Letter to Judge Dupree from L. Winner Requesting Scheduling Per Legislation on Apportionment, with Cover Letter

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

ATTORNEYS AT LAW
SUITE 73O EAST INDEPENOENCE PLAZA

95I SOUTH INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARO

CHARLOTTE, NORTH CAROLINA 2A2O2
TELEPHONE 17o4t 3'75-e461

January 11, L982

JULIUS LEVONNE CHAMBEFIS

JAMES E. FERGUSON. II

MELVIN L, WATT

JONATHAN WALLAS

KARL AOKINS

JAMES C. FULLER. JR.

WONNE MIMS EVANS

JOHN W GRESHAM

RONALO L. GIBSON

GILDA F. GLAZER

LESLIE J. WINNER

JOHN T, NOCKLEBY'

. OF D. C, BAR ONLY

'3

The Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr.
United States District Judge
U.S. District Court, Eastern DisErict
Post Office Box 27585
Raleigh,. North Carolina 276L1

Re: Gingles, et al. v. Ednisten,
et al.; No. 81-803-CIV-5

Dear Judge Dupree:

Gingles v. Edmisten is an action challenging the North Caroli-na
apportionment of both houses of the North Carolina General Assembly
and the North Carolina districts for the United States Congress.

Since the Supplement to the Complaint was filed on 19 November 1981
the following relevent events have occurred:

1. 0n 30 November 1981 the United States Department of Justice
entered an objection to Article II, 53(3) and $5(3) which prohibit
dividing counties in apportioning the General AssembIy.

2. On 7 December 1981 the United States Department of Justice
entered an objection to Chapter 894 of the Session Laws of 1981, the
Congressional Redistricting Act, and to Chapter 82L of the Session
Laws of 198f, the Senate Redistricting Act.

3. The state submitted its revised North Carolina House of
Representatives Redistricting Act to the United States Department
of Justice, and the deadline-for a response to that submiision is
20 January L982.

Ihus-, unless Ehe state appeals the Department of Justice rulings
to the United States District Court for the District of CoL":nrbla,



The Honorable Franklin T. Dupree, Jr.
January 11, L982

Page 2

there are no enforcable Senate or Congressional reapportionments,
and we do not now know whether or not the House app6itionment wiil
be enforcable.

According to the best information available Eo the plaintiffs in
this action, Ehe General Assembly plans to convene in special
session at the beginning of Februdry, 1982 to enact new apporEion-
ments and to postpone the date of the primary election fr6ir its
current date in Miy, tg82

J

The Court has set 19 February L982 as the date by ',,rhich discovery
must be gompleted and by which the parties should be ready for a-
-Pre-trial conference. However, at this time it appears lite1y that
between now and then new apportionments will be enieted. At ttris
time it is, therefore, inefficient and wasteful of the time of thelegislators, the Court and the parties to proceed with diseovery
on the original apportionment acts or to have any hearing or trial
on the merits 'with regard to those acts.
r-, therefore, request that the court not schedule a hearing forthe three jduge panel or a final pre-trial conference untif it be-

tionment legislation and postpone the primary election. At thattime the Court will be able to set a schedule which conforms tothe changes in the status of the apportionment legislation and inthe election schedule and which av6ids unnecessary expenditures ofthe time of the Court and the parties.
Thank you for consideration of this matter.'w
LJW: ddb
ccc: J. Rich Leonard

James trIal1ace, Jr.
Jerris Leonard

Attorney

ri'd;n-; .,'..-- +4ji;;i*'-Lirartl.ii.;. .--. t tl.'.1: