Appendix to Post-Trial Memorandum of Plaintiffs Ralph Gingles, et al.; Major v. Treen Memorandum Opinion; Alonzo v. Jones Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

    @
U.S. Ihpertmant o{ Juslhc

CivitRights Dvision

EXHTBIT Y

Ollta ol thc Algdst.at Atl@rtcy Gcncnl Uorthgoa, D.C.205t0

10 APR 882

Jerris Leonard, Esquire
Jerris Leonard t Associatesl P.C.
900 Seventeenth Street, NW

Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 20006

Dear Mr. Leonard

This is ln reference to your submission on behalf
of the state of North caroLina of the redistrietlng
fi"n" for the North Carolina Senate (Senate Bill 1) and
the State House of ,Representatives (House Bill 1), and a
i;; "n.nging 

the cdnaiAate filing_period and prinary
election'da[,es for 1982 (House gifl 3). Your submission,
pursuant to section 5 of the voting Rights Act of 1965,
ls amended, 42 U.S.C. I973c, was received on February
,1, 1982, and was supplemented with reguesteil additlonal
iniormation received--on epril 6t 1981. As-requested, we

n""" given your sub.missio-n expedited consideratlon.

AttheoutsetrwebelieveitlsapproprLate.to
review recent Section 5 objections interposeg by-!h"
Attorney General to voting changes.in North carollna,
inasmuch as the bases for those objections Provldg a

relevant context for our review of the submitted senate
and House reAisiri"ting plans. As you knowr oll November
30, 1981r 6p objection-wls interposLd !o a 1967 amendment
to the North Caiolina Constitution that.prohiblted !h"
State from di;i;i;; counties during redistricting of the
House and senate. our analysis of that amendment showed
that adherenc"-i" the prohi6ition necessarily- required
the use of faige multiimember districts, which in turn
h;; ah; prediclable effect of submerging llre .Y"!i:?--
strength-of cognizable concentrations of blac)< citizens
throughout the State.



2-

On December ? r 1981, objections t ere interposed to
the Senate reapportionment plan and to the Congressional
redistricting plan. With respect to the Senate p1an,
our analysis showed that the Staters reliance on the
constitutional prohibition against dividing counties
had resulted in a submergence of black voting strength
in several covered areas of the State. Subsequentlyr oll
January 20, 1982r ED objection was interposed to the
House ptan because it, too, would have resulted ln a
submergence of black voting strength.- Both the Senate
and Ho[se plans had employed large nulti-member districts,
a forseeable ionsequence of the Statets adherence during
redistricting .to the 1967 constitutional amendment.

Following these objections to the 1967 constitutional
amendment, and to the earlier reapportionment plansl the
State of North Carolina formulated the new redistricting
plans under submission here. fn contrast to the earlier
6bjected-to plans, the plans developed in 1982 by the
Stite divide-numerous counties. Consequently, a simple
comparison of the racial statistics in the 'old" and the
newiy-proposed plans does little to shed light on whether
the -suLmiitea plans 'fairly reflect the strength of black
voting power al it exists.h State of l!i:e!ssi!Pi- v. United
statei t 490 F. suPP. at 581.

The submitted plans are a substantial improve-
nent over the objected-to plans because, in several
covered areas, tf,e State has endeavored to create dis-
I;i;a; in which black voters are now given a reasonable
opportunity to elect candidates.. of the-ir choice where
ti:iy had n-one before. The Senate and House plans in
Guiiford County create such districts, for examPle:
On-it," other hind, each plan continues to have a single
on3""tionable feaiure under Section 5, as tho99 plans
affect some of the covered counties. we briefl'y describe
bel.ow the bases for these objections'



5-

. With resPect to the submitted Senate plan, the -
State proposes Lo create a majority black district in '
the noitneast area. This districtl No. 2r contains a
5i.Zt black population. Our analysie shows that during
the Senate Redistricting Committeets consideration of
this district it was widely recognized that at I'east a

SSt black population was necessary in this district if
black voters were to have a reasonable chance -of electing
a candidate of their choice and the record before us
contains substantial evidence that such a compactT,IloD-
;;;;yr;"dered district easily-could be drawn in this
ire". Notwithstanding these facts, however, the State
ena"iea a plan whichr is noted above, provides for only
a 51.?t black population Percentage

ResPecting the House Pl?n, lhe-State,ProPoses to
create on"- 

"ingle-member 
district in Cumberland County,

with the remai;der of the countyrs population to el'ect 4

;;;;";;;titives in a multi-member disrrict. while the

=ii,gf"-rember district appears to be overwhelmingly
;i;;i in lts aciuaf votiir! population (due to the lnclusion
oi-iiaaitior,"ity non-voting-population from Fort Bragg),
the State, s plair leaves nearly three-fourths of
iir"tt".rille-'s black community with their voting strength
;;il;;;"j-i; irre wnite najoriEy multi-nember district.
Several reasonable alternativei to the State I s proposal are

"u"iiiur", 
inciuding the drawing of 3 second single-member

district wherein blick voters w5uld have a fair opportunity
;i;-;i-i rini*u*, strongly influencing the outcome of the
election in that district.

In light Of the abover I am unable to conclude, as I
must under Section 5 of the Voting-Rights Act, that the
Senate and Hou""-reipportionment pfani are free of a racially
discriminatory-p";p;;e inil ef fect. Accordilgf yr .or1 behalf of
the Attorney 6"ietifr I must interpose an objection to both
pIans.



