Edmisten v. Gingles Jurisdictional Statement; Order; Memorandum Opinion; Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States

    D
I

IN THE

Supreme 6ourt o[ tbe OIniteD Stntes

OurotrsH Tsnnt, l9tlll

No. 

-
Rurus L. EoutsrsN, et al.,

v.

Relpu GINcLEs, et al.,

Ap'pellunl s,

Appellees.

On Appeal From The United States l)istrict Court
For The Dastern District Of North Carolina

JURISDICTIONAL STATETTTENT

OI'INIONS I}EI,OW

The opinion of the United Stat'es District ( lourt Iirt' t ltt
Eastern District of North Carolina in this cuse w?ls r'(,n-

cierecl on January 27,1984. A copy of the Court's Opittion
antl Order is set out in Apper(lix A.

;
JUIilSDT9'r'r()N

I'he case below was a clas$ action by blar:k voteLs'ot'
North Carolina challenging terhin multi-n.,u,rrbt,r tlis-
tricts in the post-1980 rerlistriqting of the North Carrrlirur
General Assembly. The appellants filed their Notice of
Appeal in the District Court on February 3, 1984, a col).y
of which is contained in Appendix B. This appeal is docli-
eted in this Court rvithin the tinre allowerl llv ortk-,r of thc
Chief Justice, clated March 28, 1984. A copv of this orrlr.r'



lv

1"\t} LE OI.' AT-I'TI IOITITI IiS
( l.rst-s: Page

;lt'litttllt,tt Iltiqhls v. Metrulxtlitun Ilousing Deu. Coqt.,
t:l) tl.S. 252 \t$7i)

(-ltulttttutt v. Niclrolsort, No. CVIJZ-I)T-lll79-J (N.D. Ala.,
Ii'eb. li], l9lJ.l)

Cilu ol ,llolile v. Roldert,446 U.S.5l-r (1980)

Drrlitl \'. L'ru,)'irjo,r, 55lJ F.2tl t)2:l ({-rth Cir. 1977) .... 10,

I)rttrtrrll v. (iniled Stoles, (itlZ Ii'.2t1 2,10 (D.(l.Cir. 1982)

F)xttttrl,i,t ('tttrtttU v. LIcllilltnr, (il]S I.'.2d !X;() (5th Cir.
lltxi )

ll,'trrlt't,,' t. .lt,sr,Ilr.115!) F.2rl l3(iir (5th ('ir'. ll)77
/ortr's t'. ( ''itt1 rtl Lrrblxtcl;,721 l.t.3tl;i(i{ (i-rtlr (lir'. l9tt4),

,lr'rrit'rl. No. Sll-l Ilt(i tlth (lir'. Anril 10. l9lJ4).lrril 10, 1984). 12

| \ . t )tt(t t'(l t)l Jlll)l:l'l'1,\{r|i-, ,),1.t l' ..4(l l,):, (i)[n \rIf.,r,.
t . tlt'rrit'tl, l3.l tJ.S. 1)(;8 ( ll)?7) 12

l),ut t'tl o/'Str/ra'r,isors, l-r,l.t l".2rl l;j!) (l-rthl-rth Cir.),.

v. 'l'rt't'n. ir?'l F'.Su1D. illll-r (Fl.l). La. ll)ttil) ... 15, 16

r'. (it'r':;st'llt,, 4:12 tl.S. .lltl 11117-, 14-16

llrt:;i1't'tt v. S/tolr,. .l:il) tl.S. :i22 ( 197!)) 14

l.rtrltt(', l;tl tI.S. (il:l (lll,'(2) 20

ll'itrtrt',717 l.'.zd lt)l (5th (lir'. l{)tt:}) ll
. Slalrolr, 456 LI.S, :|? (l{}ijz), on rc,nrand, Civ.

Nrr. l'-v;--l$-OA (8.D. Tex. ll)ft,l) . L2,22
l'r'1,r,;,1rrr". t. ('il4 tl'Ahilene, No. 82-l(i:]0 (Sth Cir. Mar.

:i.t:r:il)..... ..12,22
ll'rt.,irr t,t1t,u \'. /)uuis, 42(i IJ.S. 221) (1117(i) 7

ll'lnlr',,trtlt r'. (-'lrrrpiri, 40:J U.S. l2.l (11)71) 8

ll'lritt'r. /rlr'r7ls/r'r', 'll2 tl.S. 7l-rir (lll?ll) 6, 8, I
Z rtttttrt't't' . ,llclitilhe,r, .ltl5 F .2rl 121)7 (irth Llir. 1974), affd

sulr rrorrl. 1,,'ttst Curroll Pari;h School IJtxrxl v. fuIur-
slt,tll, l? I tl.S. (i36 (1!)7ir) . . . 7, ll

('rr):::l l l l' l l()):, S't',f'l'tltl:S:
[1.:: t,rrr.t ....\rrrr,ntl. l5
l:l l' :i (' ii ll)?;j ,.ssr,r
l: lr.:-i r' \ llrilic p(rssi,[

v

Table of Authorities Continued
[)age

7

t2
7

ll
Iri

20

u

MrscnlleNeous:
Subcomm. on the Constitution of the Senate Comm. on

the Judiciarv. Report on the Voting llights Act,
Comm. Print,'9?tti Cong., 2d Sess. (19t12)

S. Rep. No. 41?, 9?th Cong., 2tl Sess. (19U2) . 9, 11, 13,

H.R. Rep. No.97-?127, 97th Cong. lst Sess. (1981) . . . !),

I
l{
l:t

t

I

I

I

I
I

t

I



ll',,.ttt'l'tl.]sTo't.tlB 
I,Roct)Et)tN(; ItEt,otv

'l'lro r\lrl,t,lllrnts, rlel'enclants in the action below, are as
lirllou's: lirrl\rs F)clnristen, Attorne.y General of North
(l:rrolirru;,1:rrrres (l. Gleen, Lieutenant (iover.nor of North
(larrilirur; [,iston [:1. Itarnse.y, Speaker.ol'the House; The
St:rtt, llrxrrrl ol' lillections of Nor.th (larolina; R. Kenneth
Illlrb. .lolrrr L. Sticliley, [l,uth Scrnashko, S.yrlne.y F'.C.
ll:rrnnell, rrrrrl Shirlt,l' IIen.ing, nrt'rnht,r.s ol' the State
lJo:u'rl ,rl' l,.l,,r.tiousi urrrl 'fluul Iirrr.e, Sr:cr.etar..v of State.

'l'lrt' r\1r1,,,lllr.:, lrltrirrLil'[.s irr tlrt urtion ltt,lolr,, :lr.e as
lirll,rr':: lilrly,lr ( iirrqlt,s, Siplrio litrr.(on. I,'r.t:rl llt:llreld, ancl
,lo:r,'lrlr ll,,,r,l1 , 1,tt Irr'[all'()['tlt{,pts('l't,s :rttrl :rl} ,tlferS
sirrril;rrlr' -,ir ulrt r.r l.

lll

TARLE OF CONTENTS

Qucsrtotts PRnsuNrno

I,,TRTINS TO T}IE PNCTCNCOIN(;S BELOW

Tnnls or AuruoRITtES .

OprNroNs Br:low
JUHlsolct'tt)N . . .

CoNsT lturtoNAl, ljRovlsloNs ANI) STATIITtis INvot.r']:tr

Sr,rturur:NT 0F THE CAsE

Tul; Qur:stt()Ns PRESEntutl Anr Sutts'l'.tN'l'1,\1, . . . . . . . .

I. Section 2 Of The Voting ltights Act Gulratttt't's Ar:-
cess To The PoliLical I'r:oceS3, Not Electot'al Sttccess
Wherever There Occurs A Sufficient Cotlcclrtt'ation
Of Black Citizens To Create At Least One Salt' Illacli
District . ... .

Page

i

ii

iv

II. I'reclearance Of A Itedistricting Plan Untler Sectiott
5 Preclutles Readiurlication Of Tlrc Issue Ol'Disct'inr-
inatory Itesult Oi ttrat Plan tl.v I't'ivtrLe l)l:rintifl's
UnderSection2....

Ill. Itaciallv Polarized Votins Is Not Establislrt'rl As A
Mattefof Larv Whenevei Less Than A Majority Of
White Voters Vote F'or A Black Canrli<late

IV. The District Court Erretl [n Disregartling Suh-
stantial Evidence'l'hat Many Illack Learlct's Wet't:
Satisfie<l That Electoral Access Anrl 011;xrrtttniLv
!'or lllacks Antl Whites Were liilutl, Atrrl l;'rtrtlt-
ermore Opposed The ConcepL Of Sal'e Singlt-
Mernber ttiitricts Arlvocatetl l3y The I'laintifl' . . .

I
I
.)

3

i

l:l

t7

2l
.)'r

I ir

it1 ir

i-t,91

5l):r

CoNcr-usloN . . .

Apt,gNorx A
At,t,extrtx [J

AppeNDtx C
Al,t,nNlllx D



Ir

I

QUESTIONS PRESENTET)

I. Whether Seetion 2 of the Voting Rights Act guaran-

tees protected minorities the right to safe'electoral
districts wherever there occurs a sufficient eon-

centration of minority citizens to create at least one

safe black district which ensures black elector:rl suc-

cess.

IL Whether preclearance of a redistricting plan untlel'
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act precludes relitiga-
tion of the issue.of discriminatory result of that plan

by private plaintiffs under Section 2.

, III. Whether raeial bloc voting exists as a matter of law
' whenever less than 507o of the white voters cast

ballots for the black candidate.

IV. Whether the court erred in rejecting substantialevi-
dence that many black leaders were satisfiecl that
electoral aecess and opportunity for blacks antl
whites were equal ancl furthermore, opposed the
concept of singli member districts advocatecl by the
plaintiffs.



is s.t li,r'l lr rrr .,\ plrr,rtrli.x Cj. 'l'he jru'isrlictirttr of'this Court is
ittvoltr,rl ttrrtllr iS t r.S.C. $ l2l-rlt.

('( )Ns't' t'l't'l't( )N.\ l, l'ltov lsloNS,\N l) sl',\'[t]'tFls
tNvol,\/El)

'l'lrt I ltrilt'rl St:ttcs CrlnstitttLiott, F'ilteenth Amencl-
rntnt, lrrrl Sections 2 an<l l-r ol'Lhe Voting ltights Act of
llXij-r, rrs irrrrt'nrlt'tl, .12 U.S.C. $$ ll)7:1, 197:Jc al'e set out in
Aplrurrli.r l).

s'r..\'l'B[IEN',r oF ',l'HE C,\Sr]

ln,lrrlv rrl' l!)sl, the North L-at'olitia General Assembly
eturctr,rl rr k'gislaLive redistricting plan itr ortler to con-
ftrrnr tht, StaLe Senitte antl l{ouse of Ilepresentative clis-

trit'Ls [o the l1)lJ0 census. In keelting with a 300 year old
grracticr: irr Llte State, the plans cotrsistetltlf a combination
ol single nremller anrl multimember clistricts and each
rlistric[ \y:rs cotnposerl of either a single county ot'two or
trlol'(' corrrrt.it,s so tltat no cottnty was divided between
Icgislirtivc tlistricts. The I'}laintilfs below tiletl this action
on St,lrtcrnlret' lli, lgtll in the Unitetl States District
('ourt lirr Lhe liastcrtr District of North Carolina alleging
iuror)g otlrcr Lhirrgs, that the multi-ntember districts di-
hrl.etl blacli votiug strength.

In Ot'tolrcl' 1981, irr a syrecial session, the General As-
,scrrrlrly rt'lxrrlcrl atnrl t'ervot'ketl the lIouse plan t<-r retlttce
tlrt,polrul;rtiorr rleviations. f]ecause tirrty of North Cjaroli-
n:t's l()(l corrrrt.i(,s tre covererl b.y Section i-r of the Voting
Iiiulrts ,,\r'i. t lrr' r'r.r'iserl IIouse ;rlittt anrl the Sertate lllan
u r,r'e sulrnritllrl Lo tlte r\t.trlrtttl.v (-1-,111'1"11 lot' t'evietr,. '['he
,,\tt()r'n(,\ ( ir'trr')':rl irrlet'lrosctl olr.it,cLiorts to both pl'ol)os-
;rls. llr' liinrul t lrrrt tlre stitte Jxrlirv lglrins[ tlir,irling coun-
t ics rr':.rrlt,,tl irt thr, ct'eul.iott rtl' tttttlti-tttettrlrer tlistricts
rrlrit'h irr lrn'rr ltttrlt,rl to sulltttt,t'ge lllttclt vott'l's in the
('oVr,l'r', | 1'r rrtttl ir':1.

3

During the early months of 1982 counsel for the Getterzrl

Assembl"y workeri closely with the Oivil Rights Divisiort

of the Dlpartment of Justice in ortler t, rc'mctl.v tlt.se

aspects of th" plans founcl objectionable unrler Sectiott i-r.

In Febnruty, th" General Assembly enaclerl nerv

reclistricting plans in which some county lines wertr

broken in order to overcome the objectiorl in the coverecl

counties of the state. when these plzrns were submittetl,

the Attorney General found one problematic clistrict in

each plan. ih"r. subsequently were retlrawn to Jtrstice

Department specifications. On April30, 1982, the Senate

un,i Hout" plans re'ceivecl Section 5 preclearance'

The action below remained pending cluring the course

of these legislative proceedings, and several amendments

to the coirplaint were permitted to accommoclate the

successive ievisions of the redistricting plans. The last

supplemental cornplaint included section 2 of the voting
nig'hts Act, as amended onJune 29, 1982, as a basis of the

pliintiffs' claim of vote dilution. [n its final ftrrm, thr:

complaint alleged that in 5 General Assembly districts,
the use of multi-member configurations dilutecl the voting

strength of black citizens in violation of Amended Section

ffi hrplaintiffralleged votg-cl ilulion i n

;@here a-conc-entration of black voters

was split between 2 Senate districts. The plaintiff class

*o...rtifred ancl trial to a three-juclge court u'tis held for'

8 clays commencing JulY 25, l98ll.

The plaintiffs attempted to prove that mulLi-mettrbet'

House ,lirtrictr in Durham, Forsyth, IVlecklenbttrg ltttrl

Wake counties, ancl the multi-mernber Senate rlistlicl
that inclucled Mecklenburg county, none of $'lticli rvt't't'

coveretl by Section 5, violatetl Sec,tirln 2. 'l'lte-V itlsrl:tttttcli-
e4 2 6istrlict configur: ions in the coveretl ut'ea ol' tltt'
State: llouse district 8 and Senate district 2.



4

'l'lrc Ir'r.'ot'rl r,.rl'lt-'cts the following stipulated facts:

I)rrr[urrn (]outtt,t' \\I?ts a 3-member House district which

trrrrl ir lrl;rr.1 r,,rli,g irge population of 33.1;iok. Durham has

h:rrl ..r' ltlacli .,,p,'o'i.,,itoiive to the House continuously

siru.r llt73. 'l'u,o,,1'it,* tiue county commissioners are black

lrs iu.(| t$,() ol' ils tirur elected district cottrt judges. The

I )rrr.hirnr ( lotrnt.v lirard of Elections had a black member

lj.0rn l1)7() t0 lll.ql. The chairmanship of the f)urham
('uulrtt' l)r^tttot't':ttic Party was held by a blac-k from 1969

tlrr.rrrru.lr ll)71) arrrl is culrently held by a black for the

ll)S:l ,1r) lt,t'ttt.

'['lttr l,l:rcli t'ot.ittt{ ltge llopulation of Mecklenburg isz4Vo'

('rr,'r'r,nlh'ort., ol'tlro gight House members from Mecklen-

lrrr's (',,rirttt' is lrl:rck. .lames D. Richarclson, lvho is als.
lrl;rt.l< :rrrrl u,irs r.rrrrning in his first election for public otfice

irr l{rsj. (':lr}r('in rrirlth itt a race for eight seats, rvith only

lli,() ,, r11,,, l1';,5, t.ltirtt tlltt eighth successful candidate' This

'r';*r irr ;r l'it'lrl ,r['lfit'ltttrlirlirtes. While there is cttyrently no

I'l:rcli .rr,rr:rtor li'ottt t hc Mecklenlrurg-Cabal'rus County

lir,rr:rlc I ristricl, .llrrncs Polk, a tirst time canclitlate tbr

lrulrlit'r,l'licr'. r'trrr lillh itt a race for lbur seats in the 1982

,,lcct i,rtr.'l'hc NIt'clilt'rtbttrg-Caban'us County Senate Dis-

tlit:t tli,l ltar','a lrl:rck senator for three terms from 1975

t hr.orrslr lllsr), urrtil lris rleath belore the 1980 elections. In
rrrlrli(iort. otte ttl' tlre tive Mecklenburg County Commis-

sior)r,r.s. tN,rl 01'thr.r nine charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
[']rlrr,.'rrti,rtt tttentlt('l's, itn(l one of the ten Mechlenburg
('or.n)t.\ I )isl.r'icl ( )otrlL jtrdges, all of whom are blaclt, were

t,krct.t'il :rt -l:tt'gg. lp atltlition, another black was appoittted
to ir ViI('iilrL rlistrict cottt't juclgeship in Mecklenburg Coun-

1..1,, lrrrt lrrs ttot 1'et harl to run for electirin. One of the three
Niccltlt'rrtruru O,)tlttty lJoarcl of Elections members, the

t:lp.t'ent t,filtir', urrrl Llre immediate past chair of the Meck-

I,rrbtrr'1r. ( lotrntv I)ttrnocratic Executive Committee, are

lrlso lrl;r,'li.

;)

The City of Charlotte, locatcrlin Mecklenburg County.
has apopulation which is 3l% hlack. Harvr:y Gantt, who is
black, currently serves as Ma.vor of th:rt city. Charlotte
also has two black city council members elected front
majority black clistricts.

The five-member House District 39, including nrost of
Forsyth County has a 22% black voting age population
and currently has two black rellresentatives as a result of
the 1982 elections. Forsyth County has previously
elected a black representative for the 197.{-76 and 1977-iS
GeneralAssemblies. Blacks huve also bcen appointecl b.r,

the Governor on two occasions to reltresent Forsyth
County in the North Carolina House. This occurred in
1977 when a black representltive resigrred and again in
1979 when a white representative resigirerl. One of the
five Forsyth County Commissioners anrl one of the eight
Forsyth County School Boarrl members are black. Both
Boards are elected at-large. In arlrlition, one of the three
ntembers of the Forsyth Corurty fJoarrl of Elections is
black.

The City of Winstorr-Salern. locaterl in [.'orsyth County,
has a blaek pol ulation of slight.l.v more lhtn 40?o and a
black voter registration of sliuhtly less than 327o. The
Winston-Salem City Council has eight members elected
fi'om wards. C\rrrently, there, are three black members
elected from majority black u'arcls ancl one black member
elected from a ward with slightly less than 3g7c black
voter registration. The black rnember rkrfeatecl a white
Democratic incumbent in the pr.irnar-v ancla u'hite Repub-
lican in the general election.

The current Wake County six member House clelega-
tion includes one black mernber., Dan Blue, who is serving
his second term. [n the last election, Blue received the
highest vote total of the 15 l)emocrats r.unning in the



llrinr;u'.v irn(l tho se(:on(l highest vote total of the l7 cancli-

,1,,1,,,, rlrrrrt,ittu lirr the six seats in the general. election'

;\ltlr,,rrulr tto'sittglt:-tnember black Senate district catt be

(,on:,tl.ll(.tt.rl ilr Witke C<,runty, Wake electetl a black Setla-

tor lirt' l.lrt' ll)?ir-?(i antl 1977-78 tet'ms'

( )rrr, 0l't lre scvr,rn wake county conlmissioners is black.

'l'\\'r, , rl' t lrt' tiglrt Witke County District Court Judges are

blirt'|i.. 'l'lre Sht'r'il't',r[Wake County, John l]aker, is black

rrrrrl is t'ttt't't'trtlv strvillg his second term' In the 19u2

eltt.ti(In lirl lris seconrl ternr, Baker receivecl 6iJ.5o/o of the

vot r", in t ht' ut'ttt'l'ltl election ovel'a white opponent' I1 tfe
[)r,trrot't'rtlic I't'itrtat'.y, [3aker t'eceivecl over (i1%' of the

volt in rlt'lt'ltirrg l.ivo white oppotrents' Wake County
( lr,rrrrttissiott{|t's [)istrict Court.ludges, antlthe Sherilf are

;rll r'ltctt'rl rrl. lrtt'ge. According to 1980 figur91, 70'!!(' of

tlrt, \\;:rlir' (lottttL.y votittg age fiopulation are black' Wake
('6rrrrl.v llrs :tlso'itt,,l a black menrber continuously on its

tlrr.,,,,-rrttrnlrer. Brxrrrl of lllections since 1977, ancl the

('ut','('tlt rrhltit' is llla<:k.

[)r'spitc tltese stillulatetl facts, the court belorv found

th:rt tLt' rtlrltir',t",rib"r' clistricts in Durham, Forsyth'

i\l(|,,lilerrlrtrr.g anrl wake counties violaterl section 2. The

t'out't tvits ttllL: Lo reach this conclusion because it never

rurlrlt't'ss,'tl r-ht ultirnate issue of fact posited by the

st:rlrrtu--rvl',r.tlrt,r' black citizens of these tlistricts had

,, ; ;,,,,l' ;,',', :' riffi ;,t;ii ia^l'ir.rc e s s and eq u al r) p p o r:t u n ity
ij;1,.f -.riiirlirtLrtis oftheii ctroice. Rather, th'e-iourt
,r.niin,,oiit hg stitLrrttriy tanguage aii4 construed the legisla-

t i vo lt ist.rrt'.\'.

'l'lte Iir,1r0r.t ol'the Senate. Conrrnittee on the Jucliciary

lists rrint. itr,,tor.s rvhich the Ctimmittee sr-rggestecl might
l,c irIIit';rtivt'tll'r'ote rlilution. S.Rep. No' 417,1)7th Cong',

Itl lit,ss. (11tsJ)ut 2li. These factorls were culletl froln the

:rn:rlvtiurl ll'lttrrt'tt ot'lis inWhite v. [lellister', 'll2 U'S' 75i'l

-

(19?3) an:d Z funmer v. ful tlk'ithett,4ul-r F.2d 129? (Sth ('i r'.

1974). The Senate, Report makes clear that these lactot's
are merely illustrative of lhe kinds of evirlence a corrrt
coulcl consicler. No matter hon, manv of these factors rr

plaintiff proves he must stillestablish that the challengr:rl
electoral mechanism, in the totillit.r, of circumstanct,s.
results in a denial of electot'al :reeess. Recause the coult
below mechanisticall"v appliecl the lir,'tor analysis of tlre
Senate Report withotrt ever relating the evi<lence to 1rr,-
litical access in the particrrlar circunrstances in this c:rse.
the court rearched the untenable conclusion that Sectiorr l
was violatecl even though. "it has now' become possibk, l',,r'
black citizens to he electe<l to olfice at all levels of stlte
government in North Curolina." AJr1l. at li7a.

THE QUESTIONS PIrESFI\TEI) .tItti SUBSTANTLTL

I. Section 2 Of The Volins liights r\ct (iuarantees Access'l'o
The l'olitical Process Not Electorirl Success Wherevcr
There Occurs A Sul'ficient Concentration Of Illack
Citizens To Create .\t l,rast One Stfe Illack District.

On June 29, 1982 Congress enacted amendments to tlrrr
Voting Rights Act of l9(iir. Foremost anrong the changr,s
adoptecl wir5 a comltlete transforrnat.ion of Section 3.
Prior to this 1982 amendment, Section 2 had been vieu'r.rl
as simply the statutory restatement of the Fiftet,rrth
Amendment. Cittl o.l' X,lobile v. lJolden, .14(; g.g. .ri
(1981). Consistent u'ith this Court's nrlings, in such cas(,:
asWashjrtgtort v. Dauis,.lzfi U.S. 229 (1976) anrlAr'/ir,,/
ton Heights v. Metropolita n Housirttt I)er:elopntent Cor.1,.

. 'l'his rvas holding
Court in C ity o.l' l,l oltile, .sr1)l'rr.



sf1;rll lr,, irrrlros.'rl or':rpplied in l.maruler whigb-fgltrllq]n 3"

, l,, r r r ;, I,, r r r l,r' i, I [,'ttrt, rtt-ofThe-ii[h-ITo vote tltt account of
.aii,, r. \il] *,tl i" u t tr I i n i ts entif-rcfy-ieads--

(lr) ,\ violrrlion ol'subsection (a) is establishetl if,

liili,: l,' i,\,ininP#ffi L' Ji
tromitt;rtion rlr election in ihe state or' political

8

s,,, tiorr i(rr) rrs irntert(lerl ltrovides that no voting law

Irt' ntt'lilb(,r's t)

)luci-tiorEn $at-itl_tup+E$l l11$s
llII'rLudL.v--!El-@r".'.1"1&+-*gIThegI0T-9..:_-
T'iii t I o r r r r r' I i t: i uii[Elh rh C- r xili iila-l 

-r.t 

rrtlc e' x: ahit fo
I'lli,tr:i,iiidsenta-tiiesb-f thEirTho'cte.f hee=xte--[f
T;wliilii;;m66rs ora l)rfiecfe? class have1,;wliicli rriem60rS-of a prfiecfe" class have
lrr,r,n t,lt,r'ted to ofliee in lhe stale or political
srrtrrlivisiott is one "circuntstance" which may be
t'orrsirL'r'etl, llrovirletl that nothing in this sec-
liorr estulrlislres a right to ltave tttetrtbers of a
lrroli,r'te<l class electetl in ttumllers eqgql !o
ilrt,ir' lrroportion in the population. 42 U.S.C.
i l1)'i:i.

I1.1, 11,,, rrtu' lrtrtguuge, Congt'ess sought to relieve plain-
til'l's ol' tht, llrlrlert of proving discriminatory intent.
[.lnrlt,r' thr: neu, Sct'tion 2, a plaintiff must show that the
clrirllt,rruerl tlt,ction larv or yrractice "results" in unequal
t('('{,s:r to t}rt' poliLical process.

'l'1r,, leqisl:rtivt,hisLory of the t9tl2 amentltttents to the
VotirrL: ltiulrts r\t't is itt may wilys internally inconsistent
rrrr,[,.r,ll'-t-',rntnrrlit:tor'.y, itr 1tart, bectruse Ito cottference
t'ornrrlil Ir,t, r'r,1rort. \\'lrs ltro<luced, and the Ini'lnner in which
,livo''qt'n{. r'ir,rvs ol' lhe House and Senate Committee
r111,1111r{,r's \\,('}'(.r rrrlrtillt'otttisetl was not recorded. One
':lr,,rrrt'. l)rirvr'\'e r', is echoerl by both Comrnittees ancl in
Iir,'t 1,., nt,;rrlt' (,\'(,1'\'one who commenterl during the I'loor
rltlr;rt{':r: ( jJl}gltiit intr,41lq! to corlif'y-the st:urdlrd esta[2-
li.lr,',I t,r' Ilr,, Su g_r_ffZ

-€-'----

lr

U.S. 755, (1973). See S.Reyr. No. 97-,117 (97th Cong. 2rl.
Sess.) at32-24; H.Rep. No. 1)7227 (9?th Cong. lst Sess. r

l98l at 30. In regard to the l:urguage ultinrately atlollterl.
the Senate Report states thrrt "the substitute amenrlmerrt
codifies the holding in Whifur, thus making clear tht,
legislative intent to incorpor':rte that 1r'ecedent ancl ttrrr
extensive case law which rleveloped irr',nrncl it, into tht,
application of Section 2." S.liep. at il2.

The clistrict court erred in lailing to appl"v Sectlgr.p 2 ina
m a n iiilEdifsTs ten trvi t h t h e- j u r I i c i a I p re c e r I e n t s e x p r e s s I 1'
identifed by Congress. AIthr-rugh the court acknowledgerl
Congress'reliance onWhile v. RegisLer', and some of its
progeny, it did not seriousl.r, attempt to integrate the
Ianguage of Section 2 with the case larv rvhich Congress
sought to codify. Much of the language of subsection (b) ot'
the statute came directly I'r'om this Court's opinion in
Whit.e.412 U.S. at 766.' Obviously, it is onl.v in light of the
White v. Register and the cuses rvhich lbllorved that Sec-
tion 2 can be properly const.ruerl. Beczruse the district
court attempted to interpret the amenderl provision u.ith-
out this essentialjuclicial backgrounrl, it reached several
erroneous conclusions of lar.l,.

First, the district court erterl by equating a violation of'
Section 2 wj!h-j! e 3bW ISS_4 gu a nr n rt, erl pr:opor! ip.p :r I

re pre se n ta t i o n. T h e c o ii rf fl : t t ]is L rite?'l ffi a t t h e ei s e n cei, t'
T?dte"ililffitaim is rhis:

IA] racial minority u,iLh rlistinctive (r.orrp interests
that are capable ol ai<l or. anrelior.rrtion bv govern-

t"The;llaintiffs burden is to ltr.otlrree evirlence to support tindings
that the political processes learlirru t, nonrinatiorr anrl election rvelt,
not equally open to ltarticiJration b.r' the group in (luestion-that its
members had less opglortunitv tharr rlirl other resirlents to Jlarticillatt,
in the political processes anrl to ek'r,t lesislators ,l't heir. r'hoice. " 4l:l
U.S. at 76(i.



ro t,"p*ffff{*
rrrcrrI is r,l'fi,t'tively clenietl the political power t<l fur-
thlr thosc inter:ests that numbers alone would
lrrcsrrrnJrtivel.y give it in a voting constituency not
utcirrllr' polarizerl in its voting behavior. (citation
orrrittetl). App. at lula.

'['lris stlrLr'm,-,nt ellitomizes the tlistrict court's reading of
lht, lrnt:rrtlerl sttrtute. Although blacks hatl achievecl con-
sirllurtrlt, slrcc(-)ss in winning state legislative seats in the
chlllt,ngt'tl tlistricts, their lailure to consistently attain
t lrt, nrrrnl)t,r' of seats that rr unt,bers qlotte u,ould
l))'('xtttttltlirrltl rliut: tltetn, (i.e,in proportion to their pre-
s(,n('{,in t }re lropulation) the court fbuncl that Section 2 had
lrr,r,r r virrlrrtrr l. All ol'the vote rlilution cases prior Lo C ity oJ'

,llttltilr lrrn cr.runter to this interpretation. In Dttvkl v.
(irr t't'istttt. firr example, the I,'ilth CirgUttglalglhatdi$-
L(rrr ,rr,t'rrrs r,,,hen the rninority Votgl'shave-no real<lppor-
trrfrl-i-ti; Ixirti-ci-lrrite in the lioliiical pl9-ces,s." 553 F.2d
l ):':I-r 12? ( i;t h-C ir .r 977).- A ntl ]n D ;i e ;.- tilT; t'e, the E ighr
( lircrrit irr rli;scussing vote clilution uncler Lhe pre-Mobile
const iLutionlrl stunrlarcl now coditied in Section 2, stated
I lr:rl I lrr, "r'orrst it,trtional touchstone is whether the system
is r,1,,,rr lo tlrll ntirrority participation not whether prop-
rrrti,rrr:rl t'{.'})}'es(,lltirtion is in fact, achieved." 539 F.2d
ll.,l. ll,rI|'itlr (lir.. 1976).

'l'lrt, r'ourt lirrLher rnisinterpreted the new statute by
l rl r u'r'r n g l. lre cL.'lr r tl istinction between efl'ective repl'esen-
t :rI irrrt irlr(I l'(,1)r'(,sentation by a member of one's own rtce.
N ot lr ing in Llre l'r-,coxl strllllorts a conclusion tlrat the black
rcsirlt,rrts ol'thu rlistricts at issue have been rlenied repre-
st,rrtrrtion itr the halls of the General Assernblv. The dis-
trit't t'orrlL, lrou'ever, based its clecision, in part, on the
lrrcrnise thirt Scction 2 guarantees black citizens the right
trl t,lr,r.'L lrl;rcl< krsislators, at least whenever a sul'ficient
nl.tnrl,,l'ol'lrllrclis is concentrated so.as to alkilv the con-
stnrctiorr ol :t srrlb black single member rlistrict arouncl
tlrr,trr.

ll

Numerous pre-city rl ,lrobile rlilution cases str,.qh.
refute such a presumptirn. In Hendri.r v. Joseph tltt,
Fitth circuit explained th;rt the zhtttrrer factors &re rlr,-
signed "to test whethe' an at-large s.ystem has m^rl.
elected officials so secure irr their positions ancl has m:rrle
the black vote so unnecessary to sriccess at the polls,' thut
black participation in go\rernment is ignored and g,r'-
ernmental services to the bl:rck community are withtielrl.
559 F.zd 1265, 1269 (5th Cir. t977). See-also, Dat,id y..

