Motion for Leave of Court to File Brief as Amicus Curiae; Order to File Brief Amicus Curiae

    IN THE

Suprtme 6ourt of tbe Glniteb $tnteg
Octonun Tenm, 1983

No. 

-
Rurus L. Eotutste N, et al.,

v.

Relpg GtNclns, et al.,

Appcllunts,

Appellees.

On Appeal From The United States District Court
For The Eastern District Of North Carolina

JURISDICTIONAL STATEIIIENT

OPINIONS BEI,OW

The opinion of the United Stat'es District Court for tlrr,,

Eastern District of North Carolina in this c:rse wils r'(:r)-

dered <rn January 27 , l9tl4. A .f,py of the Court's Opinion
anrl Order is set out in Appeddix A.

.l
I. JURISDIqTION

The ease below was a clas{ action by black voters ol'
North Carolina challenging iertairr multi-nremller rlis-
tricts in the post-1980 redistriqting of l.he North Carolinl
General Assembly. The appellants frled their Notice ol
Appeal in the Distriet Court on Febnrary 3, 1984, a copy
of which is containetl in Appendix B. This appeal is clocli-
eted in this Court within the time atlowecl b.y orrler of tlre
Chief Justice, dated March 28, 1984. A copv of this orrlt,r'



I'
lv

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
C,rst..s: Page

tlrlintllttrt Hrights v. Metropolilan Housing Deu. Corp.,

(-ltulttttutt v. Niclro/sort, No. CV82-PT-1879J (N.D. Ala.,
l-eb. lll, 198-l) 12

City ol' ,llobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) 7

[)arid v. (inn'ison, 553 F.zd 923 (5th Cir. L977) .... 10, ll
Donncll v. (inited Stoles, 682 Ir.2d 240 (D.C.Cir. 1982) 16

Escuttrltit (.'orntlu v. IficMillttn, 6llli F.2d 960 (5th Cir.
It)xi) 20

ftrttrlrt.t t. .lt*r,1tlt.559 F.zd 1]1ig (l-rth C:ir'. 1977 tl
.ltttrt's t'. ('itt1 rl l,tthhock,72l t'.2d:164 (5th Cir. 1984),

r,lr'rt ,lr'ttir,r/. No. !J:i-lllX; (5th (lir. April 10, l9&l). 12

li i rl; s,'it t . litur nl ol Srrpo'r.isor'.s, i'yld I.'.2(l l:19 (5th Cir.),
crt t. 1!1'11'11,1/, i34 U.S. gdu (lt)?7) 12

,l'ltr jttt t'.'l'rtttt, ir7.l F.Snpp. li25 (E.D. La. l9&3) ... l5i 16

J/olt'is t'. (i trs.sr'//r,, 432 tJ.S. .llll (1977) 14-16

l)ttrl;lrttrt' llosit,t'!t r,. S/rrrrt,, .l:tl, U.S. :i22 (1979) ....... 14

ll,x!,'t', v. lt,,lttt',.158 tJ.S. 61:l (l9l't2) 20

Stttitlt r'. ll'irr/er', 717 fr.zd llll (5th Cir'. 1983) ll
Iilthuttr v. Sr,ftn?on, 456 U.S. 3? (lt)82), on I'emand, Civ.

Nrr. l)-81-.19-tlA (8.D. Tex. l9&l) . 12,22
lttltt::tltrt'.- t . (- iltl tf Abile ne, No. 82-1630 (sth Cir. Mar.

