Draft of Letter Objecting to North Carolina Reapportionment

    DMFT OF LETTER

OBJECTING TO

NORTH CAROLINA REAPPORTIONMENT

HB 415 --1981

- ':'"*



r. CHANGES I1{ TITE NORTH CAROLINA POP TroN FROM 1970 T0 1980

si.n.e: r97--u ttre nr:uber and proportion of North carolina's
black popr-ulation has 'increased. fn L}TO one nillion one hund,red

twenty-si;x thousaad {]-rl.261000) blacks constituted. twenty-three
(23) percent: qf the staters population, but by 19g0 the nunbers
had iacrerasr:-d to 1rJ16r000 constituting more than 24 percent of
the state;r,s, totatr population.

Most cf North carolinars black population are now congre-
_ __ t. c, _/gated in netropolitan areas 1t/the rura1, coastal counties in the,i

eastern part of the state- The percentages of the black popula_
tion have grorn i-ra. these two areas since 1,gT0. For example,

as

in

had

1970.. Ten years later, the black population of the county
growni to 59.1 percent.
rn charlotte, North carolina, the percentage of the black

population. i-ncreased from 72rg7z blacks to gz,627 -- an increase
of about one percent from j0 percent of the population in rgTo to
51 percelf; i,n 1gso. rn the township of Durham, North carolina,
the totaL population increased over the last ten years by lbout
6r000 p'eopLe. Itrhile the white population decreased by 6,000
residents,r, the bra.ck population increased by roughly 12r000.
Hence, th:e'black potrlulation in Durhan township increased. from



37.4 percea.t to 45.6 percent over the last decade.l
I

trn. sru', rrhen the regular session of the 1980 North
4

Carolina Gbteral Assenbly net to reapportion according to the

1980 censius the district lines of the State House of Represen-

tatirres, ti'e State Senate, and U.S. Congressional Districts,
the state liad inereased its nr.mbers and. percentage of black..
population w,hich ras increasingly concentrated in metropolitan

b.-. _t

arealifrte ruraL urbaa. counties of the east.
f,

(11 B
See G'eneral Population Census, 1970, North Carolina, P.C.

B orthnsus of Popul4tion and Housing. 1980, NolthTCarolina r, Advaailepor$

-?-



II. THE HISTORY OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION IN VOTING IN NORTH

CAROLINA

Although the efforts to disfranchise black voters in North

Carolina at the turn of the century were profoundly successful,l
the barriers to black voting in a1." state have never been abso--

lute as they were in rnany places in the South. North Carolina

repealed its po1l tax in the Lg}Ots, and by 1930 blacks were

allowed to quali fy to register in fini.tea numbers in sone

locations . 2 By 1941, Raleigh, North Carolina, had two black

registrars arrd two black judges of election for two predorninantly

black precincts.3 During this time, ten percent of the

eligible voting age population of blacks were registered

in the state. Indeed, from 1940 until the middle of the

1960rs the number and percentage of the black registered

in North Carolina exceeded the registration of blacks in

other Southern states.4

voters

most

1 See J. Morgan Kousser, The $lpping of Southern Politics,
(Ney Hayen , L97 4) , pages 103 ar
Book: 1931-L932 (Tuskegee, L932), page L4.

2 Bgleigh New: gnd 0bserver, June 2, 1950, quoted in Work,
Page IUO.

3 Jesse Parkhurst Guzman, Negro Yearbook: 1g41-1946 (Tuskegee,
1946) , page 26L.

! Margaret Price, The Negro Voter in the South (Atlanta, 1957);
Price, The Negrg and oter Regiqtra-
tion in of the voter Educaffi
@onl1Counci1(At1anta,1966);Dona1d.A.Matthews
and Janes Prothrow, [egroes in the New Qouth P_olitics (Chapel Hill,
1966) .



This tradition of permitting limited black voter registra-

tion in North Carolina was never extended to pernit black citizens

an effective voting strength. Fron 1910 until the late 1960rs,

the nnmber of black elected officials at any leve1 never grew

more than a handful and held office only when the jurisdiction

applied almost exclusively to b1"* citizens. After the passag:

of the Voting Rights Act of.1965, the North. Carolina legislature

continued to legislate attenpts to dilute the vote of black

citizens who registered. The legislature has enacted laws or

pernitted 1oca1 governments to rnaintain or adopt multi-member,

at-1arge electoral schemes for governing boards. In the late

60ts the General Assembly enacted anti "single shot" voting laws

in the majority of the statef s corxlties.