Garriso,, 5llll F.Zd gz}, :r27. since the amendment ,r'
section 2, a federal dist.ict court in Te.ras matle tlris
pronouncement: "There is sirnply no light-statuton.or.
constitutional-to be represented by a member of a p*r.-
ticular race." Seamo,n v. Lt pltont, No. Ir_gl-4g C.A. (8. t).
T"*.Jan. ll0, 1984).

y1l rn" court below struck tlown the multi-member rris- a

Ilft.t".rtissue be.-cause the.e rvas no.qrr(rratrteethat blar:ks I

fl// 
wou Id 

l.r yu/: bffi il-Ait"fi ir-[.,;in- J
flfl those-dis.tricts. The cou.t 

'ot only llresunrecl that 1,.,,- I'l tected minorities have a r.iglrt to elect nrembers of t'ht,ir. l[
own race' it also:rssumed that the right must be guar,,,,- \l
teed by safb black voting-m:r.iorit.1, rlisJr.icts in whic-h illa,,l.l
candidates would arways be, successfur as tong o, bru.l,
residents vote as a bloc. Trris rvas crearr.r, not th'e in1*t ,,r'
congress.t other lower ferreral courti, ho*,ever, h.r.r,
also adopted erroneous corrstr.ucticlns of'section 2 becaust,
they have reliecl on isoraterr segments of'the regisratir,,
history ancl ignorecr the jurriciai'wisrronr *,hichliiu.r,,,r

.2.Senator Dole, one of the sl)()rsors of the c,rnpromise bill erplained that, "citizens orarr races i,'e entitrerr to rrave 
"n 

uqrrr .'t u". ,of electing candittates of their crr,ice, but il'thev ,.u roi.irjLtro.a,',,,
that oppr-r'tu,ity anrr rose, the ra*'sh,trrrr ,rTer n, r.emerries.,,s. Re 1,at 193. See ulso, Sniith r,. Winter., Tl? I,-.2(l llrl 1;1h C,ir. lgti;l) at lr)l



t2 ? tr n. d,l *u' c-t*-':tr- c-L f v t-<-kx'zttt4 {ruratt y-ar<-z*<<t -)

tht,sl',111{r)l'}' l:rrtgtttige. See, e.g., Jones v' Cit'y of Lub'
ltrrt'l;.727 I".2rl :t{;.1 (5th Cir. 1984);Velasqtrcz v. Cit'u of
tlltil,'trt', No. 32-l(;30 (5th Cir. Mar. 2 19U4). It is in-

t:rrrrrlr(,nt ttpott Llris Court to properly interpret this impor-

trrrrt ['eisl:tt.iott.

Il. l)r(lcleirIilncc ()f A lledistricting I'lan ljnder Section 5

lrre e lurles lieildjudicati0n 0f The lssue 0f [)iscriminato-
11' tttsult ()l"t'hat I'lan tly I'rivate I'laintifl's Under Sec'

tiorr 2.

'l'rt'o ol' the tlistricts challengc'd by the lllaintiffs and

lotrrrr I to violltg Section 2 consistefl of counties coveretl by

Scctiott l-r ol'tlrt' Voting Rights Act: House District 8, a
,l-rrrtrrrllt't' scitt eomprisetl of Nash, Wilson and Edge-
t'onrlr,, cotttttics lttttl Senate District 2 which included
Noll lr:rtrtlrlotr, llertfbrd, Gates, Bertie, Chowan and seg-

r)rorrl:' ol',I otltt't't'ttttrtties. The lllaintiffs claimed that ttiei
nrr r I t i r r renrl rt, r' r:orr liguration in District 8 cliluted the black
r,otirrl. llolt'ttti:rl in that district. As to Senate District 2,

tlrr, 1,1:rintil'l's t'otrtr-'ttrled that a black concetttration suffi-
t'it'rrl 1o t't'crrte :r srtt'e black district was split between
l)i,.t rrcL J (ii.l'i lrlack) ancl DistricL 6 (41io/o black).

l'rrlsurrttt to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42

I i . s ( '. I t)Tiic, North Carolina must submit any change in
its voting lrrtvs rlr ltractice llrior to implementation, to
l'erk,r':rl rtrrtltot'ities. The scope of fetleral review, how-
e\'(,r', is lirnit.erl to thrlse 40 counties which are specifically
r:ovcrq l lrr, :t[,lrli<"ttion of the ftrrmula in Section 4(a) of the

Act. r\ccot'rlinglv, the State of North Carolina submittetl
to Lltc r\Ltrrt'tte\' (ieneral Chapters I and 2 of the Sessiort

L:tus ol'tlre St'cond Extra Session (the tinal amencletl

I lorr,.,, :llr(l Sr.'r)itLe redistricting plans).

I Irr,lcr Set'tiott j-r, the covered State or strbclivisiotr has

tlrc l,rrrrL,tl ,rl' 1lt'ttvittg, eithet' b.y a submission to the
,.\llrlu(l\' ( l'ttt't'rtl ot' by an actioll for cleclar':ltory iu<lg-

ment, that the proposed ettactment rloes not have tlrt'
purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abriclg-
ing the right to vote on account of race. The reviserl
Section 2 places the burtlert on the plaintilf to prove that
the challenged law has a discriminatory result. Insofar as

Section 5 requires the Stofe to meet the burclen of proving
the absence of both tliscriminatory lltll?ose ancl effec[.
Section 5 necessarily presents a more stringent test for
the covered jurisdiction than Section 2.

The legislative history of the recetrt amenclment ol'

Section 2 bears this out. [n its Report, the House Com-
mittee on the Judiciary exllt'essed its concern that tht'
then-current version of Section 2 reqtrirecl proof of dis-
criminatory purpose while a violation of Section 5 re-
quired only.discriminatory eft'ect. H. Ilep. No. 97-227
(97th Cong. lst Sess.) at 2-q. [n the Committee's vierr'.
Section 2 had to be revised so as to apply essentially the
same "effects" stantlarcl to non-coverecl jrrristlictions. The
lawfulness of a voting larv should nnt depend, the Corn-
mittee stated, on whether the julisclictiort rvhich imple-
ments it, is covered or non-covered.

Similarly, in the Senate lleport, the point was also
made that Section 5 precleal'ance woulcl ltreclude a sub-
sequent finding of violation unrler Sectirin 2. Rep. No.
97-417 at 35. The Committe,r' hacl set out to refute the
findings of the Subcommitter, that itlentifiecl man.y cities
including Savannah, Georgia, as vulnerable uncler tlre
new stantlard. The Senate .lurliciary Committee, cleter'-
mined that this finding of the Subcommittee u'as obvions-
ly inaccurate. Savannah harl completecl an annexation in
1978 which had requiretl ltrecleal'ance. "Alter subjectine
the proposecl annexation to tht, rigorous rerluirenrents ol'
Section 5," the Department ol'Justice rleci<letl that tht
election system providerl hllck voters rvith arlequatt'



14t

(,1)lx)l'tunitv fix' llarticipation and election. S. Rep. No'
1f; ll? ilt li5. '['he Setrate Report concludecl that insofar as

S:rvrrnrtith's ciLv council system had passetl mttster under
Strtion ir, it lvottltl necessarily also meet the require-
rrrt,rrts ot'tlre llroposed amendmenL. Id. at 35.

lt u,as allllarently the intent of Congress that Section 2

rrr;rl<c lpllliclble nationwide the "effects" test contained in
Sr.ctiott 5. While uncovered jurisdictitlns remain un-

lrl'li'ctcrl bv t.he Seetion 5 preclearance rerlttirement, they
rr'r,u[ lre sulr.iect to the sAme test of cliscrirnination when

srrr,rl lrv inrlil'irlttals or tlte Attorney Getreral. In view of
tlr,, lt,uislirlivr.r ittt.ettt, Section 5 has alrea<ly accomplished
{ lrr, prrr'1xr:ic of Section 2 in the coverer.l counties.

lir, 1,',.r,',' rltrterl April 30, 1982 the Attorney General
irrlirrrnerl llrt' Strtte of North Carolina that he had cleter-

rnirrr:rl th:rt thc reapportionment plans ftlr the North
( 'llolinu ( lettet'itl Assembly "clicl not have the purpose and
rvoukl not lutve the effect of denying or abridging the
lirlhL to vott"'in the 40 counties covet'etl by Section 5 of
t Ir,' Vot.inll Iii{.lhts Act. Thus, the issue of the cliscrimina-
t' )t'.\, l)ul'l){rst, ir}lrl effect of the reapportit)nment had been
:rtrthoril.:rtively ancl conclusively cleterrnined in the cov-
t,r't.rl t'or,rntie-s, the plaintiffs claim to the contrary, in the
t'orrlt lrelott,, notlvithstanding.

,\rlnrini:rt t'utive preclearance ancl a declztratory judg-

r)rer)t rtt'r' erputl alternatives un<let' Sectiotr 5- NIorcis v'
( i t't,sst'l lr, , .l:ll t.l. S. 491, ( 197?). Insofar as the Attorttey
( lt,rrelirl's itlrlrt'oval has the same legalforce as a judgment

r',,rrrlr,r'r,rl lrV the District of C<llurnbia I'etleral cotlrt, the
rir';rrrttrl lrltcleltt'ztnce hacl a collateral estoppel elfect in
I lri:r t'rrsc. "t Inrler the doctrine of collateral estoppel . . .

llr,, .irrrlurrrurt. it'r ttre prior suit preclutles relitigation of
i:::,u(:fS lctr.urllv litigated antl necessary to the outcome of

I i'r

the first action." Purklotre Hosienl v. Siore, 439 L'.S.
322, (1979) at 326, n.5. All fhcts necessary to, nn,1;rul ,rl'

discrimination unr:ler Section 2 were at issue ancl nec,r,s-
sarily cletermined by the Soction 5 procerlure. Thus. tlrc
Attorney General's decision as to the 40 counties shorrLl
have precluded relitigation of the same issue by the plain-
tiffs.

The court below rejecte<l out of hand the appellants'
contention that insolar as the State hacl proven unrler.
Section 5 that the reclistricting of the coverecl counties
had neither a discriminatorv l)url)ose nor effect, a clral-
Ienge under Section 2 to any llreclearecl clistricts u ls
precluded. The court fourtd that the ltreclearance of St'n-
ate District 2 and House District 8 was not even probat ive
of the issues before them.

The district court relied for this conclusion solely on the
opinion in Major v. Treen,574 F.SuJrp. 1325 (E.D. Ll.
1983). In that case, plaintil'fs mountecl a Section 2 clrrrt-
Ienge to a preclearecl Conglessionalrlistrict in Louisilrrrr.
The Louisiana district coult reasonerl as follows:

Private plaintiffs are free to mount a de not,o attlrt,li
upon a reaprlortionntent ltlan notu'ithstandins 1)l'{,-
c[earance. United S/rrlc.s v. Eo.st Batott RougZ 1,,,,..
ish School Board,sg4 I.'.2(l 56, bg n. g (bth Cirl tgZ;r.
See Morris v. Gressette,4r.2 U.S. .191, 506-0? (11)TT)
("where the cliscriminatory character of an €ruct-
ment is not cletecterl upori revieu' of the Attor.lrt,r.
General, it can be chulldngerl in the traditional c,rri-
stitutional [or statutorv] litigation.") 574 F.Supp. :rr
328, n. l.

Reliance by Major v. Trtt'ttancl the court belorv on tlri,
excerpt from Mortzs v. Grr,.sselfe is doultly I'lau'ed. Filst
of all, the essential languau1.,, "{)l.statutory," appears irr
brackets because Lhe Il(u.futt' cour.t sirnpl.v acldecl it to tlrt,
actual text of Morrr.s. This ('our.t has rrever held that arr,,'



16t

slrrlrrlot'r' riglrL of action was preserved by Section 5, but
rirtlrt'r stutetl that Section 5 dicl not preclutle a con-

sLil rrt ioturl rrct.irtti in which the plaintiffs had the burden of

1rr',rving lroth rIis1rarate impact antl clisct'inlinatory intent.
in :rrltlitiott. .l/ot'r"is v. Gressette was decided in 1977-
krng lrelirre Lltc :tntentlment ol'section 2 ancl long befbre a

lrrivirLe riglrt of action under the original Section 2 w.as

r',,t',,*rri;r,,ri. 'fl",e lirtrlty logic of tVlu,jor severely taints the
ct)r)r:Iusion ol'the cout't below regarcling the in-
tt,r'r'r,lutiottsltip of Sections 5 and 2 of the Voting Itights
;\ct.

'l'lrr slrot,r' :rlrsrtt'rlity ol'the district court's ruling that

1rl;rirrlil'l's tn:rv relil.igate issttes already tlisposed of by
lic.lion ;-r is nt;tttilc'st in the court's disctrssion of Senate
I)rstri<'t 2. '['lrc cotlt't achnowledges that increasing the
l,l:rclt ;rcrt'ertt:rge in District 2 by adding black residents
l'r'orrr tlrc :rtljitcettt. parts of t)istrict 6 woulrl necessarily
rk'lrlrte tlre inlluence of those blacks remainingin District
(i. Ncvr.r'thelcss, the court rulecl that in enacting Section
2, ('ortut'ess hlul comtrtittetl this clilemrna "to the iudg-
nrt,rrt ol'tht' blucli community to rvhom it has given the

lrlrvrrtt. righl of itt'[ion ttnder amended Section 2. " App. at
:r"t',. 11. ili|.

'l'lrc t',rnliuttt'alion of Districts 2 and 6, htlwever, rver'e

,, r',,,' Iilltiif Tiril ilTi t o r n-ei Ce n e ral ffi iiAr S e c-t I o n 
-s 

. t n
-[,,.i 

,'il,i'ii' tlisLr:it'[s *erei[[sisiretl by couhsel ancl legisla-
tivr, rlrirl't.ers itt rluil.y contact with the Assistant Attorney
(llrrr:r':rl uttrl tttt'tttbers of the statf of the Civil Rights
I )ivrsiorr. I I nthr Sectiott 5, the Attorney General is specif-
ie;rllv t'lritt'grrl n,itlt rettresenting the black voters of the
srrlrrrrillirtu st:tIes. I)ottnelL v. Llnit,erl Sfale.s, 682 F.2tl
i Irt r I).('. ('ir'. Il)fi2). In the exercise ofthat r-rbligation the
..\tt,,t'n(,\' (lt,rrturl cleterminetl that it rvas in the best
i11lr,1'r,51. oi'tlrc lrlack voters not to dirninish black in-

ti

fluence in Disfrict 6 in ortler'. to "pirck" District 2. Th.'
state followetl the suggestirlns of the Assistant AttorneY
General in enacting these rlistricts. Norv that the State'. :rt

great expense atttl r:onsirlerable llolitical turmoil, ha-

complied with the wishes ol'the ferleral olficial statutorill'
charged with representing minority voting interests, it is
now orclerecl by the District court to comply with tht'
wishes of a group of minolity voters who apparenth'
disagreed with the Attorney General. This is acuteh'
unfair to the State, especially in light of the fact that Lhe

views of the plaintiffs anrl their cottnsel u'ere given evel'\'
consideration by the Civil ltights Division prior to tht'
preclearance. i

, In light of the large ttutttl-rer of Section 2 suits rvhiclr f,

\, have been decided or at'e plentlittg in covered juristlie- 
f,,

[l tions, the preclusive effect ol'Section 5 on Section 2 litig:r- /1

ff tion must be authoritativel.r' resolverl. See, e.g., ,llissis /f
f f sippi ReptLblican Etectttit'c Contmiltee v. Orcen Il.ll
Il Brooks, No. 83-I?22 Jurisrlictional Stltement filetl Aprill 

Itlzo, rsaa.
I

III. Racially Polarized Voting Is Not Established As A Ilrrl-
ter Of Law Whenever l,ess Thrrn A lllajority Of lVhilt
Voters Vote For A lllar:k Crrndidate.

The court accepted the ollinion of the plaintiffs'expert
that racially polarized vnting occurs u'henever less th:rn
50%o of the white voters c:rst a balklt for the blacli
candidate.r As a result, the court concltrded that thert

'| Recentl.y in a rlenial o[ a rt,r;ttest for relteurilrg en banc. Jurlr:,,
Higginbotham commerrtetl that, "rrhether prl:rrizetl voting is prest,n'
can lrivot the legalit"v of at-lat'gc voting tlistricts." .lrttres r. Ciltl ,'r

Lubhock, No. tlil-ll9(i (l'i11h ('ir',.rrit, r\pril ltt. lgtl.l). He alsti r,:
pressed serious reservatiorts alrotrr the rrtetlrorl,,logv userl bv exlx,l'''
to analyze pt-rlarizerl voting lleli,r',, llrt'!r'i;rl t'rrtrt'l in tltat case. Jurlr:,



l8/

\\';rs "s(,ver'() alr(l I)ersistent" racial bloc voting despite the

ljrlkru'ing lrtr:t.s:

rt) In Lltc ll)82 Mecklenburg House primary, Berry
rvlro is lrllrcl< receivecl 507o of the white vtlte antl Richard-
son whr) is ulso trlack, received ll97o. Both black candi-

rl:rtes rt'ott t.ht-' ltrimarY.

Ir) [n the l1)l]2 House general election for Mecklen-
lrclg (.'olult\,, ,12(/o of the white voters vtltetl for Berry:
!\t''r' ril'Llre u'hiLes voted for Richartlson. In a flreld of lfl
t';rrrrlitl;rtt,s lirt'l{ sttats, 1l rvhitg canclidates receivetl l'ewer
n hitc vot.('s thtn Berry. tn that election Berry linished
stt'onrl. lntl liicharclson finished nitlth, only 250 votes
lrthirrtl Lhe righth place winner.

r:) lrt the 11)82 Senate general election for Durham
(lount.\,, :r ij ntember seat, Barnes, a black Republican
rccrrivt,rl 17(/r'ot the white vote ancl \Vo of t,he black vote.

rl) ln tht' 11)82 l{ouse general electiotr for Durham
('()r.rr)l)', lrllt'k canclidate Spaulcling receivetl 47(k of Lhe

u'lrite vote atul won the election.

e) Itr tlrc l1)u2 Senate primary election fbr Mecklen-
lrrrrtr (:ount.v, the black cantlidate, Polk, receivecl ilZ'lo of
lht, u'hitc vott, art(l was successf'ul in the primary.

llilgirrl,ollt:rtrr rtxllttrssetl reservations about the regressiotr nlorlel
rr-r., 1 llrr,r't, to rcl;rtr tlre racial makeu;-r of a precinct with the election
,rnlr'rlnr.irrtlrlrl 1rt't'<'ittct. Heltotetl thattheplaintifflsex1let't"tlirl noI
t,,- t lirr',,( lrr,r' t, rlrlutratory l'actors thalt race or ethrlicit.y . . . l such l as

,';rrrrplri(rr r,rllr,trrlitttre, llartY irlentilication, merlia ttse rtteasuretl by
1',r..1,lr.liqion. niun(,itlentilicationr-rrdistattcethatacanrlitlatelived
lr',rrrr rurr'lrrrrlictrLrt'1lt'ecittct. . . It ignores [he reality that race. . .

rrr;rv rrr;r.l( lt lrrist ot' othet' ex;llattatory variables."

lr i. intr,r'{,::ting trr ttote that the plaintil't's'e\l)ert ill this case ttsed

l,r,'( rr,r'l\' Ilrr' <rrrrrc tttethrlrkllogy criticizetl by.Itrtlge Higginbothaln.

l9

0 In the 1982 Mecklenburg Senate general ulsgtion.
Polk, a black candi(late t'r,ceived ililTn of the white lote.
The leading white canclirlate receiverl ltgc/c of the u'hite
vote.

g) In the 1982 Porsyth House prirnary, the two bl:rr:k
candidates, Hauser ancl I(ennedy, receive <1257c and :](;'i.
respectively, of Lhe whiter vote. In a liekl of I l, Kenrrerlv
received more white votes than six of those cancliclatt,s.
Both black candiclates u'on the prinrary. .

h) In the 1982 Housr,, general election for Folsvth
County, Hauser anrl l(ennedy receivecl 42c/c and .lti';
respectively, of the lvhite vote. The successful u'hite
candidates received substantially equal support li'orn
black and white voters-:rll within a range 6gha'sgn .lil'i-
and 637o. Both black canrlirlates wel'e successful.

i) In the 1982 House prinrary election for Wake Coun-
ty, a six-member district, the only black cancliclate run-
ning, Dan Blue, received mol'e total r'<ltes than any other.
of the l5 candidates. Blue I'eceive(l more white votes th;rn
l1 of the other canclidates.

j) In the 1982 House generalelection for Wake C,rrrO
ty, Blue ran second out o1'a field of 17 candidates. 13lrr,,(
also received the second highest nunrber <lf white vot,,.J

k) In the 1982 House prinrar..l' elcction for Durlrrrrrr
County, one black canrlirlaLe, Clernent, receiverl JZ,1 ,il'
the black. vote and Ztilt ol' the u-hite vote. The blrrr,lr
candidate Spaulcling receiverl 9091, c:t'the black r,ote arrrl
37vo of the white vote'. ot'tlre trvo black candirlates, .nh'
Spaulding was successlirl in the 1tr.inrn.y. Harl the bl:rcli
voters wanted to elect ('lt,nrent, thr'\' coulcl have clsL
double-shot insteacl of sirrule-shot vorcs.



.,/
l) lrinallv, of the 11 electetl black incuntbents who

Ir;rve srnrght, r'eelection to the General Assembly in recent
v(':rrs, irll ll have won reelection.

In /rlrrrTr'r's v. Lotlge,458 U.S. 613 (1982), this Court
rlt,sct'ilrctl polat'ization in terms of its ability to affect
elct'tiort otttcomes.

Voting illottg racial lines allows those elected'to
igrrore'black"interests without fear of political con-
se(ru('nce. and without bloc voting the minority
c:tritlirlates woultl not lose elections solely because of
tlteir t'itce. 458 U.S. at 616.

Iiircially polarizecl voting is probative of vote clilution only
insofiu' a.s it is otttcome tleterminative. In other words,
n'lrere blircl<s consistently lose elections because no
u'hit,es or ferv whites will vote for them, the voting is
rr<'iall.l';rolut'izecl. Where blacks winbecause of bloc vot-
irrrl lnrl single shot voting by blacks, combined with sub-
st;rrrtill sulrpot't from whites, then racial polarization does

rrrrt lrrve irrty lc'gal significance. See MclVlillan v. Escam'
lti,t ('orrttltl, [,'lrtrida, 688 F.2cl 960, 966 (Sth Cir. 1982);

I',1,,1('/' r'. (]udsde'nCounty Sch,ool Boctrd,65l F.2d 9?8
(llth (lir. l1)tl2).

,\ r:arrtlirlate is primarily concerned with receiving more
r otes tlutrr his opponents, not with the color of the person
\r'lro ,n,otcs tirr him. Discrete and different voting patterns
:u)r()rlrl luciitl groups concern the cantlitlate when they
ol,(,r'ir(t,Lo lrlevunt him from winning. This political real-
itr' lies at the root of Congress' inclusion of polarized
volinu irr St'cLiott 2 analysis. The Senate Report explicitly
sl;rtes that "lilf plaintifls assert they are denied fair ac-
cr,:rs t.() t.hr: politicnl process in part, bectntse ol'the racial
lrLrt: r'ritins conte.rt within which the challertgecl election
svsterrr u'orlis, they would have to prove it." S. Rep. at 34
(crnphrrsis rulrlerl). The mere presence of clifferent voting

21

patterns in the white ancl hlaek electorate does not pl'()\'o
anything one way or the other about the ultimate iSsue ,l'
access to the political process. Insofar as the lower feeltr':rl
courts have viewed racial bloc voting as the "linchpitt r,l'

vote dilution" (App. A at 4i3a), it is irnperative that this
Court formulate a standalcl by rvhich that condition crtrt

be establishecl.

IV. The District Court Erred In Disregarling Substantial
Evidence That lllany Illack Leaders lVere Satisfied That
Electoral Access And Opportunity For IJlacks ,\nd
Whites Were Equal ,lnd Furthermore Opposed The ('on-
ept Of Safe Single-ille rnbe r Districts Advocated 81' 'l'he

I'laintiffs.

The appellants offerecl considerable evidence to the
three-judge court that showed that many members anrl
leaders of the black community dicl not support the corr-
tentions of the plaintiffs. Several black legislators harl
opposed the creation of black tlistricts cluring the legishr-
tive drafting and debates. Othel state leaclers, white anr I

black, testified that black single member districts worrltl
destroy the coalitions rvhich had been forgecl ancl woulrl
resegregate and ghetto-ize the political lanclscape of thcr
State. Black leaclers testifie'd that recent dramatic in-
creases in voter registratit)n among blacks, substantill
black influenee and learlelship in th, State Democrltit,
Party, and substantial sulrlrort for black cancliclates frorrr
the white community exl)ose(l the tlisir)genuousn€ss ol'
the plaintiffs'case.

The district court rt,jectecl all this eviclence us
iruelevant to the issues befrrre them basecl on the follorr -

ing rationale:

Congress necessaril.r, took ilrto ar.t,ount ancl r.eiectr,,l
as unfounded, or assrrmerl as outu'eighecl. sevc,r.ll

, risks to l'unclamental ltolitical values t[at opponenr s

,r'



.).)
LtI

ol'the ilnlerl(lment urged in committee deliberations
r,i,,[ii,ri,t'ietiate. Amo',,{ these were the risk that the
iii,fi.i,,t renrerly might'dctually be at odds with the
ii,,ioni,,,ir of sicnific'ant elemerits in the racial minor-'iiuilir,; risk That creating "safe" black-majority
*li,if-:in"tnt,.t clistricts #ould perpetuate racial
ahe"tt,rs utttl racial polarization in v<lting behavior'
th * ri s k tt,r at .Jtiai.ffi;;ilh. j uai.iot remecly woulci
irrirul:trrt the normal,' more healthy processes of
,,,1,',i itli,,o r_rolitical power by registraiioir, voting and
.,,,iiiti,,it iriltlinq: lncl the funtl-amental risk that the
i'ecognition of "fiioup voting rights" arld the imptls-
irrq tif allrtnrative dbligation ripon government to
.,i*,,,'*, those rights b1 race-consCious electoral
nrt,chattistn* wa3 alien" to the American political
tratlition. (footnotes omittted). App. A at 17a-18a'

Nothirtg in the legilative history supports the court's
t:nnchrsiot'r that these factors "are not among the circum-
s1;rrrct's Lo tr(r cottsidered" in a Section 2 case. App. A at
lsrr. ('t:r'trtirtl.v Congressional committees received testi-
r))(|nv rt,g;rt'rlittg such risks, but neither the Senate Com-
nritti,r' Iit'1rort turr the House Report sttggelst that such

corrsirlcrul-iotts l,vere not germane to an analysis of the
tolllitv ol'cit'cttmstances in any particular case. Nor did
arrv oI l.he slrr.rtisors of the compromise language ultimate-
h' :uloplcrl proponnd this interpretation of Section 2.

'l'his 1lt'ect:tlent set by the district coutt must be ad-

tlr',,sscrl attrl corrected. If not, courts will continue, as clicl

tlro corrlt lrelou,, to make findings of fact which are inade-
rlrurte rrnrlet' ltule 52(a) because they failto reflect "all the
srrlrstrrrrtill eviclence contrary to its opinion." VeLasquez

r'. (.'it11 o.l' Ahilane, No. 82-1630 (5th Cir. March 2, 1984).

').);,!

CONCLT-ISION

For the reasons stated above the Court should note
probable jurisdiction of this appeal.

Respectfully submittecl,

* JnRnrs LnoNenn
Kltulerx HsrNer.r Mr;GueN
Lew OrrrLrES or.- JonHrs LroNenn, P.(..
900 17th Street, N.W., Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 2m07' (202) 872-1095

. Jeuus W,u,l.tcn, JR.
DnpurY ATToRNEY GFTNERAL' FOR Lrcrrl AFrerns
Attorney General's Olfice
N.C. Department of .lustice
Post Officc. []ox ti2[)
Raleigh, North Carolina 27$02
(919) 7:13-:1377

Atto'nrct1 s .lb r tlp pe l/rr rr f.s

* Courusel ol'llecord



.la
APPENDIX A

UNITED StrATES DISf,RTCT C0URT

EAsrEnN DtsTnrcr or sonrfi crRoLtNA
RALEI(;il tltvtstoN

No. 8l-8{13-CIV-5

Relpu Grsr;lrs, el al.
Ptaintills,

YS.

Burus L. ErrrttsreN, el rr/.
Defatdants.

. FILED

JAN 27 lS4
J. &ICH LEONARD. CLERK

U.S. DISTRI(]T COURT

E. DIST. NO. CAR.

ORDER

For the nea$oln aet forth in the Memorandum Opinion of the
coqrt filed this day;

It ig ANUDGED and ORDERED that:

l. Chapters I and 2 of the North Carolina Session Laws of
the Second Extra Session of 1982 (1982 redistrieting plan) are
deelared to violatc section 2 of the Voting rights Aet of l96.j.
amended June 29, lW, 42 U.S.C. $ 1973, by the creation of
the following legidative distriets: Senate Districts Nos. Z and
2, and House of Representatives Districts Nos. 8, Zl,23, 86. I

and 39.

2. Pending further orders of this court, the defendants.
their agents and employees, are enjoined from eonducting anv
primlry on general eleetions to elect memberc of the State
Senate or State House of Representatives to represent, ftfer.



2a/

o/irr, r't,ristr,r'crl trlack voters resident in any of the areas now
inclrr,lt,tl u'it.hin the legislative districts identifiecl in paragraph
l. ,rt' t.his ()r'rlu', rvhether pursuant to the 1982 redistricting
lllrrrr. or' :ln]' r'(,\'ise(l or new plan.

'l'lris orrlt,r rlous not purport to enjoin the conduct of any
otlrr,r' Jrrinuu'v ol' general elections that the State of North
( lirrolirrir nlirv s(,(, liL to conduct to elect membet's of the Senate
or I lousc oI lit'presetr[atives untler the 1982 retlistricting plan,
or t,r elcr.'l cutrtlirlates for any other offices than those of the
St;rtr, Scrurte :rrrrl I{ouse of Representatives. See N.C.G.S.
13o J.l (lltB:i) (.trnr. Supp.).

:l .lrrrisrlictiorr of this court is re[ained lo entertain the
srrl,rrrissiorr of'rr revised legislative districting plan by the de-
li,rrtl;rrrts. or to rnter a further remedial decree, in accordance
rvitlr tlrc i\lt,rnorzrnrlum Opinion frled today in this action.

.1. 'l'lre :rn'arrl of costs and dLtorneys fees as prayed by
1rl;rirrtil'1.* is tlr:{i't'r'erl pentling entry of a final judgment, or such
eiu'lit,r rlutr: as rnity be shown required in the interests of
just it'e .

J. Dickson Phillips, Jr.
United States Circuit Judge

W. Earl Britt, Jr.
Chief United States District Judge

Pranklin T. Dupree, Jr.
Senior United States District Judge

I cr,r'tit_v the lirrcgoing to be a true and correct copy of the
()t'rlt,t'.

,1. Itic]r Lconirrrl, Clerk
I rrritt'r I Strrtt.s I)istrict Court
I',:rstt,r'rr l)istricL r,rf North Carolina

Iir' {'f11'1'11'1r \\'t'lls
I )r.;rrrt\' ( llt,r'li

3a

UNITED ST.{TIiS I)ISTRICT (:Ot' IIT

EASTERN DTSTIIICT ()F' }I()RTII C.\R()I,IN.T

RALEI(;II I)IVISION

No. 8l-80:|-CIV-5

Rnlpu GINrll.l',s, el rr1.

vs.

Rurus L. Eouts'ruN, el o1.

PlaintilJ's.

De,l'eudants.

PIl,ll l)

JAN 2? ll)84

J. RICH LEONI\ltl). CLURK

U.S. DIS'TRI(]1' ('0URT

E. DIST. N() (]AII.

MT]MORANDI-III 0PINION

Before PHILT-tps, Circuit Judge, Blttrr, Chief District Jurlge,
and Dupnrn, Senior District Jurlge.

Pxtt t,tps Circuit Judge:

ln this action Ralph Gingles an<l others, inrlivitlually antl as

reuresenta[ives of a class conuroscrl ol'all the black citizens ot

North Carolina fE-o ar =A.rg rcgl$gg!_lo vote, challe_nge on con-
u-nA; tfie reiLltiictingr plan

Il'or consistency and convenienct, \r'() rrse the t,-,rm "redistricting"
throughout as a more technically, as rvell :rs rlescriptivell'. accurate one than
the terms "apportionment" or "reappot'liontnt'ttt" sotttetimes usetl b.r, the
parties herein to refer to the specific lcuislltive action urult r challenge here.
.See Cors/errs v. Lamm,54:i I;'. Su1lp. li'{. 73 n.:l tD. (',r1. l9tl3).



4a/

t,rr:rctr,rlirr litrll lirt'nr in 1982 by the General Assembly of North
( l;rroIina Irrr tht' tlection of members of the Senate and House of
I k, 

1 
r n'sc t r t tt i v cs ol t hat state's bicameral legislature. J9!-s-di-c-

t,i,,i1 ,rl'tlris tltrt't:-.irrtlge district cttut't is baserl on 28 U'S'C'
$N t:l:ll, l;]J:i, ;tntl 2284 (three judge court) atlcl on 42 U'S'C'
$ I 1t7:lc.