:. ilrs.t) . 12,22
ll:rtsltrt,ttl,ttr r'. l)rrrris, 426 U.S. 229 (1976) 7

\l'ltiltotttlt r'. ('/rnuis, 403 U.S. l2,l (lff7l) 8

ll'ltitt,r'. /lr:r,ri,sler',.112 U.S. 755 (11)73) 6,8,9
Z i ttt tt,t't't' . .ll tKeillten,485 F.2rl 1297 (5t,h Cir. 1974), affd

sul) nr)nl. Uust Cttrroll Parislt St:lool Burxl v. Mur-
slt,tll. l?.1 U.S. 636 (1975) . . . 7, ll

( 'il):::'l t l t "l'l( )N, S'lf 'f trfns:
U. S. t 'rrnSt. . Anrcnr]. l5
li t '. S. ( '. $ ll)7;] . possdrn

l'j lr.:i.('. I tf)?:ic possi?,r

v

Table of Authorities Continued
Page

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

the Judiciqry, Report on th-e-Voting Rights Act,
Comm. Prin[,'9?tli Cong., 2d Sess. (1982) I

S. Rep. No. 4l?, 9?th Cong., 2d Sess. (1982) 9, ll, 13, l'l
H.R. Rep. No. 9?-227, g?th Cong. lst Sess. (1981) . . . fr, 13



ii. 
,,.,II1'II]S T0 TTIE I'ROCEEI)ING BT]I,OIV

'l'hc Apprelllnts, defendants in the action below, are as
firllru's: Itrrlirs Edrnisten, Attorne.y General of North
(lirrrilina;,James (,1. Green, Lieutenant (iovernor of North
Carolina; Liston B. Ramse.y, Speaker of the House; The
Stlte lirarrl of Elections of Nor.th Clar.olina; R. Kenneth
Bahb. .lolrn L. Stickley, Ruth Sernashko, Sydney F.C.
llarrrrr,r,ll, rrrrrl Shirle.1. FIerring, tnemll{.rs oI the State
lJrxtt'rl o1' I'.ltrtiotts, untl 'fhatl Iilrrre, Sccr.et:rr1, rif State.

'l'lrt, r\1r1rr,lllr... lrlltintil'fs in tlrc uction beL)u,, are as
lirlhnr s: Iilll,lr ( iinukrs, Silrlrio Ilultrn, I,'r'erl IJellieltl, ancl
,losr'1rlt 11,,,,,1r , ,rtt lrcltalf 6l tlreptsplyes lrrrrl 1ll Others
sirriil;rrlv r,it u;rt r,rl.

lll

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page

QuesrtoNs PRssrNteo i

PeRttps ro rHE PRocesolNcs Bslow
Tlsr,o oF AufHoRtrtES .

Oprt'rtons Bnlow

ii

iv
I

I
.)

r)

i

JuRrsotcrtoN .. . .

CousrtrurtoueL PnovISIoNS AND SrATtlrns INvttt.r'utt

SrerumsNroPTHE CASE

Tur QuesTtoNs PResgNTl:n ARg Suttsr',rNrt,rl, ......-.
I. Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act Cluaranttcs Ac-

cess To The Political l'ttrcess, Not Electoral Suceess
Wherever There Occuts A Sufficient Concetttration
Of Black Citizens To Create At Least One Saltr Illaclt
District

I I. Preclearance Of A Redistricting Plan Uncler Section
5 Precludes Reatliutlication Of The Issue Of Discrirn-
inatory Result Oi tfrat Plan By Private Plaintiffs
Under Section 2 . .. .

III. Raciallv Polarized Votinc Is Not Establislretl As A
Mattey'Of Law Wheneve-r Less Than A Majority Of
White Voters Vote For A Black Candidate

IV. The District Court Emed In Disregartling Sub-
stantial Evidence That Many Black Leatlers lVere
Satisfied That Electoral Ac-cess Anrl O1ryot'tutritv
l'or Blacks And Whites Were Eqttal, Anrl l;'urtlr-
ermore Oltposed The Conceyrt Of Safe Singlt:-
Member Dis-tricts Advocaled By The I'}laintiil' . . .

Crltrct,uslorq

ApperuorxA...
Appeuorx B

AppENDrx D .. .

I

t2

t7



,l

\1

QtrEsrloNs PRESENTEI)

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

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

centration of minority citizens to create at least one

safe black district which ensures black electoral suc-

cess.

II. Whether preclearance of a redistricting ;rlan under
' Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act precludes relitiga-

tion of the issue. of discriminatory result tlf that lllan
by private plaintiffs under Section 2.