In 1967 the General Assembly reapportioned its own two

houses and Congressional Districts in response to a federal court

order to achieve greater ad.herence to the principle of rrone

person one vote."5 The Legislaturets new plan created

multi -member districts where the aggregate voting strength of

black citizens were lessened by including enough white citizens
within most districts to constitute a majority of the voters.

Until its Acts hlere disapproved by the Department in 1971, the

legislature rnaintained numbered posts for many of its multi-member

districts created in L967 in order to reduce further the

F.Supp. 877 (M 196s).Drum v. Seawe11, 249

-2-



effective voting strength of black citir"rrr.6
As evid.enced by the long absence of any black members in

either of its houses, the North Carolina legislature's use of the

nunbered posts was an effective device for diluting black voting
because it was built upon an electoral systen of bloc voting. rn

its report on implenenting the Voting Rights Act, the U.S.

Conrnission on Civil Rights documented in Lg74 the existence of
bloc voting in North carolina elections. Election returns

and more recent reports on voting in North Carolina confirm the

continued pattern of voting in which the white.rnajority of voters

refused to support candidates who are responsive to the needs

and interests of black citi zens.7

black voting strength by the

and the persistence of bloc

governmental units of North Carolina

voting has had a startling effect on a

6 See Letters_ of July 30, 1971, and September 27, LglL, to
Mr'. Alex K. Brock, Executive Secretary, State Board of Electionsof North Carolina from David L. Norman, Assistant Attorney General,civil Rights Division, u.s. Department of Justice, DJ 166-ol?-s,issuing letters of objection to general and 1oca1 legislation
creating nr:mbered posts in the General Assembly

7 See The Voting_Rights Act: Ten Yea{-s La!er., report of the
U. S, Corun
Qnfulfilled Goals, a report of the U.S. ghts,s-ffi and Afpendix II - A.

-3-



political. participation in a state where one in four citizens
are bnack- -Iu 1980 only ?47 blacks held elective office in arly

capaci.ty in Sort}. Caroli-na. Black elected officials last year

compri-sed only 4-7 perceat of all the 5r}g5 elected offices of

In. tloe Norf&. Carolina General Assenbly, only'one black

senato,r' arurtr four black state representatives sit anong fifty
i'

members in: the qpper chamber and 120 menbers in the lower house.

One of the first two black state representatives since the early
1900rs wa-s elected ia the district representing Robeson, Hoke,

and Scotlan'd. Counties.

?;
'!-

?'-:

-il .

lJ
.tL-.!i

ffi

IEiE[
IEr..-:

-4-
4.ni

ilr



tt

III. NORTH CABOLINA GENERAL ASSEMBLY'S PLAN FOR THE STATE

HOUSE.OF REPRESENTAJIYES DILUIES BLACK VOTING STRENGTH

The Nerrth Carolina legislature ad.opted. in HB 415 during the

1981 regul.ar session a reapportionment plan which created. in
the state house af representatives forty-five districts, one more

than exists preseutly. of the forty-five, 9n1I nine are single
member dist:ricts, aad none is located in the metropolitan area

of the sta.te: rhere there are large numbers of blacks living
within smarlT contiguous areas that could constitute majority
black legislative districts. rn. Charlotte, North carolina, for
example, an. sral.ysis of the population by census tracts from l97O

data shows that at least three najority black districts could be

created eas;ily aad. naturally if the legislature established
.single member d-istricts for the house and senate in metropolitan
areas (see, Aprpendix III-A).

rndeedr, there is only one majority black district and one

other di.stri-ct with a non-white najority among the populations of
the forty-five districts in the state House by the 1991 plan.

These juris,dicticms are :

District 5 - 542 black population;

District 10 - 25* black population and 3SZ Indian
populati on .