(\

'l'lrt, 1p';rvatnt'tt of plaintiff's' claim is that the plan makes use

ol' rrrr rlt i-rntlnrlrt,). rlistricts with substantial white votinglta-
i?rrnrsrlrrfi iirri'(.affi rfl re-sier€lnilliiEf r[qr!E;.rili@ni-
r."*rt*i-i"*;r rs-tb foriiiriiil;titv bffiiffigle-
nn-,riTxjFililrtltcts;-antl that'iri dnothei aiedof the state the plan

lx'TTtroSiii1l-S0lritrate voting minorities a cotnllarable con-

t,rrt r';rtiorr ol'ltlitch r'oters, all in a manner that violates rights of
rr, 1rl11i1vt il't'.s se cttretl by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of
{,(ii, :rnicnrlr:tl ,lutre 29, 1982, 42 U.S.C. $ 1973 (Section 2, or

!ct:t.i,,n 2 of the Voting Rights Act), 42 U-S.C. $$ 1981 and

1!),3i1, rrnrl the thirteenth, fourteetrth and fifteenth amendments

Lo the tlnitetl States Constitution.r In particular, the claim is

that the ('letret'al Assembly's plan impermissibly dilutes the
votirrg st l't,n1{h of the state's registered black voters by sub-

rncruirrg blach votirrg minorities in multi-member House Dis-
Llict No. li(i 1;3 r.,',"*bers - Mecklenburg County), multi-
rnt'trlrt.rt' I'Lrttse t)istrict No. 39 (5 membeis - part of Porsyth
(lorrrrly). rnulti-tnenrber House District No. 23 (3 members -

I)rrrhlm Oorrrtt.v), multi-member House District No. 21 (6
nrt,nlbers - Wake County), multi-member House District No. 8
(.1 rnr-,nrtrt,r's - Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash Counties), and

nrull i-rnernber Sertate District No. 22 (4 members - Mecklen-
bulg rnrl ( latrarlus Counties), ancl by fracturinq betwqe! 4ele
tll:rtt,ltrrlsettlrterlistrictintheno
rrTiiircirrTrttrr-rn ,rn)mefvof6rs Siiffibient in numbers ancl con-

r'l'lrr, rrri(inrrl t'ornplrrittt also included challenges to l.ropulation deviations
irr tlr,' r'r:rli.trit't itru lilart allegedly violative of one-person-one-vote princi-
prlr,'. ;rrul ll sr,1vg11'ssililral redistricting plans being contentporaneously
.nir.l(.rl lrv tlrt' stirle's (ieneral Assembly. tsoth of these challenges were
rlr.q'1',,11 lr\' ;rnl{.n(l{,rlrrr sulllllemental plea<lings resltotrsive to the evolving
( r,ur'.,r. ,l l,,Llislirlivt' lrction, leaving only the state legislatttrc "vote dilution"
,.;.,1py1,.. iin lr.solLrtion.

;)tl

tiEuitv to constitute a voting nriljority in at least one single-

rn a r6"ial. t-+I wi lh- 
-t 

h e 
-c 

o ri s 

" 
q ft n?e ;a S i n t e n tl e tl, t h at i n

nffilof tne senate districts into $'hich the concentration is

fractured (most notably, Senate District 2 vith the largest

mass of the concentration) is there an etTecti' '-'voting majoritl'
of black citizens.

we conclude on the basis of our factual hndings that the

redistricting plan violates section 2 of the voting Rights Act in

all the r".pi.tr challenged, and that plain[iffs are thereforc

entitled to appropriate relief. including an order enjoining

clefendants from conducting electi0ns uncler the extant plan.

Because we upholcl plaintiffs' claim for reliel'trnrler section 2 ot

the Voting Rights Act, we do not ;ttklress th,-il other statutorv

and constitutional claims seeking the same relief'

I

General Background and Procedural History

InJuly of 1981, responding to its legal obligation to make an1'

redistrictings compelled by the 1980 decennial census, thc

North carolina General Asscmbly enactecl a legislative
redistricting plan for the state's IIouse of Representatives anrl

Senate. ThG-original lg81 pl:ur usecl a combi'ation of multi-
member and single-member tlistricts across the state, with
multi-member districts predominating; had no district in rvhich

blacks constituted a registeretl voter majority and only one

with a black pofulation majoritl'; ancl had a range of maximuttt
population deviations from the erlual protection icleal of more

than20Vo. Each of the districts \l'as composed of one or more

whole counties, a result then manclated by state constitutionnl
provisions adopted in 1968 by amendments that prohibited the
ilirision of counties in legislative clistricting. At the time this
or.iginal redistricting plan rvas enacted (and at all critical times

LltJ- in itris litigation) f_!X-qI Xgllr Carolina's one httndrecl coun-

-?' ii^a rrrano i^.,o,o.l hrr santinn 1'. ofTF\Lifiif,iilffitiAnffifT565l
Ll\J in this ltttsattOn) loltY ol Nortll Larollna S ()ne ntln(lre(l coulr-

{, iiu. *utu ioveret.l @sh-ts Att oflm;'
Pi,,9P+ZU.S.C. $ 1973c (Section 5, ,r'Section 5 .f the Voting llights

rJo

tY
Act.).



tia

l'l;ritrtift.s tilerl this actiotr on September 16, 1981, challeng-
irrrL I lral. origitut I t't'tlistricting plan for, hile'r ulio.its populatio-n

rlr, r' irrtil rrs. it s srt trtttergen.e 
-of 

btack voter corrcentritions 
"ifr

-s-i;l[r-of I fic rnriitf-rrrcm6e] aist.icts,'ih-rl the failuit of the state
t9 rrlrtltitt pt'st'lgitt'ltnce, I)ul'suant toBeit-iori li, of t[e 1968

- coustit il riritliil- arriiiittlments prohibiting coutrty division in
It'gislltivt' r Iist rit't ing.

,\ l'tr:r' t his itctiott hatl been filed, [he state sublnitted the 1968

nrr-r l ivisiott-ol-cottttties c<lttstitutional provisions for original
St,t:lon;-r yrrr,clt,:rt'itttce by the Attorney Generalof the United
St;rles. While aclirln on that submission was pencling, the
(itrrtt'irl Asserttlrlv covettecl agairl in special seslj-o11 -glti-.in
( )t't r,lrcr ll|81 n:lrtiale,itfhdbriginal distr:ictiiif plan for the state
Ilorrse ol'[tt'1rt'esetttatives and enacted anothet'. This new plan
rt,,lrrcerl Llte t'iutge of maximum population tleviations to ap-

prorintirtely l$'/r , r'etainerl a preltonderance of multi-member
rlistricts ircl'oss the state, antl agairt divided no counties. No
lt'r'isiotr of tlte extatrt Senate districting plan was made.

Irr NoventLrer lt)ti1, the Attorney Generalinterposed formal
olr.jlr:tion, utrrlct' section 5, to the no-division-of'-counties con-

,, stitrrtionrrl lrrovisiotts so f'ar as they affectetlcovet'ed counties.

"r,I "6 olritr:t iorr rvns lrase cl on the Attorney General's expressed view

".i* 
l tt, J h r r t t h t. ys1, 1 l_y-11r1!-e ggg!!!gl ltr lgg!l!ative districting _require{

c rll"i., ut lr,. riie ,,i l:rirui' rlrttlt i-member dist ricts antl that this "neCessar-
,'$'-t5{ ili''-iiilrrrir:r'[li.'i,i[riizab]e rniiiority lrbliulatioir concentrations
ir*r0'-' ' iiii;,l,iitrt',;r"ithil'gl,lditbi'ates." Following this objection to the
\"t -..*ttitiiiuriit jii:,i,isioiii-the Attorn"/G"u.r,il fhrther ob-

.it,r'terl, r,rr l)ccetttlrer ?, 198[, attd January 20, 19112, to the then
t,-rturrI t't'rlistrir:ting plans tbr both the Senate ancl House as

tlrcv irl'l't,r'terl t'overerl cottttties.

In Fr'iinrirrv l1)82, the GeneralAssembly agaitt cotrvetted in
orlr';r scssi,rn lrnrl orr Febt'uat'y 11, 1982, enactetl for both the
Sr.rurle rrrrrl Ilrrrtsc revised retlistricting plans rvhich divided
sonr,. t'rruntils lroth in areas coverecl and areas not covered by
Slr'ltrrn .r. ;\u:rin. on April 19, 1982, the Attorney General
it)l{'r'lr(,:i(,(l olr.jt'ctions to the revisetl districting ltlans for both

7ir

the Senate and House. The k:tter intcryrosing objection ac-

knowledged some improvenrort of black r uters' situation hl
reason of county division in Sr:ct ion 5 coverer-l areas, but founr I

the improvements insufficierrt to pernrit l)reelearance. Tltr.'

General Assembly once more reconvene(l in a second extt'l
sessiriffipll'?S_1982,1-'xl on Aiiill 2?, issz, eriaci,eii ;;
furt-Irer revised-gildn which again divided counties both in areas
covered and areas not covererl by Section I-r. That plan, embo-
died in chapters I and 2 of [he Nrrrth Carolina Session Laws ol'

the Second Extra Session of lt)8:1, receiverl Section 5 preclear'-
ance on April30, 1982. As preclearetl under Section 5, the plan
constitutes the extant legislative districting law of the state,
and is the subject of plaintiffs' ultimato challenge by amenderl
and supplemerrted complaint in this action.l

During the course of the legislative proceedings above
surnmarized, this action proceedetl through its pre-trial
stages.r Amended and supplernental pleadings accommodating
to successive revisions of the originally challenged redistrict-
ing plan were allowecl. Extensive discoverl' anrl motion prac-
tice was had; extensive stipulations of fact were made anrl
embodied in pretrial orders. The presentl.r' composed threr'-

3'Ihe final plan's division r-rf countit,s in areas of the state not covererl ln'
Section 5 was challenged by voters irr one such coulttv on the basis that tht,
division violated the state's ltXi8 corrstitutional prohibition. The claim rvas

that in non-covered counties of the state the constitutional prohibition re-
mained in force, notwithstanding its suspension in covered counties try virtue
of the Attorney General's objection. I n ('nlo lrrglr v. Il rock, No. 82-545-C I V
5 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 22, l98il), which at one tirne was consolidated with tht:
instant action, thS; court rejecterl thlt challenge, holrling tlrat as a matter rrf
state law the constitutional provisions \r'ere not severable, so that tlr,rir
effective partial suspension un<ler fetleral law resulterl in their complcre
suspension throughout the state.

l At one stage in these proceerlinus another action challenging thr,
rerlistricting plan for imJrermissible rlilution of the vtrting strength of blacli.
voters was consolidated with the instunt action. ln ['rtuh y. Hrurl. No.
8l-1066-CIV-5, also decirled this dar'. rre earlier r'lrtered an order of thc
deconsoliclation and perrnitted the blucli plaintiffs in tlrat action to inten,errr,
as indivitlual and representative lllairrtilfs in the insIlnt action.



8a/

,irrrl*r't'ourt u,;rs tlesignated by ChiefJudge llarrison L. Winter
ril'I h c I r rr it er I St atns Court of Appeals for the !-ourth Circuit on
Ot'tot'rer l(;, l1)81. The action was designated a plaintiff class
rtr:t irrn [x' stipul:rtion of the parties on April 2, 1982. Following
crrircl.rrrcrrt anrl Seciion 5 preclearance of the April 27, 1982,
Serutte anrl I Iuuse districting plans, the pleadings were closed,
u'it[r issrrc joinerl for trial on plaintiffs' challenge, by amended
anrl sup;rlerntrntetl complaint, to that finally adopted plan..

l"ollou'iltg :r ljnal pre-trial conference on July 14, 1983, trial
to tlrr.. thrce-.jurlge court was helcl from July 25, 1983, through
AucrrsL:.l, l9!1:1. Extensive oral ancldocumentary evidence was
recoivt,rl. I)t:cision was deferred pending the submission by
lrot h 1xu'tics ,if prnposed findings of fact and conclusions of law,
briel'ing arrtl oral argument. Concluding oral arguments of
corrnsrll u'erc hearrl by the court on October 14, 1983, and a
lirniterl subrnission of supplemental doeumentary evidence by
both part.ies was lrermitted on December 5, 1983.

Ilrrving consitleretl the evidence, the memoranda of law sub-
nrittt'rl bv tlre p:rrties, the stipulations of fact, and the oral
argrrrnerrts ol'eounsel, the court, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.
5i(rr), r,rrtr.,rs the following findings of fact and conclusions of
lau'. llre[irr:erl u,iLh a discussion of amended Section 2 of the
Votirrg liiglrl.s Act anrl of certain specialproblems concerning
Lhe prrol,rl inter'pretation ancl application of that section to the
e virlt,rrce in this case.

II
,lrucnded Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Aci

If rorn tlre outset of this action plaintiffs have based their
cluirrr,l'r'rrci;rl vote rlilution not only on the fourteenth and
t'il't.r,r,nth rrrncnrlrnents, but on Section 2 of the Voting Rights
.,\cl. ,\s intt'r'lrretetl lly the Supreme Court at the time this
at:ti0rr \\':rs colntnencerl, former Section 2,6 secured no further

: l ,,r'nr.r' S*r'l i.n i. ctrlcte'd pursuant to Congr.ess's constitutional enforce-
illtlll l)r)\\'(,t's. lrrovirlr,rl simltly:

\', \'i'tinu rlrr:rlilir'irl.irrrr rlr prererltrisite to voting, or.sttnrlarrl, llractice,,,r'l)r',r(r'rluli'.lr;rll lre imposetl ul apgrlietl by an-v strrte or'political
(lixrtnote continuerl on next page)

9:r

voting rights than were directly secured by those con-
stitutional provisions. To the extent "vote tlilution" claims lav
under either of the constitutionlrl Jrrovisions or Section 2,'i thr:
requirements for proving such a claim were the same: there
must have been proven br-rth a discriminatorily "dilutive" effect
trac ea b l e i n s o m e * 

" 
at 

"-f 
dT-.lr a ll e nfe d' e l e a t o ra l 

-m 
e c h a n is m

and,behindilal-efGEt}specifi alntefi onTh,tpafi"of iesponsi-
ble-state -oflicialslhet "!he meahaniam_Shaiili! liave h{d t!1,t;

etritii-. City-of NIiFiTe-u. fio,l,iei, q46 U.S. 1,5 (1180). -

While this action was pending for trial and after the
ultimately challenged redistricLing plan had been enacted anrl
given Section 5 preclearance, Congress amenrled Section 27 in
drastic and, for this litigation, critically important respects. In
rough summary, the amencled version liberalized the statutorl'
vote dilution claim in two fundamental wavs. It removed anv
necessity that discriminatory intent be proven, leaving onll;
the necessity to show dilutive effect traceable to a challenged ,tt"u
electoral mechamism; and it made explicit that the dilutive
effect misht be found in thu "Lq!di!y_qt_!.Lg_S!f9g0s!ansqsl'
within whiffiTEe cEai'ienged me*iaiiiffipertled and not alone
in direct operation of the mechamism.

(footnote continued from previous page)
subrlivision to deny or abrirlge the right of an-v citizen of the Uniterl
S[ates to vote on account of r:rce or crllor, or in contravention of tht,
guarantees set forth in Sectiorr t9?3b(n(2) of this title.

42 U.S.C. $ 1973 0976).
6 It is not now perfectly clear-but rreither is it ol direct consequencr:

here*whether a majority of the Suprerne Oourt consirlers that a racial votc
dilution claim, as rvell as a rlirect vote rlenial clairn lits unrler tlGffiEtiir
amendment antl, in consequence, lay unrler former Section 2. See floger.s v.
Lodge,458 U.S. 613,619 n.16 (lgti?). It is rvell settlerl, horvever, that such
claims lie under the fourteenth amenrlnrt,nt. though onlv upon proof of intent
as well as effect. See City o.l'i,lohile y. Rrilden,.146 tj.S. 55 0980).

7 H.R. 3112, amending Section ! arr<l cxtenrling the Voting Ilights Act ol
1965, was passed by the House on ()r..tolror 15, lt)tll. ()n.f une 18, tgU2. tht
Senateadoptedadifferentversion,S. I1)l)2.reporterl ourofitsCommitteeon
the Judiciary. The House unanirnoush. lrlollte<l the Srnate bill on June ll:1.
1982, and it was signetl into larv b1, the I'r'esirlunt on.lurrt, lg. l:)SI. Ther.e s.as
no intervening conference comnrittee aetion.



10a

/
Iiollorvilrrr Section 2's amendment, plaintiffs amended their

conrlrlairrt in tlris action to invoke directly the much more
I'avor':rblc Jrrovisior"rs of the amended statute. All further
lirot'r't,tlings in Llre cnse have been conducted on our perception
th;rt the voLe rlilution claim would succeed or fail under
anrcnrlerl Section 2 as now the obviously most favorable basis of
clairrr. *

Ilirc:rrrsc ol tlre arnended statute's profouncl rewolking of
applit'tblc luu'anrl because of the absence of any authoritative
Su;lrcrne ()ourt rlecisions interpreting it,e we preface our find-
ings anrl conclusions with a summary discusson of the amended
statute anr I ot'our un<lerstanding of its proper application of the
vott' rlilrrtion claim, we may properly rest decision on the
arncnrlerl statrrte alone and thereby avoid addressing the still
subsisLing corrsliLutional claims seeking the same relief. See
A s I r u't t t t d e t' u.'l' er t rt es s ee V alle{ Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 347
(l{l:l(;) (llritttrlgis, J., c6ncurring). '

r()l crrurst,, the rlirect claims under the fourteenth (antl pssibly the
lrfteentlr) unrcnrlrnt,rrt rentain, and could be established under Bolden by
pr, r,l'.f u r liltr t iv e cl'll'ct intentionally inflicted. But no authoritatlve tlecision
h:rs srr,lgesrt'tl tlrirt lrroof ulone of an unrealized discriminatory intent to
rliltrtr' rv,ulrl sul'l'iur. A rlilutive effeet remains an essential element of con-
stitrrlrrrrr:rl as u't,ll as section 2 claims. See Hartman, Raciul vote Diluliort
uttrl s"ltttrrtlitttt rfl'l'tttvrs; An E.rploraton ol the conJlict Betweet the
J,ttlirtrrl "lrtlttrt" rttttl lhe l,egislaliue,,Results,, Slorrdorr/s, b0 Geo. W.L.
It.r'. tisf), 7:l?'jix n:tlri tl$82). Neither is there any suggestion that the
I.rrr.rlI lirr' :rn ulrt'orrstitutional intentional dilution shoultl tre any more
lavr.ulrlt' r hrrrr th.l r'erncrl1, ,f tliscriminat,ry intent might nevertheless have
lirnit.rl rL'lr)\an('r'irr cstablishing a Section 2 "results" claim is another
r)rat t(.r'.

:''l'lt,.t'r,. h:r\'(,, ll,)\\'(.\,er.. been a few lorver federal court decisions interpret-
ing rrrrrl lplrh'irrg:rrrrr,rrrlt'rl Section 2 to state antl local electoral ptans. Rlt
gt'ner':rllv sul)lx)rr th..l/rrior v. Trcen., civil Action No. g2-llg2 section c(ll.l). L:r Sc1rr. ?l), tltrult (three-judge court); Rybicki v. Slole Boord o!.
l')ltt't,,,;. N.. r{l-(:-{il):}() (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, lgg3) (three-jutlge court); ?/ro-
trrrrsttllr lJnrttrh rrl .v..1.1('l' v. ?'homos county, civil Action No. Tb-84-'l'lloIl lll.l). (lr..larr Z{t, lt,u:}); Jr_rttesv.Cityol:Lubbttr_./!, Civil ActionNo.('r\-rr-i(i-ii.f rN.l).'l't,r..11n.20, lgg3); hrylor v. Ha.yu,oul Corrrrly, b4.l F.
Str1r1r. ll13 (\\'.1). 'li'rrrr. lurl2) (on grant,f preliminary injunction).

lla

Section 2, as amended, reads as follows:

(a) No voting qualificatiotl ('r prerequisite to vo-ting or
standard, practi6e, or procerlttre shall l-re imposed or ap-
nlied bv ahv State or t)oliticul subdivision in a manner
wtrictr r'esulfs in a denialirr abri<lgement of the right of an.v
citizen of the Unitecl States to vote on account of race or
color, or in eontravention of the guarattLees set forth in
Section 4(DQ), as provi(led in subsection (b).

(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on
the totality of circumstances, il is shown that the political
nrocesses leadins to nomination or electiotr in the State or
6o lii i. rt i u ffimir a te n tit-e ci u al I v 

-o 
n e ri t'o rr a rt i c i p a t i o n

by members of a'class'of citiT.ehs piot'ected by subs'ection
(i) in that its members have.less'opportunit! than other
members of the electorate to pefricfiietE-ifr-the political
process and to elect representatives of their choice. The
bxtent to which members of a protectetl class have been
elected to office in the State or folitical subclivision is one
circumstance which may be considered: Prouided, ThaL
nothing in this section establishes a right to have members
of a piotected class electe<l in nunibers eclual to their
proportion in the population.

Without attempting here a detailetl analysis of the legisla-
tive history leading to enactment of amended Section 2, we
deduce from that history antl from the judicial sourees upon
which Congress e.xpressly relierl in formulating the statute's
text the following salient points u'hich have gtrided our applica-
tion of the statute of the facts u'e have founcl.

First. The fundamental purpose of the amendment to Sec-
tion 2 was to remove intent as a necessary element of racial
vote dilution claims brought untler the statute.r0

l0 Senator Dole, sponsor of the contpromise Senate version ultimatel"r'
enacted as Section 2, stated that one of his "key objectives" in offering it rvas

to

make it uneouivocallv clear that plrrirrtiffs maY bast a violation of Sec-
lio, Z un aiho*ing df discrinrinat,,t",' "resultS". in rvhich crrse proof.of
discriminatorv int6nt or t)uflx)se rtritrl<l be neither requirtxl. nor rcle-
vant. I was convincerl of the inallprr,pt'iateness tlf art "iittent stantlaxl"

(lixrtnote contitttte<l on next page)



l0a
/

l"ollorving Section 2's amendment, plaintiffs amended their
conrplrrint in this action to invoke directly the much more
lirvoritble 1;rovisinns of the amended statute. All further
procer.rrlings in the case have been conductecl on our perception
llrrrL the vote rlilution claim woulcl succeecl or fail uncler
rurrenrler I Sr:ction 2 as now the obviously most lavorable basis of
r:l;rinl.'

lit',ciruse of the zrmended stntule's profound reworking of
rrlrl,liclble lau' arrrl because of the absence of any au[horitative
Srr;rrenre (lrurt rlecisions interpreting it,e we preface our find-
itrus irtrr I cortclusions rvith a summary rliscussotr of the amendetl
st;r I utt rrnrl ot'our unrlerstanding of its proper application of the
r','tt rlilrrtiorr cltirn, we may properly rest clecision on the
rrlrr,nrlrrl slat.ule alone and thereby avoid addressing the still
r.rrl,sislirrg r",orrstitutional claims seeking the same relief. See
,.1,: ) t t u r r r t I e r t,.'l' e t t n essee V ulley A ut ltority, 297 U. S. 288, 347
1 1tt:i{i) (llrantlcis, J., concurring).
..,..''-.'

'()l ('ours(,. tlrr. rlirr:et claims untler the ftrurteenth (and plossibl.v the
lllrr,,,rrtlrr :rnrt,rrrlrrrt,nt rentain, anrl coulrl be establishetl under Ilolden by
l)r',),,1 ()l'ir riilrrtiv* rlllct irrtentionally inllicted. But no authoritative rlecision
l,;r' .uurr,,.lt.rl tlrrrt lrloof ulone of an unrealized rliscrinrinatory intent to
rlilrrtr,r.r,rrlrl srrll'it,r,. i\ rlilutive effect remains an essential element of con-
:lit'rli(,r):rl rrs nlll us Seetion 2 claims. See Hartman, Rucittl Vote Dilut.ion
,11t,i .\ylrrrttlrotr ol /)riir,?r.$.. An Etplorulut ot'the Cotllicl Betrueen lhe
.l ,,,i ,'tul 'ltlt ttl' tttttl lhe Legislaliue "Resulls" Slrrrrdorrls, 50 Geo. W.L.
lir,. tiSlt. 7:li-:ix rr.:illJ (1982). Neither is there an.y suggestion that the
r'r,n),.(lv lirr' ;rrl llt)constitutionll intentignal rlilution shouhl be any nrore
l;. ,,r':rlrlt. I lr:rrr t ht, r',rrne<ly of tliscriryirratllr.y intent rnight nevertheless have
lirrrrt,,tl l*l.r'ru)t.t, in establishiryy'a Section 2 "results" claim is another
ill:rl l r.t'. ,/

l"f'lrrr.r, lra*r,, hr,r'r,r'r: ,.,)r{"a few lower federal coult rlecisirurs interpret-
irrtJ:rnrl ;r1,1rlf irru arnclut6rl Section 2 to stilte and local electoral plans. All
g,,rr,,r';rllv :\ul)ll{)rt the .llrriol v.'freen, Civil Action No. 82-llg2 Section C
rl.- l). Ll. St:1rl . 'lil, ll)8:l) (three-.iu<lge court); Rybitki v. SIofe lloard of
l.; t,., riotrs. No. fll-( l-li{}:l() (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, 198:}) (three-judge court); 'flro-
ttrrt'rillr' littrt'rlt ,/ ,v,'l,rlcl) v. ?'lrctturs county, ciVil Action Nn. Tb-:l.l-
'l't l( ))l r Il. I). ( ia..lln. ?6, lgtJB); Jones v. L'ity ol' LubhtrA., Civil Action No.('.\ .l-;{i iiltN.l).'li.x..Ian.20. 198:l); Tqulorv. Haymxxl C,r,rly. S{{ t..
Srrp'1r. I l:.ll l\\ ll. 'li,nrr. lg82) (on gr.ant of prelimirrarv irdunction).

lla

Section 2, as amended, rearls as follorvs:

(a) No voting qualificttion or prereqtrisite to voting ,rt'

standard, prac_tiae, or l)l'()t'e(lure shall be imposed ol' itlr'
plied by ahy State or poliLical subtlivision tn a manll"r'
which r-esulfs in a tlenialol'abridgement of the right of tnr'
citizen of the United States to vo[e ott accotlnt o1 t"gg .r'
color, or in contravention <lf the $lal'antees set fortlr irr

Section 4(f)(2), as provi(lo(l in subsection (b).

Without attempting here rr tletailed analvsis of the legislrr-
tive history leacling to enacttnent o[ ametrded Section 2, u,'
deduce from that history anrl lrom the jrrtlicial sources tll),)n
which Congress e.\pressly rclicd in tbrmulating the statutt,'.
text the following salient points r+'hich have guiderl our applicrr-
tion of the statute of the facts u,r, have fottncl.

First. The funclamental purpose of the umendment to Scr"
tion 2 was to'remove intent ils a neeessal'.v element of racirrl
vote clilution claims brought uncler the statute."'

l0Senator Dole, sponsor of the c,,rnpromise St,nate version ultinrat,,l:.
enactecl as Section 2, stated that onr, ol'his "ke.v ob.jectives" in offering it rvrr.
to

make it unequivocally clear thirt plaintiffs rnal' base a violation of :,,, -

tion 2 on a showing of rliscrinriu:rt,rrr"'r'estrlts'. in rvhich eAse l)t'(,r)t ,,!
discriminatory intent ot'I)r.lt'lnrsr' *'oulrl be rrt,ither rer;uirerl. nilr r',,!,
vant. I was convinced of the irr:r;'prollriatt,ness,rlan "interrt stanrllu', I

, (footn<lte crrrrtittuerl ()n nert l)itr,,

members of the electoratr: to participate in Ihe politi('irl
process and to elect rept'r'sentatives ,rf their choice. 'l'h,'
bxtent to which membu's of a protecterl class have beert
elected to office in ihe Stlte or politicirl subrlivision is ottr
circumstance rvhich muv be consi(lcre(l: Protirled, ThrL
nothing in this section esiablishes a right to have membcrs
of a protected class electerl irt tturnbers equal to t,hoir'
propoltion in the populittion.



lZa 
t

'l'his 
',r'irs ir,'r'otttlrlishetl by cotlifying in the atnentletl statute

llrr, 1';1q'i;1[ r'otc rliluLit)n prineiples applietl by the Supreme
( rrur'l irr it:i prc-/i,r/rlett decisioninWhite u. Reqester',412 U.S.
?i., (llr?li). 'l'lrtL rlecisiotr, as assumecl by the Congless,'r re-
r;rrirerl no rnorL' to establish the illegality of a state's electoral
rrrlchirrrisllr tltatt proof that its "result," in'espective of intent,
u'lrcn itssesserlitt "the totality of circumstances" was "to cancel
orrt rrI'rnininrize tlrqyotipg s-tr.e_trgth of t'acialg'oups," Id. aL765
- r ii-tlii r c.r se;-r jvlu U,""igl iig ir-.irl mi nori tv voter concentra-
t i or rSiii JtlrTf rirrll fi-rndmbei;ltigislative tlislricts. Th,e W h ite u .

[(r'tlcslt't' i'acial-i6[e tlilutlon-princi;tles, ils asstlme(l by the
( 'r,11g1'1.*q, u t.r't' ltratle exlrlicit itr tten'subsection (b) of Section 2
irr tlrt. lrrovisirrrt thaL such a "t'esult," hence a violation of se-

t'rrn,rl r oting righLs, could be established by llroof "based on
(1r,, Lol:tlitv ol'cilcumstances . . . that the political processes
1,.:rrlirrg to nonrination or election . . , are not equally open to

lrrrrticilrrtion" b.y tnembers of protected minorities. Cf. id. al
?rir i.

Str:rirr11. In tleterntining whether, "basetl on the totality of
r'ircturrstant't,s." a state's electoral mechanism dtles so "result"
irr r':rt'irrl votc rlilution, the Congress intentlerl that courts
-lr,,rrlrl looli l, llre interaction of the challenged mechanism
rr i1 lr I lr,,st, histori<::rl, social and llolitical factors generally sug-
u, : t(.(l ;rs prolxrlivc of dilutioninWhite u. Reqester antl sub-

( l,,,rr llol,.,.0rrl |lIrr,rl li'ont previOUS page)
:rs lhr, :,1t, rrrcrrns ol' establishing a voting rights claim, as were the
rrr:rl,,r'itr' ,,1' rttr, <'olltagues ott the Committee.

S llr.1r. No. ll?. :l?th (long.,2rl Sess. l$3 (1982) (atklitional viervs of Sen.
l),,lr,trlr,.r't,itlrl'l r.r S. Iiep. No. 97-.117).

r r ( '.rr r lr,ssionu l oplxrncnts of amendetl Section 2 crrtttenr lcd in rlehate that
1l /,,/r, r'. lit',trslt'r tlirl rrot actually apply a "results orrl.y" test, but that,
plrr;rr,l'lv rrrtr.r'prrtr,rl, it required, and by implication lilurrrl, intent also

l,r','\{,n.'l'lrr.r'ig}rt ()r'\\'r'ongof thattlebateisessentiallytresi<lethepointfor
.rn l)ull)r)sos. \\'t:seel<onlyCongressional intent,whichclearlywastoatlopt
:r "r',,sulls rrnlr'" stlrrrlalrl by corlifying a decision unnristakably assumetl-
u lr,,t.lrr.r',)r'r'rot (,r'r'()r)rousl.y-to have embotlied that startrlarrl. See Hartman,
l,',t' t,rl \',tlr, /)ilrrtirttr, n-r./),tr note 8, at 725-2(i & n.2llti.

'lila

sequently elaborated by lhe f,rrnrer Fittlr (lirctritin Zbn.ntt't' ,'.

McKeitlrcn, 485 F.2d 129? (5th Cir. 197:lt (en banc)' t.fl',l "tt
otlrergrott,rtds szrb nonr. Eusl Cunttll Prrrish st'loo/ llour,l ,

Mat'shalL,424 U.S. 636 (11)7(i) (per cttriam). These typic:tlly
include, per the Senate Repot't accoml)allYing thb comprolttisrr

version enacted as amen(le(l Section 2:

1. the extent of altv histor.y of ofhcialrliscrimination in
the state or Dolitical sirhrlivisibn that toucltetl the riglrt "{'
the memberi of the tniltot'it.v gl'otlp to register, to vot('. "l'. otherwise to participate in the rlemoct'atic process;

2. the extent to rvhich voling in the electiotts ot'llrt
state or political sub<livision is raciallv llolarizerl:

3. the extent to rvhich the state ol'political.r5,1lf i<irrrr

has used unusually lal'gt' election tlisLricts, majority vol t'
requiretne nts, anti-sirrglt' shrlt provisions, or other vot iirt{
prdctices or proce(lul't:s t ltat may enhilIlce the opportulril l
Ior discrimination againsL the minority group;

4. if there is a canclitlate slating l)rocess, whether tlrtr
members of the mitnot'itv gl otlp havc' been rlenied acc('ss
to that process;

I 5. the extent to rvhich nrentlters ,f the nrinority g'l'r ltrl)
/ in the state or nolitit'al sttbrlirisiott hear the effects,,l
/ cliscrimination ifi sttclt :tt'etts as ctli.":rtion, eml)l()\'I)l.lrl
/ and health, which hittrk'r'their abilitv to palticillitte el'li't''

I tively in the prllitical I)r'oeess;

i 6. whether poliLical cltm;laigtts ltave been charat'i,'t'-

f ized by overt oi subtlt' t'itcial alrpe:rls:

7. the extent to rvhie h mentbers ,rf the minoritl' gr'orrl)
have been elected to prrblir: office in the juristliction.

Additional factors thrrt in solne clrs(-'s have hatl pl'rrlr;t-
tive value as part of phrintil'fs' evi,lettce to establislt l
violation are:

whether there is a signiltcant lack of responsivell{':}
on the part of elet'tt'tl officials to the pafticulat'i;:t',1
neerls of the membet's of the mittority group.

whether the policl ttntlerlf irtg the state or politi,':rl
subrlivision's use of srtch voting rltralificatioll, pl'{'r"'-
quisite to voting, or stltttrlatrl. ;trtrctice ot'pl'ocerlttt'' -'
tenuous.



l4a 
t

\\Ilrilo llrr,:rl enrrnlerated factors will often be the more'
r.lt.r'rrrrt .rrr,s. itt s()tne cases other factors will be indiea-
lir t, ol' tltr. rrllt,'(t:tl rliltrtion.

S I I r, 1,. No. l)T . I I 7, .s/,/),'o note 10, at 2tJ-29 (footnotes omitted).

'l'lrtt',1 ('r)r'rl'.r'rss also itrtentletl that amel)(le(l Section 2

slroulrl }rt irrtr:r'1rt'rrtetl and appliecl in conftlrnriLy rvith the
g,,rrclrrl l)rrrlv ol' 1n't'-Bolden racial vote dilutiorl jurispruclence

th:rl- rrlrlrlirrrl thc ll'/rile 1,. Ilegester test lbr the existence of a
rliltrtir c "t'rsttll."rr

( lrrt rt'al irr thitt lrrx[.y oI jurispt'utlence are the follorving prin-
t'iplr,:, rlrirt rvr-' cottsirlct' embotliecl in the statute.

'l'lrr t,ssr,rtct, ot'rucial vote dilution in the WlLite u. Regester
strr:i,,is tlris: tlrlt prirnarily because of the interaction of sub-

sl:rrrti;rl arrrl pt'r'sistcni racial polarization in voting patterns
(r'rrt'i;rl lrloc volinu) u'ith a ctrallenged electoral mechanism, a
nrt'irrl rrrinoritv u'itlr rlistinctive gl'oup interests that are cap-

rr l rl c r, l', i1 1 r r l l r n r, l i oraLion by goft-rhnGffiSe ffl;Ctivaty-clenied
lllt' l,r,liticrrl lrrrult'to ftrrthe-r those interests that numtierb
rrlrrrlr'-rvirirlrllrr',,:rtrnptively, see UnitedJewtshOrganiiatiottu.
('trr.r,r1. l:io Ir.s. l,l,t. l6{i n.24 (1977), Hlvg.it in,a yatilrg ggrl-

slilrr.rrr'\'rroI t'lciitll.y polarized irt its voting behavior. See

;\',,r'r,// ,'. Si,/r,.s, ;71 f .3('t 209:223 & n. l6 (5th Cir.- 1978). Vqte
r lilrrl i,,n irr I lris, sr,nsc can exist notwithstanding the relative
rrlr:r,'rr,'(, ol':;t rrrt'i rrrrrl-lfr:rieis to eieibise of thd electoraltYan:
t;lris..'Il ,'rrrr-lx,iliitr,rriceilby other f:rctors - cultut:al, political,
soli;rl. ,,t',rrronri(' irr rvhich the racial minorit.y is relatively
rli:r;rrlr rrrrt:rrrurl itrr,l rvltich further operate to tlinrinish practical

1r,,lilir';tl r,lli,t'tir,r'nt,ss. Zinttner u. llcKeithett, sttpro. But the
rlr,nrorrstr';rlrlt rrrrrvillirrKness of substantial nutnbers of the ra-

r'),, ... Iir.1,. N,r. 1r;-.ll?.str2xrttotel0,atit2("[Tlhelegislativeintent[isl
r,r rfrr',,rl,,ir':rlr,/ll/iil,'r'. llrqeslerl and extensive caee larv. , . rvhich de-

1r,f ,,qr,,,l;r'{runrlit. 't. S,'r'rtls,r irl. at l9-2ll (Boltlencharacterizetlas"amarked
rlr,lrrrll rrlt ll ,'n) lllrr'l lrriot'law" of vote rlilution as applierl in l[/rlle v.

li.,'r1t': t, , . Z nt, tt,r't t'. .llr'lit'rlltert, anrl a nuntber of other citetl fetleral rleei-

sirrtr. I,,ll,rrr trrtl ll'r)r/,, t'. lit'r1t:slerl.

I l-r: r

cial majority to vote for any rnirtority race candi(late or anl'
candidate identified with minoritv rzrce interesLs is the linchpin
of vote clilution by districting. I'r'r'ett u. Sidc.,'-, 's?tpro; see clsrr

Rogers u. Lotlle,458 U.S. (il:i. r;23 (1981) (emphasizir)g cetr-

trality of bloc voting as evi(lcncc ol'purposeftrl tliscrimination).

The mere fact that blacl<s cottstilttte a voting or poptllation
minoffi in aGiilf[-member rlistrict does not alone establish
that vole clilut'ion has resrtlted lr'irm the di.stricting plan. Sel
Zirnmer,485 F.2d at 1304 ("axiotnatic" that at-large antl multi-
member districts are not pe)'sc tltrconstitutional). NpLd"*-.!trg
fact that blacks hqyg-!9!.,*Ueen.elqqle(l utttler a challengetl
di6-t-ri&firg m-In ffibers prolrot'tiotraIto thc'ir pbrCentag.e of

-r Pry.Uiun. Id. at 1305."

On the other hand, proof that lllacks constitute a popul:ltion
majority in an electoral district tloes not per s( establish that no

vote dilution results from the tlistricting platt, at least where
the blacks are a registere<l votet'minorit.v. Itl. aL l30l]. Nor
does proof that in a challengerl rlistrict lllacks have recentl)'
been elected to office. /d. at l:i0?.

Vote dilution in the White u. Ilrqester sells(' mily result from
the fracturing into several singkr-member rlistricts as rvell as

from the submergence in one tnttlti-member district of blacli
voter concentl'ations sufficient, if ttrtt "ft':tctttre(l" or "sub-
merged," to constitute an effective sittgle-ttt''rttber tlistrict vot-
ing majority. See Neuett u. Sir/rs, 571 F.2d 2t)9, 219 (Sth Cir.
1978).

Fou'rth. Amended Section ? ttnbrxlies a congressional pur-
pose to remove all vestiges ol' tttittority t':rce vote tlilution
perpetuated on or after the rtnrelttlmen['s el'l'ective date bv
state or local electoral mechattistrts.rr To accotttplish this. Con-

l{ Both the Senate antl l{ouse ('orlrrrittr-,t, ReJl,rrts irisetl a l)url).,se t,

forestall further purlxrseful ,liscnmitr;r' "rr thar mish' '";111q v''7nttl'.'ln'l'''
'i'ttttt.r/f.e rl,i f :';l|1,''l til ntu-?. f Jd!t'

l:lThisweconsirlertobethelimitol'llrr,rrterulr,rltttr':rtttttgoftherlisclaim,d
in amentled Section 2 that "nothirtg in this st,ction estrtlrlishes a right to lrar',f
members of a protecte(l elass elccterl itr ttttntbtrs equal trr theil proportionir(
the population." 42 U.S.C. $ 1973.



I (ia

grr:ss ha:. ('\{,r'(f is(,(l its enforcernerrl llorvers urrrler section 5 of
t ht' lirrrr'(r,r,rrt lr lrnrl section 2 of the liltee ntli arrrentlmentsrt to
t'r'r'rrtr,;t r),,\\' irrrlit'i;rl remerly tr.y;lriv:rte action thirt is broader
irr scr,grc tlrirrr rvt,rc t'.ristitrg privaLc r.ights ol'action tirr con-
stitLrti,rrrrl r i,rl;rtions ot'nrinrllit.v race votirrg rights. Spc,citical-
lr', tlris llrrrr,rll is,1,'signerl to provirlt,ir ln(,tns lirr br.inging
sl;rtt,:.;rtrrl ]o,';rl g,rvct'Iult(!nts ittt() ('otIll)li;ttt<'t'with con-
s(ilrrli,rr;rl lrr;rr';rrrtr,r's ot'er[url r,,rt irrg riglrts Iirr r.ucial milrori-
ti,,s rr i1 lp,rrrl ilrr, r)t'r.r.ssitt, to l)r'o\'(,irn irrtr,tttiorr:rl r,iolation of
t ltocl n r., lrr .

l" it ll' | ,r ,,nrr, t irru. ;unt-,rrrlerl Scr,tiorr '1. ('otrtt.t,ss mlrrle a
rlllilrlr';rt('l','lili,';tl.iltrlgtttcltt tlr;rl tltp titttp ltttrlt,,ltrt, trtallplV

r lil( \loll: l,ll[]r,,
llrr..rt rrrr, r,' 'rl,1,r ;,11;,,lteet-s tr.:rt ll /i,r/r/r,rr:urrl Ior,utrlit'irtcexistingor
lr.u urr,r'lr;rrr rr, Ilr;rt lx'r'lletuate thc t,lli,r:t.s ot'p:rst. rlisct.itrtitration, See S.
lit,1r. lri-,1l',. ',1111s,1 rrott: 1(), at.l{); }l.lt. Itr,p. No. 227, 1)?th ('ong., lst Sess.
:ll t lltl<l ) (lrr.r'r,irrrrl'tcr ILIt. Rep. No. 1)7-Iil7).

\\'r';rctr,yrl ;rrr,lr( isn(,t challengerlirrthisattiontr\.thrtst;rterltrfendants-
llt'tl ( r,rrr'r',' i)rl''r(l('rl llte atttetrrlnrrrrt io:rlrgrly to litiglrtiorr lletrtlirrg ttJxrn
il:.,,lli.,,lir, ,l,rt,. ti,r',1/,r/r)r.t,.7'tlttt, si,lrrrr, slip ogr. :rt .lt)-Jl tt.20.

i li.rlr tlr,,)'.r'n;rlr'tur,l IIouse (.lorrrrniltrt.ltr,ll,r'ts {'xl)r.css an intention
tltrtl ltttt,'tr,l,,l.':r'r'ttrrtlSlrt'n'garrletl asrr.rrrlrliirt nrtlrrrLlriurrnertlvrerlcfini-
tir,tutl,rl ,, i'rurll t'rrtrstitrrtiorr:rl votirrg r.ighl.s. Sr,r S. llr:p. No. lt?-.111, s117;y11

n,,tr. lll. ,, 1't lii, ll.li. Ilt.p. No. l)7-ll!7, s/rit),r, notr) l.l, ut. :il.
r" { ,'rrl'l r' l,,nrtl lrr'o|orr(,uts of anretrrk'rl Sectirrrr 3 rvcre tt pains in rlebate

;lrrl r.rrrulrrl!r,r,r'r,1r.r'(s lu rlisclaint ant'irrtentiott (lr Ix,\1,(,t.by Congrtss to
i)\'r,r'r'il1'. Ilr, :iul,r'r,lrl(, ( orrr.t's r:onstittrtiorral itrter.grx,llrtiorr in lloldea only
llr:rl tltr'lll,'r;1111 ,'ottstittttional 1lt'olisiirrrs;rrrrhilriterl inlt,rrtiorral racial vote
,lilrrti,,rr, :itrrl l.;r:.rr,t'l irrrrll';1,1 il I)r)\\,(_,t.corrr1l:trirlrL,to tlrirt t,xr,rciserl in the
r.n;tr'tntr'nr,rt ir.r'tilnin( llrr.\'otingllightsr\r.l.topr.rrvirlt,;r.iutlicial renretly
li,t' ,'trl,,rr''.rr, ll ,,1 tlrr, .rt:rtC's lllir.rntrtivt'ulrlig;rliotrs tr, (.r)nlr into COnt-

1'lilrrr',, .',, ,l t-I. lir,lr ll?-ll?, s/r/,ryt n{rt(. lO. lt ,il 1,.('r)ngt.(fss cilnnot
Irlt, r'llr,, ;rr,li, r rl lrl' tlrt.,.lllliorrs ilr l]olr/r.rr . . . l'l'ihc Jrr.o11osal is a pr.oper
-l;tl ill ilr.\ ,, , r', I , rrl ('1r111r1 11SS' Ctrlirt't.r,trtt,nt l)o\\,{,t.. .").

).r,,.llrll,.r,,..t-trltrlr.irrtlri51..1;,,,,trrllrt,crrrrstitrttionirlitt.ofsectiolr2afl
t:rlrrl r,.., r'r , , r l r',,nr,t.{,:.r\'{ cttfol.t,r,tttcnl l),\\'(,I.s uttrlet.thr,lirfffteenth (afftl j
I',, rlrir t,1,, , rirlrr ,,,,,',,'ltttr,.ttt, irttrl \\r, ltssunt(, t,ottstittttiottitlity orr that/

]l;: 1,.; ; ll ,',',,,,,',,tlt',''"" 
srrTrtrr' slilrrtP ll-tilttrlrlt.hlirrgcrrrrstitutieirralitv/

17a

the statute's remetlial measures Lo'pt'esent c0tulil.i()tts of raciirl

vote clilution that might be established in particular litigittirin:.

1

that national policy r especting minoritv voting rights coul(l Iro

longer await ihe iecurirlg of t,hose rights by ttortttitl ,,litieal
processes, or by voluntary action .of 

sLa[e antl lot'ltl, g'rvet'n-

rnents, or by juilicial rernetlies lirnitetl Lo lrrttof r-rf itrtetltiott:rl

racial(liscrimination. See, e.g., S. Rep. 97-417, sttl))'tt llote 10,

at 193 (arltlitional vicw of Senator f)ole) (asse't'tirtg lrttrlrrtst' to

et.a(licirte "rzrcial tliscrimination which... sLill C\ists irl tht'

Anrerican electoral Pl'ocess").

In mtrking thaL political jutlgrnenL. crlttgtcss l)e(:(]ssltl'illr'

bortli itttr.l account and'rejecLe<l as utlliruttrlerl, ot' lrsstllno(l ils

outweighe(I, several risks t0 firntlamental politieal vtlues tltat
or)r)orre.pts of thEEmendment-ul.gefh-c'Ominiitce tl el i'bet:ittioni

;i,:i;t#r-it"btaa. A*""g tEAJoi;o,= tt,o iisk that t1e itrrlici.l
.TEmaly mEhfEctually be at oclcls with the jutlgmcnt of signili-

cant e[ements in the racial minority;'i the risk that crcating
.,,safe" black-majoriLy single-membel districts wotll(l pel'petu-

ate racial ghettos and racial polarization in voting behavior;r'

the risk that reliance ru)on the judicial reme(ly woul(l sul)l)lartt

t h e ffi 1..'.--_. 
[t St Os-o tac q u i r i n g 

; 
r o1 i t i i;i [1 

1 
i, r rv -

er. 6rTE}-ltfttion ,-!;ti n-g arltl coal it iori- lju iklin g;''' tiii I t h0

ti Seeltotittll Iligltls Act llcuritrus Ile.lltrc //rr.Str[t'orttrrt. rttt lht('rtttxl tltt

tiottol'thesertuteL-orttttt.ontlteJtulicittt?,9?thCollg.,2<l Sess:'r'12-l(i(!'rrh'

l, lguz) (hereafter.Sertofe I!eurings) (pre;larerl statement tlf I'rrrlcssor N{"-

Manus, pinting to tlisagreements within black comnrunity l0atkrrship rlvt'r'

relative virtues of local districting plans).

rx See Srrbcrrl trttillee on the Cottslitutiott ol lhe.\t'ttrtlc (.'rtttt ttrillrc rttt lhr'

Julit:iury,9?th Oong.,2tl Sess., Voting Ilights Act.. Ilelxrrt orr S. l1)1f'l' rrl

'12-.lii (Crrnrrn. Print 19t32) (lrereaftcr Sttbcottrtrtiltrr Rtlnrl), roltrittlcl itr S.

ltep. No. 97-.ll?, .srr7ri.u note 10, l0?, l4lf (asserting "rlrltt'irnenttl cott-

se(luonce of establishing racial polarity in votirrg tvhere Itotte cxistt'tl, ot'rvit:
rnerely episrxlic, antl r.rf establishing race as att acce;ltetl lirctor irt t ltt' rlocisiorr-

rnakingof electe<l oificials"); Srrbtrnrrtttillec llaytrt, stt2trt. itt ll, tr'1tt'i ttl'rl
irr S. ttep. Ntl.9?-4l7,.sl7rrtr note l{), at ll-r0(itsscrtittgtlrat utttltttlt'rlSt'ttir,tr
2 rvorrlrl aggt'avate segttgaterl housitrg pattt,rns ll.t' t'ttctttl'lt(ittg lrl:ttlls 1,,

renrairr itr safe black legislativc rlistricts).
fl'Scr Sttbtuttttttillee Ileytrl , sttlttrt ttttte 18, at'l;J-'l l, n'pri rtl''rl rrr S. lir'I

No. 117-117, stt2t'tt note t0, at l.l9-ir0.



1,9:r

I

,r rr I lllrr llrc l'r,r'rrgl1i1iot),,1'"u-l'ottlr r,rtittg righls"
',, rr(.,1 ;rlln'ttt;ttir,,olrlirl;r(i'rlllll)r)llUr)\'('l'lllllelltt0
, I t.,rLl .: l,\ l'itt,r,-t'()n::('tr)il:r (,lt't't0t'ltl lll(fel)itrlistlls

,, t lrr',.\nr('r'ican llolitit';rl tt'rttlit iott.r"

I"ot'r'rtttl'l :i itl)l)[]'illg Sectiolt 2, tht sigttilicitttct'ol (Jottgress's

gr ,rrer';rl rr,.i.t'tiott or irsstlntptiott of tltesc t'isks its iI nrattet'of
1,,,1i(ir';rl .jrr,l1'111,'1'1 i.-!bg!-J.hsl'rt1't'rrot :tnlollg the circum-
,.1,,,,.,,- l,r lrr,r'rrr,.itl,rrttl in tlt'tet'lttittittu rv[ritlrir'riclilillenged
cl,,r'l,r';rl tr,', lurltisrtt prcsentl.y i't't'sttlts" itr ritt'iitl voLe tlilutir.ln,
lillr,,t';r:r il nr'\\ r)t'J)ol'l)etuatetlctltltlitiorr. ll'ittlot's, Ilte l'etne(ly
li,ll,nls. lll ;'ilrltr t.o thcse valttcs lt:rvittg llectt asscsse(l iln(l
;11'1'r,ptr,r l l,.r ( ortql'('|ss. It is thr:r','lirt't' it't'eIt'r'lrttt frtt' cotll'ts
lr1,1,llinrl rrrrrlnrllrl Scct.ion 2 to spt'<'ttlitte rtr to lrttt'tnpt tcl make
{irrtlirru,, lrr. lr, \\'lr('tlrcr a presetttl.y existing cortrlition of racial
r,,l r,rlilrrli,rrr i- lilicll itt tltte cout's('to lle t'entoverl by normal

inrfrrc:rfir'o,;i,-(i,51 1jf by riffir'rnitive acLs ol' the affected

[iiir'riirr,'r,t, ot' Llutl, sotne t:letttottts of tlte rltciitl nlirlority
lirlli'r' ln rr,ll rtlrotr t hrtsc 1lt'ttct'sscs t':tl ltttt' tltittt lraving the

.jrrtlir'rll t ,'nr,', 1\ ittt'olir'tl.

Iil
lf irrrlituts ol' lritr'l

,\.

'l'lrr' (llrallerrgctl I )istricis
-l'1r,, r',',lr .lrit'(irrg pl;tns lbr tlrr' Not'llt ('trt'ulitta Seltate and

llorrs,,rrl'll,'1)r'(':-('ntirtives cnactt'rl lrv tltc (it'ttrlt'ltl l\ssetlrbly of
Nrrrt lr ('rr',,lirur irr ,\pril ()l' l!ltl? iltt'lttrlcrl six rtrtrlti-ntenlber
rlisllir't s lrrll,,rr,'sittulc-ntetttbet'rlistrit't tlurt itt'c Lhe strbjects
.l (lrt, r':r,'irrl r o(r, rliltttirln challcngt in this actiott.

', 1, lltttttntl',. iirr/,,'(I. ttDte l?, irt l;ll-rl'i'l tl"elr. lll, l9tt2) (1tre-

l,:nl,l.. 1:rlr'rr,,,,rr ,,l l't'oli,ssor[]lunrsteirr); rrl. trt5{)l)-10(,lall.28, lllti2)(pre-
lrirrr,rl:t:rllrrr,'rrr ,,1'l'trrlirssorErler), repritrlel ilS. Ile1r. Nrr. I)7-{17,stt2trt
rrrrll ll). irt I 1,. ,r1 lrt fill (Jan. 27, lfl8lj) (testirlrott)' of I'l'ofessor li-'tns),
tt llttttlt,/ r,r :i. lit,1r. Nu. 1)7-{17, .l'ttltt'tt ttote 10, at 147-

l9u

'Ihe nrulti-metnl)er rlistricts, each of which colltillLl('(l l)x'-
existing tlistr.icts and apportionments, are as frrlkrrvs, $itlr

their crxnpositions, an(l their apl)orti()llmellts of n)cmbel's all(l

the llercentage of th;iy total populatirltrs all(l of the il't'.gistt't't'tl

voters that are black:

I)islncl

Senate No. 22 (Mecklenburg

nnrl Cabarrus Cr.rtrnties (4

nrernbers)
Hrluse Nrr. ii(i (Mecklenburg

(Jourrty) (ti nrembers)

l{ouse No. 39 (Part of F or-
syth CountY) (5 members)

Ilouse No. 23 (Durham
I County) (it members)

llouse No. 2l (Wake CountY)

. (ti nrembers)
llouse No. 8 (Wilsrln, Nash

tlrd Erlgecombe Cr.runties)
(4 members)

"h rl' Reqislet'ed Vrilers

9o o/Populaliut lhttt is lJlurk
that is Btutk (ns tll' lt)l ll;t!)

24.3 ltil3

As these districts are constitutetl, black citiztrts lllal(e ul)

.,U! nc!-Iglglaqolr andr"tto o,l *',t.'' ":llliili : :' i n eae lt'

OT these districts, only House District No. ll is itt :ttt :tt't'rt ol'

the state covere(l by $ 5 of the Voting Itighls r\ct'

At the time of the creation of these rlulti-metnbel rlistlict.s,

there were concentratiotrs of black citizens withill the bouttrl'

aries of each thal were sufficient in ntlmbL'l's all(l colltigtrity ttr

constitute efffitiile vo't-ing nrajgrities i n 
- 
si Ir gle- rnt' mllcr r I i s -

tricts lying wholly within the boundaries of the nltrlti-nlenllx't'

distric[s, *t i.t single-nrember districts woul(l satisfy lll ctttt-

stitutional requirements of populatir-rn artd geogl'al)hicttl cott-

figuration. For example, concentratiolts of blach citizells ell)-

2(i.5 ls.l)

'j().8

2tt.(i

z5.l

21.8

39.5

lir. I

?1).5



.:( 
)j r

lrt':r,'r,rl 'r rtlrirr tlrt, lirllowitlg sillgl(,-ln(,n)lx't' rlistt'it'ts, as (le-

lrit'tt,rl orr r, , lrilrits bclirre the cout't, woul(l nt(,eI thoso criteria:

ll,rlr' .11,,'ttl,,' I t,.:t r t,'l

S,'tr:rlt' )il il l

t ll, r'1.1,'trlrttt r' t ';rlr:u t'lt,s
( 'ilrttrlit,. t

llurr.r. N,r. :lll
t Il,.r'l'llttl,rtt r' (',,rlttl \')

lli'ttr,,' Nrr iill
tl':ttl ol l lt '.!lr ('otttlt\')
llott;.r' N,r. '.'il

I I )rrllr;trrr (','1IrlI I

ll,rrt'r,Nl lll
(\\'irlir,( r,rlnl\ I

11111; .r' \o. \
t \\'il:,rtt. 1,,,1r,,,r'r,tnl,r,. Nltslt

( '1,11 
111 lr,lr I

S i tt,1l c .ll,' ttt l,tr I ) i sl t'trl :

Ittttliotr tt,t,l xt,'iul
t tilttl)istlit)il E.rhihil

Part of Illt,ckk'rrtrtrlg ('ottntl': ['1. Ex. I
7l). ( )' i li lac k

( I ) I'}art of IUccklerrlrurg (;r)trnt]'; ['1. F]x. 4

(ili. l',t llllt:k
(2) ['art of l\lcckltrrlrrtrg ('otltttv; I'1. Ex. 4

7l.I'f Illack
I)art of l.'orsvth ( )runtv; 711.0',{ I'1. [ix. 5

Il lack
I'art ttf l)urhrrtn ('outrtt'; ?l).lfr2 I'1. 8.t.6

Itlack stlbstitute
I'art o[ \\'akt, ('ourrtv', li?.ll(7. I'1. Ex. 7

Il lack
l)rrrts of Wils,rrr, l'l,lgecorrtlre lnrl l'1. Er. tl

Nash ('ortnties: {i'i.71? l}Lrck

'['lrr, .irrrtl,' nrr'nrIr(,r' rlistrict is Sctutte District Nrt. 2 in the
Iur';rl nol llrIrr.:t''l'n s('('tiot) ol'the stltt('. lL r,r'as lot'lttetl by ex-
tt,rr:rivr, r'r ,;rlillnnrrf nt of eristing rlistriets ttt ettt'otttlritss aIl at'ea
*lrilh lirrrrr',r'lv sul)l)li(,{l conll)onrltts ol' two tntllti-member
Sr,n:rtt,rlisllir'ls (Nu. I of 2 menrl)et's; No. (i ol'2 nrctnbers). It
r'r,r)sists ol' llrl rvltole of Northanrl)t()n, Ilerttitrrl, (.iates, I]er-
tir'. :rrrr[ ('lrr)\\'irlr (,'titurties, iltxl l)aI'Ls of ]Vashingtrtn, IlLat'tin,
Ilrrlil'irr irrr,l l')tlgccorlrl)e Countios. lllack citizelts matle up
Sit.l(( ol'l lrt, tot;rI polrulation of the tlistricL, an(l .l(;.2%, of the
lrolrrrl;rt iorr llrrrt is registererl to vote . 'l'ltis rloes r)ot constitu[e
tlrcrrr ;rrr llli','tivt, \'otir)g majol'iLy in tlris rlistl'icL.rl

:r \\'t, rrr.rrrl n,)t 'ltt(.lnllt at this point to <lcfine the exact pxrpulatiolt lcvel at
rllriclr lrl:rr'lis u,rrrlrl crlrrstitute an eflcctivr, (non-rlilutt,rl) voting rnajority,
litlrr.r'gr.rrllirlll or in this arca. De[errrl:rnt's e\lrcrt witlless testifietl that a

r.Jorlr':rl lrrl,. ,,l llrrrrrrlr" li,r'irrsut'itrg an rl'li't'tive voting nt;r.iot'itv is tiirqt. '[his
(lirotnole r:ontittttt.tl ott ttext 1l:tge)

2la

.l'his clistr.ict is in an area of the state covel'erl tr.v $ 5 ol' tht'

Voting ltights Act.

At the [ime of creation of this single-mernber <list rict, there

was a concentration of black citizens within the troutlrlat'ies trf

this clistrict ancl those of arljoining Sen:rte Districi N9. (j that

was sufrlcient in numbet.s an(l in contiguitv to constititttte att

effective voting majority in a single-lneml)el'rlistlict. rvhic[

single-memberilistrict wriuld satisf.y all cottstiLtttiott:tl l'(r(lIril'(f -

me;ts of population an(l geogral)hical conliguratiott. I"rtt' ex-

ample, a coricentration of black voters embraced $'ithin il rlis-

trict rlepictecl on Plaintiffs Exhibit 10(a) cottld minirDally meet

these ciiteria, though.a still larger eoncentration I)light l)rove
necessary to make fhe majority a trulv et'fective otte, tlellentl-

ing upon experience in the new district alignments. Itt sttch a

rliitr.ict, btack citizens woul(l constitute 60.71,, of the ttltal
,population and 5l.02vo of the registered votel's (as c0ntrastetl

wiih percentages of 55.l9o anrl 4(i'2%', resl)eclivel.v, itt chal-

lenged Senate District 2).

I}

Circumstances llelevant To The Clilinr Ol'ltar:iirl Votc
Dilution: The "Zimmer f'ilcttlrs"

At the time the challenged districting t)latl was ellactc(l irl
1982, the following circunrstances affected the l)lan's cffcct

(lixrtnote eontinued trom previous page)

is the percentage used as a "benchmark" by the Justice I)r'lrarttucnt itt

arlrnirristering I 5. Plaintiffs' expett witness opinerl that a (i()'/r lxlpulatiort
majority in tite area of this tlistrict coultl only be consitlcrerl a "cr,rtllletitive '

one rather than a "safe" one.

On the uncontradicted ovirlence adduced we l'rnrl-arrd neerl only lind for
prcsent purposes-that the extant 55.17o black poPulation nra.iority tfites ntrt

constitute an effective voting majority, i.e., does not establish Pe,'i-c thr'

absence of racial vote dilution, in this district. .See KirA'sr'ry v. llrxtrl rl
.Str;reruisors, 554 f .2d 139, 150 (5th Cir. 1977) ("Where . . . cohtsive black

voting strength is fragnrented among districts, . . . the l)l'estltct oftlistricts
with bare populution majorilies not only rloes not necessat'il-v pt'eclutlt
tlilution but . . . nuy actually enhance the possibilitv of contitrtu'rl tttirtrlt'itl
political irnpotence. ").



.r(r.,

ul).n llr,, ,,1rrrl strr,rrglh of tllar:li votor.s of the state (lhe
pllrrrrtill t,l:t.,.t, lrrrrl p:rrticularlv tltosc in the ar.eas ol the chal-
lllrur'tl,li:rl t'i,'ts

.\ llislor..r I rl'oll'it:ial I)iscriminution ,\gainst Illack Citizens
In Voling [Iirttcrs

l"r,lL,u'int, llrc trnlnt,il)ation of bl;rcks irurn shtr,er.y an(l the
1rt,t'iorlo['1;1 y;:1 u'lrr liet,onstruction, thr. SLate of Nrlrth Carolina
Ir:rrl ,ll'icirrllr ;rrrrl et'ft,cLivcl.y rli-*cr.irrrinlted agirinst black
t'itiz,,rr:, in rrr:rlIt'r':r t,rrr.lling their. r,rt'r.r,ise ol tlrt, r,otirtg ti.att-
r'lri..r,lirt';r l'r ri,,, l.l'tu'rutt(l sr,v(,t)t\'\,(,;lt's, t.ottultlYtrr.ogetrertt-
ti,rrs, Ir,tr , ;r llrt t( t t, ,,ir. ll)7t). 'l'lrr, lrisl,t.r' .t'lillre li.citiz.ens'
:rllr,trrl,l ,r,,llr, li,,r','tl-itl'll('t iotr,,r':rl(rlliu.tir,ilr:rlr,t.l'lbctive-
l, tt,tlr,'1,,,i , 1i;,,r11 1, s;tnrltltcrrlrtlltrt;t.i,'t.il\":i t.r,sistattCc,tO
llrrr: r,,.lr,,r r r ,l,rrl,,t.,,J11'. l't.ltrrglrl rrillrr.:r.ilrlirrrirrr,sitiesthat
Itttr,,,t 

't 
,1,t,,,r. lr, rl lrrrl still t'r'i,l..t lir'rrt t, tlrr,pt.t,sent atttl

llr;rt 'r'r!.rr ,, r" i,'lrrl'r 'ntltr,r',rr irrrisr l.trr',t lr,l lrl:rr,licitizetts
lr.,ttl i,l,'trlti,'{,",rrtlr.

l'r'.rrr l,r, r,r I .r'.,. I'l;11'I r:iti;:r'rrs, lt(.\\'lY tttt:rtrt,ilritLerl atttl
r.1i.r'rr tlr. 1,,',;rl rirllit t(| \,ote, t,l'lct,liv,,lv r:xer.ciscrl tlre ti.an-
.lri,,,', irr t'rr;rlrlr,rrr u'itll rr'lrite Iiepulrlicans, to corrtr.ol the state
lr'11i.llr{ttt'r' lrr lSi.l. tltt, I)etnr1g'utir. I'apt\r, ()\'er.\t'helnringly
'.r lritl itt ,','t',1,,, ili,1y1, t't,gailtgrl t,6trt;91 rrl' stltp go\/eplttent
rttrl 1,,'1,;1,1 l, lrl,,,1;11t, ,,I'lirt'ts t.6 t't'rlrtr,t, 1xtltit,i;rlrtiprr [1' $aCk
,,rtr..,,n:.irrllr, l,,,lirtt,;rl lrr.()ccss(,s.,1'ltt,:.r,r,l'lirt.ts\\,(,t.(,no[intme-
,lt;ttr'lJ';rtllr'lrll.i.:111,1'l,srfUlarrrllil;rcltrttltlt,t,itizt,lrsr.gtrtittttCtl
{l vol,, ;tll,l r,r lrrrlrl r,ltrtive ol'[jt.t' lirt. tlto t.r.,ttf:tittrlt,f.Of lhe
lrlltl'l('r,ttl lr,,,tl 1il.,.'.

