Letter to Paul Luebke

    a
CHAMBERS. FERGUSON, WATT, WALLAS, ADKINS & FULLER, P.A.

ATTORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 730 EAST INDEPENDENCE PLAZA

95I SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARO

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 24202
TELEPHONE {704) 375-8461

JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBERS

JAMES E. FERGUSON, II

MELVIN L, WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS

KARL ADKINS

JAMES C, FULLER. JR,

YVONNE MIMS EVANS

JOHN W. GRESHAM

RONALD L, GIBSON

GILOA F. GLAZER

LESLIE J, WINNER

JOHN T, NOCKLEBY'

'oF o.c. aaR aLso

March 25, 1983

Mr. Paul Luebke
Department of Sociology
University of North Carolina

Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 274L2

Re: GingLes v. Edmisten

Dear Paul:

I am glad we finally got a
I hope that I did not make
center too terribly 1ate.

chance to talk the other day.
your arrival at the day care

I have enclosed a copy of the relevant section of the
legislative history of the new Section 2 of the Voting
Rights Act. I think it is fairly self explanatory.
We have made a strategy decision not to try to prove
Lack of responsiveness. That is very ilIusive when you
are talking about a state government and would give them
the excuse to introduce all of the evidence of what a
responsive place that it is. Other than that, I would
be interested to know what areas of knowledge or expertise
that you have with regard to any of the other outlined
areas.

It will be fun to work together. Do let me know when
you get a cost estimate for the demographics and racial
appeals part.

Thanks.

LJW: ddb
Enclosure
cc: Mr. Steve Suitts

Ms. Lani Guinier



n
haustive search of local newsp&per files and other records revealed
a number of racially inflernmatory statements by the sponsors of soms
of the predecessor iaws in question from the Eeginnirrg of thrs cen-
'"uly. The court found that those smoking guns ttlead unerringly" to
the-conclusion that the [a,dvocates of thosiliws]/desired and inlehded
the result." too

D. Tun OrrnauoN or AamNDED Spcrror 2

With the benefit of the record of explanation and analysis of the
Section 2 amendment by its Congressio^nal sponsorc and #itnesses in
tho House of }lepresentatives,roT and the even more detailed, almost
e_xhaustive, inqtliry by our Subcommittee on the Constitution, the
Committee has had an opportunity to examine all the aspects of the
issues and implications rarired by the new language. Based on this ex-
amination, th-e Committee beliei'es that the airen?ment is sound, that
it is necessary and appropriate to ensure full protection of the Four-
teenth and Fifteenth Amendments rights, and that it will not present
tho.d_angers raised by those who have opposed it-a requirement of
racial quotas, or an all-out assault on at-Iaige election syslems in gen-
eral.

The Committee decided that it would be useful to spell out more
specifica-lly in the statute the standard that the proposet amendment
is intended to codify. To this end, the Committee adopted substitute
Ianguage that is faithful to the basic intent of the Section 2 amend-
ment adopted-by the Irouse and included in S. 1992, as introduced by
Senators Mathias and I(ennedy and sponsored bv GB other Senators.

The amendment_to the langirage of^Section 2 is designed to make
clear that plaintiffs need not-prd've a discriminator-y plrpose in the
adoption oi maintenance of thd challenged system of practice in order
to establish a violation. Plointifrs must either prove such intent,los or,
alternatively. must show that the challenged sfstem or practice, in the
context of all the circumstances in the juiisdiction in qirestion, results
in minorities being {enled equal accesd to the politicai process.

The (tresults" standard is meant to restore the-pre-Mobik legal stand-
ard.which governed eases challenging election iystems or pr"actices &s
on.illegal dilution of the minority_vote. Specifically, sudsection (b)
embodiirs the test laid down by the supremd court if'1ry7r;yr.toe 

\

rf the- plaintiff proceeds under the "results test", then the court 1rould
& -.sF the impact of the challenged structure or practice on the basis
of objective factors. rather than making a deteimination about the
motivations which lay behind its adoption or maintenance.