While the tHro districts have a majority of non-white residents,
only oxle has, a majority of non-white registered voters or probably



a najority'
House trIan

population

is b 1ack .

of
is
in

the voting age popu1atio..1

desi.gned without any actual

tfte,state where nearly

In effect, the State

najority black voting

one in four persons

Atrthough the total absence of an actual najority black voting

d.istrict con-'tinues a pattern in the L971- reapportionment p1an,

the 1980. re:-districting goes further to reduce the strength of

black vofsa'5 - Although the number of -representatives fron

Distrist 5'remains the same in the proposed plan as in the 1-971-

plan, Dist-ri.ct ?L had a 52.g% non-white population in 1970 and

elected thxee representatives. In the 1981 p1an, District 10,

involving nuch of the same population, with a non-white popula-

the change, is fundaurental: the new legislative reapportionment

proposes that one of only two legislative districts with more

than 5CI%: non-white population lose one state representative.

The Legislature had to go out of its way to achieve this
effect in the 1981 p1an. Presently, District 27 is conposed of

the cotrnties of Hoke, Robeson, and Scotland with a total popula-

tion of 12.8 ,ZA7 persons and a 52.9% non-white population. If

1 The 1980 cens'lq data on population by age has not been re-
leased. o'y the Bureau of Census as of this date; however, the
differential between the total population and the voting age
population among non-whites in the counties composing these two
districts in 1970 suggests that there does not exist a majority
of blacks who are voting age in District No. 5" (See Appendix
Irr-B.)

-2-



this distri.eli had .kePt the same

the total poprr;Iati.cn would have

non-white pnBula.tiou . T' / "l""t"'l

boundaries in the
t<-Ll t 7?I ,/ r )

been L25,7 00 
'(?').

. -.Li l*, -,!, ",:{ S

proposed p1an,

The 1E8.I proposed reapportionment plan splits the three

counties of: Distri-ct 2L and creates a new District 10 entirely

out of Robes;w Co,m.ty and keeps only Scotland and. Hoke Counties

inDist:i,ict.Zt-..Essentia11y,the1egis1aturetooktheSame
muLtinember rti's,tri.ct and divided it. hhereby, the legislature

elirninated. the p.ossibility that the non-white population of

the three cp.rmties caD elect two representatives to the state

legis lature'

Clear'Liy'r,ot required by shifts in population, this change

was enactedi purposefully for only one result: to dininish

to practica{Iy nothing the voting strength of a non-white popula-

tion iu thes'e th.ree cor:nties.

. The di:,Lu:tion of black voting strength in North Carolina has ,

also bee.n accompl-i.shed in the proposed. legislative plan by reducing

the 
.poss:ib'i1it1r 

of black citizens using effectively the vote as a

"single sho'tl' in xa.rltimember elections. In the LgTL legislative 
.

scheme, Nor.th Carolina House had twelve districts where the

percentage of b-1acks or non-white was sufficient to permit black

and other non-ryhite voters to use the single shot vote in rnulti-

member districts under the best of circumstances under bloc voting

(Appendix III-CJ - In the proposed p1an, the North Carolina

Legislature d.iminishes the number of' such electable districts for

blacks to ar total- of ten a reduction of two.

-3-



Ia Di.strict 6 of the proposed reapportionment p1an, for
example, tle le,gi.:slature reduced. the number of state representa-,

tives rrom r*o ,rs one. pi3u;uii: ;"U, 
*.n'^iruail'#rii 

"'uTi';\,,S- - c :-fr'.! ,1.^-;, Q, /t-'L,o,l uot, "f .);r+,', t 6,-'who repres;en-t 478 of the proposed districtis population. The

other loss occurred when the legislature redrew District 21 and

dropped the nuur.b,er of representati-ves from three to one while

creating a nerrr District 10 with only two representatives

This in'creased limitation on the 'opportunity for black

voters to make t'single shot" vote effective is clear retrogression

r:nder curreut 1aw;2 nevertheless, experience in North carolina

shows that these particular changes may reduce not only the

potential of black voting strength but also will cause a set back

in one of t-he few gains already achieved by North Carolina black

voters in st'ate lggislative elections. The:'e has never been

more than. forrr black representatives sitting in the lower house

of the General Asseurbl-y and one of those four has always come 
5

frorn the count'ies of House District 21. Although the percentage

of non-white popnlation in that district was greater than 50%

(and. the percentage of non-white registered. voters was nearly

50%), resurlts of prirnary elections show that the black candidate

usually re'ceived. less than 308 of the vote.3 For example,

with only ?:8.62 of the cast yotes in the 797/., general elections,

Beer v. United States. 96 Sup" 
.Ct" 

1357 (1973) at 7363-1364.