'l'lri. ,',rn(!rn('rl 1r:rr.tit,i;ratiorr bt' lrllrr:h nurlcs in tht, gt<llitical
lrl'r,r',' s\\r:'lrrrrlrr,r't,rl lrr'!'ttsiottists'(l'olntlisllrnrl ltt,llttlllican
r',,;rlili,rrr);r: rnrlrli.rr.l'r'rrfttt'ol oItlrt,stlrte lt,gisLrtrrr.e irt ll]1),1.
l'ot ;r lrt'ir'l i I rtn. llris yesrrltcrl irr lt,gisl:rti6rr ljrr rrrirble tO
I'l;r,'li ,'ilr ',.r,
,1, I r '1r,,.r ' 1,;, . 

'

ll,,lrr,,
1,,,11,,i'1,,,,'

l,,,l r t i,';rl l );u'ttcil)iltiorr ;r.s u r,ll irs t lrtir. (,(:ol)()rnic

I l,,r,i,. l;r( ivt' l)l'ogl'iun lirvor.irlrlt, to blachs im-
,, l,,r r ri rr:rl ttl I )t.rrrot,r';rl ir, l':rr.t v to urrrltr.talie at.t

23a

overt white supremacy political compaign to tlestrov the
Fusionist coalition by arousing white fears of Negro rrrle. This
campaign, characterized by blatanl racist apt)eals by lramphlet
ilnd cartoon, aided by acts of outright intinrirlation, stlccee(le(l

in restoring the Democratic Party to control of the lcgislature
in 1898. The 1898 legislature then adopterl cttttstitutional
amen(lments specifically designed to tlisenti'anchise black vo-

ters b.y imposing a pioll tax and a literacy tost for votittg u'ith a

$'an(lfather clause for the literacy test n'hose effccl was to
limit, the disenfranchising effect to blacks. The itlncttrlllrellts
lvere adopted by the voters of the state, ftrllou'illg :r ('()tnl)ill'il-

ble white supremacy c4mpaign, in 1900. 'l'he t9(X) ol'ljcill litt:t';r-
c.y test continued to be freel.y al)plied tirr (it).v()al's 1,, ,, ,',tf i1'It' ol'

firrms that el'fectively tlisenli'anchisetl ntost lrlitcks. lrr l1)(il.
the North Carolina Sullrenre Cotrrt tlt:clat'erl tlttc()tlst itutiortal
the practice of requiring a registral)t to write the Nortlr (laroli-
na (ionstitution from dictation, but upheld thc 1rr':tc[ice of
rr:(luiring a registrant "of uncertain ability" Lo rt'arl :ttttl ctl;ry itt
wriLing the qtate Constitutit)n. IJuzet)tore u. IJerli( CottttlU
IJrnxl of Elections, 254 N.C. 398 (19(il). At leasL urtIil arountl
l1)70, the practice of requiring black citizens to reatl utttl rt'rite
tlre Constitution in order [o vote was colttittue(l ill sonle areas of
the state. Not until aroun(l 1970 rlid Ihe State l]oarrl of []lec-
tions officially clirect eessalion of the arlnrinistratiotr of anv
tirrm of liLeracy test.

OLher official voLing mechanisms tlesigtrerl trt ntittitnize ot'

cancel Lhe potential voting strertgth of black citizetts tvt:t'e ulso
cntplo.vrtl by the sttte clut'ittg this llet'iotl. ln lf)irir, rttt itttti-
single shot voting larv alrplicable to specilierl municiprllities arrrl
counties was enactetl. It was enlbrcerl, with the interuletlel'l'e ct
of fragntenting a black minority's total vote bet$'(fcrt two or'
more canrliclates in a rnulti-seaI electirtn attrl prevt'tttirrg its
currcentration on one cantlirlaie. utrtil tlc,claretl tttrconst itutiotral
in l1)?2 in /)rrn.storr r,. Sr:oll, 3:lli F'. Sup1r. 20(i ( I.i.l). N.C. ll)72).
ln l9(i7, a trumbered-seat plan for election in nnrlti-rnernber'
legislative rlistricts was enactetl. Its eff'ect was, as intt'nrlerl, to
prevent single-shot voting in multi-rncmber legislirtivc rlis-



il;r

tr,f l' ,r ;rl,Plietl rrrrtil rl.r.l;rr.r,rl ulrr,,rrstitttL.i,nal in the
I )rt rt | ,, (';t).r,. sn ltt'T, in l1)7:1.

lrr rlrr.r.r.t r.1)ns(,{luence of th(} poll tax an(l the literacy test,
lrllr,'1, ,'tli;:,'tt:, in rttttch largo' grr,r.t'r.rrtirgcs ,rt't.heir total nUm-
Ir,'r'r llr.rrr llr,' r'ornl)iu'Ahle l)(,1'('r,ntiltlr's of u lrite citizrlns were
.illr''r''lj1r'r'rl-r'rlcrrietl registr';rtiur ,r'chillt.rl I'r'orn r:ral<ing Ihe
irlI('ntlrl l'tutn tlrt,tirne of itrrlr6siti6rr 9l't[esr: r[,r'ices trnLil their
l(,nrr)\ lrl .\ ttt,t'llrcir. I'etnoval as rlir.t,r.t. lrtr.r.ior.s to registration,
llrr,ilr lrrllirrrl ,'l'lt'r,t,ntu'oor.n)r)r.(|tI(,lrr,l.at.ionsol'blackcitizens
lrirs ;r.r'.-r::("rl to tltr.'prestttt lrs lrL k.itst ()nc (.:urse of corrlintretl
rllrrl ir ,,1\ (l(.1)t'(.sscrl levels of lrlack r,oter r.eKistr.ation. Be-
r\r'r,r,rr f ir: iil ;rrrrl llllu thr: lxrl.(..ntirge ,f lllirck citize ns wlro
)ilr('('(')ri lrrllr' -,rrtrht to registe r rrrrrlt,r' tlrc ltrill tlrx antl literacy
It,::l -r ir''r'(,1-('rl l'r'rrn z('r'o to lir.j . l)trring tlris eighteon-year
1rr,r'i,r,l llr;rt ,,rrlt'r,rrrlerl :rfter.Wor'ltl \Vlrr ll, no lllack was
,,1t,, 1,,, lt,, p,rrlrlir,rrl'liceintlrcst;rte,. ln llXi0. tu,r-,lvc.yearslater,
;rl'l r.r'llr', l:,rlrt'{int(, ('ottrt rlecisi.rr itr Sr.r.rrlrr t,. l.Jouxl o.l'Bducu-
ttrtt;.'.'.l'i l';{ .lx:t 111)l-r.l), onlr.:lll.l,i.l'thc lrlacl< v,ti.gage
;rrrlirrl;r!rrrlt \r't..i t'r,r'.istererl t0 r'ottf , ('()lnlral.erl trl 1)2. l(/o Of age-
rqtt:rirli,,l,rlritr,:; lill1)?l.lirllrrrirrgtlrct.ir.ilr.ightsrltovement,
ll.I , ',1 ,.,, r1u;rlilir,rl lrltrclis *.r,r.r, r.t,gist.r.r,tl eolnllar.erl to

l;( ),tl'; ,,1 ,,, lril,,:.r 'l'lris gr-,treurl r.:trrg. ,l' stirtr,u,itle rlisparity
lrrttlirttt,'rl irtlrr ll)ir{ l, 1'}rgr 5l.ii,i 9l':rgg-t;tr1[it'ierl blacks anrl
;() l' , ,'1 rr lrrl (,s \\ (,I.e n:gistcr.t,rl. arrrl irrlu llttilJ u,hen 52.7t/o of
ilu(,.,llrirlrli,,,l lrllrr,ks arrrl (i(i.7/i 0l'rYlritcs rvel't'r.egistered.rl

"'l l. r,, r,nt lu l,r.\.,,1'rr.hite irrtrllrlltt.liv,tlr.r.r,gistr.lrti,rrstatervirleantl itr
tlrr,;u',;r ,rl rlr,,r.lrlrll.rrcerl rlistricts is {ltr\\'n.n tlrt tirll,tting chlrt.

,,,, r,',,','i,',i,i',',,' 1,,' )l',,',,' 1.,,'',",!,,",t,',' r,,,,,,

ltt,\ll l()!,\J
ll'hile lllrtrk ll'hilt Illnrk ll'ltitt Rlark
ril.? .13.7 7r). I ;t.it rili.7 i?.i
71.:l .l0.ft i:J.tt .lrJ..t 7;|.t) 5().tl
rii.tJ i8.7 ?(i.;l tii .7 {il).,I ri l.l
ti;|.() :t1)..1 7l).7 t5.ll tili.t) 52.t1
lil.:l :li.i't ?(i.l) ls.l, 7'.1.3 .19.?
rir).I) :iri.:t ti(i.t) l0.l) til.:l .lt{.t)

(tirotttotr, crrtrtintttrl on tut\t l)age)

\\ lrrrlr' ).1-rt,,
)lrr'l'lttrl,rtrl,
l ,rrsltlr
I )rlrlr;rtrr
\\';rli,,
\\'rl-,,rr

25a

U ntler the present Governor's arltnittistrittiort ittt i rrt c I I igur t
and determined effort is being ma(le by the Stutc llolrt'rl ol'
lllections to increase the percentages of both u'hite antl blacll
voter registrations, with special emphasis being placerl u;ron
increasing the Ievels of registrzrtion in groul)s, iltclttrlinu
blacks, in which those levels have traditionalll,lx'r'tt rk'pt'r'sst'rl
relative to the total voting age population. 'l'his goorl lrritlr
eflort by the currentl-v responsil)le state ug('ttcr', rlirct'tll
leversing offieial state policies which lxrt'sistcrl lirt' ntot't' tlt:ttt
seventy years into this cetttury, is cletrtottstt'abl1' ttrtu' 1tt'orlut'-
ing some of its intended results. If continuetl ott a sustitint'rl
basis over a sufficient period, the el'lbrt might succer:tl in
removittg the disparity in registratiort u'hich survivcs its it
legacy of the lortg periotl of tlirec[ <lenial anrl chilling by thr'\
state of registration by black citizens. llut at the ltresenL Lintt: /
the gap has not been closed, and there is ofcourse no guarantec \
that the et'fort will be continued past the enrl of the pre-sent./
state administration.

The present conclition - which \\'e :rssess - is th:rt, orr rr

staLewitle basis, black voter registratiott ttrnt:ritts rlt'prt'ssr',1
relative to that tlf the white tnajorit.y, itt lxrt't lt lelrst bt: clu:-r' ,,1

the long period of official state rleniul anrl chilling of'bllt'li

(footnote continuerl from previous page)

Percenl of Votitrg Aut
Po1nrlatiort llegistered Io \/ote

10t78 tututt
White Rluck ll'hi(e IJlutk
fit.8 37.9 (ilJ.z 50.4
6l .2 39.0 i2.0 .l I . 3

7l-r.6 4(i.0 i7.0 ril. I

71.3 44.3 77.1 iril.9
80.9 73.5 8ri.9 77.t1
fi6.8 40.9 72.0 ll)..t
75.6 5ti.6 81.8 1i2.5

69.3 49.7 76.9 5ir.3
72.4 58.5 77.0 ri3.9
7{.3 62.8 82.2 (;6.0

Edgecornbe
Nash
[Jertie
Clhowan
Cates
Halifax
Hertford
Martin
Northamllton
Washington

lo/ti)
ll'h ilr Blurl.
ti'2.i ;;t I

t;,1.'l ,l;].0

7,1.(; lit).(,
? l. I ir.l.r)
3:1.(; H'.:.:t

l;7.:l ir:-r.:l
(itt.7 irl:l
7t.2 53.:l
|i2. I 7:t. t)

ii.ti ri7 t



2(irt

t'ili;,..u. r,,r,r !r':rliorr r,tlitt't.s. 'l'his st:tteu'itlc tlr'pression of
l,l:r,'l; r ,rtr'r r.rr, :lrirt tott levt'ls is gt'rtet'ltll.v t't';llicaterl in the
lu r,lrs rrl llrr', lr;rlltttqttlrlistricts, :tttrl itt t'ltt'lt is tt'itt'tlable in llart
:rt lr,lrsl l . l lil lti:rt ot'icitl statett'irlr-' 1t:tttt:rtt ol' olljcial tlis-
t'r'irrrirurt iorr lrlt l lirtttttl t<t ltltve e.ri-*Lctl.

llIli.r'ls ( ll' ll:rciirl l)iscrimination In l'rrcilities. Etlucation,
I'itrrplrt,r'trrent, Iftlttsing,\rrd llctltlr

trr t'ousr,rlnlr)('(f of it lottg histrtt'v, ottlv recctttl.v llleviatetl to
sorrl. rllur.r'. r)l t';rciirl tlisct'itnirlaLirltt irt lltrlllic lrtttl llrivate
lir,'ilirl rrs," , r'rlu,'irt irrlt, entlllo\ttltcttt. llottsing all(l heltlth cal'e,
lillrcli r',.Ii t,'r',,t1 vott't's ol Lhe state t'etrtititt hirltletrlrl, I'clative
to llrr: u'lritl trr:r.iot'itr', itr their altiliLv to participate ctfectivel.y
ilr t lrr, polit ir';rl lrt'()c()ss.

,\t tlrl st;rt'l o['this cr-'tttttry, de.iure segt'ttgatiotr of lhe races
in prr':rctiurllv lll at'eits of their cottlnloll life existed in North
('lrrolilrlr.'l'lris corrrlition cttntinttetl essentially trnllroken for
;urotlrr.r':,i', lr orlrl \/{.'irt's. t}rloug}r lroth Wrlrlrl Wars anrl the
Iiorr,;rrr,',rrlli,'t, rrtttltlrt'rlttglt thc l115()'s. I)rrrirlg this lleriotl, in
;rrl,litiorr l. gr1'1v|1i|1i1inu itttet'-t'ttt'iitl tttitt't'iitgcs. sttttt'stittuLes

Ir',rVirlt,,l Ir,r' :.r'ltl'r'u';tt ioll rtf lltc l'llt'r's ill I't'irtt.t'tt;rl rlrrlt'rs anrl
sor'ir,l ir'.r. I lr,' '':rl ilrrl ;rrrrl rlltitittrI r',,,rltts (rl t'ltilt'oitrls lttrrl ttther
('rrnrrrr!rrr{'lrr'r tIt .: t'r'ilt0tr.'t'it's; pt'is,,tts..i:tilslrttrI.irtVctrikltlt'tt't].
liou r'r,rrlr'r . ,r lillrlr,n:i lirt'tltr'l,litt,l,,lr';tl'lttr,l rrlr'rrt:rllv ill;

1rr1l,l,1' ;rrr,i ,,r',,' l,t itlrlt) toilr'ls: ::t'ltorrl:r lttttl s,'lt,,r,l tlistricts;

'rtt,lr'rr , ,, , i1,,r,,..,. ;rttrl lilrt'trtl tr,ltrlittt t'o()ttls. With the
r,\,,,1rr1,,11,,r rl,' ,,i;r',r.,t'r.,ltttittgto:.,'lt,,r,lslttt,l,',,111'gos,ttltlsttlI
tlt,, , ,,r',r1, (.,!,, nirt t't,;r,,ltl,,rl ttnttl lrl'tt,l' l)irs:rilgt) 0l' tltg
l',,,1, r,, I i \,'l ol' lllli l. .,,lll(' :t:. 1 111' ;1'r llllil.

l', l,lr, rr 1.,,r'llr ('iu'()lnr;r,.rltr, nll'ici;tllr',.t,t{t'tl{ittetl
lr., t;lr,,,rfrr,ri l!.,1 rrlrt,lt lir'rrrll r'. ll,t,rnl tl l'),lttrrtlirttt rvits
rlr', rrlr,, l. Ilrtrrtrr-,. lltt' l,rttg llet'iotl ril' rlt' .1 rtt't'slgt't'gtttirltr. the
lrl;rt'1,, s,'lr,r,,l r\,,r't, r'r,nsisLetrtlv lt,ss rlt'll liutrltrl ittrtl tvere
rlrrrrlil;rlr\ ',1', irrli,r'ior'. I,'ollotvitig tltr'/lt'ott'tt rlt't'isiotr, the ptrll-
li,' -,'1r,,,,1. ,, '11;lirrr,rl sttlrstirtrtiirllr' :i(,ul'r,gitt(,(l lirt't't't another
llll,,'ll \(',r ,,t, ;l ,/r r,tr.'/rr llitsis, itt lrlrt'l ltt lt'lrst llcCattse tlf
t'rlr,,ll. l,r:r ',,;rl itrrl'r.r lit-ttettls tt't't'l r,rl lrv tltt stlttr, toitttlicial

27a

enforcement of the constitutional right to rlesegt'e g:rterl ptrblic

edtrcation recognized in Bromt. As late as l9(i0, orllv 22(i black
stutlents throughout the entire state altt'nrlerl frrt'tttet'lv tll-
white public schools. Until the end of the ll)60's, lrracLicall.y all
the state's public schools remained almost all wlrite or almost
all black. Substantial desegregation of the llublic sehools otrly
began to take place aroutrd a decade ago. frrllowing the Su-
preme Court's decision in Suann u. Mccklettbrtrq Ottttrtltl
Bottrtl ol'Ettucu,tion, 402 U.S. I (1971). In the interval since ,

"white-f1ight" patterns in sonre areas of the state have pre-
vented or revel'sed developing pattet'ns or (lesegt'cgation of
the schools. In consequence, substantial lrockets of tlc .l'aclo
segregation of the rates in public school etlttcaLiott have re-
arisen or have continued to exist to this time though without
the great disparities in public funding antl other support thaL

characterized de ju,re segregation of the schools.

Because significant desegregation of the public schools only
commenced in the early 1970's, most of the black citiz.ens of Ihe
state who were educated in this state an(l who ilre ()v(-'r'll0.yeat's

of :rge attended qualitatively inferior racially segrcglttt:rl pttb-
lic schrxrls for all or most of their primitr.y anrl secotttlat'r'
erlucalion. The first group of black citiz.cns trhtt h:tvc attctlrlt'rl
integraterl public schools throtrghorrt theit' crlttcittiott:tl ctlrc(trs
are just now reaching voting age. In at least lrtt'tial cott-
so(luence of this segregatetl llattern of ptrblic et l ttcltt iolt :t ttr l t ltt'
general infcriority of de jnre segregatcrl lrlitch sclrools. bl:rcli
citizcns of the state rvhr-r ule over 25 yeitr ol'itge ltt'e sttltstuttti:tl-
lv ntore likely than whites to have comltletttl Iess tlurtt l{ \'t:ltt's
rrt'erlucation (114.6% of blaclts: 22.0q(, ol'rvhites), attrl at'c sttlr-
stantitll.y less likel.y than whites to ltave hatl anv schorrlittg
lrcyrrnrl high school (17.31,' of blacks; 29.:ttt of u'hitr's).

ll.rsitlerrtial housing I)aLlr: rns in North (ltt'olitr:t, its uettet'allv
in sta[es with histories of tlc jro'e segt'cgatitttl, hitt't' tt'trtlitionltl-
l.y been separated along racial lines. Th:rt pattet'tl pet'sists
t.orlay in North Calolina generally antl in the arcas cttt'el'otl l).v

the challenged rlistricts specificall.y; in the lattcr', r'irtrrlllv irll
rr:sitle ntial neighbot'hoo(ls al'e raciallv itlerttitiablt'. Slrttt'rvirlr'.



f3:t

lrl r,'l' lr,rlt ,lr',,,1 ,rt','trvir:r,;ts lili,'lr';r. rtltilt'ltott:rt'lrolrlstobe
lr'ltltl)t' t:trr', I tlr:rtt 1'rll'Ch:lsillg'tltpit't't'-irlt'ltt','s ltttrl:ll'e SUb-
.1.rrrl ilrllr r,r,,r,' lilir,lr lo ltt, livittr: in {}\'r't'(:t'rrtt'rlcrl hottsittg,
:ulr.llrrtrl:,r,1 lrrlrl ntu, ol' lloltsinll rVitlr ittltrlt,r;tt;tlr, ;rltrttthitig.

I'l'r,'1, ,'it , , r ,'l .',r,r'tlt ('irlolirr;r lurr r. lristot'ictrlh, sttl'l'eretl
rli.:;r,1, :rnr;r,,,, r'r,i:rl i'.,, 111 \thit(. r'il izetts irt Pttlrlic lrltrl llrivate
Itttlrlo.t llr, rlr I lr,rtll,lr ti'tlct';rl rltltltl11l'l)tr'tlt rliset'itrtittlttirlll laWS

lt'r\'(,, 'rnr,'r llrriI. ltrl to inrJrrove rlr(,nt, thc efli:<'ts tlf past tlis-
crirrrirr;rti,,rr lr(lrinst. blacks in enrpkrl,tnpnL ('ontirttte at presenL
to contrilrrrt,,to tht,ir relative rlisrttlvitttt,itge. ()rr u staLervitle
lrrrsi:i. r,'n''r';rll)' t'r,plillrterl itt Iltc ch:rllt'trgetl rlistricts in this
lr,'l i,,rr, lil;r' lr rr'r,rru':rllvholl krn'r,r'l)irvirrg.iol)stlutttrlotvhites,
ltl' l ,'(,u -i t ,'rrl l.r' srtl'li.r' highcr ittcitletrces ol'ttttt:tttlrltlvnlent. In
lrrtlrlir'{,trll,l ,\ nrr,rrt lrv l.he state, lirt'exirtttplt,, :t higltcr percen-
t:rr1r'ol'lrl;r,'li r,rn1rIo.\r(.(is than of u'lrites is etn;llovcrl at every
s;tl;tt'.t' lor ,'l lr1'lott Jr l3.L)0() l)et' .Ve ttl' lltrl a lriglttf l l)ercentage of
rvlrilc t,nr;,1,r1 ,,r's tltirtt [rlack is elnl)loy(xl ilt evet'y level above
$ I :.1)tx I

Irrrrr:rt|,.1 r'l lr,n(,t';rllrt':rltlr,lllirt'li,'itizr,rrsol'NortlrCarolina
;rt'r,, r)il ;rr:rtlrrlrl,, lrlirrrlr[v irrrlieittot's, ils iI gt'()ul) k.ss plrysically
Irt,rrlllr.'. llrrrrr lr',,rrlrilt,citizttns irs il gt'()ul). Olr lr stateu'itle
lr:r:.is. tlrr,inlrrrrl rrrorlllitY rate (llrt,stunrlrrrrl ht,lrlth nteasrlre
ttstrl lrr' :.,r,'i,louists) is allg.rroxirrr:rtc11' tu'ice ls high lirr non-
tvltitcs llrl'r',lotrtitt;ttr'l)' blacks) its lirt' q,ltitt's. TIris statewide
l'irlrrt',,i-,,,,11r'r';rlly rr:lllicirtcrl irr I\ltcklt,nllrrrg, lt'orsyth,
l)rrllurrl. \\:ri.,,. \\:il:ron, Urlgeconrlrc. antl Nirsh (lounties (all
irrtlrrrlt',1 rr it lrirr the challengerl rnulti-r)rentlx'r districts).
.\r'.rrirr, ,rlt r -rrrtr,uitk, lrirsis, ther rlt'trth r':rt.e is higher tbr black

7.' ,\l lt,;rsl 1'rrr'l irrllY lrt,<'aus(, of this rutttittttetl rlisyrarity in em-

{ 1,1,,.r'rrr,,rrl ',1)1,,rl.l rtrtitios. lll:rck citizcr)s irre tltt'ec tilnes as likely
/:r:, rrlritr,:, tr, lr;r\r,in('omes llelotr tlte lrot'ertv lel'el $0%' Lo

I lrt' ; r Ilr,. rrr,,:rtr lr('orlt(, oI ltlircl< rtit.iztrrs is (i,l.1l';i tltlt ol'ra,hite
I

l,'itt;,,;1' rrlrrt, l;rrrrilits tre r)t()l'e thirrr t.rvice as lil<r:ly as black

f l':rrrrili,,.. lr, lr;r'. r. irrt rln('ri o\'()r'$21).{100; arrrl 2l-r. l(',1 of all black

/ l';rrilili,,i. , ,,r:rl,;rr,,r] to 'i.il'/r ol'$'lrit0 tirlrrilies, lrirvt, tro lllivate
\ r,,lri,'1,, :rr :rrl;rl,l, lirr I r':rttsllortlrl irrrr.

29a

citizens than frir white. attd the life-expcct:tttcv rtf ltl;rcli t'it i;rt'tts

is shortur thitn is that of whites.

()n all the socio-econ0mic factors trcaterl in thc irl,ove littrl-
ings, the stitttts of lllack citizcns as a g1'otlp is lorve t' t lrlrtt is tllat
of rvhite citizens as a group. This is true state rvitle, alxl it is trtre

with respect to every county in each of the distlicts tln(lel'

challenge in this action. This lower socioecot)omic st:rtus gives

rise trl sl)ecial gr,rup interests cetrtere(l ulx)ll those lilctols. At
the sattte time, it ol)erates to hinder the gt'ott1t's ttbility to
participate effectively in the political process an(l to elect rep-

resentatives of its choice as a nteans of seehing governnle!)['s

awarelless of and atteiltion to those itrterests.i"

Other Voting I'rocedurcs Thut Lessen The Opportunitl' Of

, Illack Vr;ters To Elect Candidates Of 'l'heir ('hoice

In arldition to the numbered seat re(luilemcnt anrl the artti-
single shot provisions of state law that wer.e (leclarctl ttttcottsti'Wd.l
tutional in l9?2, see supra p. 28, North Carolina ltas, sittce . !,
1915, ha<l a majority vote I'equil'ement lvhich applies to all Vat ''
primary elections, but not to general elcctions. N.Cl.G.S

$ 163-l I l.r{

'fhe general effect of a majority vote t'equiremeltt is tr-r ntake

it less likely that the can(li(lates of any identiliable voting

?{ There is no suggesti<.rn that rvhen origirlall.y cnacterl irl l'l,li. its;ltttprtsrr
rvas racially rliscritninatory. That p<-rint is irrelevant itt assessitlg its 1rt't'sctrt
effect, as a corttinuerl mecltanisnr, in the totalitl' of cit'e ttnlstltttrt's lrt':tt'ittg
upon lllaintiffs' rlilution claint. .Sr:r' Plrt't ll, .srrltrrr.

alsection 2 claima)rts are tlot t'erluirerl ttl tle tttottstr:ttc by rlirlt't t'r'irlt'ttt'ri

causal nexus lletu'een their relatively rlepresscrl s,rcio-t't'ttturttti('stitttts;ttriliy'
lessening ()f their olrportunity to particilratr: r:fltctivel! irr tlrr' lxrlitr,(rl
l)rocess. See S. Rep. No. 97-'lt?, sr,/r,(l llt)t(. l(), at 2ll rr.ll l. I'rlrlrfr'
incorlxrr':rterl ll'ltite v. Rtlksler jttrisllrurlencc, "l ilrrcrlualit.l'rrl lrccgss is i\l
inference u'hich florvs lrom the existettce oI t'cttltotttic llttrl t'rlttc;tlirttll
inetltralities." Kirksttl v. Bout'd o/ StrTrert'i'sors. 5o'l l".lltl l:]1), I It t;-rth ('ir'.)

cerl . tlenierl. .134 U.S. 1)6tl (197?). I lcltly o{. anV sut,h

inl'erenco frt-ln the evitlence ir_r this cte.



\\:lrill n,r l,l;r,'l.' (';rlr{lirlilto tbr electiort t.o tltt Nol'th (larolinal
(lcrrturl ;\.r.,,,r1lrlr' - t,it ltcr itr thr: r'h:rllt'ttgcrl rlisLlicts or 

I

(,1:i(,\\'lr(f r'(' 11;1.': 'rr, l''tt' lost (or f:rilerl lo rt itt) att t'lt'ction solely I

l,r,r';rrt.,t' ol lltl trrrr,i,rt'itl vote t'etlttit'(rlll('llt, tlte t'tlrlttit'ement/
ll(,\(,1't ltr,l,,:rr.r.irl:. llsit('(rtttinuingl,t'lrctir':rl irrtlxlrlitllontlothel
ol)l)(lrtllni(\' r,l' l,l:rt'l;. r'oting mirtot'ities itt tltt challengetl tlis-'
t.r'icts t,r r.lt','l ,';rtt,lirlltles of thtlir cltoictl.

il0a

nrinori!t rr ill lirr:rlll rt-itt etecLiolls. (ivell t.hc ll('cL'ssity that
llrr,t' ;rr'lri,'r r' ;t r1it.i,rt'ily ol'vgtcs, if ttoL itt ir ttt'st t'lqctirttl, then
(il't'rrlllrl lirrr irr:t t'tttt ol'l'r'lection. Tlris gettt't':tllv lrtlvt't'stl effect
r)lr ilrr\ r'olrr':rl\ (' \'olittll trtilttlfit.y is, ol' cottl's(i. (ll)l)illl(:e(l l'or

r.:tt.i;rl rrrirr,rt'i1., 1.1.rrrr1rs il" its rve lintl lrl lrc l.he lirct in this case,

rt't' tvlt'q 1r1r. lS .ir, t':tliltl lrol:rriz:tti()ll itt yrltittg lritltt-rrns tlso
tri:r{.-.

'l'1r,, N,,r'l lr ( 'rrt'olittit rtrajority vott' t'(xlltirctnont Irranifestly
opr,l';rtls rvillr tltc r{r:rtet'lll efl'ect not('(l tllx)ll o// carltlitlates itt

lrrirrrlrr'.1' r'lt,r't iorrs. Silrce 1950, eighttlen citlttlirlates lbr the
( i.rr,r';rl ,\s:rlrrrlrlv n'ho lerl [irst l)r'ilnal'i('s u,itlt less than a

rrr:r.ioritl ,l' t',r(t's lutr'(r lost run-ttfl' elcctions, as hitve Lu'elve
crurrlirlrrl.t,: lirr otlrrt'statewide offices, inclrrtling ir black candi-
rl:rtc I',r' l,L. ( i'r ct'nor arrtl a black canrlitlitte ftrt'('ottgress. 'Ihe
r',,rllrii'(,trrr, ,ong()-
iu{+-rrx1+++Ilu1grt tY
to clt,t'( r,'lrrrrlr,l:rtt-,s ,rI it-s choice in al]-t, eolltcste(l IJt'imary, and

lrirt i,'rrl;rrlv l rr 11111' r'aci:rl rninority iri a raciatly-I)irlarizeil vote
st,l t irr11'. "'

Nortlr ('rtr',rlinu rloes not have a subrlistrict resi(lency
r'('(lrril'(,nr('rrt lirr tttr:ntbers of the Serrate rrtl(l I{ouse electetl
li'orrr rrrrrlti-trrtrtlrel' rlistricts, a l'e(luil'etnetrt wliich coul(l to
sorrrc rkrgrer, ,rl'llsut thc tlisadvlttr[age tlf atty vrtting nlittrlriL.y in
rrrtrlt i. rrrt,rnlrtt', I ist t'icts. j"

rt i /, !, ,,, ,,, ill l, s i?.1. ;rtri rl!r;:tr

,/ ,l , , ltt

n

v\'

3la

Use Of Racial Appeals In Political Cumpaigns

[,'rrtrn the lteconstruction era to the pt'eseIlL t itlte, alryeals Lo

racial prejurlice against black citizens have bectt cl'l'ectivt'ly

userl by pcrsons, either candidates or [heir suppot'tet's. as il

mea.s oa intluencing voters in North Carolina political cam-

paigns. The appeals have been overt and blatant at sotne times,

moie subtle antl furlive at others. They have tcntlerl to be mttst

overt an(l blataltt in those periorls when lllacl<s wel'(: ,lpettl.v

asserting political anrl civil rights-durirlg the Ittrcottsl rttctiott-
F'usion era an(l during the era of the major civil rights ttlovc'
ment il) the 1950's and 1960's. During the peliotl frorrt r"r. l1x)0

to ca. t.9.llt when black.citizens of the staLe werc generalll'

quiescent under de jure segregation, and rvhen ttrere $'ere l'e w

black voters an(l no black elected officials, racial al)peals in

political campaigning were simply not relevant attd according-
iy'were not used. With the early stirrings of what becitnte lhtr

civil rights movemetrt following Worltl War II, ovttrt racial
appeals reapl)eared in the campaign of some North Citrolitl:t
can(lidates. Though by and large less gross an(l virulent than
were those of the outright white supl'emacy canrpaigns of l-r0

years earlier, these renewed racial appeals pickerl ttp on the
same obvious themes of that earlier tirne: black tlrttnittrttitttt ot'

inlluence over "moderate" or "liberal" whitc' c:tntlirlaLes irtttl
the threat of "negro rule" or "black power" by blacks "llrloc

voting" for black canditlates or black-"tlominatecl" catlrlitlaLes.
In recetrt years, as the civil rights moventent, culmirtating in
the Civil Rights Act of l9M, completed the eratlication of r{r

.jure segregation, and as overt expressions r-rf racist attitu<les
became less socially acceptable, these aplleals have becotne

more subtle in form and furtive in theirdissenrinatiott. lnrt thev
persist 0o this time.

