Memorandum from Suitts to North Carolina Reapportionment Group; Correspondence from Bradford Reynolds to McLeod

    YONY HAFFISON. Prttr,.nl

M nY FRAT€S DERFNER.vic.+rG.6.nt a

. iJUUSL CHAU8ERS. Ptst Prtdd.nt

STEVE SUffYS. Ercltir. Oir.cto, a JOSEPH HAAS, Cqrra

TO:

FROM:

RE:

75 UAEIETTA STREET, N.W. ATLANTA GEORGTA 30303 (aoa) s22-t7c4

IvIEMORAI{DIIM

The North Carolina Reapportionment Working Group

Steve Suitts

Meeting of JanuarY 9 DATE: December 28, 1981

While there haye been some discouraging rumblings from the
other sid.e of the Mason-Dixon, I think that it is quite clear
that Saturday, January 9, is the best tine for a meeti.g, if we
are to have one before late January or February. As an alterna-
tive to using all of Saturdayr we could plan to start at an
early hour -: arotmd 8:00 A.M. so that the meeting could end
by noon, So tha.t people could leave by mid-daY. With this
alternative, those of us who are coming from out of town could
arrive very early on Saturday urorning or on Friday evening.

EGIONAL

I gather that the folks in Charlotte would permit the folks
fron out of town to decide if we want to start early or late morn-
ing on the 9th.

Ilnder this cover Itm also placing a coPy of the departmentf s
opinion in the South Carolina case where in mid-November it held
that the reapportionment of the South Carolina House violated the
Voting Rights Act

I look to see you on the gth.

S. S.

ENCL: letter of November 18, 1981



..rs:,

. lr- i h-1r::r'irrit rri oi' j rr.ri ict.

Crvilitrghrs Division

Ol[icc of thc ,lssi\tar.t Attorncy Gcncrol rr{arngr4 D.C 205J0

t B Nov 19Bt

Honorable Daniel R. McLeod
Attorncy Gcncral
Wade Hampton Office Building
Post Office Box 11549
Columbia, South Carolina Z9ZLL

Dear Mr. Mcl,eod:

This is in reference to Act tb. RZ49 (l9BI), providing
Eor ttre reapportiorunent of the South Carolina llouse of Repre-
sentatives. Your submission, pursuant to Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act, 42 V.S.C. I9Z3c, $as received on Septerober 19,
1981, and supplemented thereafter wiLlr additional materials
forwarded Lo us by Mr. ltobcrt J. Stretreen, Chairman of the
House Judiciary Comrnittee. '

We lrave given careful consideration to aII of ttre

to us. The submitted reapportioniaent includes I24 single-
member districts, the overwhelmirg najority of wtrich are
unobjectionable. We are, however, unalrle at ttlis time to
Preclear ttre reap;nrtionment plan since there are a limited
number of, districts whiclr fail to satisfy the requirement
under the AcL tl'rirt thcy bc drcrwn in a uE\nncr t'trat docs nol:
have a cliscriminltory effecL.

Under Sectiorrle the -State bears ttre burden of groving
the absence of both discrimir.!-atory purpose and effect in ttre
proposed, House redistrictir€ plan. City of Rome v.-Iinitedstatgs, 446 u.s. L56t r83 n.rg (rggoffiitea-mes,
ffis. r3o, I4O_41 (1976). rn oraei E &effi'
of a racially discriminatory effect, ttre State of Souttr
Carolina must demonstrate, at a minirnumr that tJre proposed
House redistrieting plan will not lead, to 'a retrogression
in the position of racial minorities trith respect to ttreir
effective exercise of'the electoral frandrise.o Beer v.
United S+-ates, supra, 425 U.S. at I4I. While ttre-ffiie is



2

under no obligation to maximize minority voting strength,
the State must demonstrate -gha! the plan_:_fa$]y:ef-l_ects
Elie Jrrlngrh -oF f; -iIsts.n