,-1-"r- 
"llo 

o-nlnlo'r 34 (Anrl' 15. 1982) (on remaDd)).
-ro Notwlttstandlng statements made at tbe Senate heirtnfB that onlv three wltneeses

addretsed the Seetlon.2 leeue -durlng the lforrse heartugr. aode- Sb wttneriseJOticnsied thenepd for. or the meanlng--of. the Seetlon 2 amendment-durlnc the House-proceeatn8g.
--rc Plalntlt?.mav establlsh dlserlmlnatory lntent for nuip6sis-ot- ttris -secitou.-tiiiougtr
dlreet or Indlrect elretrF atnntl,al evldenee, tnqludtn, ttre rioimit-inreiences-iJip-dii*nfrom the forseeabllltv of defend'ant's actlone whlch "is one t-ine of outte refevanfeUaeneeof raelallv dleerlmlnatory purrose." Douton_soaraTiiaiiiititii i.--Brt;En-an, lnr u.s526. 536, n. I (19?9). .C,tso sae testtmonv of li;tntiounder, Siir'rtj rfeCrr-n-s. it p.'5.-ituaoeol -Lrlino_tott Helghta v..lletronotltan Houriis bZueiip.-etirp. iziiu.s. zez,-i6gf',ae ,1gT7l.roDurlns the Commlttee dellberatlone. ofponents'of if,e iesultii;a;;sued-ttiit ttrererrorted blll ls lneonslstent wttb the reeulta'dtandard trecause Siciion-2. aJim&aert, sttU
91}tlf.nllhe phraae "a-denlal or abrldgement lof tne itilriiJ;;a;l on;cc;unt-oilice ot
99lor:" The argtrment -ls that the worrls "on aecorrnt ott' tbemselves ereate a requlremeotgr. 9tlrpgseful_ dl,scrlmlnatlon Thls elalm overlooks the nregent structurt 6r tne Votlngxrght8 Aet, whlch completely refutes tt. Seetlon 5 of the present Act reqrllrea the Attomey
footnote eonflnued on p. 28.



n
^- 4t the supreme co,rt has repeatedry.noted, discriminatorv electionsystems or practices *-hioh opeiatn- a.1.;"il"a'j',,*^I^;;::l:,XJ-"^'"j. .

mizeorcaricer""'1'Jk'v:t4"i$;p.,T.fif 
llfi i..f[;#i1",.1#}i

#ltiilIr'%'#ff'ilTr?t ffiltrH out.igr,ia",,iur or access to the barror
rn adopting the 'f'esult standard-,, as articulated in lyhi.te v. Reges_ter, the comnritte.u hgg coainua tr,"-u";[;;il;ii[ i" ilrar case as it 'rvas

applied prior.to the lI obiliiitig"tro".
rtle uommtttee ltas concluded that White, and the decisions follolv-

*j{-;i,rffi 'l:iti:i'i,l'r$;'$n1*t[i,;T-#iffi 
,-rfi s;liri:r:l

$ft ltg;i,H,,fl ;':Hr;:,i'^vxiiii,y,*yirrltl"",T,l,:-j:"1**,
fr i::,r"tirigxl,l.l,"r*mg,fi$,,Tlf f; ';;#;,Tfl :ktl"i{xtrili
$lr'ffi. l,:trv res u I t s i;th ;; -p."-fi 

g' ;;;' k#a "i a iii:i * iil?o
^. 

Section2 protectsthe right of-minority r,'oters to be free from elec-
.t-'-:-+,practices,.procedures ir *uiho,l., tr*it au"yih..r, the same oppor_tunrtv to participate in the poriti.ot'p,:o.ui;';ti;; -;tffi.iiIryrf as a result "itt e 

"t 
rtt*'guJ pr.o.tl* 

".,tir"i.,"" praintiffs dohot,havg an equal oppo"t"riw ;;"o;;I;i, iil';I'rii 1"j,,.,^- r .toerect*;aia,iT.";:iil:{r';f"i$11'flJ1",'l jYl,:lf ;tlrulmniTo establish a viorati,on,-[i"i"t"ii.'.orla-rho]"'o""i.i.ty of factors, de_r*iry upon the kind;f;l;; p.""ii.., 
"Jpi*.aure curred intoquestlon.

