Correspondence from Napoleon Williams et. al., to Bradford Reynolds and Jones

    JUUU' I.s/ONNC €HAM6EF:I
JAMCS E. FETCU:5ON. II

utl.vtN L wair
.,IONATI{AN IVALI.AS
K .L aoKr*s October 22 ,
JAMtll C. FlJt r tQ. JR.

c. woNNg MtM!
JOXN W. 6FC!'HAM
ITONALO L 6IE'ON
OILOA 

' 
CIJZER

LttLIE J. WINNCi

CHAMBERS. FE.RGUSON. WATT, WALLAS, ADKINS & FULLER. PA.
AT"OFINEYS AT LAW

SUITE 73O EASTT INEEFENOENC= PI.AZlr

95I SOU?H INOEPENOENCE AOULSr'ARO

CHARLOTTE NORTH CAROLINA ZA2O2
iELEpHoNE {7O4} 375.€46!

19 81

Hon. William Bradford Reynolds
Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D. C.20530

Mr. Gerald W. Jones, Chief
Voting Section
United States Department of Justice
Washington, D. C.20530

Re: Sr:bmissions of 1967 Amendments to the
Constitution of the State of North
Carolina for Pre-Clearance Under
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Dear Messrs. Reynold,s atrd Jones:

On September 16, 1981, black voters in the State of
North Carolina filed a class action lawsuit in the
Eastern District of ttorth carolina, Raleigh Division.
One purpose of the lawsuj.t was to restrain the imple-
mentation and enforcement of certain amendments mldein 1967 to the North carolina constitution insofar as
the amendments applied to counties of the state covered,by 55 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965r a,s amend,ed.

These amendments were, in L967 and 19G8, desi.gnated asArticle II, 54 and. Article If, 56. (The sections are
designated in the present North carorina constitution
as Art. II, 53 and, Art. If , 55.) The arnendments pro-
hibit the division of counties in the delineation ofelection districts for elections to the two houses ofthe North Carolina General Assembly.

The purpose and effect of the 1967 amendments were todilute minority voting strength and thereby prevent theelection of mj-nority cand.i'dates. Nunerous individuals
and, organj-zations intend, to present their objections to
any pre-clearance by your Department of these amendments.
we understand that some groups have already fo:r^rard,ed toygg_their protests. we assume that the Justice DepartmentwiIl, in the name of justice and accordi.ng to its legura-tions, afford these organizations and individuals suiti-cient time to present their objections.



Hon. William Bradford Reynold,s
l{r. Gerald W. Jones

October 22, 1981
Page 1\ro

In any eventr w€ do not expect the Department to
act at the political behest of the State of North
Carolina, and thereby violate federal law, by
acting to preclude the occurrience of a meaningful
opportr.rnity for the protesting groups and individ-
uals to present their objections in a faj-r and
timely manner

Mr. Steve Suitts, Executive Director of the Southern
Regional Council, has provided, me with a copy of'your Augrust 24, 1981 letter to htm J.n which you
state that

Our records ind,j.cate that on April
20, L97L, the Attorney General precleared
all sections of the North Carolina
Constitution as revised in 1969, with
the exception of Article VI, Section 4,
to which an objectj-on was interposed.

The facts stated in this letter are wronq and. have
been admitted to be so by both the Attorney General.
of the State of North Carolj.na and, the Secretary.-
Director of the North Carolina State Board of
Elections in a sworn affidavit and a memorandum
filed in the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of North Carolina, Raleigh Division,
in the above action. I am enclosing for your in-
formatj.on a copy of the affidavit by Alex K. Brock,
the Secretary-Director of the State Board, of
Elections.