- Mississippi v. United States,-49O F. Supp.-569, 5gI (D.D.c.
:mT;-iEng n , *pra, 425 U.S. at 139
n.rI and r4I; E-;a-citvffi.-u-Eed stat.es t 422
u.s. 358r 362 (197-

On the basis of, our review of the proposecl reappor-
tionment plan \re find .cerLain districts clrawn in a manner
that "would lead to a retrogression in the position of. racj.al minorities with respect to their effective exercise
of ttre electoral franchis€.{ Beer v. United States, supra,
425 U.s. at 14!.. In this regafr,-we h@ aira@ea
the submitted plan in comparison to the prior reapportion-
ment plan as drawn in L974. In examining the "old' p1an,
we haver as the lav requires, viewed the districts 'from
the perspective of the most current -available population
datar' City of Rome v. United States, supra, 446 U.S. at
186 (i.ffi'cenffi Ef,aEUasis, we lrave
found no-ticeable dilution or fragmentation-of--the minority
vote in Flolenc-e-lo-i$-fy-(proposeE Oittrict Nos. 59 , 62, 6-3),
Lic$_and County (etoposeil District Nos. 70, ?2, 73, 74, 75,
76,79), Lee County (Proposed District Nos..50, 65, 66r,
Allendale-Bambero-Barnwell Counties (Proposed District Nos.
90, 9I), and Jasper-Beaufort Counties (Proposed District No.
L22) . ',

We are alrare t}at alternate proposals were present,ed
hfrIich would have avoided the fragmentation and dilution of
minority voting strengttr in eaclr of the referenced areas,
and we have received complainLs alleging that. suclr alt.ernate
proposals rirere rejected for racially discriminatory reasons.
Our own review has revealed that reasonably available alter-
native plans for each of these d.istricts could be drawn whictr
would avoid the fragmentation and dilution of minority voting
strength and-ihe Statg/s submiss:Lon of fers'no satisfactcry' explqnation for, -br. -fiover-nileata_ -ct-iin
of suih- alteritetives. rn these EircumsEenEEs,-and i; Iight
of ttre existing patterns of racial bloc voting in South
Carolina and the current underrepresentation 6f UtacXs in
the South Carolina llouse of Representatives, lrre are unable
to conclude that the State has met its burden of proving
that the planr dt least as it affects the referenced areas,
meets the requirements of the Act.



I

3-

Since I am unable to conclude t'hat Act No. R249 (1981)
providing for the reapportionment of the Souttr Carolina
tlouse of Representatives was enacted by the Legislat.ure
wittrout a racially discriminatorT purpose or effect, I mustr

i,.:X[' i,?5 ;H=* n'$' "!EliI* ; :l':ff"";:. il, Tiff : :"1":"

Of course, as pfgJidgd by-Section-S-oflhe Voting
Rights Act, you rrray -scck -a declaratoryjuclgrngnt-frotn ttre
Unit.ed States DisLrict Court for the DistricC-of Columbia
t}rat ttre House reaptrprtionmLrit pfin doeg nod trave the purpbse
and will not have Lhe effect of-denying-or abridging the
right to vote on account of race or color. In additionr the
Procedures for ttre Administration of Secti.on 5 (Sec. 51 ,44,
46 Fed. Reg. 878) permit you to request -the Attorney General

n ffi 
=:'3' 

x-; it=:* tr+"i ." : l' :: 
" 
in :n :o 3i :: : ? : .' E.x',l"?: i'"

the District of Columbia is obtained, the effect of the Attorney
Generalrs objection is to render the reaplprtionment of the
South Caroliia llouse of Represcntatives lEgalIy unenforceabtc.

If you have any guestions concerning this letter,
please feel free to call CarI W. Gabe1 (202-724-7439)
Director oE the Section 5 Unit in our Voting Section.
You can be assured that we are prepared to assist you in
any \rray possible in connection with your reap5nrtionment
ef forts.

Sincerelyr

Wm. Bradford Relmolds
Assistant Attornqg General

Civil Rights Division