The record in this case is replete with sllecific e.r:trrtltles ol'

this general pattern of racial appeals in political catttltrrigtts. I tt

arklition to the cru(le cartoons and pamphlets ol'[lte otttt'iultt
white supremacy campaigning of the lltlX)'s u'hieh li'rrtttt'r'rl
white politit'al opponents in the company of blirck lrolitit'rtl
lcarlers, later examllles inclutle variotts citnt;laigtt ttt;tl t't'iltls.



il2a

rrnrrri..t;rl,:rl,l, ;11,1,,.;rlirru.to tht,slttrrt,t.:rci:rl li,:rr.s iurtl 1;t.e_

irtrltr','s. 'll;rr '', , r, rli::-r'rrrittatt,rl rltrt'irrll s()nt(,()t t lrt,lttost lt0tly
tontr,.,lr', 1 .t ,t, rri,i,, ,';rrrrpaigns ol'llrt,st;rtc's l'(,c(,llt ltistrlly:
tlrr, lltil ) {'rr:lt ;rrlrr li rr tlrc I lnitcrl SLlrtes Sr.rrirtt: the l9l-r4
,';rrrrluriurr li,r llrt, llrritt,rl States Sr:rlrtt,; tlrc llXi0 ciulll)aign lbr
(iorr,r'rtot :llr,'lllli).t'tlltrlrtrigrrlirr'(iot'r,;'1rrrr'.tlre ll)(il'i l'r'esitlett-
t i;rl ,'rrrrr1,;rrl n in N,rt'l lr ( lirrolirur: tlrl lll72 t'alnllrigrr lin' the
lirritr,,li'lllrl,,)i,,rr;rlr,;rrrrrlrttostl'o('cntlv,ittl.lrcirrrrrrirrcntl9lJ4
.lrtrtl'lrip,rr ll,r' Ilrr ['tritltl Statt,s St'rr;rtc.

Nunr,'l',,rr,, ,'l llt,l' r..\rrl)lllles ol'asstr'lerllv rnot't' strlrtle (brrns
ll"'lt'lr.'gt';r1'lr,'rl" t'ltt'iltl ltplleals itt lt gt'r:ltt lttlttllxll'ql'l9cal rtttfl
sl;rtlrvitl,' r'1,'r'l inl)'r. itlrrrttntl itt tltt' t'ttcgt'rl. Lityittg asitle the
rrrorr, rl lr,nu;rtt',1 tirnrts ol'argttabl.1, t'irciirl alIttsiotts in sonre of
tlrlsr,, \r'r'[11111 llurl. r'at:iul a;t;le:rls irr Nortlr L]arolina political
cirrrrlr:riIrr:. lr:rr',, tirl tlro past thirtv ],eills llcen r,r,irlt,sl)l'ea(l an(l

l)(,I'si.il{'11 .

'l'lrc torrlt,trts rrl'tlrt:se rnalet'ials revcll lu) untnistilkatlle in-
ttrrtiorr Irv llrr,ir rlissenrinators to exl)loit cxistillg l'ears and
grrr'.i rrr l it'r,s i r r r( I I u (' r'citto new fears arrrl ;lrc,.i tulices on t lre llart of
uhilc t:iliz.r'rrs irr lt,garrl to black citizens tnrl tu ltl:rcl< citizens'
Ir;u'l icilrrrlion irt t ht, prlliticttl ;lrocesscs ol' tlre st:rte . 'l'hc con-
t irrrrr,r I ( li,i) i.ln lt r;rl ir r11 1y1'1 hese materiirls throrrglrotrt this l)eriocl
irrrrl rl,,\\'n lr) llrr, 1rrc.<t,lrt timc evirlen(:(,s illl inflrt'tnt,rl I)(rrcel)-
tiott Irv tltr'1,,'t's(]tls tt'h9 ltitve tlissetrriltittgrl t.hgtn that they
lrirvt, lr;rrl l.lrr,il irrtt,nrlctl eflbct tu a rlegree wal'rat'ltit)g their
t'uttt itttlt,rI tt;;r'.

( )rr t lt is l,rr.i,.. u't, liltr I t hat the histolic rrse ol'raciul appeals in
1r'rlililrtl t'rrrrrlrrirllrs irr North (;U,l!tU.l)l!'f!s!! to tlre plresent
1i111r.;rrrrlllrrt rlst,llii.tlFlir'Csently.toltsselrtosorncrlegfeethe
o t-,1 rr;r'11 i-;tt',., 1 ['irir.li ci t izcns -to izrirt ii'i prrt c i.fft:cti vcI in the
t i,t ill l l"Jlffli-, i ;i iiriil'ii rlet t curxlir l;rt cs, rl' t lrt,ir choicc.

'l'lrt l'l rlr.rrl t tl l.llcliorr ()f Ill;rck ('iliztrrs'l'o l'rrhlit. Ol'fice

.\i,r!, ttt,i, ' 1,,,,1 ll lrpPt,ltrs tlrtrt. rritll ottt r,\t,t,ptir-1tt, ttrt
I'l:r,'ll ,'ili ,,rr r ,1,,' 1,,,1'lru'itru'1l1irr.r,nlut'\'to1r11l1li1,ol'l'ir.eitt
\..,,r I lr 1 1i,,lrr r ,ltrt rl trllr,r' \\',rt'lrl \\'rrr' I l. lrr l1l lS lrtrrl rlrtlittg

3ila

the ear.ly l$50's a few black citizens were electetl lo varirtrts citv
council;. Twenty years later, in l9?0, there were in t5c state (i2

black electerl officials. In 1969 a black citizert was elect('(l to the

Statc, I Iouse of [tepresentatives tbr the first tirne sittce Ilecott-

struction; in 1975 two blacks were electerl, fbr the first [ittrc. trr

the Senate. Ifrom l9?0 to 19?5 the number 0f black t'lt'ctctl

officials increaserl from 62 to over 200 statervirle; in lllH2, tlurl

Irumber harl increasetl to 255.

At llresent the nurnber of elected black oflicials t'elttaitts

quite low in relation to total black population, which is22'4'/' of
the state total. Illack citizens hokl 9% of the city cr-ruttcil seats

(in cities of over 500 populaLion);7.J?o of county collllllissiorl
seats: 4(/o of sherifl's oftices; 

^nd 
l%t of the oflices of (-llerk of

Superior court. There are t9 black mayors, 13 of whonl arc ilt

majority black municipalities. of the black city courtcil Inem-

beis, appr,ximately 407o are from majority black mutlicipali-

ties or election <listricts. Three black judges have beetr electetl

in statewide elections to seats to which they hatl beett aJr-

;rcintetl by the Gover.nor'. Other than these ju(lges, no bl:rck hils

yet been elected during this century to an_v statervitle 0l'lice.ttr

io the congress 0f the tlnited States as a rel)resentative oI this
state.

Between l9?l and 1982 there have been, at any givett Littre ,

l-retween two antl four black members of the North (larolitta

House of Representatives out of a totalof 120-be[ween l.(i%
antl l].i]%. F'rom l9?5 to 1983 there have been, at anv givetr

time, either one or two black members of t,he StaLe Seturte ottt

of a total of 5(I-betw een ZVc' anrl 4o/o. Mttst recentl.v' irt l9fj2,
after this action was filed, 1l black citizens rvet'c electcrl to tltc
State Hottse of Represetrtatives. Six of those I I tvet't' t'let'torl
fronr multi-member districts in which blacks coltstitttterl it

voting minority (inclurling 5 of those ehallengetl); i ut'nr
elcctetl from trervly cl'eated rnajority blitck rlistricts.

Histrtlicall.y, in those nrulti-mernber tlistlicts rt ltt't't' sotttt'

blacks ltitvr: sttcceedetl in being electerl. ovet'itll lllltch t'lrtttlirlit-
cics h;tve lleen signilicittlLl.v less successljtI thrrrl u ltitc t'rttttlirlrt-



i|.1; r

t'rr"r f 1;1'., lr,,r.rr ri({lllrr.tttrtlv les.s sn,.r.r,sslirl tlrirrr rvhitt, canditla-
crr,..i. lillrr l, r';rrrrlirl;rtt,s rvho, tletu'r,r'n lll70 irrrrl 1,l,82, won in
I),,trr,m l,r'irnlrlit's in t.he si.r nrtrlLi-rrr()tllb(|t.rlist.rir:ts under
.lr;rll,.rrr,,,lrr,r'r,rvt,r't,llrrqe titnes irs likelv to kxc in theggrelal
r.|r,r.tirrttil,.\\(.l.t,tlr.,i,.ffit';lirt'ts,iifactof
,n L;ffecr of race
itl t lt,,:,r' r'lr','l i6ltS.

In'l'lrr ('hirIlengetl Multi-illcnrhcr I)istrir:ts

I lorr st' I )isl rict il6 ( Nt ecklenhu rg Oount.v ); Srrrate I )istrict 22
(]lr,r'hltnhurg/(llllarrus Courrties). :

lrr tlris ('(,rltury one black citizet) has lrue n elt.cterl Lo the State
llottsr','l' llcpt'r,st-,tttittives arttl 6ne bIack citizerr has been
clr,t'tt,rl (,r 1f 11. S(lnilLt: from IlIecklenbur.g (loLrnty. 'lhe House
rn*rnlrr,r' r'rrs .lcr:tt,rl as one of an e ight-nlenlber tlelegation in
l1),c3, lrl'tq' tlris litu,suit was conltnencerl. Sevelt other black
t'itizcrrs lurrl prt.r'iorrsly run unstrceesslirlly for a House seat.
'l'ltc Sr,ttllr, t)l(,tIttxrt' servcrl As op(., 9f a .l-ntember delegatiotr
li',nt NIt'r'lrlr'nllrrg an(l (;abanlrs (lounties from lg7{-r to 1980.
Sirrc. tlrt,rr tr'rr lrlack r:itizens huvc l.rln succcsslirlly zrrrrl no
l,l;rr^li rroir 'i(,r'\'r,s orr thc Senate tlcltgatiotr.

Sirrt,r, \\, r'lr l \\'ul. I l, blaeks, u,ll, rl.\.r, c,nstitrrtc, ill % of the
('il\:'s l)r)l,ttltrltrrt), lurve beerr r.'lcr.ttrl to thc (litt'(llUncil of
('lt:tt'lotlr', lrttl tllt{,1'iltttttrtlrgt'sl'rrrrt11tslr';lt'6prlt.tigpitl t6tIeir
l)(,1'('r'nl;t,,,rl lltt,r:ilr"s popttllrt.i,rr. l)rrr.ing thc pt,r.irrrl ltl45 to
l1l','.r, rr lr'rr llr,' r'rrrtf rr'il rvls r.ltt'l.rl irll lrr-llt'ur'. lllltr.lts con-
:.lilrrtr',1 , 1', ,,l rl.: nlr.tltl)(,1':rlrilr l,'r.,rrr ll)?? ll[i l, u,herr the
,',,urt( tl ,,. r , lr,, r,,llrlrr.l iallvlrt-l:rrrt.lrrrrl lrirrtiltllvlrvrlistricts,
lrl;r, l. ,,,,,r ' ti , ,,1 |lr. tlistrit.t :.r,lrts t.rtrrlriu.t,rl rvitlr l(i.T9Z of
llrt';rI Lrr

1,,','1r,q

lltrr.li,

,':i1 .. llrortAh lltot'(, Iilt) lirr. tlrc l;rttu. tlriur the

' r; ll.r lrlr'tr r'lr,r'l',,1 (llrrtr, tinrt,s)irtrrlrlt,firatetl
,rr,'lrrrr l, r rrr, rrrl,,,r'- lrilrott tlrt lirr,.nl(,llll)('1.('otttttt'lir:rlrl of
('rrnurri:.,,i,,r1,t":, itlrl lrr.esentll's()t.\,('s. '1,'r'. Sllrcli t,it.izens have
Ir.r'rr t'llt'r., I :ulrl n()\\' serve ort thc rrirre-tnenrller.( iorrrrLy Iloartl
ol' l'.rlrrr':rl r,'rr.

ll5a

F.ollowing trial of this action, a black citizen u'ns elecLerl

mayor of tt; City of Charlotte, running as u f)enlocl':lt against

" 
*hit" tlepublican. The successful black can(li(lilte, tI wi(lel.v-

resl)ecte(l architect, received approxima[el.y l]8%, of tlre u'hi[e

vOte.

Ilouse District No. 29 (part of !'orsyth County)'

Before 19?4 Black citizens had been electecl to the City
criuncil of winston-salem, but to no othel public office. In 1974

and again in l9?6 a black citizen was electe(l to the l-louse of

Repre.sentatives as one of a frve-member clelegation. Irl l[)7f]

an(i lgiJ6 other black citizens ran unsuccessfully for thr: gottse.

ln l9tl2, alter this litigation was commenced, two black citizens

were elected to the House.

. No black citizen has been elected to the senate frorn Forsyth

County.

. since 1974, ablack citizen has been elected, twice failerl to be

reelected, then succeeded in being reelected to one of eight

seats on the otherwise all-white Board rif Bducation: an(l

another has been elected, failed to be reelecte<|, then sttc-

cee(led in being reelected to one of five seals on the othcnvisr:

all-white Iloard of County Commissioners.

House District No. 2l| (Durhlm Oounty)' /
Since l9?l] a black citizen has been electerl s11'11 111'o-\'clrr'

ternr to the State [louse. No black citiz0n ltits beett t'lcet.r.'rl trt

tht, Sonil[c. Since 11)(i9, blacks have bcen clcctetl to t ltc Ilrxtt'tl

of Oounty Ortrnmissiotlers, atl(l three of tlvelve [)trrlrirnr (]ily
Oouncil members are blacks elected in at-large ek-'t'tiotts. 'l'ltt:

()ity of Durham is 47% black in population.

llouse l)istrict No. 2l (Wake County). /
A black citizen has been twice electetl Lo the Stit[e [lousc

tive-nrember delegation from this district anrl is prescrrtly

servin!{. Another biack citizen was electetl lirr Lwo tcrrns t0 the

State Sertate, serving from 1975 to 1978.



3(ia

r\ lrl;r,'li ciliz,,rr lr:rs lret,tr twice electetlSlreritf of !Vake (loun-
t.y altrl is 1rrt,:rcrrtll irr tlrat oll-rcc. Another hlack citizt:tr, rvho
Iivcs in rur ;rl'llrrt.rrl u'lritrr neighborhood, hlrs sc,rverl since lt)72
as tlrt,onlv lrlrrt'li ,rr the sev()n-metnber County Iloarrl rrl'(lonr-
nrissiortrrs. .,\rrolhlr lrllrck eitizen, elecLetl fronr a rna.iori[y
bluck rlistrit't, sln'r,s;rs ther <inly black on the nine-rnelnber
Cotttttt, St'lrool l'irxrl'rl. ,,\rrother trlack citizcll serverl one ternt
as rnit\'ol' ol'llrt, ('ilr' ,rl'lt:rleigh from lf)73 to ll)75, anrl still
arrotlru' s('r'\'(,ri on tlre [ialeigh Ci[y Cotrncil.

lLrusr. l)islrit't No. I'l (Edgeconrbe, Nash, Wilson (,'ounties).

'l'hcre lllrs nr.,r'r.r' lrr,t,rr a lrlrrck membt-.r of the SLate I-[ouse rir
Settatc li'orrt l llt' rrrr,it r.o'"'ert,rl b.y this district. 'fhere hltl ncver
tleett:r ltllrck nrlrnlrr,r'ol'the Board tlf County Cornnrissioners of
any ol'(lrt,tlrrr,r,('ollrt.i(,'s rrntil lgtJ2 u,hcn two [rlacks rvere
ek,ctcrl to thr, {'ivr,.rrrt,nrlrtrr lioarrl in F)rlgecornlrc County, ilr
whit,lr lrl;r<'lis r.rrrr>l ilut. ljl,,i rrt'tlre r.egist.cl'erlvrrtcrs. In !Vilson
(lottnt)',rvlrr,r'r'llrtlrl;rt'l<1ro1rrrl:rtiorrisliti.S'7ol'thetotal,orreof
tlittt'tttltttlrr,l'snl llrll'rrtlt)tllioartl ol'[]rltrr.lrti,,rrislrltrtk. lnthe
('itr',,1 \\'il,.r,rr.rrlrr,'lr i.:r1\'r,l'l()T,blirckilrp.prrllrlion,orrtofsi.x
,-'itY r',run{'illnr,n I l,l:r, 1..

Sr.rurlr. l)i.lrir'l '.,r. 'r \rrrllr;rrnlrlon. lltr'l lirrrl. (lirles. lltrtic,
('ltrtrr;ttt. :lr1l ;1 1,t i,rl \\;r.lrilrgllr't, ll;r1lirr. ll:rlil':tx rrlrrl

I lrlr',,r'orrrlrr. ( lotrrrl ies l.

No lrl;tcli Ir(,t's,rlr lr;ts,,'"'r,l'lroen electerl to t[re Stal c St,n:tte
tirrrrr irrry ,l'llrr, iu.(,il ('{}\'r,l'erl by the distr.icL. ln the lirst lilur
yelt's. lrl;rcli t,:rrrrlirl;rl.s lr:tvr,won three electiotrs fur the State
II()tls('h'ottt ;tt'r'rt,-r rr illritt tltc lxrt'ders of Lhis rlist.t'ict, orrt'irr l{lt]0
in rr nrrr.i,r'ilr'-ir lritr, ntulti-rrrt'rnber clistr.it.t, tu,o in l1).ti2 in tlii-
I'et't,rrl nlr,i,,r'ilv lrlrr,'l; rlist rir,ts. In Gatts ('out)t\,,, u'lrt,r'r, -l[X?,

of tht'l'('tli:it1't'r,11 ,.,,Ir'1's ;11'1, [llack, t Iirck eitiz,t:1 [irs trt'grr
electerl tutrl Prr'.,,,rrtlr' :.cl.l'r,s as Clerk of (_'ourt. In I{alilax
(,lottttlr', l,llrt'li ,'iti:,,rrs lurvt.r'1p successlirll.l, lirr.the I|tirptl of
Llorrrrtr' (',nrrrris:,i,,rr,,r's rrnrl for Lhe City t louncil of Il,oarroke
ltal,irls.

[,ookingonlytothesebasichisttrr.icalfactsrespectingblltck
citizens' election to public office, we draw the follorving ill-

ferences. 'fhirty-f,rve years after the ftrst successftrl canrli<la-

cies f.r public oifrce by black citizens in this cenLury, it has n,rv

uu.u*"'pu,tsible for black citizens to be electetl to olfice at all

Ievels of .state government in North carolina. The charlces of a

black candiclati's being electecl are better where the canditlirc.y

i, in, majority-black constituency, where the cancliclacy is in a

,ingl"-mu*ber rather than a multi-member or at-large dis-

ir.fi, ,uh"re it is for local rather than statewitle oflice, anrl

where the black canditlate is a member of the political partly

currently in the ascen(lancy .with voters. Relative ttl lvhite

cancliclatls running for the same of'tice at whatever level, blae k

cilndidates remainat a disadvantage in terms of relative proba-

bility of success. The overall results achievetl to clate at all

l"veis of elective office are minimal in relation to the ,er('ell-

37a

tage of blacks in the total population. 'Iherc are intimations

trom rec.ent hi,stgfv. particuially Lrom the 1982 glection"t,-[ltit!a

iT|--t* uir * t.r u t i a l bre a kt h t'o t r gh o f sr t ccess eou l t l be i t ttrt i tt e l t t --
b' tTherc wel'e etrou gh obv ious ly-a-be rrational :us}ec Ls 1)L'eset t L

ir lrt!..'''r:
.*,.ul,rti,,n.rt ln anv event, the success that hils bee tt acltit'r'etl

liffinrlirlates to date is, sLatttling altltlc, too mittirttrtl itt

tofal nunrbers unrl too receni in relation to the lottg histtlrv ol'

complete rlenial of any elective opportunities t0 com[)el or cvctt

2? lioth llartit,s offeretl evitletrce-anectlotal, inlbrrnerl "la.v opiniott," fltrtl

rlc,cumentary-to establish on the one hanrl that recettt black sttccessts

inrlicaterl ari establisherl breakthrough li'onr any preexisting racial vote

rlilution antl ott the other, that those successes are tgrt "hap[itzat'rl" :ttrrl

alrcrratiortal in lertns of specific canrlirlaeics, issttes, antl prrlitical trettrls rtttrl'

in any event, stilt too mininral in numbers, to support an1'such ullitrtrrlrl

inl'cr.i,nce. Ileavily e,rnphasizerl with resplect to successlitl trlack t'attrlirl:rt'rrs

in l1)112 was tlte l'rrct that in some electiorrs the llenrlencl' ol'tltis vcr.Y lit igrrl tort

g,orksrl a orre-tirne arlvanl.age frrr black canrlitlates in the lirrnr ol'tttlttsttal

orgarrizerl glolitical support by rvhite leatlers cont:ernetl to fot't'strrll

r;irigl"-,nonrLer rlistricting, anrl that this cannot be expectetl to rrtcttt'. ()ttr

nniilng, as statcrl in text, reflects our weighing of these conflictirrg

inl't,rences.



lJlta

;rrgrt:rlrl1,to srtpprtt't att ttltimate finrlirrg that a black candiclate's
nrcr is rru l,,nqct'rr signilicartt, atlvet'se factor in the ptllitical

lrl'o(:(,ss(,s ol' tlrc stat*-either getteritlly ot' sllecifically in the

ru'r':rs ol' tltt clrrrll*tlgerl rlisLricts.

Itirr:iirl l'olarizatirltr in Yotirlg

SLrt isl it:rrl lvirltnt't' 1rt'esenterl try rltrlv tlttalilierl exllert wit-
t)(,ss(,s lirr' lrllrirrlill>, srtpplctttt'ttLt'tl to srtll)t) tlt'gtrrt' llv clirect
tostirrrorrt'r,l lrrl tt il ttcsscs, estltlrlisltt's, illltl rt'tl I'irrrl, l.hat rvith-
in lrll I lr,'r'lrlrll,'111'1',1 rli.t t'it:ls t'itt'iltllr' ltolltt'iz.t'rl votitttl o.\ists in
:r lrlt'rri:,lr trl ;tlrrl .r't ll'r' rlegt'tlt'.

\l rrlt i-illcnrlrr:r I )ist ricls
'l'',;rulrl',', I1r,,, 'lrlr,rr('pittttlt,x(r'ttl ol';ttr1't'itliltllr'prllat'ized

v.1 1111, 1,, il,, , lr rll, ,rlr.,l tttttll i-trtt'trtl)"t'(lisl ricts. l)r'. lJernarcl
( it'llrrr;ut. r ,l,ri ,rrrrrlil'ir,rl t.:rptt't tt'il.ttt'ss fot' plirirrtifl'.s, lrad

r'rrlli,t.lr..l:llt,|trtr|it,rlrl:ttali.rrtttililstlt@-
t r t rr rs ittr', rl r i t r r l rlr tck,:,,ttrlirffililil,ltJr r: challettgerl rnulti-
rrrcrnlrt,r' rli:il lilts.r' ['lirsctl upott t.w() cotltl)letnL'Ittat'.y ntethotls
o('lrrlrllsis ol llrt collt't'tctl tlala.re (it'otntatt g?lve as his opinion,
lrn,l rr r, lirrrl. llr;rl in r.irch of the elct'tiotts atlttl.\'ze(l-racial
lrol;n'i;:;rti,,tr ,li,l ',',ist rrttrl thltt tltt' rlt'gt'ce t'evt'itlt'tl in ertry

" Irr, lrr,l,,,l ,r, r',. :rll tlrr, r.k','tions for tht, ( icnt.t'ltl ..\ssttttltl]' l,Il'hiShfhglg
rvr't' l,l;r,'l' ,;11q,11,1,rt,,. in ]lr,cklettlrur'g. l)urlfal]r, aul [-ots]lh Crun-ty;
,@{,f rrp{ent :rtj+r$-i.t+lvi.l$lrl}.{',rlgecunrLre, anrl
N;Flil-;nrilrr r,: . I r ril ,,l.,lt i,rrrs li,r'thc Stlte ,Sqg[11[n e drar:t!r.s ('outttY for the€,,l s iu-cach .f
11',1, ,,rr. l:.lFri,uuL";ull-$iiu;lr--C+uuti+s- itr rvhit'h thtrc rvt're black
r':utrllrl:rlr,:'llr,,.,ll.,lr,r'liuttsitteltttletl-lrolhlrt'ittt:trvatrrl tlt'ttctlrl llt'ctirltlsattrl
lr,Il'r!!r'|lll{ rl ;1 lol;tl rrl :il rllllirlertt t'krCtiott ('ollt('sts.

'" llr,,l,\r nr,'tlr,rls r'nllrlrrltrl, lxlth stitttrl;tt'rl itr tlre litt'r'irtttnl for thc
Itttltl' .i,.,rl t :t, t.,ll. 1,,,1:rrilr',1 vrrting, \\'(ln'lrrl ',l ntl an
'',.,,,1,,r,r;rlr',,, r,,rr,rtr:rll i:..'l'ltr,r,rtt'r,nrr,,';tsttttitlvsislix'ttsr'sonvotiltg
||mr.r,,is:tllr.|.(,Kl.l.<:i|)ll:ttlitlrsistl:t'slx)thr.ar:ially
,,,(.t,i:rlr.(l.rrl,l,.r,'.rll,rntt,.,l1rt'ut'int'tstrttrllt,,r'itlr.sttttvcttt'tt'ttilttnrtltltod

l,,r'r,llr,'t ,1,, I r' r1,,1 ,,rr'l ttttltttrvnt\'1rr'sttt;tt ltlltitrt'rlilli'r't'rrtlr'. lrll)r.
llrrrrlnillr. r'oltlittilr'rl otr ilt,xt llitge)

39a

election analyzed was statistically significant' in the sensethat

;i;;;;iitv or itt "t*tting 
bv c{a1ce was less than 

'ne 
tn

100,000;:r' and that ;;;ifilt?wo of. the elections the tlegree

revealed was so *";;; ut in U" sub.stantively signilicanL' in

the sense that the ;;il; iheintliviclual election woul(l htrve

ffisultsunr-lerbrrthlnethodscrtnfortntltlcltlselvitttntlst
cases. 'rhe purpose "f 

b;;;";;ih:tls is. simplv t:.S:-J.:'i:i::;:li:l\i:l
i;;ili.l; lili*l'I,HTilffi","'irii"..,,rr; t'o, each .th.' irr r.r:rti,rr r, *rt'

race of canrlitlates'

[)efentlants' tlulv qualifietl expert witness.' Dt" 'l'hottras lloft'lL'r" hirrl

sturlierl l)r. Grofman'- tl;;;';;'itil mrtthematics of his analvsis of tlrat rlata'

anrl treartl his live testimo"riy. g"iJ" rro, two mathematical or tylrogr':rphicill

erroni, I)r. ,,feller did noiquestion thc acr:uracy ofthe clata, its atlrrlttacy as

61:gti6nle sarnple f.t th" il;;;;;:;;i 'h"' 
ihe methotls of analvsis userl

were statttlar<l in the [t;;l;;;' i" tlue-stionerl the reliability of att extreme

<:ase analysis stanrling fi;"il;t'irxlicate.' Dr' Grofman's rlid ,ot stanrl

alone. I)r. llofeller "lt'';;;;;i;;;tl 
D'.' ctnf*"n's failttrc to make att exact

count of voter turn-out iy t"tu rather than usinu estinraterl figtrrts' The

literature mat u. no ru.f, iJ,.""a "ir.".l.ion 
in uUtrinrg this l'igrrre, ^it] l"

(]rofman's method "f 
.;r*;;;;1.'"..-pt"a' Dr' Hofeller rnatle no specific

,,,,gg"t,i"" of error in the hgures used'

lVehaveacceptedtheaccuracyantlreliabilityofthqthrtac<lllectt:rllrnrltlrr,
nrerhorrs ,f anarysis ;";i;;.;Jr. ilrot*r,, for the purprses_,rff,'r't'rl. 'r'lrr'

gtneral reliabilit-v of Otl'Ci"f*an's arulysis was furthcr cottltrmcrl bl' thr'

restinrony of Dr. The<x1o;;1;;";r,,, a duly qualifierr exqrert rvirness [or tlre

I,rrglr inrervenor-plaintiffs, sre iiot" 4, srrzru. procer:tling by a s.r,ewlrat

tlifferent nrethotkrlogy a"a'utl^S aifftrent da!a' Dr' An'ingtorr camc trl tlrtr

same general .on.lu'it.)it't"'p"tiint{ the extent of racial lxrlarizatio|| in the

n"rru*"t area of his sturlY'

:o These conclusions were reachetl by tleterminirlg the correlatiott ttt:trveen

the voters ,[one r.ce 
"niiit 

n number of vrlters whi, votctl firr ' t't"t1't1xte of

slrecifietl race. ltr ""p"ti;;;' 
coffetati'ns above att absrtlttte valtte o[ 'ir itt'e

relatively rare anrl t"toi"ti"nt above '9 extretnely rare' All cort'clatiotts

fountl by Ur. Cror*aniniil"r"t'l""t ttu<lie<l-had absolute values betrveen '?

and .98. with mosr ;;;.;.-ilis reflected staristical signilicance at the

.0fix)l level - p,nu^ffi;; J;;;" as explanation for the coitt''irlcttco ol'

voter,Santlcantlirlatu,*,u..lessthantlneinl0(),(XI],.Cl.llli,,rr.l''rt','tt.
st2ru, slip op' 30-it2 

"'lil;;m-|;t;lrle 
analysis of racial vott' polalizrrtiott ln'

correlatit-rn coeflicients)'



4()a

tltrt,nrlil'li't'r'rtl ,lr'1r,'tttlillgtlponwhetheritharlbeenltrlklamong
rirrlv t lrc tr lril,' r'otll's ot' ()t)lv the blae k vott)rs in the election.'t'

.,\rlrlitiorrrrl l':rll:, t'r't'eitlctl by this rlirtir stt;lllttt't the ultirnate
trrrr linq t lr;rt slvcl'r' (sttlrst;ttttivel.t' sigtrilirritrtt) raciitl ltolat'iza-
tion tri:,l r,rl in llrl tttttlli-tttttttlret'rlis(r'it't tllt'tiotts c,rttsitlcretl
;rslrulr,,lr,,''lnn,rttrol'tlrtelectiotts. lrt'ittt:tl'\'(tl'gell('t'al,tlirl it

lrl;r,'li cirrrrli,l:rl, t,'r'r'ivr' ;t tttlt.iot'ity ol'u'lritt' l'tlt('s cirst. (.)n tlte
;t\'(,r'lrr'.r'. sl.,', ,'l irltitl vrttt't's rlirl trot vott lirt'ltttt'hlack
t'lrrrrli,llrl,, itr I l1r' 1,r'lnrirt'r ektt'tit,tts. llr tlrt' 1{('llt'l':ll t'lectiotts,
rllrilt'\rtll",lrlrrr,,,1 :rltr';tt':rl'tlll((r(lltl;rr'lir:ittttlirllttcst'itherlast
ut'r)r,'il [. l;r t irr llt. rrtrtlti-clttttlirl;rtr, lir'lrl t'xt'epl itr lttlavil.v
l)r,trror'r';rti,'rrr,'r . itr llrr':.t' lltttlr', ulritt' t'tttt'l's t:(tllsisL()lltly
r';lrltlrl lrl;r,'1. , ;rrr,lt,l;r1,,-, l:t,.1 lltltrrtlll l )r'tllo('l'itts il' ttot litst Ot'

ncrl to lrtsl lrrrlrnl ltllr';rttrlitlittcs. lrr lirct, ill)l)l'()xitIl:ttt'l.y trvo-
thir', ls ol' rr ltilr' \'otll'S rIitl nrit vote li)l' lrlack calttlirlates in
gt'rrcr':rl t'lt,r'tiotts r'\'('n alter the canrlitlate harl woll the f)enro-
o'rrt it' l)l'ir)riu'\' ltttrl I lttr rltrlv choice wils to vote li)r a Itellublican
ol'no on('. lil:r,'li ittcrttttlrcncy alleviirterl tlte genc'ral level of

lrol:tt'iz.:rtion l'r'i,'itl'rl, lrrrt it rlirl not elittlittate it- Some black
int'rrrnlrlnls rr' r'('r'r'{'l('('t('rl. btrt t)ottt.'I'et't'ivcrl a tttit.ioritv of
u'lritr' \'r111,;r 1'\ r'r) \\ ltctt llte elr:ctiott \\'ils esselltiitllv ttncon-
It'str,rl. lit,;rtrl,lir':rtt vrttt't's were nrt,t'e tlisllrlscrl ttt vrtle l'tlr

rl 'l'1r,. I \\,, ,.\l lrl lo,r: in\'{rl\ t.rl lgtJ? $,11[e ilrrrrsc ckrctiotts irt l)ttt'hant antl
\\'lrll,( 'rrrrrrt lr,.r. 1 1,-11,.1 1 ir r,l1'. 11p ryhich black cittttlitllttr's u etrt clecletl trt seats

irr rrr;r.i,'r'ill ulrtl, rrrtrlti nlltlrlx't'tlistricts. li,rtlt tvtt't iltt'ttrttlrt'nts, attt.l in
I)rn'lrlrrrr(ounlvllr,,r','tr''r'('r,ttlYt'a'rlrr'hittt'itttrli,littcsintltet':rctftrrthrec
:r,;rr:. >r, llrirl llr,.l,l;r,l','ltr,lirl:rtt harl io uitr.'llrottglt t'aclt blirt'k catrtlirlate
\\'otr, ilr.illrIl' r',.,,',,r',1 ;t ttt;tjot'll.\' tlf tlre $hll(' \ott't'its(. 'l'ltcst'irvrl tlxt'tlt'
Irrrrr- rli,l n,l ;rlt, r I tr' t lr,rlrrriur'> cortclttsiott tltirl. itr ltis tt'l'ttts, t';r,'iltl prtlat'iza-

lir,trlrrtlr,,r.l,r!i,,ri .r!r,rli,'i'(l:r:t;rwhol(,sttssttlr.l lttttitrlll'sigrrilicirrrt.Not'tlo
llr,.r' :rll,.t'rrul ltr,l1111' ro I ltr' ,lrttte el'li't:t.

li: l),,li.rrrl;rrrl , \1,,.r'r 'rilrrr,:.:,;ttestiotrerl tlrr,irt.r,ttt';rcyofartl'rrgrittiottasto
1|11,".rr11r:l;rrrlir,," rr,!,rll,iln('r,,'{statislicallvsiplrrilitirrttritciallx,litt'izittirlttin
l,,linr,tlr.rl ,li,l ri.r r:r(1,,r'rrr:rll ol thc cit'cttttrstilnc('s thlrt rnight itrtltrertce

Iirrttcrrl;rr\,,r,. r,,rt,inll('rtl;rt,,l,'ctiott.'l'lrisl'lilsitttltt'fltr:r'oltllrlgetteral
u:.,,. itr lrlir':llr'n.rrr,l rr llrl r,'nr.l'ttl social st'it'ttt'r: litr't'ltt,tttr', rll'crrt't'elation
irrr:rlr',i. lr.. l lr,. -t;,rr,l,rr,l rrrr.t lr,r,l li,rrlrtr:t'ttrintttg ttht,tltcr votc rlihrtion in thc
L.[;tl t-rl,'tInlt'.r.r.r'tr I r,\is(:, il usc e(,1)ct'(L'rl lr\' rlt'l'errtliltlt's e\l)ert.

