Correspondence from Bradford Reynolds to Brock

    Olficc thc Assislont Attotney Generol

rrt J tl.rt a\ (

Civil Rights Di t"

luoshinqon, D.C. 20SJO

i 0 i{oy ,g8t

Mr. Alex Brock
Executive Secretary _ Director
State Board of EletrionsSuite 8-ql, Raleigh Building
5 l^lest HargetE S[ree't
Raleigh, Norch Carolina 276OL

Dear Mr. Brock:

This is in reference to rhe 1968 amendment (H.8. No. 4rL(L967))., which provides that-no counry shall be divided in rheformation of a Senace or Representative district and wh:ich wasrcccnLry sul-rtrriILcd Lo ulie AcLorncy ceneral fursuanc to section 5of the Voting Rights Act of Lg65, dS amendeb, 42 u.s.c. L973c.Your submission ias cornpreteJ on'octob;; i, -rgsr.

the application of rhe amendmenr. in ;r;;-l;;i"i;ii;"-iur[po=rion-tnenLs, and contrnents and information proviaeX by other i:rLlrestedparties. on the basis of that analylir, -r" are unable to concludethat this amendment, prohibiting tha aivision of counties inreaPportionments, does not have-a discrimi.,iuory purpose or effect.
Our analysis shows th.at !h" prohibition against clividingthe 40 covered counEies in Ehe ror*liion of senate and }Iousedistricts preqlctably requires, and has red co the use of, largemulti-rnember districts. 'Our anatysis-srrows further Ehat the useof such multi-member di.strict" .,ele"sarily suUorei[es cognizableminority popularion concenrrarions inio 1;r;;;-;hi;; erecrorares.rn Ehe conEext of t-he raciar !1o" ,oLi.,g that seems to cxisE, sucha pheuomenon operates and would continuE to operate "to rniniri,irJ-"or cancel 0ut Ehat..voting strength of racial . elements of thevoting populacion." ForEson v. Dorsev, 37g u.s. 43i; i:lr)-irg65i.'-



--,'lir-f'_..-' tJ I 2 "_ ., 
.'

' ? 
!nt= determination with resp(:l: to the jurisclictions

covere<llby Section 5 of thc VoLinq ltiry)rt.s Act should in no
way be'iegarded as precluding the Stal-e from following a
policy of preserving county Iines wlterrever feasible in
formulating its new districts. Incleed, this is the policy in
many states, subject only t-o Lhe preclearance requirements of
Se ction 5, r+tiere applicable . In the present subntission,
however, we are evaluating a legal requiretnent that every
county must be included in the plan as an undivided whole.
A:; not-crl .:ll)()v(-), t. lrc irrcscirl)ill)l c cI fc<:t. <t{. s;uclt ar rcqui- rctttcl]L
is to subnrerge sizeable black cotntnuniLies in large multi-
member districts.

tltrrl<.r- l-lrr.:ir.' r:i r. r-'trrrrl; t.-;rnc(jli, ;rt)(l r-1 rr i.,lr-'rl lry Llrc sL.ttttl.rrtlu
established in cases such as Beer v. United States, 425 U.S,
130 (1976), we are unable to EoEEtuae ttrEE-EtrE-tgOB amendment
requiring nondivision of counties in legislative redistricting
cloes not have c-r racialty discrirninatory purpose or effecL.
Accordi ng ly, oD behalf of the Attorney Getreral , I must
interpose an objection to that amendment insofar as it af fei:ts
the covered counties.

Of course, as provided by Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Actr 1lou have the right to seek a declaratory judgme'rt
from the I)niterl States DistricL Court for the District of
Colunrbier LhaL Lhis change l-ras neiLher the purPose nor wilI
have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on
account of race, color or lnetnbership in a language minority
group. 1n rrrlrli tion, 1-)re [)rocedures for t]re Adrninistration .-,f
section 5 (section 5L-44, 46 Fed. Req. B7B) permit you to
req uest the Att-rney General to recons ider the objection.
I'lowever, untj-I tlrc ol>jecl-ion is wj.thrlrarwn or the judgtnent
frorn the Dist-ricl- of Columbia is obLained, the ef fect of th':
objection by the Attorney General is to make the 1968 amendtnent
Iegal 1y unenforceable.

If you have any questions concerning this matter,
please feel free to call CarI w. Gable (202-724-7439), Director
of the Section 5 Unit of the Voting Section.

Sincerely,

Wm.
Assistant nttorney General

CiviI Rights Division

Bradford Reynolds