Typieal factors include. rr3
1. the extent of an.y histor.y of officialstate or political subdivirio" tirul t"*h*i

_SElk,r;uri{tr*y:1""#:I#;',"r.

discrimination in thc
the right of the mem-
l-otc, or othenvise to

footnote rm couttnued.
gii,:;? i1.$r"fil':":f{,,r"*',,{+;,[|i:1p,T,:"i,t{{,H;"f,,JT,+{."'}I:.},r,rff"1",1:.,i.};,.},7
e-lfect of denylng or adrsprovo drserimrnator.v .puriose-ant tie" rruraen- to aii,ii-p"ri,J;liffii;,r,?,l'i;rir'irrl&Tii+it

nT*L+r:**:lt**ii'*{i',sj,'f#!},r,#ffi fr t[i{lu,"{if,}$i*ilit]"i*
i{i;r+l\id:it'Tjii*i,;;*qi#;H**'r#;i:fl ["}ffi 'Ti'i"#"i*T'ris,T,',*{

lll {, 5[ i3] ",; r?;."1 i

pffi li",:*!l':'r**l**u,fr".*r*ii$:.t**i$ffi 'i,Ttuffi
lrr;**f;ffls;rfi lp*ffi fr ffiif, $i.n{,:,ffi }*'{{s,T,:""-,*

nnutt*i*urttr*m[iJ-f*i***t*i'"ffi fituffi
'''r?f,|;::.'l;ilff,ll"%iT';fl;'"?: 

the anatvrear rramework use,.r bv the suprems court



N
2. tho extent to which voting in ihe elections of the state or

political subdrvision is racially polarized;' i). the extent to which the s[a'te or political subdivision has used
unusually large election districis, inajority vote requirements,
anti-single shot provisiorrs, or other voting pi.actices or procedures
that may enhance the opportunity for discrimination against the
mrnorriy group;

4. if there is a candidate slating process, whether the rnernbers
of the minority group have been-denied access to that p.o.uri;

5. the extent to which members of the minority grou[ in th6
state or political subdivision bear the eflects of diicrimin'ation in
such areas as education, employment and health, which hinder
the-ir ability to p_articipate eriectively in the polil.ical process I 

11{

6. rvhethbr politicaf campaigns have beeir character.ized
overt or subtle racial appeals;

t
I
I
I
I
I
t

I

7. the extent to which members of the minority group have been
elected to public offlce in the jurisdiction.lls

Additional factors that in some cases have had probative value
as part of plaintifis' evidence to establish a violation are:

whether there is a significant lack of responsiveness on the part
of elected oflicials to t[e particularized needs of the'memberi of
the minority group.llo

whether thu p.olicy.underlyilg t]re state or political subdivi-
sion's use of such voting qualification, prerequi-site to voting, or
standard, practice or procedure is tenuous.tli

Wirile these enumerated factors will often be the most relevant ones,
in some cases other factors will be indicative of the allesed dilution.

The cases demonstrate, and the Committee intends tirat there is no
requirement that any.particular number of factors be proved, or that
a majority of them point one way or the other.118

. "tJh"-"..ttts haYe.recognlzed that dlspro-portlouate. educatloDal employment. lncomelevel and. livlng conditionq arislng from pas-t diserlminatton tenalo deiressinino"itv-ri6rrt-
le.e^l qa.r_tic-ip..atloD,-e.9., white {12 u.s. ot 268; Kirkacy y. Board, ol siperuisora, oe*'r..zallr9, 145. \}-bere these coudltlons are shown, aod wher-e the level. o? Utact< parttiipattoi tnrolitics. ls rlepressed, plalntlffs need not -piove any further-cairsat-neiirs'-de[i*;6en--tiieirolsparate soelo-economie status and the depressed Ievel of political partieipatlon.
. u:iThe fact that no nrembers of a minoriti'group trave Ueeir-itleted-to om6e or;ei arr ex-
!.9"a"! pgtlgd of ttme- is probat-lve. Howevdr.-tbe'eiecti-on-oi e Ew ,i,i"oiiiv ""o-,iniautu*
does not."neceqsarlly fo_recloqe the rrosstbility of dtlution of the black vote'i. irr- viotaiion ofthis seetlon. Zimrner :1S5 F.2d at 1307. If tt did,- the posstbillty erists that the mojoii[ycltiz.ens mig!! evade the s3gtfgn e.g...by manipulating'the eleelion of a,,saie'; minoriii'eantlidate. "Were we to hold that a minorlty candldate's success at thi poti's is co-iici,rstr'eproof of n mi?orlty group-s ateess.to the polltl-cal .process,lve woukl-riieielv-ui-iii;ittrt,ljl"Tl,_tq l? gtlgyl"*nt the Constitutlon .-. . Instiad we' shall con'tinue-1o 

"equiiii anlndependent eonslder8tlon of the reeord." .IDid.
_ 11: unrqlponslveness-ls not a.rr esse-rrtf I part of plalntlfi's case. ziwmer; 'white (as toDalla.s.) Therefore, defendants'-proof of sohe respbnsivenees n'onta 

-ii<j[ 
n,igdie piar'riirn's

sho-rvittg by other. ntore objectli'e factors enumeiaterl here that minoit1.1'-yel"i.* never-theless were shut otrt of equal-access to the polltlcal process The amendment rejeeis thertrllns it I'odge v. Bu.Dton and_com-panion gqses. th{rt'unresponsivenes." fs-ri-rerfuiiite efe-ment,639 F.2d 135S.1375 (5th Cir.198l), (an approach &pporentll.iuieri-in-6rOert3 -c9mp!.r rvlth the intent requlrement whleh the Sririreme Coirit's niiiraiiii- n"ininn' t"Bolden lmposerl on- the iormei larrguage of Section :.) rrowel'er,-jtr,jiii,i'niiiiniiii""ii6o."to ofier evldettce of ttnresponsiveness, then the defendant couta orei-re-ti,diii--ii;ia"i-,"" oiIts rcsponslveness.
,_":-I-f the p,roee<lure. lnarkedly tleparts -from pnst-p.rnetlces or from practices elservhereln rno Jtlrlsdlctlon' that boilrs ort the falrness of its lmpaet. But e_ven tl consistentlyglrpllqd pra.ctiee premiserl on-a rneially nputral pollel.rvorrlrl riol negato a nlrrlntif[.s shos.-Ing tnrorrgh other raetors that the challenged praetiee derties miiroritiej filir occess tothe proeess.

r18 The eourts ordinarily have not rrsed these faetors. nor does the (-onrnrittee lntendthom to be used. as n nrer.hirnlcal .,polnt counilnA" deviee. Tlie fuilrrre of nlaiutiff toestrblish any pnrtleul;rr faetor. ls noi rebuttal evtrienee of non-dilriii.n.'h,iit,ii.-ir,"'i,"o-vision re(ltlires the eotlrt's-overall- Judgment. based on the tot&ltt.\' .f 
"irc.iim.itrin"ei inaSulde(l bt'those relevant factors iri ttr'e narticulai casi or wireitrer-ttre-iotini-itienitnof mlnorltv voters ls, ln the language of. i?ortaoi;ntl-b;irn;,;;-intmtred or ca"Sere<i o,it."



30

Whitcornb, Wluite,, Zi.mmnr, and their progeny dealt with electoral
system features such as at-large elections, nrajority vote requirements
and districting plans. Ilowever, Section 2 remains the maior statutory
prohibition of all voting rights discrimination. ft ako prohibits prac-
fices rv]rich, while episodiC and not involving permanent structural
barriers, result in the denial of equal access to any phase of the elector-
al process for minority group members.