III. Whether racial bloc voting exists as a matter ol law
' whenever less Lhan 507o of the white voters cast

ballots for the black candidate.

IV. Whether the court erred in rejecting substantial evi-
dence that many black leaders were satisfied that
electoral access and opportunity for trlacks antl
whites were equal and furthermore, oplrosed the
concept of single member districts advocatecl by the
plaintiffs.

i

l



is s't li rrl I r i r r,\ lrlxrnrlix C. T;..irrrisrliction of this Court is
irrvokr'tl ttrrrllt' jl'i tl.S.C. $ l2l-r;j.

('( )NS't'11't ''l't( )N,\[, I'tiov ISIoNS ,\ND ST.\',1'tJ',tES

INV0t,\',[]l)
'l'lrt, Unilt'rl Strttes Constitution, Fifteenth Amend-

tnertt, itrrrl St:ctions 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
ItXii-r, rrs itnrrtult'rl, -12 U.S.C. $li 11173, lt)7llc al'e set out in
Appcrrrli.r l).

s't',\'l'liI}IENT ol' 'l'lItl c.\sE

ln.lrtlv ol'lll8l, the North Carolina General Assembly
enacterl a lcgislative ret'listricting plan in ortler to con-
forrn the St.a[e Senitte and House of Representative dis-
tricLs lo the 19ti0 census. In keeping with a 300 year old

lrrar:tice in the State, the plans consisteclof a combination
of single rnember and multimember districts and each
rlist.rict \\:us cornposerl of either a single county or two or
rnor'o counties so that no county was divided between
Icgislrrtivr'<lislricts. The Plaintiffs below filerl this action
on Stpterttbet' l(i, l98l in the [Jniterl States Distriet
(lourt fol the Iiastern District o['North Carolina alleging
tnrong other things, that the multi-nrember districts di-
luted black voting strength.

In ()ctolrt,r' 1981, in a sllecial session, the General As-
scrnblv rt,p,r:rlerl anrl reworhe<l the Hottse ltlan to retluce
tlrr, polrtrl;rliorr rleviations. Because, tbrt.y of North Caroli-
n;1'5 l0() ('ountics ure coveretl h.y Section 5 of the Voting
Itiuhts Act. 1111, 1'1.f iserl Ilouse platt anrl the Senate plan
rr u't, sul,rrrit lcrl to the r\ttrlrtter' ( ient'ral ftrt' re vien,. The
n tt()r'n,,) (l,,rrr,r'rrl irrlet'posctl olriet:tittns to both propos-
lls. llr, l'rrurrrl th;rt. the stitte ;rolicv itg:ritrst tlivitling coun-
t ics rr':rrrll,,rl irr tht, creation ol' rttttlti-mentber districts
ru lrit'h irr lrrrrr tt,rrrlt.rl to sttbtttt,t'1-ie lllacli vttters in the
(.9\'(,1'r'rl rrrt ilrl ir,:1.

3

During the early months of 1982 counsel for the General

nr.umnfr worked closely with the Civil Rights Divisio, 
'

of the Dlpartment of Justice in or6er to remetl.y those

aspects of.the plans found objectionable uncler Section 5.

In Februaty, th. General Assembly enltcted nerv

redistricting plans in which some county lines were

broken in orler to overeome the objection in the covered

counties of the state. when these plans were submittecl,

the Attorney General found one problematic district in
each plan. These subsequently were redrawn to Justice

Depaitment specihcations. On April30, 1982, the Senate

,n,i Hort" plans re'ceived Section 5 preclearance'

The action below remained pending during the course

of these legislative proceedings, and several amendments

to the complaint were perrnitted to accommodate the

successive ievisions of the redistricting plans. The last

supplemental complaint included Section 2 of the Voting

Rigirts Act, as amended on June 29, 1982, as a basis of the

plaintiffs' claim of vote dilution. In its final form, the

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

strength of black citizens in violation of Amencled section

@-ptaintiffs-alleged-vote clilutfon in
affie a-corrcentfation of black voters

was split between 2 Senate districts. The plaintiff class

*". c"rtirred and trial to a three-juclge court u'as held for
8 days commencing JulY 25, 1983.

The plaintiffs attemptetl to prove that multi-metttbet'
House ,littti.t. in Durham, Forsyth, Meclclenbttrg atlrl

Wake counties, and the multi-member Senltte clistricl
that inclucled Mecklenburg county, none of u'hich rverc

covered by Section 5, YlolatedSgdion!. They alsrt ttttack-

ed 2 district configufrtions in the coveretl ilr'ea of tltc
State: House district 8 antl Senate district 2.



4

'lhe t't'cot'rl r,:lleets the following stipulated facts:

[)urhanr (lountv wirs a 3-member House district which

hrrrl a blrrcl< r',rting .ge population of 33.6Vo' Durham has

hatl ort' Slacp rep'r,Jeltaiive to the House continuously

since ll)?tl. Tu,o rif its tlve county commissioners are black

:rs uu'e t$'o of its ftrr,rr elected district court judges' The

Drrr.hilnr ()ounty Boarcl of Elections had a black member

1i',,1n l{}?() to ifl8t. The chairmanship of the Durham
(iountl' I)cmocratic Party was held by a blac.k from 1969

thr.orrulr ll)?11 arrrl is currently held by a black for the
'11)8;l-Sir tt,rnt.

'[hC hl:rck r,0tirr1; tge population of Mecklenburg is24Vo.

(lrrn'cnt lY onr: ol'the i'igt,t House members from Mecklen-

brrru (.,ruttty i" black. Jrmes D. Richardson, who is a-lso

ttl;rt:l< rrrrrl n,:rs running in his first election for public office

irr l{rs2. (,Ime in ninth in a race for eight seats, with only

llir() r'ot,'s less t.harr the eighth successful canclidate' This

rr';rs irr ;r ljelrl ,rt llicltrldidates. While there is currently no

l,lurli rrcu;ltot' li'ont the Mecklenburg-Cabarrus County

S|n:rf t. I)istrict., .llttnes Polk, a first time canclidate for

1[rblit: r,l'lict'. rarr filth in a race for four seats in the 1982

irl.ct iolr.'l'hr: Mecklenburg-Cabarrus County Senate Dis-

tlict rli,l 1131'e il black senator for three terms from 1975

throrrqh l1)80, urrlil lris death before the 1980 elections. In
rurlrlili,,rr. one ol'the tive Mecklenburg County Commis-

siont,r's. trvo of the nine Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of
litlucati,rn ntetrlltr-'t's, and one of the ten Mecklenburg
(lountl' l)istlict Oourt juclges, all of whom are black, were
glgctetl rrt -l:trge. I1 atlflition, another black was appointed

to a vacuttt tlistrict court judgeship in Mecklenburg Coun-

L.y, brrt has ttot 1'et had to run for election. One of the three
IViechlenburg C,runty Board of Elections members, the

cuuenl tliair, ancl the immediate past chair of the Meck-

lenhtu'g (--ottnty Denrocratic Executive Committee, are

llso lrl;r,'li.

j)

The City of Charlotte, Iocaterlin Mecklenburg County,
has a population whieh is 3l7c black. Harvey Gantt, who is
black, currently serves as Mayor of that city. Charlotte
also has two black city council members elected from
majority black districts.

The five-member House District 39, including most of
Forsyth County has a 227c black voting age population
and eurrently has two black reltresentatives as a result of
the 1982 electio.ns. Forsyth County has previously
eleeted a black representative for the 197 4-76 and lg77 -78
General Assemblies. Blacks huve also been appointed b.v
the Governor on two occasions to represent Forsyth
County in the North Carolina House. This occurred in
l9?7 when a black representative resigned and again in
l9?9 when a white representative resigrred. One of the
five Forsyth County Commissioners ancl one of the eight
Forsyth County School Board members are black. Both
Boards are elected at-large. In adclition, one of the three
members of the Forsyth County Board of Elections is
black.