3 See pages 445-446 of For the Record: 1976, Southern Govern-mentaIMonitoringProject,unci1(At1anta,Lg76).
-4-



black representative Joy Johnson was able to win only because

the District was electing three representatives,

With the division of District ?7 under the lgTL plan, it
appears r.rnlikely that black voters will be able to use single

shots to elect a candidate.

In its pending redistricting p1an, North Carolina Legislature

also has created enormous deviations frorn tire judicial rule of

"one person one vote.t'4 In the House plan, there exists a

naximum deviation of more than 23eo with L2,83eo in District 17

under-represented and 10.68% in District 19 over-represented.

While substantial deviations from the average population per

legislator in each district distorts all citizenst rights to

vote, the general pattern of devratron 1n the lower house of the

General Assembly has had a particularly racial impact that

d.isserves black voters. Among the counties with substantial

black or non-white population in the eastern part of the state,
the proilosed legislative plan usually creates districts that are

under-represented when th.ey border other counties with substantial
black populations. On the other hand, when the bordering districts
include counties with less than 30% black population, the d.istricts
are usually over-represented (See Appendix III-D). For instance,

State House Disirict 5 -- the only majority black district
composed of Northhanpton, Bertie, Gates, Hertford, and Martin

4 see Revno_Ids v. sinms , 37 7 u.s. 533 (1964) and chapman v.
ue_ier, 420-fis. I-G9-EJ .

-5-



counties in the northeastern corner of the state is under-

represented by 3.9% while surrounded by counties with no less

than 401z black population. District 1 which is located to the

east and south of District 5 is also under-represented by l.Tl%

and is surrounded by counties with no less than 33eo black

population.

, The significance of this under-representation is not
d', nittr, \ <
&i-fltrttFi-ue-. As Appendix III -E illustrates, if the under-represented,\

districts with 302 or more black population were provided with
their rightful share of the voting strength, under one person

one vote, trearly one half of a representative would be due this
part of the state where blacks are concentrated heaviest in the

The only rnajor exception to this rule of under-representation

in eastern North Ca.rolina is District 2 which is over-represented

by 5.75q6, rt is noter+orthy, however, that this jurisdiction with
32t black population is the only district on the eastern coast

with only one representative. In this district bloc voting prevents

black voters fron electing an effective representative. Thus,

in this district the over-representation does not add to the

voting strength of blacks as it rnight if there were a multimenber

district in whiitr a single shot vote could help elect a repre-

sentative. Thus, the exception follows the effect of the overall
pattern: it limits and dilutes the possibility of black voters

electing a representative to the State Assembly

-6-



IV. THE NORTH CAROLINA REAPPORTIONMENT PLAN FOR THE STATE

The proposed reapportionment plan for the General Assembly

creates 29 Senate districts, two more than presently exists, a1-

though the number of 50 State Senators remains the same. 0f the

29 districts, none has a majority black populbtion and only one

has a maj"rtaii*;ite population: pi511i.ct 1S which has a combined,

total of 60 percent black and Indian population. The District is
represented by one State Senator.

District 15 has only a bare majority of non-white registered
voters. Blacks and Indians in the district make up only 54.9

. percent of the registercd rrnters. A black or. Indian haS never been

elected to the state senate from the counties of District 1j,
Hoke and Robeson.

Although the 1981 reapportionment plarr creates two new senatorial
districts and four additional single member districts, the legislature
went out of its way to assure that these changes continued the

pattern of dilution of black voting strength. The l-gzl- reappor-

tionment the legislature created District 6 with Edgecombe,

Halifax, Martin, and Pitts Counties which had two representatives

from a district with 43.7 percent black population. The percentage

of registered black voters, in the early 1970ts, however, was only



approximately 29 percent. fn 1980 the four counties of existing

Senate District: 6 increased its propotion of black population and

the perceatag.e, ef black registered voters (Appendix IV - A) . With

this increase'of black residetrts and voters, District 6 was split
into two dist.xicts in the 1981 plan so that Edgecombe and Halifax

represents Dist:rict 6 and Martin and P,itt represent District 7 .