If the challenged practice relates to such a series of events or epi-
sodes, the proof sufficient to establish a'r'iolation n'ould not necessarily
involvo the same factors as the courts have utilized when dealing with
pormanent structural barriers. Of course, the ultimate test wbuld bsthe'White standard codified by this amendment of Section 2: whether, in
the particular situation, the practice operated to deny the minority
plaintifr an equal opportunity to participate and to elect candidates of
their choice.tln

Tho requirement that the politioal processes Ieading to nomination
and election be ttequally open to participa.tion by the group in ques-
tion" extends beyond formal or official bars to registering and voting,
or to maintaining a candidacy.

As the Court said in lVh,ite, the question lvhether the political
processes are t(equally open" depends upon a searching practical
evaluation of the '(past and present reality.t'120

Finally, the Committee reiterates the existence of the private right
of action uncler Section 2, as has been clearly intended^by Congress
since 1965. See Allenv. Board of Electimts,393 U.S.544 1g0g).-

DISCT,AIMER

'lYhen a federal judge is called upon to determine the validity of a
practice challenged under Section 2l as amended. he or she is re{uired
to act in full accordance with the disclaimer in Section 2 which-reads
as follows:

The extent to which members of a protected class have
been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is
one ((circumstance" which may be considered, provided that
nothing in_this section establishes a right to hafe members of
a protected_class elected in numbers equal to their proportion
in the population.

.contrarv .to. assertions made during the_ full committee mark-up
of the legislation, this provision is both clear and straightforrrard.

rr0.This nspect of the. sta.tute's.seope ls lllustrated by a vartety of Seetlon 2 eases ln-yolvlns su-eh eplsodlc diserlmlnatlon.-For examnle. a violatlon-e<irrltl ue-irioita ri"-"[o*-lnc tnat the eleetiort offielals ntatle absentee ballots avallable to whlte clitzen.s rvlthout a
:9Te.qgn,lll.s^oppo_rtrrnity qti-n_s 8:!r'en to mtnortty ctdzens. See Broran--i;.-Fiai.'ijisi f,.supp.6()' 63-6{ (W.D.La. 1968). Llkewlse. nurging of voters rorrlr! prrxlrree n tilscriml-qqtor.v result lf falr proeedures E'ere not follori,erl, Toney v. Wntii, lliC'f.'za-iiO'j'ftnCir' 1973)' or lf the riee_d fo-r a purge.n'ere-not shown-Jr'ir opportunitte. roiie-i"sr,it"a-tion rr.f'... rrnrlrrll'ltmlterl. Artmlnistrritlon of nn etee[i,in-eoiira"'iite*rse have a dlscrimina-Ior)'restllt lr. for example. the_lnformatlon- provl-derl to voters suhstln6ally mlsletl themtn a drserimlnatorl. wai. united stalet i. io'at, zlgi r.-s,ipi. ie."so_sr iw."n. I,a.'ioo.ql.
--t1.112 Il.s. nt zeg-?zO. ttrereroie,-tor-prrrfio*"* of Sd-i.iio-n"2. the conctrrston tn the

i13t1,& llil'iTL, i?'?Lxi {,tri""tT;:';""H:;taJ1l,ly.,:}*i *#;i:, tihm.rfi;*im,"*t;he tllsPos-l,ttYe. seetiott 2 aJimenaea-- ao-Ji,tr itre functlonif v-i;w of ,,politienl nroeess".ttsed ttr- II'trile rather thnn the formniistt" ijt.*'eini,r'r",t"iii:'in". "nturnrtti'"in-'fr',i^il"-'i,ir.e-
rvise. nltho'tch the nlrrrnlitr'--iue;;;i;,l th&a the Flfteenttr',rmenh*"nt m1y be llmlte<l tothe. rjclrt- to east a'trntrot anri'-iloi;-i.,"t'l;iipnd to etnlmi of i:ottns dllrrtton (wtthout ex-plalnlng- how. tn that ease. one's vote eouia-t" "ahriii"o,1;'1. ttrls'se^tton rvlthorrt qlrpstlonls almerl at dlserlmlnation'whieh iai.ii'iiiir ror- nf ariut-ro'n, ai'welr-;;'"i;i;i;;;"diinrai orthe rlght to reglster or to vote.



ao
This disclaimer is entirelv consistent with the above mentioned,

Supreme Court and C_ourt o-f Aqpeals precedents, which contain si'm-
ilai statements regarding the absence-of any -right to qroportional
representation. It-puts t-o rest any conc€rns thal have been voiced
ab^out racial quotas.

