l6.7Vo of the ii-i"*" tft' counsel seats from 19??-1981' J'S'

APP. 34a.



,'J

34

not deprived blacks of the opportunity to participate itr

tho electoral process in these two distlicts'u'

CONCLUSION

Tlre judgment of the district court should be reversed'

Respectfully submitted.

Cttlnt ns FRtEn
Acting Solicitor G enet'al

Wu. Bnauronn RnYrgoms
Assistanl AttorneY G enet'al

Cuanlus J. Coornn
Deputy Assistant Attorney General

PAUL J. L,INTTN, JR.

Assistant to the Solicitor Gmeral

Julv 1986

12 Should the court nonetheless conclude that there is an insuln-

cient basis in the record for finding no violation of amenrled sectlon

2withrespebttothesetwodistricts,then,giventhedistrictcourt's
reliance upon an incorrect legal standard, the appropriate disposition

would be io remand the case to the district court for further pro-

ceedings under tlre correct legal stanrlard' See Prdlman-Stanilard v'

Suint,466 U.S. 273, 291-292 (1982) '

t t' l' rorrrlrut ttlllll' o?tlGi| 1966 
'61!91 

to255

!..t.

.'t 1: )"

i,,: j

: . i'.

t t:,

,, !l
Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.
Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellants

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorney

Organization

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in