In this scheme,r, both have only one State Senator

In effec.t; t]re proposed State Senate plan puts an end to the

possibility that black citizens could use their vote as a single
If

shot to el,ect ole out of two of the State Senators . /fhe present

plan is appro.ved, black citizens in these four counties will be in

two districts, .-.- eacfr rtrith one State Senator where bloc voting

will assure th'e- white majority controls elections in which the

/-

t.

I ..:.
I

| -.'

winner takes all.

'Ir"



resentatives, Percent

ix III-C

qlqqive Districts in the House of resentatives o North Carolina General Assembl Created in I97l anrd
viation Factor.

District No. No. Reps.
l97l IgBI

Percentage of Non-
},lhi te P.opul ationm

40.? %

34.4 %

32.3 %

1$ 'A

56,7 %48 'l
3g,g fr
24,8 % ,

33.5 y,

34%
36.4 y,

22,9 %

44.2 ?l

?7.5 %

22.6 %

32.9 %

22.4 %

24.4 %

35.? %

26.5 1(

52.9 %

te %

22.5 %

7 .4 ',l"

25.1 %

36.8 %

29.7 %

4.4 %

?2.5 %

10.3 %

l6.t %

11 .0 %

17.4 %

5.7 %

15.2 %

Deviation from One Person - One Vote

I
2
3

I
6
6

7
8
9

l0
lr
12
l3
14
l5
I6
17' lB
l9
20
21

2?
23
?4
25
26
27
28
29
30
3t
32
33
34
35

?
I
3
g
2

7
4
3
2
I
I
2
3
2
6
3
2
2
3
5
3
4
7
2
I
I
I
3
5
3
2
7
3
3
2

7
I
3
q

2

"t
4
?,

2
2
2
2
3
2
6
3
2
2
3
5
1

4
7
2
I
I
1

3
5
3
2
7t
3
3
2

31 %

32%
3?%
17#
54r
47%
3e%
35?/-
32%
60 l"
3r%
21 y,

4?%
26%
21 %

36%
20 '/"

2?%
33%
3s%
47%
le 1[

39%
b%

2't %

36%
26%
3%

24%
t0%
15%
ll %

t5 %

s%'14 
%

r 97I

-'ll ,6 fl
- 1.9 %

+ 7.8 oA

+ 6,Q r"

- 9.6 %r .B %

-3,0fr
+ 4,9 %+ .B%
-10.3 %

+ 1.5 %

,+ ?,1 jl
- .7%
+ 4.6 %

-10.1 %

+ 4.4%
+3.0%
- 5.4 %

- 6.8 %+.I%
+ .9Y"+ .416
-2.7%
-8.9%
-7.8%+ .9%
- 5.9 %

- 6.0 %

+1.2%
-10.0 %

+ 6.3%
+ 1.1 %

+ 1.8%
+ 2.9 %

+8.2%

I 9BI

+ I,70 fr- 5.64 %

+ ?,79 %

+ 1,77 ft
+ 3,97 %

= 6,28 %. 4,87 fi
+ 1,90 fl
- 0.87 %

+ 3.74 %

+'l ,04/
+ 5.68 %

- 6.82 %

+ ?.80 %

+ 2.42 ?(

+ 4.03 /,
+12.83 'A

- 1.6s %

-10.68 %+ .97 y"

+ 7.56 %

- 6.76 %

= 7.44 %

- 6.17 ?[

+ 3.16 %

- l.BB %

= 7.09 %

+ 6.30 %

- 4.44 %

- 6.19 %

+ I.30 %

- .89%
+ 6.41 %

+ 5.43 %

+ 9.83 %



ndi x II-C contd.