The basic 
-principle of equity that the rem_edy fashioned must be

commensurat6 witfthe right th-at has been violated provid.es. adequate
assurance, without distur5ing the prior case law o_r prescribing in the
statute mechanistic rules fol formulating remedies in cases which
necessarily depend upon widely varied proof and local circumstances.
The cour[ should exercise its [raditional equitable powers to fashion
the relief so that it completely remedies the prior diiution of minority
voting strength and fully provides equal opportunity for minority
citizens to participate and tb elect candidates of their choice.l21

The proplosed. r'e^sults test rvas d.eveloped by the Supreme Court and
followe,il in nearlv two dozen cases bv the lorver federal courts. The
results test is well-known to federal jirfues. ft is not an easy tesb. As
Arbhur Flemming told the Subcommittee on the Constitutionr"Whi,te
v. Eegester sets-realistic standards for analyzing voting dilu_tion
cases.'l t22 It was only after the adoption of thb results test and its
application by the lower federal courts that minority voters in many
juiisdictions hnally began to emerge from virtual exclusion from the
e,lectoral process. lVe aie acting to rr,store the opportunity for further
progress.

E. RnsroNSBS To Qo'rsrroxs RersBp Asour rrrp Rasur,rs Trsr

Opponents of the ('results test" codified by the Committeehave made
nurnerous allegations as to the potential tlangers of its adoption-. At
bottom, all of these allegations proceed from two assumptions, boih
of u'hich are demonstrably incorrect.

First. these allegations assume that the ((results test" is a radically
new and untested-standard for voting discrimination suits, with un-
knotvn Contours and unforeseeable consequonces. Opponents nonethe-
less are someho'w confident enough of the implications of this allegedly
nerv sbandard to prediot that it will:

inevitably lead to a requirement of proporLional representation
for minority groups on elected bodies;

mako thoirsandsbf at-large election ry-sterns &cro6s the country
either per se i.tlegal, or vulnerable on the basis of the sl-ightest
eviden6e of undeiepresentation of minorities; and

be a divisive factor in local communities by ernphasizing the
rolo of racial politics.

Thev specificallrr^lirt a number of states and cities rvhose elertion
systenis tirey allego would be vulnerable under t.he Comrnittee biII.
" The se"ori l ass[mption, equally incorrect, is that the only way to

safeguard against tliese tlangers rF !e makc. p-roof of discriminatory
inteilt an ess-ential element of establishing violations of Section 2.

The testimonv antl other evidence presJnted to the Committee belie
both assunrptions. The proof lies in the fact that numerous courts

tlr Jlolitiano v. U.,S., 380 U.S. 1.15 (1985) ; Kirkeea v. Board ol Superoieorr,.554 -F.2d139 (sth clr.) ten urirret, iiii. Teniin, *g'-u.S.-.qt{s ttntll :'drcei v. couitv Scl-ool
Board. sel u.s. lro riiiab':-*'o-itn-Ciioii;i siiii'ti-orira'6i'eiyicitioi v..sroont,40? q's'
li-f iczli: -ii' ne: ttiitiii Con,sreeeion"t ieiiigltionrneirt, Flte No. 81-c-3915 (1081)'
afi'd sub nom. Eyon v. Otto, 1O2 S. Ct. 985 (1$82).--,tsiulie ueaifnss, Stiti"ieui-oi.ritirui-rtbmmtng' Februarv r1' 1982' p' 2'

31

t



CHAMBERS, FERGUSON, WATT, WALLAS, ADKINS & FULLER. P.A
ATORNEYS AT LAW

SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENOENCE PLAZA

95I SOUTH INOEPENDENCE BOULEVARO

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 28202

Lani Guinier
CP Legal Defense Fr:nd
CoLumbus Circle

ir 2030
York, New York L001-9

IAq:?sp;

lr"llll,,,llt,"t,llltlrrl,lt,l