The City of Winston-Salem, located in Forsyth County,
has a black population of slight.ly more Lhan 40Vo and a
black voter registration of slightly less than B2Zo. The
Winston-Salem City Council has eight members electecl
from wards. Currently, there are three black members
elected from majority black r.r'ards and one black member
elected from a ward with slightly less than 3g7c black
voter registration. The black member clefeatecl a white
Democratic ineumbent in the prirnary and a u,hite Repub-
lican in the general election.

The current Wake County six nrember House delega-
tion includes one blaek member, Dan Blue. who is se.ring
his second term. In the last election, Blue received thi
highest vote total of the lb Democrats r.unning in the



l)r.inr;r).y irn(l the second highest vote total of the 17 candi-

,l,rt,'. nrnning for the six seats in the gengral. electiol'

Altlr,ruglr no'single-rnember black senate district can be

c,,r',.t,'rie t,'rl in 1yake County, Wake electetl a black Sena-

r-,,,' lirr Llre ll)?ir-?(i ancl 1977-78 terms'

()nrr ol'thc, seven wake county commissioners is black..

'l'\\'r,,rItlre t:ighL Wake County District CourtJudges are

blrrcli. TIrt Shelilt'0f wake county, John Baker, is black

irrrrl is cttt'rt'ttLl.v serving his second term' In the 1982

elt'e ttrrn lirr his seconcl te]'m, Baker receivecl 6i)'57o of the

votts in t ltt'gettet'itlelection over a white opponent' 11tle
[)t,ntocrttlic I't'itttar.y, Baker received ovet 6lVo of the

1,11[r, ill rl0fcilting two white opponents. Wake County
(lonrnrission,rm i)irtrict CourtJudges, and the Sheriff are

itll tlecterl lt. lrtt'ge. According to 19U0 figur99, 20'57o ,of
tht, \Vakt' Corrrrty voting age fiopulation are black' Wake

i;,,,,,,t, lpts ;tlstt hafl a b-lack member continuously on its

tlrr,,.-mr,tn[et' [Joltrd of Elections since 1977, and the

curltrnt r:hair is black.

7

(1973) and Zimmer v. Mclieit.hen,48ll F.2d 129? (5th Cir'.
1974). The Senate Report makes clear that these factors
are merely illustrative of the kinds of evidence a court
could consider. No rnatter horv many of these factors rr

plaintiff proves he must stillestablish that the challengerl
electoral mechanism, in [he totalit-v of circumstances,
results in a denial of electoral access. Because the court
below mechanistically aplllied the la.,'tor analysis of the
Senate Report without ever relating the evidence to po-
litical access in the pzrrticular circumstances in this case,
the court reached the untenable conclusion that Section l
was violated even though, "it has nou' llecome possible ti,r'
black citizens to be electerl to office at all levels of st:rtr:
government in North Calolina." Aplr. aL 37a.

THE QUESTIONS PRESI'\TEI) AttT' SUBSTANTIAL

I. Section 2 Of The Votinr ltights Act Guarantees Access'l'o
The Political Process Not Electoral Success Wherever
There Occurs A Sufficient Concentration Of Black
Citizens To Create At Least One Safe Black District.

On June 29, 1982 Congress enacted amendments to the
Voting Rights Act of 1965. Iroremost among the changes
adopted was a complete transformation of Section 2.
Prior to this 1982 amenclment, Section 2 had been vieu'r:rl
as simply the statutory restatement of the Fifteenth
Amendment. City oJ' lVlobile v. l]olden, 446 U.S. .,;
(1981). Consistent r,r,ith this Court's rulings, in such cas(,s
as W ashingto n v . D a ui s, .12{i U. S. 229 (197 6) antl Arl i t t q -

ton Heights v. M etropolita n Housittg Deuelopntent C or1t.