In his affi.d,avit, Mr. Brock swears, after first
stating that he has been Secretary-Director since
Augr:st 5, 1955 and was serving in that capacity' in
L967 when the Lg67 amendments were ad.opted and.
modifiedr that:

5. As best I recaII, I d,id not deem
these amendments to the State Constitution
t,o be subject to the sr:bmj-ssion require-
ments of 55 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, at the time of their adoption, and
therefore, f did not submit the amendments
to the Attorney General of the United States



Hon. William Brad.ford ReYnolds
Mr. Gerald, W. Jones

October 22, 1981
Page Three

for approval or seek their approval by
the United States District Court for
the District of Coh.unbia;

Moreover, the Attorney General of the State, in his
Memorandum of Mootness admits the fai-Iure and
merely pleads that it was excusable on the ground
that "Failure of the State to submit these con-
stitutj-onal provisions for approval Pursuant to
55 of the Voting Rights Act was at least und,er-
stand,able. "

Furthermore, the 1egal papers filed by the Attorney
'General of NorEh Carolina states definitively
that "the State chooses not to contest plaintiffs'
contention that these provisions should have been
submitted. "

The above demonstrates that there is no rational
basis for your tentative conclusion that the L967
amendments, which are the subject of this letter,
have been previously cleared by your Department.

In addition to the above, there is a more serious
reason why these amendments cannot be deemed to
have been precleared by you when your Department,
on April 20, 197I, precleared sections of the North
Carolina Constitution as revised in 1969. That
reason is made apparent by the Report of the North
Carolina State Constilqt , p. 30

on of
the Constitutj,on, and a September 24, 1981 memoran-
dum by John Sanders (excerpts of which are attached) ,
submitted by the Attorney General of North Carolina
in his ltemorandum of Mootness.

The Report of the Study Commission, . iYpEal t+!:
about both the L967 amendments (ratified in 1958)
and the 1959 amendments (ratified in 1970 and
approved. by you in 1971). The latterr &s the Report,
ggg., makes clear, was merely a set of revisions
of the former. The Report states that:



Hon. William Bradford ReynoldsMr. Gerald W. Jones
October 22, 1991

Page Four

the provj.sions governing apportionment
of the two houses, adopied,- Uy the peoplein November, 1969, have been brougirt -
forward in the proposed text with nosubstantive change. ', Report, p. 30 .

Moreover, as Mr. sanders makes crear in his memo-randum, the 1969 amendments ,,mad,e only ver? minorchanges in the provisions of Article ir oi'ti,"----constitution dealing with the apportionment ofthe Senate and House of Representatives,, (see
attached) .

rn view of the above, it is clear that the changesapproved by your Department in L}TL with respectto the 1969 amendments were made under the aisumption,as supported by representations of the state of -
North Carolina, that there were no sr:bstantj.ve
cha+ges {rom rhe 1967 qmendmenls to-Eiliffimend-mEn*
the i-ssue of whether there were changes in the Lg6iamendments which were different from those in theprior Consti.tution of the State.
This view is further confirmed by the introd,uctory
@ to the present constitution of thestate of North carolina with respect to the presentState Ccnstituticn. Those Notes state that:

Session Laws 1969, c. 1259 proposed,
a complete editorial revision of LfreConstitution of North Carolina, to be
submitted,. to the qualified voters of theState at the 1970 general election. The' revised Constitution was adopted by voteof the people at the general electionheld Nov. 3, Lg7O, to take effect July L,L97L.

At bestr. there r^/ere only editorial revisions sub_mitted to you for approval in L}TL and, those re-visions were submitted on the working assumption,



IIon. William Bradford, Reynolds
!lr. Gerald W. Jones

October 22, 1981
Page Five

shared by you and. the State, that the revisions
constituted no change from the then pre-existing
L967 amendments. At no time, therefore, haveyou ever been presented rrrith an opportunity to
consider whether the changes adopted by the
Legislature in L967 to the State Constj.tution
and, ratified by the people of the State in 1969,
had. the purpose and. ef fect of diluting minority
voting strength and othervrise discriminating
against minority voters and citizens.
To regard your 1971 approval of the 1969 amend-
ments as tantamount to approval of the Lg67
Constj.tutional Amendment,, would thus present agrave Iegal crj.sis concerning the proper admj-n-
istration and implementation of S5:

Accord,ingly, we do hope that you will reconsideryour letter of August 24, 1981 in light of the
disclosures of this letter.
Respectfully submitted,

kd:;k".W
Leslie Winner
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas,

Ad,kins & Fuller
951 S. Independence plaza
Charlotte, North Carolina 2A202
704/37s-8461

JACK GREENBERG
JA}4ES M. NABRIT, III
NAPOI,EON B. W]LLIAI4S, JR.
I,ANI GUINIER

10 Columbus Circle
suite 2030
New York, New York 10019
2L2/s86-8397