<a'

Finally, the Stat,e has proposed to change the
candidate filing period and to change the date on which
prirnary. elections will be held. Those changes are contin-
gent upon the State obtaining preclearance of the Senate
ind House redistricting plans, an event which has not
yet taken place. Accordinglyt it_is our view that these
Lhanges are not ripe for Section 5 review. 9ee, €..$.1
2g ClF.R. 51.7. We stand ready to examlne these changes
on an expedited basis together with any modifications to
the Senate and House plans that the State may wish to
make. .

of courser BS provided by section 5 of the voting
Rights Act, you have the right to.seek a declaratory
juagment from the United States District Court for the
6islrict of Columbia that these voting changes have
neither the purpose nor will have the effect of denying
or abridglng-thL right to vote on account of race, color,
or membeisnip in a language rninority 9r9up. In additlon,
the ProcedurLs for the-Administration of Section 5 (28
C.F.R. 51.21(b) and (c), 5I.23, and 51.24) permit.you to
request the etiorney General to reconslder the objection'
ttoieverr until tne oUiection is withdrawn or the judgment
from th; District of Columbia court is obtainedr the
effect of the objection by the Attorney General is to
make the redistr-icting plans for the Senate and State
House of Representatives legall.y unenforceable in the
covered counties.

If you have any questions concerning this- letter,
please feei free to ce}l Mr. J. Gerald Hebert, the attorney
in ir," Voting Section (202-724-6292) who is assigned to
this matter.

Sincerely,

tJB
Wm.

Assistant
Civil

AttorneY General
Rights Division

-.- 
rr-rhis



,ffi
EXHIBIT GG

WBR: GHJ: JGH: ca
DJ rs-OrZ-S
E725S+SZ

a

Jerris Leonard, Esquire
Jerrls Leonard & Assoclates
Suite I020
900 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washlngton, D. C. 20005

Dear Mr. Leonard:

Thie ls tn reference to the submrssron of H.B. r(House-Reapportlonnent), s.B. 1 (senate neappoitronnent)
and H-.B. 2 (relatlng ro rh" candldar-e qualthication-period
and the prlqary eleErlon dare) for the'stare oi-lloirhcaroltna. Your subnlssl.on, pursuant to sectton t-;i thevotlng Rlghte Ac-t, rras received-on Aprtl 29, Lggz,-and waseupp_leqgnted wlrh addltlonal informallon received'onApril- 30,- 1982. - As requested, we have glven your e;bmtsstonexpedlted cons lderatlon.

wtth respect to the votlng changes occasioned byH.B. 1 and s.B. I (!he House and senaEe redlstrlctlng'plans),
t_he. Attorney General does not lnterpose any obJectlons.wtth {espqcr- ro tt.r" proposed-change- ln the-caniiaate iiltngperlod-_and the. prlmary ele-ctlon dite, our analysts-shows tf;.tunder H.B. 2 the date-of thg.pTimary ls stated to be June 10;L982 and rhe perlod for qualiEtcati6n is srared ro be apiri-iothrough May 7, L982. As you were advlsed over ttre ieleiho.," bwMr. Reynolds earller today, this schedule would neces"ii"i"-o"iinterposlng an objectlon under Sectlon 5 since lt would have-a-severely adverse tmpact ln those new dlstrlcts where blackvoters for the first ttme have a falr opporrunlty of "i""ir"gcandldates of thei.r chotce.

rn the supplem-ental- lnformatl.on provided to us today,you-have lndtcated that the srate Boari of ElecEtons, pursuant
Eo lts statutory authorlty, wLll amend thls echedule s6 thatthe prlmary w111 be held bn Tuesd.y, June 29, Lggz,-with ;second prlmary, lf-necessary, to-be held_on july zi, Lggz: and I
!!9-pertod-for qualffytng by peELElon wt11 be e-xrended io'u"y-tZ,
L?8.2. . .. In ltght of thLse-cticirms-tances, w€ do not interfos"-!"T' '
obJectlon at thls tlme. should Ehe schedule be amendeb as a;i

Uothington, D.C. 20530

April 30, LgBz t
F



,'t

I

-2
forth-hereln and ln your Letter of this date, u€ belleve the
sche$rle so anended irould Deet Sectlon 5 requlrenents and hre F
woulG be prepared to glve the uatter our immediate attentlon I
upon ieceipt'of that information. On the other hand, failure Eto an-end the initial H.B. 2 schedule would require uE to give r

further consideration to the concerns indicated above.

Flna1ly, w€ feel a resPonsibllity to potnt out that
Section 5 of- the Voting Rights Act expressly provides that
the failure of the Attorney General to object does not bar
any subsequent judiclal action to enjoin the enforcement
of- such ctiangesl In addition, 88 authorized by Section 5,
the Attorney-General reserves the right to reexautne each
of the changes included ln this submission if additlonal
lnformatlon that would otherwlse require an objectlon comes
to his attentlon durlng the reurainder of the stxty-day period.

Because this rDatter 1s currently pendlng before
the federal court ln North Carollna, w€ are taktng the
llberty of sending that court a coPy of our decislon
this date.

Sincerely,

Wm. Bradford Reynolds
Assistant Attorney General

Civil Rights Divlslon

t
I
I
{

s
t