Correspondence from Baker to Guinier

    T0: Steve Suitts, Napoleon William, Lani Guinier, Raymond trdheeler
and J. LeVonne Chambers

FROM: Leslie

DATE: November 20, 1981

RE: Gingles v. Rufus Edmisten., et al.

1. Attached is a copy of' the Order denying defendants'
motions to dismiss an.d to stay and granting our Motion
to Supplement. A 1itt1e victory.

Z. Because defendants must now answer within 20 days if
we want to make any a.mendment of right, we must do that
soon. Call me with y'our thoughts about that.

3. You are hereby reminded that we are to meet at 5:30 on
December l, 1981 in Clharl-otte. Ca11 if you have Problems
with thaE. By then u,e wil-l know what Justice is doing.

4. I will send out a prcrposed requests to produce and a
list of proposed depc,sitions on Monday for your corment.



IN
FOR THE

RALPH GINGLES, et a

P1a

vs.

RUFUS L. EDMTSTEN,

Def

HE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTII

RALEIGH DIVISIOI'I

F'ILE D
iN0v t -u 1981

COURT
CAROLINA

Plaintiffs in

representative dis

Carolina Senate and

Article II, Secti

Carolina. As requi

three-judge court h

Judge Britt and the

Currently before th
plaintiffs t motion

being matters upon

pursuant to 28 U. S.

dants I motion to di

the Voting Rights

if without merit by

Addressing the

Section 5 claims a

apportionment plans

General for Sectio

acted. ff the Att
for additional inf
three-judge court

new apportionment i

L982. In addition,

of the changes, thi

restrain implement

to dismiss must be

J. IRICH LEONARd, vrc.(r\
U. S. DISTRICT COURT

E. DIST. NO. CAR.

ntiffs NO. 81-803-CrV-5

gBPEB
tc., et aI.,

ndants

is action challenge the 19Bl apportionment of the

Northicts for the United States Congress and the

House of Representatives and the legality of

3(3) and 5(3), of the Constitution of North

ed by 28 U.S.C. S 2325 and 42 U.S.C. S 1373c, a

s been designated consisting of Judge PhiIlips,

undersigned for final disposition of the action.

court are defendants' motion for a stay and

or leave to file a supplemental complaint, both

hich the undersigned may act as a single jud,ge

. S 2284 (b) (3). Also before the court is defen-

miss as moot the claims brought under Section 5 of

L, 42 U.S.C. S 1973c, which motion may be denied

the undersigned. acting as a single judge court.

latter motion first, it is apparent that the

not moot. Although the state has submitted the

and. state constitutional amendment to the Attorney

5 pre-clearance, the Attorney General has not yet

ey Generalrs action is delayed because of requests

tion or other reasons, this court sitting as a
uld have the power to enjoin implementation of the

the primary elections now scheduled for spring of
if the Attorney General enters an objection to any

court would under Section 5 be empowered to

tion of that change. For these reasons, the motion

nd is hereby denied.



General acts. E. , McDaniel v. Sanchez , + U . S. _, 101 S . Ct.

Arguing for a

General t s 'action,

not adjudicate the

2224, 2236-37 (198

primaries requires

ditiously as possi

covery deadline of

court will not ad

General's action,

preparation of the

Subsequent to

the North Carolina

the JuIy, 1981 ap

Representatives ,

body. Plaintiffs

setting forth all

on October 30, 19

Defendants are di

stay of the proceedings pending the Attorney

efendants accurately contend that this court. should

constitutional questions raised before the Attorney

) . Nevertheless, the imminence of the spring

that the action be heard on the merits as expe-

Ie after the Attorney Generalrs action. A dis-

February 19, 1982 has been established. Ialhile the

ess the merits of the action prior to the Attorney

e stay must be denied in order to permit full

case for expeditious adjudication.

the filing of the complaint on September L6, 1981,

General Assembly met in special session and repealed

rtionment law for the North Carolina House of

ave moved to file a supplement to the complaint,

ations which refer to the new apportionment adopted

. This motion is allowed. F.R-Civ.P. t5(d).

Ling yet another apportionment plan for that

ted to file responsive pleadings to the original

complaint and su emental complaint within twenty days of this date.

SO ORDEPAD.

.T. UPREE, JR.
STATES DISTRICT JUDGEL[\tITED

November 19, 1981.

/

,, 1','.'',r,,,,
\, \ ,. .

I certifY trte {c;c.Eo'ntJJff;il:f"
".,1 correct coPY oI L

" -,-J,"rr 
Leonard;'C[erk '

ii.i;i statcs oistrict cottrt

il*t. D'ttrict of Norih Carolina

,:**pl#trPage 2