Deviation from One Person - One Vote

- 8,24 %

+ 7,46 fr
+ 4.66 %

t 3,50 I
+ ?,2V %

+ ?,27 frf ,76?,,
+ .|,54 

S
+ g.16 r

+ 4,7 %

+ 7,3fr
+ 6.9 %

+2.0%
* 3.,6 %

+ 2,? %

+ 1.0 u
+ ?,9%
+ 2,9 %'
+ 3,6 lo

District No. No. Reps.
l97t I98r

Percentage of Non-
I,lhite Populationm

?6%
9%

ll%
5%

16.7%
3%
7%
1%
t%

I
2
4
2

E
I
I
4c'
2

36
37
3B
39
40
4I
42
43
44
45

9

?
4
?
3
I
5

?
I
I

?4,1 %

8.e %

II.9 %

5.3 %

16.4 %

4.2 %

4.7 %

8,7 /"

5,0 r
2,8 %



of the House of-

;istrict No.

1.

Z.

3.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

15.

16.

19.

?0.

Percentage of Non-White Population
FG'TMT=

Pergentaee. of l{gn-White Popul atio.n

19 70 L9 80

endix

nd Non-White Registered Voters
rstrrcts o the Reapportiohment

resentatrves o ort ro 1na uenera S SEM

on1 districts with 30% o more Non-White Populat i on

40.?t

34':4%

32 .3%

56.72

488

39.88

33.s%

34*

36.4%

44.28

32.92

ss. zz

'3L%

32%

32%

s4%

472

39"6

35?

32%

60%

31,"6

42%

36q6

ssz

35*

L97 0

24.s%

20.5%

2s. t%

47 .4%

32 .2%

?7.5%

2L.9%

21.9%

z0 .4%

2s.4%

33.8%

23 .7 eo

23.7e"

21,. 416

1980

23.62

21 .6eo

25.3%

44%

36. s%

26 .22

28 .42

24 .22

5s.6%

25.32

36%

25. Zeo

28.4%

zs. sz



District No.

2L.

23.

2'6.

PercontaFe of Non_-White popglation

L970 1980

52..92',:

22.5*

36. gt'

,t

38t

zSt

36t

a

ndix III- contd.

Percentage of Non-White Registered Voters

197 0 19 80

25.4+

15.68

2tt

35. 88

L7 .3*

25.4+



APPENDIX III. A



+: . PoP.

It- Fp.

U - toP.
lrlltrEl -pop.

i4'-.*!(-
7

t.or

'll; 91*

Ll lr-t85

ql)qzo
t{zrzlo

{sB-}'\,

BLrcrr

B\.FCK

BLA(K

.)iDrvv r

SarblT

31611

z/-.1

y-'r tg

'lB,f %
\t.o?
bz.s7_

Housa s€AlS
Cha'tdtt€- L*D
toculd @ erfitled
-to 5.61 rop* i

F.ta .n t1q
Ce,.suS

(t n* ptr qz)3*

r'40
I

38.O1



O7t^^ /t,
,- i

C-horlotE

PoP. Iqlc
Bucr<.

:=e Y acr=-\J
= t t1 lolrb\l

C-\
zr{l)ttrg

'lZ, rqlL

DISTR\ cIS _ -B"

Bgcr (3e<-r)
szps (sree )
?Jr E (zttb)
Qz:-,r. (Lez-s)
3sLr? (as+q)
8, (r++.r)
trt?3 furt r )
3lrz \zocJ

e\ A entsre.&to

\,^ro H crrSc.

5. Lq rcfe,
?.3? Se6o*na.

s-^rz. ( S,*\)
)5t

5o
11

1s,

5z
\- -ab

4
?

*
,,i,

LO

-'/ 
I

a
J

(\ zb
-4
_ 2_

3sa
t oGs

55
t*+sz
zr{9q

I

Ls'-trC 
-36cDtt(rrz-)

C.O
Qrct)
CabC

-r_

L1\BL{S (=.5O zza% aecK-



JJISIFICI Snour:rr.)
hc.s \=p 61 Io\ ,btoo
Bu*er- G?, 86l - bto$l-

t-..t' tg.ot

S€nqtr S.;y
l per lot)bq l

Cre.totte Cft/
Z.?+ Se.no,*[cr-S

.a
ts.o2 tr

i

ft

28
,(

-.11,

7-
zo

22?

,'et!ora. 31.02

38.01