' 4la

white Democrats than to vote for black Demt)crats. The racitl
polarizatiort l'evealed, of cout'se, runs both wAys, but it u'as

much more disadvantageous to black voters than to rvhitc.

Asitle t).om the basic population antl registererl voter rnajrlrity
advantages harl by white voters in any racially polat'izerl sct-

ting, ferver white voters voted for black catrrlirlates thalr rlirl

black voters for white can(lidates. In these electiotts, l sigrrili-

cant segment of the white voters woul(l llot vote fot'ltttY hlitt:l<

carrrlirlate, buL few black voters \\'oul(l ll()t vote lirt'ltttl' rvhitc 7'
can(li(latL,. one revcale(l collseqtletlce of this rlisatlvarltage is \
that to have a chance of success in electing cantlitlates o[ their /
choice in these districLs, black voters must rely extensivel.l'on I

single-shot voting, thereby lbrfeiting b.y practical ttecessity

t,heir right to vote for a full slate of carldi(lates.

The racial polarization revealed in the multi-menrber elec-

tidns considered as a whole exists in each of the challenged

districts considered separately, as indicate<l by the following
specific finclings related to elections within each dislrict'

House l)istrict No. 36 And Serrate l)istrict No- 22
(lltecklenburg And Cabarrus (}runties).

In elections in Hottse District No. 36 (Mecklenbtlrg OounLy)

between l9U0 and 19U2, the tbllowing pel'ceniages ol blacl< antl

white voters voted for the black candidates indicatetl:

Prinrury Genexrl
White llkrck lVhite f]latk

l.9ll0 (Maxwell)
l9|t2 (Berry)
19tJ2 (ltichardson)

22 7r
50 79

39 7r

28
42
29

92
t)2
iiu

In elections in Senat€ District No. 22 (Mecklenburg itn(l
Cabarrus Counties) between l$78 anrl l1)t12, the followiltg;rt't'-



.l2a

('('nt;rrlr': ,J r1 lr!, .,r,1lrl:rr,l.l votct.s volr,rl ljrt.tlrc lrllrr,lt (,an(li-
rl;rt r,:: irr,lir.:rr,., I

l'ri tttrtrtl (]r,ttt'nt!
ll'lttte lllrtt'l; ll'ltttc lltrck

t1
.).)
*i,

.). )

. )-

'l'lrt'llrct tlrrrl r,:rrrrli,l;11.. lllr.t'Vt.er:t,ivt,rl vol csl.r.onrolrehlrlfof
tlr. rr lrilr, \ rr(,r': irr llrr, 1,r.irnlrr.l' (hres rr,t irlter. tlt. c,rrr_,lusion
l.lrrt tlr.r'r' i:. ..rlr: rrrrrlilrl r.rr.ilrllr, ;lrlrtr.izr,rl '.tirru irr I\l.t,liler-
Irrrru ( 'runt.,, irr ;,1 

j11s;,1.1,,s. 'l'l1g11. it.r,r.r, orrlrscvtLLfL!U!L: !,ifftjlirl;rtr.s l',,r'(,rlrlrt 1,,, rtr,,rrs irr tl[,rinir:,,iil;iil;i,iA;.iiliiutu
hrrrl-lii-lrr;-i,l;,;ii;i -[l;,,.,,, - lhi,iniiunrbent chirir]urair ol tlri,'fjmrrf
ril' ltlTrri;rTi,,ri. -'i'r,rrl.,,,l llrst runong rrlirr.k v,tr-,r.s llul se venth
lllll(rllrl r|ltil t",.

'l'lrt',rrrl'r,l lr, r lrl,rr'1, r.;rrrrirlirt. rr.ll, ir1r1,t.,r:rr,ltr,rl t..t,ei'ingas
rlriurv ir: lt;rll ,,l'l lr, rq t1rr, r',r.s \t,irs l.'tr,,i r\l,..rlur,l,,r,, r,rr,,,ri,ig.in
tlr. l1)'ir; s,'ri.rr'l)r'rr.r\ ;l:. lul itrt,ttnt[r.trt. ..\lt,.rattrlt,r.r.;tniierl
laI:rt ltttt,rlrt, rrlrit, 1.,,'(,t.i itr llte 1tfitt1tt.t,:rtrrl rr.rrrtltl ltil,t,tlgett
tl.lt'rr(r'rl rl'llrt'r,1,'ri,rr hrrrl lltreir hckl .rrl'lurr,ng tlrt,r'lrite
t,ot-t't's.

_. 
1\l)lrt'o\inltlt,li tirt', ol tlrr. n'hitg v6tr,l,s ygLr:rl f,rt. ttgitlter

[]t:r'r'r' rrot' r\ lr,\lur,lr,t. irr t]rtt gerreral t,lct,tiun.

llorrrc l)i::lrir.t N6. llg (t,'rlrsl.tlr |grrnt.r ).

Irr ll,rrs.irrl.':,,ri,rrr,r'lr.r'ti,,sitrli-,r's.vt[r(.:r)lrrt], 
l'r.r_rrrr l1)7u_

ll),Jl.tlrr. lirll,rr irrr, ;,r,1.1,1,1y1irg3s gf wlrite, itlrllllack i,,te.s v,terl
lirr tlrt' l,llr,'li,'trrr, li,i;rtr.s iprlicaterl:

ll)15 1 r\ ltrrlrrrlr,r. r

I l)!l(l (..\ 1,,1,;1 1 1, 1,,,.,
ll)l.il ( J'olk )

lll;,\ llt,tt:tt'
Itetrrr,,rlr', ll.
Not'rttrttr
lloss
Stltttl lt' ( lit,lrrrlr. i

l'ri tnartl
ll'ltitt IJluck

rj7 ,l I lt"l
7lJ nii.r n/a
rJ3 :lJ !f4

(]ertrrol
llthilr lllu&

:ii
s
IT

I l,'; r

iti
2t)

irl]
I li;l

'1.)

n/u
t1/lt

:13

1):l

llia
Ilrlil

2lt

43a

' Prirnary ()ertextl
Wlite Black White lllack

l!),\0 Itortse -

Kennedy, A. 40 tl6
Norman ltJ 36

19U0 Senute -

Srnall 12 6l
l9tl9 llouse -

llauser 25 tJO 12
I(cnnecl.y, A. 36 tl? 4(;

As revealed by this data, no black candirlate, u'hether suc-
cesstul or not, has receivecl more Lhan 40o/o of the white votes
cast in a primary, an(l no black candidate has receiverl nrore
than.16% of the white votes cast in a general electiotr tlurirrg the
last four elections.

Though trlack candiclates Kennedy and l{auser rvon lhe
Ilouse election in 1982, this tloes not alter the conclusiorr Lhat
substantial racial polarization ofvoting continued Lhrough that
election. White voters ranked Kennerly antl Hauser scven[h
antl eighth, respectively, out of eight candiates in the gerrcral
election. In contrast black voters ranketl thern first anrl secrintl
resl)ectively.

House l)istrict No. 23 (l)urham County).

In House and Senate Elections from 1978 through l1lU2. the
following percentages of white anrl black voters voLetl lbr tlrt,
black cutrtlitlates indicated:

Prirttttrtt ()ctterul
lYhite Black Whitc lllurk

1!)78 Seruile -

llarns (ltepub.)

l97lJ IIonse -

Clement
Spraulrling

ilz rxi
n/:r n/ir

n/a

tt?
I ).1

nla

nlanla t7

n/a

3?

l-r

t/a
ull

r0
l6

89
,L)2



.l2a

r'r,s1l;11,1,.r ul rr lril,,;tttrl lrl;tck vrtl.el's votcrl tirt'the lrl:rck cltnrli-
,l:tl r,s itrrli'';r1,,,1.

I'ri tttu t'r1 (]tttrrul
llthilt lilttcA' ll'hitt lJluck

I l)ili r,\ lr.:',trrr, llr r

I llsll (,.\ lr'',lrn, lt,r' t

lils" tl'ollit

.t7

2:]

,\r .ll 1).1

?,1 rl/a n/a
;|? 8:i ,,. ) 1).1

'l'lrr,l;rct Ilr:rl ,':ur,lirl;rl,' Br''t't'1't'eclivt'tlr-ott's I't'ottt otttt ltalf tlf
t lrr, u'lrit r' \' rt.r':, irr t ltr' pt'itrtitt'v tLrt's ttot itltel' tht collcltlsion
llurl tlrlrt, ir: .rrlr::lrnti:rl r':tciilll)' ltollrt'iz.r'rl votittg irr Nlccklen-
lrrtrt ('orurtl ttr l,r'ittt:tt'i,'s. 'I'hot'c \\'t't't'r-,ttlv s('\'('ll rr'[ritt'call(li-
rllrlt's lirr r,iulrl lrrrsitirrns itt the ltritnirl'rtttrl otte ltlrrck cattrlirlale
Iurrllolrtllt,,'lr.rl lirn')',tlteitteumb('t)tchilil'lnitttofthcBoartl
ol' l'ltlrtt':rtrorr. r':ttrli,'tl lit'st antottg blach votet's but sevellth
lilnong rtlrit,'r..

'l'lrr',rrrll .l lr,,r'lrlirt'k t'rrnrlirltttc rr'lro irpltt't'l:tchetl reeeivitrgas
ltllur\';rs lrrrll ,,l llrl rr ltit(,\'()tes u'us Irt'crlr\le.rulttlet', t'utttrittgin
tlrc l1)'i5 Sr,rr;rtr, lrrirrlrr'\, as an incutltbeltt. Ale.rantler I'atlkerl
l;rst ;rnrorrrr rr lrilc votet's in the llritttury arul u'ottltl ltave beelt
rlt,li,rrlr,rl il'tlrt,t,k:tiotr ltutl been ht'lrl ottly umong tlre rvhite
..'r,t(,1's.

Alrlrrorirrr:rlllr' (i(l':i ol' the whitc vottrl's voterl frrt' neither
Iitrrv nor' ..\l',\:rrr(l(,r' in the gt'tterirl clet'tion.

llorr:c l)istrict No. llll (Pors.vth County).

Itr llorr:.r,rrrrrl St,turt,r: electiorrs in I"ors.yth CottttL.y fi'om l{)?lJ-
ll)rif t lre lirlllrr irru lrtrrt:clrtages of n,hite anrl blai:k voters votetl
lirr I lrt lrlirr.'ll crrrrrlirllril,s itttlicatc,rl:

I'rinturrl ()rttt'ru|
While lJltrrk ll'hitr lllurk

2s
l'{

r7
I I it

7ti
llt

ltir

1 l:i
It/it
l)il
:5

43a

Pri'ntary ()enerul

Wlite Black White lllack

19t10 llouse '
Kentrerly, A.
Norman

1980 Senute'
Small 12

1!)8! House '
Hattser
Kennedy, A.

25 80 -," 42;-- i;

40 86 32 96

lU 36 t/a rVa

n/a

tt?
1).13(i

nla

10

l(i

n/a6l

As revealed by this <l.dJt/no black cantli4ate, whether suc-

cessful or not, has rgeelfed rnore than 407o of the white votes

cast in 
^ 

pimq,yl'lnd no black candidaLe has receivctl more

tn6wt ite votes cast in a general electiort tluring the

elections.

'6nuugl, black canditlates Kentletly antl tlauser \\'on Lhe

House eiection in 1{)tJ2, this does not alter the conclttsion that

substantial racial polarization of voting contintlc(l thrrrrrgh thaI
election. White voters ranked Kennetly antl llauser scvettth

irnrl eighth, respectively, out of eight cancliaLes in [he general

election. In contrast black voters ranked thern ftrst antl secontl

respectively.

Houqe District No. 23 (Durham County)'

In House ancl Senate Elections from l9?8 through l!)f12, the

following percentages of white and black votet's vtttetl for the

black cantlidates indicatetl: .

Ptirttnr:y (]e tttttt I
Wltite 

' 
BJct:k \lthilt lllotk

1978 Senile -

Barns (ltepub. )

l97ll House -

Clenretrt
Spaulrling

n/a L7 l)

lt'lr
,Yll

n/a
,) I

89
l)2

Ltian46Io



llt,:tt ll1t,:.:1
Sl,;tttlr lu ru

l!),\'J ll,tr,:r
('[r'l)tlnl
Slrlrrlrlitru

llfis (lilrr,,,
llt"rtt (l:1il,,,
I ltrll r I iiu,, , ;t1| ,\l

90-t:)ll/:tll/a

n/a nla
1;t 89

,). )

lX)

2ti
37

.l.l;r

l)rt tttrtt.tl
llth il,' lllurA'

(lenetul
lV h ite Rlack

il, il tt/lt

-ll-ra

frorn 60% to 800/o of white voters rlirl noL v0te lirr the bltt:k
can(li(late in the primary compared lo 7li')h an(l tt(,'? ol' blrtck

voters who did.

Wake County is overwhelmingly Democratic in rcgistratiotr
and normally votes along party lines. Nonetheless, Site/t' ol'

white voters did not vote for the black Democrat in the gtner.al

electioin.

Ilouse District No. 8 (Wilson, Nash, Edgeconrbe Counties).

In county-wide or district-witle elections fronr 1976 throtrgh
1982 in House District No. 8 and Wilson, [)dgeconrlle antl Nash

Counties, the following percentages of u'hite anrl Lrlack voters

voted for the black candidates indicatecl:

l'lLrt'l< r':rrrrlirl;rtt. Slraukling r.arr rulcontestetl irr the general.l.r'(i.rrirr l1)7s;urrlirrthelrrirnar.l,:rnrlgeneralelt,ctioninrggo.
lrr th. llts3,';,'.,i,rr the'e \r'as .o Ireirurrlican,;r1rusiti,n antl
tlr. gt'rrt'r'rrl *lt'r'ti,rt rtas, fur all practic:rl r)rrlx)s(-,s, rrn,llJloserl.
;\ nr..j.r'it' ,l'*'hite v,ters faileri t. v,te flr tire black."i,,li,lrt"
irr th* gt'rr.r'rrl .l.ctio. in each of these years r'\,e, \,hen they
Itarl rro ot lrr,r.clroicc. [i'urther.n)ol.L,, in the, lg82 Jrrirnary, thererY.r't'r,il1! tr|. $'lrite candirlates for three seats s0 that onelrf;r.lr rrt'r'r'ss;r.ih' harl to win. [.ven in this situation, $;Jq; otr'hit. r'.(r'r's <lirl rrrt vote for the black incunrbent, tie clear
t'lrrrit'r' ,l t lr. lrl:rr:l< r',ters. At le.st il|%, of white voters voted
lir. rr, lll;rt'li .rrrrrlirl.tt: even u,hen one n,as certai, t, be elected.

llorrse I)istrict No. 2l (\Vake ()ount.y).

Ilr .l.r'lirrrir lirl' the No'ilr c.rrrri^. I{ortse .f Itep'esenta-
t i'r,s I'r',rrr ltt;5 

' 
h.,ugh l1)tt2 th. Iirll,*.ing p",..,iiiug., 

-uf

r'hit. irrrrl lrlrr.lt r rtt:r's vrrterl lor tlrr, [rlirck c:rnclirlute inrlicirterl:

House District No. 8
1982 House-Carter

Wilsort Courtty
1982 Congress-

lst Prinrary-Michaux
2nd Primary-Michaux

1976 County Commission-
Jones

Etlgeconrhe Couil.t1
1982 Congress-

lst Primary-Michaux
Znd Primary-Michaux

11)lJ2 Courrty Contnrission-
(ireerr
['[cClain
'l'horne
Walker

Prinrur'y (lenerol
Wlite llLock lYhite [Jluck

66

696
798

32

[')'i trtttt'r1 (it,tta,.i l
ll'hilt' liltrr/.- ll'ttitr llltu.k 284

397:l
;t I

7(i
s1 il

t;
l.r0

9l
'l'ltr'l:r t llr;ri l,l;r,'l,,.lrttrlirltrtl ljllt,\\6t1 1,11,,.,1i1tt ttt tlfe laStIrr,' ,lJ rf, , ,,r,,li,l:r,,rr.S rlr11,q ,(,1 :lllt,t. tltc ,,,,rr,,ltrsirlrr tltat

';l'' t;s11r I ,1 r, ,,r, 1,,,1;tri;.r:ttiottirr vr,lj11g lrlt.sists irr tlrisrliStt,iCt,.lrr \\':rl ' ( 'r"!' " rrrrrirrr.l trr. r )r'rrrr,,',.,ti,,1r.irrt;tt.t.i. hi.t,rr.icar-l\ Ii,tli,rrr r1,11 |r, r,lr,r.l t,.. Nt,,t,.r.l lr.lt,ss. irt tlt.s. t,lecti,tts

0
0
4

2

l4
27
7lt
82

:iti 1) I
:i(; 9l



.l(ia

I'ri trrrtrtl ()enet.nL

Whitt Illuck White Bluck
.\'rt,s/r ('t)u ttl tl
llts] 1'o,{r'(,ss-

lsl l't'ittrrrt't' li 73
ittrl l't'ittr;rrr' ('i lJl

l1ts1 1 lorrrrlr ('orrrrrrission-

Sttultrlr' l) 82

\Villr orrr, t,rcr,lrtiorr, over this l)el'i(xl rnore than {X)% ot'the
rvlritt votot':r lrln't, lirilt'rl to vote lirr tlrc blacl< clnrlitlutc in ever.y
pt'irrr:rr'\' irt r,lrt'lr ol'Llrt,sc three corrnties. 'lhe one lirrre, in l9ll2,
tlrtrl lrltreli l)t,rrrot,r':rtir,cunrlirlates have nrn irr a general elec-
liorr. lhlr, l';rilr,rl to rr,t,r-.ive over'(i0rl ol'the white vote even
tltotrtilr l'lrlu,,,',rrrrlrc ('orrrrty is overu,hclrnirrg[.v (lJt],i)%) [)emo-
ct'trl it:.

'l'lrts rl;rt;r rlr r,;rl:l';rt'ilrl llolariz;rlirrn ol'r'otirrg ilr IIouse Dis-
llit'! Nr1. )l ..r1,... 1t',,rrlr,th:tt, lrllotltt'r'ltrr,l,rr.sirsirlc, rrolrlacklras
:tttt rlt;tttcr',,1 t'. ittttittu,,lt'r-,tirrrr irr tlrt,tlislrit.t trs il is l)t.esr)nt.ly
lo;1:.1 it111,,'l ll,r.,,rtt{.l1riolt,itS(,\ltt.r,sSr,, littpyirlt,ttlt'llf'lllUin-
til'l r' r'\ lrr.tl ,, rltir, i.. \\ il: p(,t sgt.iltt:,lt. r.lt;tll1ttUr,,l lry rlgt'elrl-

:.rrrr: lr.-]l ttrrlrr,t' I )isl t'ir'l

: ,,n;tlr, !)islrir I \o. l.
l. .,,,rrt ,rli. 'rir, lrlrllr,rrql,ll irtrrl rrrrr.,,lrtrttcrl olrirriorr evirleltce

rlirr.rr lrr 1rl:rrrr(ill:. r,\l)r,t't witrrrss. l)r'. (lr.oljnarr,;rrrrl testimo-
tti;rl ,,,.'i,llrr,'r,rrl'1,1111,1'i1'ttcetl local llolitir.;rlolrs(-'t'r'r,l.s antl black
rorrrrrrilrril , 1,':rrl(.l's t.strrltlishes tlrirl. sevcle iUrrl prct.sistent l.it-
,'j;11 l,,rllrrr,';rlr,,rt ilr lol irrg t:xists irr tltt,irt.(,ir Covel.etl b.y the
('llrll',ttlr''l lr,r,l', nlcntlr(,t' Selrat(, l)istr.ict No. 2.

lllr ,,,1 r,r lrr, r, ,'r'irllrrtiar.y lirrrlirrUS \\'ith l-cslr1,1.[ to ntcial
1r,l;rli,r;rtrrr, nr r,'rirrr,. \\('lIll(l thltt in t,lrt'lt ut'tht,challengerl
,ii t'i, l . r':r,., ,i ;,,r1;11'l;,;11i.n i11 r',,,i,rg I,l'.s(,t)thr (,_\ists Lo a sub-
,.t;rrrlr;rl,,l. ,,r.r,,,ltul.r'r,.alt(l thittilr r,irllrrlistr.ietitltr.eseDtl.y
{rlx,t:rl(,. lo r,rrrrirrrr;:r, tlrg vgtiltg stt.t,rtgtlr 6l'llllcli r.6tet.S.

47a

Other Factors tlearing Upon Thc Claint
Of Racial Vote Dilution

Irtc.reosed pafliciptttion by black citize?ls itl l/lc ytlilirul
process.

The court flrncls that in recertt years there has beetl a rneulsur-

able increase in the ability and willingrress of black citizens to

participate in the state's political processes antl in iLs govetrt-

i"unt rt state anfl local levels. The present state aflmittistratiott

i r, ,pp"i"ted a significant number of black citizens to jutlicial

"na "i".utive 
positions in state goverllmet)t, alttl evinces a

goocl faith cleteimination further to open the politicnl [)t'ocess('s

io black citizens by that means. In s'me at'eas of tlte strte,

in.iu,ting some of those tlirectly involvecl ip this litigirtiort,

it,Jr" irln.reased willingness on the part of itifltreltiitl white

p-oliticians openly to clraw black citizens into political coalitirttrs

In,t op"nty io su1,p,,rt their canditlacies' Itttlcerl, arnong the

witnesses f.r the slate were respected anrl influeltial lr,liticll
flgures who themselves fit that descriptiotr'

The court has consirleretl what this implies lirr tht' lrlaintiffs'
clairn 0f present racial vote tliltttion-of a pt'esertt lrtt'li ol'ot1tt:tl

opportunity by black citizens relative to white citiz.t'trs ttt lrat'-

ticipate in [he political process and to elect cattrlirlatcs 9f tlrt'ir
clurice. our conclusi.n is that though this u'holesotttt' rlcvt'Ltp-

ment is unrloubtetlly underrvay antl will presurnablv ctttttilttte .

iL has not procee(le(i to the 1rcint of ovet'coming still ctttre'nc'hed

'fmi-af-voTffiaii7afirin, arirl inrleed has tp1rarentlv rionc Iitt k:

16-(liriiinis-h thtlt.ili iif tnat single nrost porvr:1'[11] llllltof itr
cfusliig-iacial vote d il ution.'l'he pa|t ici l)atol')'. lt'v t'l of ltlack

citizens is still minimal in relation to the overall black llopula-
tion, anrl, quite understantlably, is largel.y cottlinerl to the

relaiively few f<rrerunners rvho have achievetl ,t'.tttssi,rtal
status oi otherwise emerged from the genel'allv tlr'1tt't'ss.rl

SociO-economiC Stattts whiCh, aS we have f0tttrtl ott t.htl l'r't'ttl'rl

llrrxlucetl in this case, r'emlins the presetlL |rt of tlrl tt'gltt Irttllr

of black citizens.



{lJir

I )ivisions Within'l'he llllck Conrnrunil-r'.

N,t ;rll lrl;rcl< citizens in Nr-rrth (lar.olina, notu,itlistatr(ling
t lt:rl t ltr, r'lirsri tct'lpticirllv certifietl ip this actiul inclurles all whg
:tt'r' t'r 'riisltt'r'rl to \'ol.r,, sltArt, the slrttte vi(,\,S alt,ttt the preSent
rr':rlitv .l' r'rrt'ilrl vrrte rlilutirrrr in tlrc challengerl <listricts (or
lrrcsrrrrrlrl,ll llscrvhere), nor about the allpro;tritte soltrtion to
ittt.t' rliltttiorl 11,',l. nt:ry exist.

Sr:r'r,r':rl lrl;rt'k citizr:ns tr,stilietl in this :rction, as rvitnesses for
t.ltc st.;rtt,, t, tlris cft'et't, irlentif.ving their rrrvn vitlrvs as oplroserl
lo tlrosr, ;r,lr';ulr,t,rl llv lllaintilTs' rvitnesses. In tt,r.ms rlf their
tllrr,r'ir,rrct,, ;r.lrir,vr:nrt,trt antl gcner.al crorlibiliLv as w,iInesses,
I ltt' t iltvs r,l'I ltt'st-,rlt,l'ctrrlant.-n'itpsssgs q'r,r.e clt'ar.l.y :rs rlcserv-
i,,l ,,1';lr'(,r'lltrrrrr.r, lr* the c,trrL ils \\'()t'(r tlrris.,f fhe black
t'iliz,,n,r rr lr,r. i11 l;rrrr,'l.ttrtntlr.t.s, t.stifit,rl lrs u'itnr,sses for the
lrlrrirrl iil'..

'1",r',, l:r,.t ltlifrr.;1;'1''1. ltrtrr.t,r.t,t., lo 1111, t:rrul.t.'['h., l'if.st is that
lltl t'it'rr ,,1\l,ti,:: r,'l l,v rlr,lcttrllrtrls' rviltrr'ssr_,s tvctrt almost
r'','lu, ir, l. _11 r-lr. rlr,:rirability ,l rlr,, r'r,rr1ul.y i.l!rgh! by plain-
rirl-a-juil ri,,r- r,i il'ii;ii;;si,;i,ixi*r.,uii,l ot'u t,onrlirion of vote
ililrti,;ir -'i'i,, ,,rlr,,ijl;r,it ii flrll tlrrirlr.ft,rrrlrrnts'ujitri,,..t:r,vitrus

'nlll-t l',, I ,,riir rr.,l. lll tltl r.t,r'6r.rl trrlrlrtt'r,rl irf tlfis flrse, A
,li lirr, I i,ri",,''' 'rr"\r'r)ipt rrirlrirr rlrr,pllrirrtil'l't,lirssaseerti-
li,,l'l lr,,1, i r,,rr 1,,,1 \.\'r,(.rn tltc trr,,r.lt,tttctrts is t,ssttttillly one
,l 1r;'.lrr'r'r"rlrtr,:rl t'rrrllr artrl nleans to lrleitli l'rt.e ol'ntcial vote
,lilirtiotr :ri :r l)|'{,s(,1t t.ortrlitiol, aprl rrqt rrf tlrr, llr.eserrt e.ristelce
,,1'lliri ('.rrliri,rr. (hrll'ifadissidcrrtclcrlerrLr.r,t-.r'esolargeasto
,1,',,,r i,, ,l',,,.,i,,,, -tladk
,..,,",,",,t ,-elect
{.illl(li(l;rl.'.,l.,/.'lt.|lr,ict'.'cttttltlr.ati,,,r,.llffihj.
(,\.r:.t('nr'r, ,,1 ;r ,li--irlltrt t,ieg, hayr. t.r,le r':tttt,. trt the cstablish-

-

,rt'rr[ r,l',,,',,,]i@rlrt cl.rrrlv Llr,lt the
t'il'r'ttltt:-litttr'r,11,,t't,. oll thet,eCrltrl trUrtlt,itr tlris:t1ti6tr. ASeitt.lier
itllir':tlr,,l.l!,,,l,rlrlror'pglitieal r;trgsliqrrgtl.hel)t.r)l)el.nteanst,
,'trt,ii,';rl," rtr lt r';r,'ilrl r',rte rliltrti6n irs nriU[t lrt shgtt,p ltresetttlyl, r .,t t lr;r l,r,r,)r rl.t,irlrtrl l^, ('ottut.r,ss:tttrl tlot.,s ttrlL properl.v
lit'rrrr, ttr oru rruli,,i;rl inrlttir.v. .\r,r, l,:rpt II. srrTrrrr.

49a

}-airness of The State Legislative l,olicy [Jnrlcrlying 
,I.he

Challensed Redistricting

Unrler amended $ 2 i[ presumably remains relevalrL to cott-

sitler whether race-t);;;i ;;ticomfielling staLe polit'it:s might

il;fy;;istricting-fiian *,*t concededly, or at least at'guilb-

ly, "results" pn.,,,o''fi'ie in racial vote dilution' '[he Senate

Report, discusstng lhe continuecl relevance of the "tenttotts

state policy" inquiry as one of the incorporate tl Z.intme'r factors

;ilJ;i;; a ii Wi,iti i. Resester clilution jurisprurle.ce' 
,rn-

dicates as much' th;;d''i;;uoutntt"" as iI gauge of intent is

obviously nu tongo' 
'Eiuu"nt 

un(ler $ 2's "t'esult-otrlY" tt'st'

lf the procedure markctlly de.parts from lrast ;rt'itctict's

or from rlractrcfr if t'"*t"tt'-"in tlie 'iurisrlictirttt' 
tltat trt:ars

on the lui,nuil"t)-r iit Ttiip"t' Bitf-ei'e" a cottsisterttly

ilI *lffitt[H.'xTlxfi il; s t,l;tt!fl to r ri r i i [i{, ;x'iila;"ti,;;i,;lt";;;it pracrice rlenies ntittot'tttcs rrtrt'

irccess to the Process'

S. Itep. No.9?-417' sr{/)}It ttote 10' ut 29 & n'll?' 'Scc ttlsrr

Mttior v. 'f teett, 
'tttf 

i'tt' slip 
^op' 

6?-?'l (anal'vz'ing stttc

tl",ii.iti"tltrg policy iu t'erms of fairncss)'

.l.hepartiesinthislitigationhaveatltlresserlthellrlitttt'ttttlt't.

t\e "tenuor, ,t"ti"poii"y; t'Utit' attd we will assume the

ittrlttiry's continuetl 'loiu'"nt" 
utrtler a "results"-onll test" on

this basis,wu ,ru pl"uacletl that no state policv.'.eithtr as

demonstraUty "mpiovJLy 
tf'" legis.lature in its delibet'atiotrs'

or as now u.r"rtJ,i Uy ihe state.in litigation' co-ulrl "negate a

showing" t,ere tl'ai "it"i 
vote tlilution results fronr the chal-

lengetl district Plan'

Dtrring the legislative tleliberations olt thc t'r'tlistt'ictirrtl

plan, the legislatire was well aware of the possibility thirt its

i,ir,r'*rfA ,:uruft ,na".1f,on applicable feleral lrt*' itt irrtlrt't'-

missible clilution oi itu.t critizenJ' voting strertgth iI cottc*tttrrt-

tions of black vot'lr;;;;; iltntionally "submet'gerl" in rnr"rlti-

mt,mber districts or lirr".tu..a" into .separate districts.,'[hltt

fact was broughi t" itt oitt"tion by special counsel' Ot t]l:::]:

citiztlns,groups.on*.nu.twiththelrrtltrlt,nt,antlllyvill.l()tls



5():r

l,'rlislrrt.r': rr'll, l,t'()l)r)se(l ltlans specilicallv tlesignerl to avoid
lrrrr'1ro:r5ll,ilitlrrl'ilrrlrcrmissiblytlilutingblackcitizens'votesin
tllr,:.1, 11',,,'.r. 'l'lrt, slrt-,cific rliluIiorr proltlenrs pr.esenterl by the
lrl;rt'k vrrl(,t' ('r,tr(.(.,r)Ll'ations in Lhc ch:rllengerl rlistricts in this
litirlrrtirn utl'r lirrou'rr to antldiscussetl ilr legislative rlelibera-
t iorrs.