[),.spite Lhese stipulatecl facts, the court below found

tlurt l'he rnrrltimember clistricts in Durhant, Forsyth,

i\{.:,,lilenl,urg antl wake counties violated section 2. The

t:ollrt u,lrs alilr: to reach this conclusion because it never

ilrlrl|essr,rl rhe ultimate issue of fact posited by the

stutrrte_-$,hether black citizens of these districts had

;,; ;,. ;,,.t' ;...' -t-i, m;;allm;t Froc e ss'arid eq u al o pp<i {9 ni ty
l n:ites of q[err cbdte. Reiller, th-e ctiurt

,m.nii rf, OSt ri Lirto ry lan gurg. a ricl co nstrued the legisla-

Livc histot'.y.
.l'he licPort of the senate committee on the Jucliciary

lists rrile ia,rl6r.s which the Committee suggestecl might

be irrt licirLive ol'vote clilution. S. Rep. No. 417, 97th Cong',

irl ,.r,ss. (lf)B?) at 28. These factors were culled from the

:rrr:rlvticrrl l\'lrtrieu'ttrks in Wlite v. Reqister,4l2 U'S' ?55

is u,as holding6
C ity of ill ob il e, .srrp]'o



8

Sr,, tior) j(:r) us unren(led provides that no voting law
slr;rll 1,,, illlgroslrl or irplllietl in a manner which results in a
,l,,r vo[-e ott account of
ill"r:-Sul-,.-r,ctiorr (b) in its entii€ty rexls:

(lr) ,\ violttion of subsection (a) is established if,

.tEfiolr@in@ave less
r ii.-r r r r r r:tunil vlFC n o t fr e r m e m b e rs o I t hE-dlect6 -..-
r':rt e t0 rrarttctoate tn ffl-e nolltlcal Dfocess and to

"{ 
cA ifrl r' e s e ntEtiV6-oT t ffi

T,, w-ni.ii rrrcnr5@ class have
lreen elect.erl to office in the state or political
subdivision is one "circumstance" which may be
c,rnsitleretl, provided that nothing in this sec-
lion establishes a riqht to have menrbers of a
rrrott,cterl class elected in numbers equal to
llrtir' lrroportion in the population. 42 U.S.C.
$ 1973.

I3.y tlr,r neu' language, Congress sought to relieve plain-
til't.s ol' the llut'rlen of proving discriminatory intent.
Unrlt'r' the rrerv Section 2, a plaintiff must show that the
chirllt,rrgerl elt,cLion law or practice "results" in unequal
:r(:t:('s:r to the political process.

'l'h,, legislative history of the 1982 amenrlntents to the
Volirrr: Iliqlrts Act is in may ways internally inconsistent
rurrl : r.ll-r',rrrtr';rrlictot'y, in part, because no conference
('(,r))rnil tet. r'elrort lvlrs proclucecl, and the manner in which
,livr.r'ttt'nt viervs ol' the House and Senate Committee
nr.rnlr,l's \\'(,1't: conrllromisetl was not recorded. One
tlr,'rnt'. hr.rn'over', is echoetl by both Committees ancl in
lir,'t l,r nelu'lv e\'orvone who commentecl during the floor

oI cluzens

l)

U.S. 755, (1973). See S.Rep. No. 97-|li (97th Cong. 2rl.
Sess.) aL32-24; H.Rep. No. 1t7227 (9?th Cong. lst Sess. r

l98l at 30. In regard to the l:rnguage ultimately aclopterl.
the Senate Report states thut "the substitute amendment
codifies the holding in Whitlr, thus making clear the
legislative intent to incorporate that precedent and thrr
extensive case law which developed arrtund it, into the
application of Settion 2." S.Rep. at 32.

The district court erretl in tiriling_to lpply_$,egt!9lfina
manferchs-rentrvitFttEJr,rdiei"aipreierlentsexpressll'
identifed 6y Congress. Although the court acknowledgetl
Congress'reliance onWhite v. Register', and some of its
progeny, it did not seriousl.v attempt to integrate the
language of Section 2 with the case larv which Congress
sought to codify. Much of the language of subsection (b) of
the statute came directly from this Court's opinion in
White.412 U.S. at 766.' Obviously, it is only in light of the
White v. Register and the cases which fbllowed that Sec-
tion 2 can be properly construecl. Because the clistrict
eourt attempted to interpret the amencled provision with-
out this essentialjudicial backgrouncl, it reached several
erroneous conclusions of lavn'.