'l'ht, llrsir, policy.jrrstification arlvancerl by the state in this
liliu:lrtion li,r' tlrc llgislature's clcclination to cr.eate single-
urernlrt'r rlist rir,ts l.o lrvoitl submer.ging corrcentratiorrs of black
votll's irr (lrt,r'lr;rlletrgtrl multi-rnenrbe r.rlistr.icts rvas the nterin-
tcrurrrt'r' ol'rrrr lristorir':rl, firrrctiolurllv s()un(l tlirrlition of using
u'lr,rl. r',urrli.s ;rs Ilr. irrcversilllr, "lrtriklirrg bkrt.lts" of legisla-
t i vr, r l i.t rit'( inr. r\ ltlr,rrLTh t he sttrte :rrlrlrrt,t,rl lirir.lr, per.suasive
c1i1l1'l1r'r' I!rrrl Ilrr, "rr lrolt..-cor.rrrtt"' polit.r' rvirs rlt,ll-established
Iti:,l,rt i,'rrll. . lr;r,l l,,r:ilirrrate I'ullcli()nitl lrll'l)()s(,s, irrrrl tvas in its
.r'ir:irr ,'rrrnl,l,'1r'lj rritlrorrtruciul irr;rlicrrtirrrrs, tlrlrLirll bccame
lrr'l,,lr irr','l,,,rrrrt :ri rnatter.s rl.r,r,l,lr,,rl in tlris llarticular
l.tiir,llrti',' r,,li 'r'it't irrtl plalr. r\t tlrc tirrrt, oI its rrnrrl enact-
nlt'111. Ilr. l:rlr' ;r,lrr 1 tlrorrqlr t,lnr1rt,llr,rl.-u'lrs tlutt cotttrties
tttr;ltl ltr 1,lrl \\ lrr,rr tlrt, .r\[[or.trt,\'(lr,ncr.lrl rk,r,lirtetl to gil,e
lll'r'('l('rrilnr' l r r r llt' :'trrIc const.itrrtiorr:rl lrrohibitiotr ol' cottnty
rli'ir;i,rr:. irr r',', 1i511'11,ting, thc st:rte at,r;rricsc.,rl anrl, ilrdeerl,
rlivirltrl t'orrrrtir,s thtrtafter both in noll-covel.erl as rvell as
t'r,\'t,l't,rl toturlir,s irr tlre final lgrlistrit,ting ;llirn. ^See lote B,
:;tt l)t.il. 

'l', t lr. t ),t,nt tlre p6licv tlru'r,afte r $,:rs to slllit counties
.rrl) rr lr.r r,r'r,.ir-.:n'r' t.o nreet polrrrl;rtiotr rlt'r'i:rt ion t.eqttit.e-
illlrlsor trlrl'r rrirr s i;rt.ecleirr:plc..l';xrt'tir:ttllrt'rlistricts-antl
tlri:, is 

"r 
lr:rl r lr,' r'r'cu'rl rlerrtonstt'lrt.r's.-.-strr,h u lurlicv obviottsly

c,rlrlrl rr,,t lr' rlr':r',r'n ttPon to jtrstill', ttttrlrlr.ir llrit.tress ttlst,
rlistliclirrl rr lrir,lr rr,srrlts in r.ucial volt. rlilutiorr.

'l'lrr,:,;rnr,, lirrrlirrr{s uplrlv, though rvith trklerl lirrce, to Senate
l)ist rtr'l \,lo l. 'l'lrt,t'c. ol'coul'se, irr the linirl 1rl:rn t,orrrrties rrrele
:r1rli1'111,1,','{l li'1il'rverc sllliL in the lhr:c ol't prupost'rlplatr rvhich
tt ottlrl ltlrvl r, 1,';,1.,,1 lrrr r,t'l'cctiye [rlar:ft-rplr.jlr.itf, *ilrgft,-lremlter
,lt:,1 ri,'l ,r lti, lr "rrll irrl6lverl slllittirrt trr., r,rlrrrrti.s. ()ther. lrOli-,'.\ r'"n "1' '| " r,1. tlrirr rvere llllrirrlv sh.rt'tt t, llirt,t,itrfltteneetl
llrr,l,,i,t l:ri,)r,,lrir, llrr:rlrlr.auin}{ol'Jr,11;11t, I)istrict No.2line.s

5la

were the protection of incumbents and, in the wotrls of rltlt'

legislator-witness in this action, swallowing the "sntallesL of

thiee pills" offeretl by the.Iustice DeJlartment in Jrreclearitnce
negotiations respecting the lowest permissible size oIthe [rlack

pofiulation concentration in the district. Obviously, neither of

ihese policies eould serve to outweigh a racial dilution result.

The frnal policy consitleration suggested b.y t'he stat'e is the

avoidance of race-conscious gerrym:urrlering. Whil. therc nta.t'

be some final constitutional constraint here, cl. Iiorcher v.

Dttlgett, 

- 
U.S. 5l U.S.L'W' 4tl{-rll, 4u60 (U'S'

Jurie ZZ, lg8B) (Stevels, J., copcurlilB), we fi1rl t6.t iL is tt,t
approache(l here by the available mearls of itv()irlittg strh'

ni"rg"nce or fragmentatiott of any of the black vr.rtet'cotlt'cttt l'it-

tions at issue. The nrost setious protllem is thaL lroserl lry tht'

contiguration of the black v0ter concentl'iltiott itt llottsc I)is'
, tr.icL llo. 8, conprisetl of Wilsorl, Nash attrl lirlgecotlttre (jottn-

ties. The configuration of the singte-member tlistrict sptrcilical-

ly suggested by the plaintiffs as a vialtle one is obviottsl.y not, it

rno,lei-of aesthetic tidiness. Ilut given tlte evidencc, ttot chal-

lenged by clefendants, that in the plesenL multi-membor tlis-

trict the black population, 39.51o of Lhe Lotal, sitil1rl1' canttot

hope ever to elect a cartditlate of its choice, aesthetics, as

ol)posed to compactness and commonality of itrteresLs, c:tnnrtt

be'accortled primacy. see corstens v. LailDrr, slt/),'(I; s['r,rlrricl'

v. Stolc Electoral Board,336 If . Supp. 8:19, &13 (N.l)' Ill' l97l)
(three-juclge court) (even compactness ttot a fitntlatttettL:tl

requirement).

.Ultimute l-intlings Of l"act

l. consitlered in conjunction rvith Lhe totalitl' ol'relevitttt

circumstances found by the court-lhe lingerirlg tlflt'cts ol'

seventy years of official discrimination against black citizerls irt

matters louching registration and votipg, substaptial ttl scvere

r.acial polarization in voting, the effec[s of thirty years of lret'-

sisten[ racial appeals in lxrlitical campaigns, a t'elrttivclv t1'-

ltressed socio-eionomic s[aius resulting i. signilieanL tlegt't'e

i.o* 
" 

century of cle jttre apd de /irr:1.r segregati,tt, ttltrl tht'



r,l}tt

con t i r r tri rrg t' l'fi'r'l ol' a rna.jority vote reqtrirement-the creation
,l't'ar:lr ol' tlr. rrrul( i-rncnrlrer rlistrict.s challengerl in this action
r.r,srrlls irr I lr,, liLr,rk r.r,gister.e.tl v<ltels of that tlistrict being
srrlrrrr..t'g.rl ;r:, :r \'otilrtr rninorit.y in the tlistr.ict arrrl thereby
It:r'irrs lt,ss,,1 r1 r.r't rrrril' than rlo,ther. nremllers,l' tlre electo-
nrt.l.;xrrt i.i1urr,,irr thc political l)r'oc()ss arrrl to elect r.e;l.e-
sr'lltitt ivt,s oI' I lrlil r'lrnir.r,.

l- ('orrsir l,'r'r'rl irr lorr.irrrrct iorr rvil h tlrt, slurrt, cir.r:rrrrrstapces,
tlrc r,r'r,irliolr ,l'.,irrrill lrllrrrlr(,r. lit,rrirtr, l)istr.ir.t No. 2 r.r.srrlts in
tltr, lrl:rr'li t'r.f i.:lq,r'r,,1 rolt't.s itt ilt) it).(,tt cor.r,r.t,rl lrv Scnate Dis-
l'it'ls N,r:,. ..';rrr,l ri lrrr'irrg th.il ''.tirrg sl r.r_.rrgtlr rliluttrrl lly
ll;rt'lrl'rrrr' tlr,,n ,.,)n(.r,lll r.ltior.r ittto trr.o rlistrir,ts in ttaeh 0f
rr lri,'lr I ll,.'." lu r' :r '.'',1 irrrl trrittot'itv ltnrl itt t.rrttsr.rqut,nt,t, JtiN,r: less
.l)l'.t'l tnrilt tll,r,r,l,,,rl lrr'r'ntrntll,,t's rrl lltr,t,l.,r.tolirtc to lllrr.tici-
1,:ttc itr Ilrr, 1,,,lilr,:rl l,t.ll.oss lytrl t1 ql3et t.t,,llt.r,sprttiriivcs of
l lrr,it' r'lrotr.,'.

ir'l ltI sl:tlr. r'11;qil1.11g1,q tlrt, basic prtrrise ol f lris lirulirrg u,ith the lhnriliar
;'ullt,r.,l Ilrlrl Ilr,'t,,1,1ir..rrrr.r.its,f lr.,gislittir..rli'isi.rr,l';rrlrirr,r.itylr,pula-
I i.rr I lr:rl is rrol lrilr,,,',n.rrrllr r, lirrttt voting rtur.iot.rtii,s itr ts.o.irrgl,,-rnerrtber
rlr',1|i.l:.inr,, rrn,.lr,,,'ri' r' \oling rrtirjor.itv itt,,rrr..irrq.lt,-trrcrrrlrt,r.rlistt.ict antt
:tll lll"ll''('lrlr.Dlilr,,r rtr irr lrrrotlrrtrot., orr tltt,ollrrlt. lriuul. rlivtrlirrgit intotrVrf
:'lll)slirlrlilrlli irrll't, rrti;rl trritt,rt'ities irr tu'o rlistlicts is so pr.olrlcrnatir:al tlrat
tr.itlr,'r'rlr(',rnr.r,rr llr(.,,th.r'rli'isiotrcanIt..lrr,r.lvl,earljrirlgt,rl ..rlilrrtive,'h.y
:r r''r,r'f S,',,. , ,,, lt,q111,,1s1 ,,. ['phutn, illli 1.. Srrlrp. l):il. tUlt tl,].1). Tex.)(llr.r"' 1r1rf 1'1' r''i)rr'! r ,, , ,1 rttr ,irter grountrs, .r5ri ri.s. ;rz rr:rH!); (-,orrapore
.1 ,'r,irtt, r' ll tt,t,,. .,ll l' Su111r. llLi-r, ll.lil ti!.1). I\tiss. l1)1.t3) {tlrr.ee_lurlge
t'trttt'l ). r'rrr'rrl,,1,:r ,l t,,rt,rrtt,lr'tl litr.l'ttfllttt.tottsirltrrtliott trt liqltl ol.tttttetttled
{ '. l{t:i.S. { I ,,;'; rl't\r;r rl,.(isl:rli'* 1rr.r,lr,r.t.rrce rrrtr.hallt,rrgr.able) rvith
It,t.l,;,.,t r li,,,tt,l ,t )i,rrtt,t.t,t,:,r.s, iir4 l...LIl lrl lill rrltlulion lrossilrle er.ett iflt)r' ,rl rli t ri, t.. lr , ;r lr;1.r. I,l;t, li lxlprtlatiltt rrrir.jlr.ilr.l. 'l'lrt,slr,.t.ilit.lrgttntent
Ir,'r't' i' rlr:rr ;rrr, nr'rr':r'r' irr tlrr.' lrrestttt trtirrolitt. 1r,1,rtl;rti,,rr ,,r'ili.l,r. ipi.r'tt:rl,' l)i,.llrr'l ".,, 'l ,1rll l,r, :rt tlrc r,xllcrr*r,,,1'llri,1,r,s,,rrt lll.:irli black
lr,'f 'lti:rri,,rrirr.., ntrll)i.,tr.irl l,l,r. li,thr:ohviorrssrrrrr.r,r.rrt'l)istrict jincr.etrst,.

\\'r':tt,.tr.,l [ilt,], ,,,,lLritlt rlrr.arKrunent. \\'hiletlrcrlihrrrlnirislr.eal ,lnr,,tt. I ltttrl., il t.: ,'[, ,lr rr r ,r111r;.1, .,, lt:rS, ttr clli,ct. r..orttrrriilr,rl trr tltc irrrlgttrerrt ofr ,rlirlnr't,l.,l ::' 'l l',. r l,ltt , r.r,lrtr.rl is, lrl rlt,lirriti.rl. 11,.,, ,l.lr.,r.l:rss', an,l th*l
l;'r;;;i;-J1, , ,, .r ,,,1r, .rtr,r. rl l,r'ir,,l;rr:,,,,r i,,rr 1r,,.:rls. lr,r,tr It.,r.irlt,rl [l],

!toll ltoll r.o1l 111(,tl 1tt 11.\[ l,ilL{C)

Slla

IV

CONCLUSIONS OF LA1V

1. The court has juristliction of the parties lltl(l of the sub-
ject matterof the action un(ler28 U.S.C. $$ 1331, li|'lli, rntl'12
U.S.C. $ 197:lc.

'2. The court is properly col)vene(l iis a three-ittrlge court
un(ler 28 U.S.C. $ 2284(a).

:i. The action has been prol)erly certifierl its a clitss ltcti( )n oll
behalf of all black residents of North Catllitta u'lu) ttl'L' l'eg-

istererl to vote. No challenge is made to the prol)I'ict.v of tlrtr
class action under any of the criteria t-rf the govL'l'rlilrg class

action nrle, Rule 2l], Fetl. Ii. Civ. P.

4. Of the challenged districts, only House District No. u
(Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash) and Senate District No. 2
inclurle counties that are covered un(ler li 4(a) of [he Voting

(frxlttrote r:ontinued lrom previous page)

Oongress in l'ed.R.Civ.P. ?1. When, ashere, sur:lt a class itctiotr is lrrought
lt.y a class which includes sttch a fragrnentetl coltcentrtttiotl of [rl:rck vr)tr'l's. lt

grou;l jurlgment about the grotrp's best nreans rtf access to thr: lrolitic:rl
l)rocess lnust be assutned reflecterl in the spetilrc claittt tltarlc lry tlrl t'litss.
'l'lrr: legitirnac.V of that group jurlgrnt,ttt, fronr tlre stanrllxritrt oI tttetttlrr:t's ol'

the class itlcntified, can be put to test by statrrlatrl 1lt'ocerlttres: l11'clrallt:rrut's

to the arler;uaey of regrresentatiott or the typicalitl'r,rl'clainrs by itrtY metnbct's

of the itlentifie<l class who tluestion the wistlom r-rr validity of thc class clairrl

urxler Itule 2ll(aX3) & ({), l'ed.R.Civ.P., oreven by atternpterl intcrventir.rn
rurrrler llule 24, Fetl.R.Civ.P. When, as here, no such chalk:rrgcs;tt'e tttrtrle , it

tlilutiorr claint marle hy the class is ylrrrperly assesst'rl in tlrt'tlt'ttts tttiult', rttttl
on the rrnrlerstanding that:any jurlgment enteletl ,rtt its lrasis rlill lrt: birulirrg
on all rnernlrcrs of the class whr-r rnay not later secotrtl-guess it tttulct'otrlitrtn'
princigrles of clairn preclusion, sec Restatemtlnt (Stcrltttl) .lurlgrrtetrts |i 2l
corntnerrts b, c; $ 25 cotrlrnents f, m; $ {l(lXe), (2) cornntent e. or, llrrssilrlr'.
.jtrrlie ial estoppel, see Allen u. Zuich 1rrs. Co., (i(i7 l'.311 Il(i2 ( ltlr Cir'. ll|tJlt.

Ifthis rvere not the approach taken, a foolllrooftneans rvoull lrt: plovirL'tl
lirr irrenretliable fracturing of atry such minrrrit'r' \'ot('r cotlc('trt t atirrrt. 'l'lritt

cannot have been intetxlerl tr.y (-'ongress. A rlil'ft'r'errt sitttitti,rtt of collrs,,
u,rrukl [rc, llleserrterl if the class ol'lrlack voters bringing sttch ;r rlilut i,rrt-lrr '

li'trcturing claim inclurlerl only thc votcrs in ont' ol'tlt,r r listlicts ttrl, r rl ltit'lt I lrr'

fracturing harl r-rccuntrl. 'l'hat is trot tltis citst'.



. .a

,r llr

llill'l ,\,'l 'r,1,1 l,r1 1', lrr, lr 1ll'r'r'[,il'rn('r,i: r'r,tgrtir.r,rr rtrrrret.$ 5of
I lr;rl \r l. l ' I l.( \ ll)7:tc.

'l lr, \, r,,t ',,., r ,r rt'r;rl - irtrlit.lrlirrlr.tr r\1rr.il!7. llSj, tltat, so
l;u. ;r,, il ;rll,,,.l,,rl ,,,rr,t.r,rl r.outrlir,:r. ltt. rt,ortlrl itttt,l.lrosr_, trO
,,lr.jr,r'li,,rr rrrr,l, r' , .'r l1 tltt' lt,gisl:rlir.r, t,ttitctlttrttt ,f the
rt'rlistrir.lirrti 1rl;rn rr lrir:lr, i rr/a.rr1rtr, cr.rirtr.rlIIouse I)istr.ict No.
,{ irrrrl Serrrtr, I )i:.trict No. 2 tltles not have thc ell'cct, of preclucl-
irrg t lris r:lrrirrr lr.r' lrluint il'l.s broughL untler arnentletl $ i to chal- '

l.t rg. t h. r'r'rli:.t ri.t irrg 1rl;rn in res;lur:r. ,t't hese trvo rlistricts. 42
tl.S.t'. tt Irt'1 ]ir,: ,llrt jttr t,. Trtrtt , :;,Itt.,, slilr ,11. at 100 n.l;
l'ttilt'rlS/r/,:, ',' l','rtsl littlott. Ilrtttltt l,ttt.islt Srlt,ltil llttttt.d., Sg4
l".irl;rti,;r1)rr llr,,( lr('it.. l{f7g); sr,(rrrlsrr,l/rrr.l.isv.(,'rlsse//c,4il2
( l.fi. .ll)1, ir()ri rt; (11)77). Ilecause the st:rrulirr.rls bv $,hich the
Atl.r'rrt:1' ( l.rr,'r'rrl ;rss(,sses voting r:hlurges untl" r $ 5 tre cliffbr-
t'rrt li',rrr tlrrr::r' lr)' u'lrir'Ir jurlicial clirinrs rrrrrler $ l] are to be
Itsst'ssttl lrl tlrr'.j rrtliciur'1,, sec S. Iiep. N6. {l?-417,.srr,lrrl note
ltl, 111 11.r, l:ix;ilt, ,.rrrrl ltcciruse t]r. tirr.nrot.ar.. allgliietl in a
nr,rr rrr l r','r'slrlr:rl lrrlurirrisLrative lrr,eet,rling, thc' Attorney
(itrrr'r';rl's l,r'r','lr';tr';urct,rk,ternrinatiort luts tto issttr. lrt.eclttsive
1r'.lLrt.r':rl r'.'r,,1,1rt'lr .l'li,ct irr this lt,tirn..Srur Ilr,statement
(Sclo111l).lrr,lt,rn,,nlli \:\'17 crlrrrrnolrt (l; S:t(J) & (:t) (llluO).

;. 'l'lrl rrr,'rrrrirrr: ;tnrl irrterrtlt,rl allpriclrtion of arrrclrlctl li 2 9f
tlrr' \',,l itty lltll,l:r .\t.t irr r.t:llti6l tg lhg clitiprs aL issrre irr this
ltt'll,tt ;rt'r,it:. l:rlr,rl i. l';rr.t ll ,l'tltis Nlt,r,,t.irrtrltrrtr ()ltiniott.

l;. ( )rr I lrr, I';r i , 'l't lrir: r,.ul.t's ttltirrr;rtr, litrrlirrtts .l' tact, tlre
pllrirrlil'l!, lr:rr,,,,.1;rl'li:rlrlrl tlrlrt tlrt,t.r.r.trti6rr ltv tht,(.)eneral
,.\,..s,,rn1'1.,. ,rl i..,rrIlr ( ;n-.lirra ol'lrrtrlti_rrrt,rrrber. liotrse I)istricts
N,rr. s, ll, l; i, ili;111,1:i|,. rrrrrlti-rrr(,n)l)(,r'S(f llat(, t)istr.ict No. 22,
rrttrl .cirr(lr'-rrr'nrl,r'r's(lr;rt(l I)istrir:t No.2 u,ill,;rs applietl,
t't'sttlt iruur ;tlrrr' lrtr,rnr,nt ol'their.r'ot.irrg riglrts. as rncrnbers of a
t'l;tss l rt'ot r,r't r,r l l r.r' srrlrspt,t i6n (a) 1;f :rlrt,rtrlrttl s\ ?,l' th. VOting
Iiiglrts ,\'.t , irr r iol;rtiorr of'thuL sectiorr.

'i. 'l'lrr' l,lrrirrtrl'1.* irrt'rrrtitled to ulrlrr.,prilte relief fronr the
viol;rliorr.

l-rl-ra

v

ttEM!ll)Y

I,laving tleterrninecl that the state's rerlisLlictilrg l)lillrs, ill

t,he respfcts challengecl, are .ot in corltpliatlce rvith l"he rnarl-

clate of'alnentletl $ f-of the voting Rights AcL, thc corrrt rvill

enter an order declaring the reclistricting plan violrrtive of li 2

in Lhose respects, ancl enjoining the <lefentlants from contluct-

ing elections pursuant to the plan in its present form'

In del'erence to the primary juristliction of state legisla[ures

over legislative rcapportionment, while v. lyeisct'.'ll2 tl.s.
?U3, ?gi;(lg?ll), we *ill,l"f". further actiotr to itllo$' tlte Gettor-

al A sse,mbly o[ N orth'Carr-rli na au opl]ortulrit.y Lu e xt' t'cise t hlrt

jurisrliction in an effort to comply with $ 2 in the t'es1rccts

.equit"d. This is especially appropri-ate where, as here' tltt:

,Cunurrl Assembly ahopted the plan found violative of $ 2 be-

fore the enactment or the amended version of that statuttr

which now applies, and where there has accordinglv been no

p'evious legisiative opl)ortunity to itssess the ametrtlerl stat-

Lte's strbst*ti"t new i'etluirements for aftirnrativell' avoiditlg

racial vote dilution rathei Lhan merely avoiding its intentional

imposition.

Having tletermined that the presellt plan violates a secttt'etl

v'ting right, our obligatiott remains, htlwevet', trl llr,virltr
afnrn"ratiie juclicial relief if peede(l tg ittsure cgmpli:rttce bv thp

state with i[s duty to construct tlistricts Lhat tlo ttot tliltttc tht'

voting strength olthe plaintiff class in the waYs het'r'ttruttrl, ot'

in oth-er *"yr. see In re: Iltinois cottqressiorttrl //ist|ir'1.s //r'-

rtltportiontrient Cuses, No. 81 C 1395, slip op' (N'l): lll liltl.l)'
tt'1.i'd ntem. s?{D no)}t., Ryort v. Otto,4l-vl tJ'S' ll:}0 (l$tt2):

it'yOir*f v. Sfale Board o.l'Electiorts, N.. tll C ff:tg (N'D' Ill'
Jan. 12, t982); Kirkseq v. Bourrl of'srrpcn'i'sors, irl-r'l F'2tl l:Jl)

(5th Cir.), cert. denietl, 434 U.S. 968 (1977)'

Recognizing the difficulties poserl for the stale bv the inrmi-

nence oi tggrt primary elections, the court will convtltte'ltt ittll'

time, uport request of the state, to consitlet' atltl promptly to

nlle upon any ierlistlicting plan that ltas beett t'nitctt:tl l^' thc



a

5.lir

Itiglrts ,,\t't lrrtrl ,i't'\ hi(,h grrt,clear:rnce is r.rtr;uir.erl unrlcr.$ 5 of
tlurt .,\r'1. l:l ll.S.t' \ lll7ii,.

'l'lrr,.\tl,t'rlr,r'r;r'n(,t.irl's irrrlicaliorr orr r\1rr.il27, Il)f{2, Llrat, su
f'itt' ;rs it. trl'lt,t,lr,rl t,r)\'(,t.crl counties, lte rvottkl inter.llose uo
oh.ic.ti.rr rrrrrl.r' .s 5 trl the legislative enzrctnrent ot'the
rerlistrit'tirrg lrlirrr u lrich, irt!,l'Ltliu,createtl I{ouse I)istrict, No.
8 unrl St'rurtc I )i:rl ri.t No. 2 rkres not have the cti'ect of pr.eclud-
ing this t'lrrinr lrr' l,lrrintil'l,s lrlought unrlc.r irnrerrrlerl $ 2 to chal-
It'rrg. t lr. r'r'r list li.t irg 1rl;rrr irr rcspect ol'tlrese trvo tlistr-icLs. 42
IJ.S.(1. \ l1f7:lt.; .llrt.trtr v. 'l'rcett, n-?{/),.(r, sli;r ,11. at 2(X) n.l;
(inilulSlrrlr's r'. /,,'rrs/ liirlott llotqe Irarish Schrri Ilrxrrul, {t94
F .2rlirti, il) rr.1)(illr ('ir'. l1)?f )): see ulsoillrrrr-is v. (]ressctte,432
LJ.S. .l1ll. ;(l{i l}7 ( l1)?7). llt.ciluse the starrrlal.rls hy rvhich tlre
ALtrrnt'r' ( i. r r. r'rr l ir:.s(,ss(,s vot ing clratrg.s tr ntler' $ s are rliffer-
ettt l't'ottt tllrrsr: l'.r' rrlriclr.jtrrlicial clainrs lrtrtsr $ 2 are lo be
asst,sst,rl lrv tlrr'.irrrlir,i;rn'. srl S. Iiep. No. 1)?-.117, srr,rl.c rrote
l(), ;rl tiS, l:i.\:t1t. :utrl lrt,r,;rrrse Ilrc fornr(.r ut'o a1r;llictl in a
trorr irrlvcrsirrilrl ;rrlrrrirristr.rrtive pr.oct,t,tling, Lhe Attrirney
(]r,nr,r':tl'r l)t'('{..1(,:tl';ut(:r, rlttcr.rninatiotr lrts rtrr isstte ;tt'eclusive(colllrtt'ntl t,sto1,1rr,l) t,t'lirct i1 tIis acti61. Sce Ilest:rtgment
(St:eorrrl) .lrrrluntr,rrts :\fi I? t,.rnnre nt C; ,f:t(g) & (B) ( ll)110).

i'r. 'l'lrt' rnt'lrrrirru rrrrrl ilrtcnrlerrlapJrlication of rrmentlcrl $ 2 of
tht'\/otinu Iiiqlrt:', .'\t'r irr rcl:rLion to thc clainrs at issuc irr this
actiorr iu'r' lrs stirt,rl irr l'art lI ol'tlris Mernorarrrhrrn 0;linion.

(;. on the lr.r,is r,l'this court's ultimate finrlings of lirct, the
pl:rirrtil'fir huv. r'strrlrlishtrl t.hat Lhe creati.n by tlre ceneral
Ass.rrlrl' ,l' N,r'tlr ( 'rr''li.* ,f rnulti-me mller Il,use [)istricts
N,s. 3. J l, l:t, li(i rrnr l lil), rrrulti-member Senitte l)istrict No. 22,
Ittrl sirrglt,-rrt.ntlrt,r' Sr:rrate I)istrict No. 2 u,ill, as alllrlied,
result in an :rbritlgt,rnurt of their voting rights, as rnemlle is of a
class proler,'tcrl lrv subscctign (a) of arleprltxl $ 2 oithe Voting
ltiglrts r\t:1, irr violaliorr of that section.

7. 'l'lrt' pl;rirrlil'l's rr'r' untitlecl to allpropriate relief frorn the
violirt ion.

5l-ra

v
REMEDY

Ilaving rleterminetl that the state's rerlistricting ;tliltts, itt

the respeicts challenge<1, *re n,t, itt compliattct: rr''ilh the rnatt-

rlate of amencletl $ fof the Voting 1tights Act, the c,ttt't rvill

enter an ortler declaring the redistricting lllan violative of $ 2

in those respects, anrl enSoining Lhe defendants fi'om crtnrluct-

ing eleciions pursuant to the plan in its present form'

Incleferencetothellrimaryjurisdictionrlfstatelegislatures
over legislative reapportionment, White v' lVeist:r' 'l12 U'S'

7t13, ?9i;(lf)71]), we *ill,l"f.. furtheractiott to allow the (lener-

al Assenrbly of North carolina an opportunity to exercise that
jurisdiction in an effort to comply with $ 2 in the respects

required. This is especially appropri-ate where, as here' the

General Assembly adopted the plan fountl violative of $ 2 be-

fore the e,actment of the amended versiott of that staltttc

lvhich norv applies, ancl where there has accorrlingly becn tto

previous legisiative opportunity to assess the amentp:rl st*t-

ute's substintial new iequirements for affirmativell' av,i<li.g

racial vote dilution rathei than merely avoi4ing its interrti,nal
imposition.

t{aving rleterminetl that the present plan vittlates a secut'etl

voting t'tgt,t, our obligation t'emains, howevet', to 1lt'ovitle

afRrriatiie judicial relief if needed to insure compliance by the

state with ils duty to construct districts that tlo not tlilute the

voti^g strength ol the plaintiff class in the ways here ftttlnd, or

in otlier *"V*. See In re: Il1irutis Congressionul District's lle-
tr1tltrtrtiortttient Cases, No. 8l C 1395, sli, ,,' (f D, Ill' l98l )'

u'Jj'd ntem. suh rtortt., R11tnr v. Otto,454 U'S' 113() (t1-)tl2);

ii'ybicki v. State Boaxl o1' Electiortll No. 8t C m30 (N. D. IIl.

Jan. 12, t982); Kirksey v. Bourdry''strpert'isor's' l-r5d I'-'2tl lilf)

({1th Cir.), cert. tlenietl, 434 U.S. 968 (19?7)'

Recognizing the difficulties posed for the state by the inrmi-

nence of tOaA primary elections, the court willcollvelle itt an-v

time, upott request,if th" state, to consider antl prom;ltly Lo

;i;;d" any iedistricting plan rhat has been enacrorl b.v rhc:



-i-
ir(iir

Sl.:rllirr;rrrr,llirlt [')(.ot]l[)lyrvit[ithcnrirrrrlatesol'"\ janrl with
tltiri rlt'r'isinrr l":tilirtg lcuislative act.ion hirving Lhat r:l'fect with-
in:r r',,lll.r,tr;rlrlr, titrrl turrlt,l'thr: cit'ctttnsl lnt.t.s, ttot litter than
l\!rrr','lr l(i, llrril, tlre t:olll't will rlisch:rr.gc its otrligirtion to rle-
lr,t, r1r lrrr, l irrr; rlr,nrr,nt an allprrllriate rrrrne<lial 1rlan.

,\tr irl,lrrolrlirrtc orrltlr will issuer.

57a

APPENDIX B

IN TITE UNITED STAT!:S DISTRI(IT (:OIIR'I'

FOR TIIE EASTERN DISTRICT OT' N0RTII (JAROI'INA

RALEIG}I DIVISION

No. ttl-ti0ll'ClV'5

RUFUS EDMISTEN, Et AI,,

v.
Rnt.pit GtNcles, e[ trl'

Plainti.l'l's,

I)e.l'e ntlun I s.

NoTtCEo}.APPEALToTHI'SUPREII{I]C()URT()}.TIlt:
UNITED STATES

Notice is hereby given that Rufus L' Edmisten' et al" rle-

f""a"nit in the 
"Uoi"-.iuptioned 

action' hereby appeal to the

b;ffi C*r.t ,f tn" UiiteA States from the ltnal or<l'r an4

ilil;i;.;tered in this action on January 24' 1984'

This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 USC $ 1253'

Rurus L' EutvttstoN, ArLt'rtNr:Y GUNEIIAL

Jnuns Weluncn, Jtt'
DePutY AttorneY General ftrr

1,,.ift ,^8?',:lal s o rrr c'l,

N.C. DePartment of Justir:r:

Post Office Box 62{)

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Telephone: (919) ?33-3377

Taire SrnileY 
'

Norma Harrell
Assistant AttorneY's General

a