First, the district court erred by equating a violation ol
Section Z uAlLJhe_a[sence o f guara n t eerl_lrnporliona I

representatio4-Jheeourtfl rttl.vSaIEIT[-attheessenceif

-+--F--lt#-,

- a votE-tlilution claim is this:

[A] racial minority u'ith rlistinctive uroup interests
that are capable of airl or anrelior.ation 6y gorenr-

I "The plaintiffls burden is to lrrorlrrce evitlence to support findings
that the political processes learlinrr to nomination lnrl election r*er.t,
not equally open to participation ht the group in tluestion-that its
members had less opportunity than rlirl other resirlents to pafticipate
in the political processes anrl t, ek,ct legislators rrl' t heir choice.'; 4l:l
U.S. at 766.



nr(,nt is elTectively clenied the political power to fur-
lht,r' those interests that numbers alone would
l,r'csrrrnlrtivel.v give it in a voting constituency not
nrcirrllr' polarizetl in its voting behavior. (citation
orrrittt,rl). App. at l4a.

'l'his statcmenL epitomizes the district court's reacling of
Lhr, lrnenrlerl statute. Although blacks hacl achieved con- I
sirlenrblt, success in winning state legislative seats in the I

r:hullt,ngt,tl rlistricts, their failure to consistently attain I
Llrt, nrrrnlter of seats that nuntbers alone uould I

l))'('su ttt 1tl i rt I ry tlire thent, (i.e, in proportion to their pre- 
I

s(,rrcc in t he polrulation) the court found that Section 2 had I
Lrct,rr violirterl. Allof the vote clilution cases prior to City oJ' I
lltiltilc I'rrrr counter to this interpretation. In Dauitl v. )
(.'rr lli sorr , Iirr examllle, the Fifth Cireuit rvrote that "dilu-
tQr ,ccurs v,,hen the min<lrity vglgfs-}rave-no-r€al oppor-
tufii[tri lnrrieipafe in the polfuical process." 553 E.2d
: l:: i . RITTSII-CTF. I97I). -ffi I i D o u ei . frI utr e, the E i ght
( lirt'rrit. irr rli:scussing vote dilution under Lhe pre-[Vlobile
corrst iLrrl ionirl standard now codified in Section 2, stated
llrtrl lhe "t,orrstitutional touchstone is whether the system
is opr,rr lo lirll minority participation not rvhether prop-
,r'1i,rrurl rr.,prr.'selrt;ttion is in fact, achieved." 539 P.2d
I l.r:1. I I ; I (lit lr Cir. 1976).

'l'lrt, corrrt firrther misinterpreted the new statute by
blrrrring t lrt, clcar distinction between effective represen-
trrt i'rn arrrl representation by a member of one's own race.
Not hinu rrr Lhe recorcl supports a conclusion that the black
resirlcrrts o1't he rlistricts at issue have been clenied repre-
serrtution in lhe halls of the General Assernbly. The dis-
triet corrrt, how'ever, based its clecision, in part, on the
lrrcrnise th:rt Section 2 guarantees black citizens the right
trl rli,r.'t hluck legislators, at least whenever a sufficient
nr.rrrrlrer r,l'blitcl<s is concentrated so as to allorv the con-
stnrt'Liorr ol'a safe black single member district arouncl
t lterrr.

ll

Numerous pre-city o.r' ,vobite dilution cases stro,sr'
refute such a presumption. In Hertdrir v. Joseph the
Fifth cireuit explained that the zhntner faetors are,l,,-
signed "to test whether an at-rarge system has m,rle
eleeted officials so secure in their po.ition. ancl has m,rle
the black vote so. unnecessary to success at the poils', that
black partieipation in goueinment is igno.u,r'and gor-
ernmental services to the black com*unity are withhelrl.
559 F.2d 126b, 1269 (bth Cir. Ig77). See-also, Datid r..
Ga,rison, 553 F.zd gz}, gz7. since the amenclment ,r'
section 2, a federal district court in Texas macle this
pronouncement:. "There is simply no right-statutorl, or.
constitutional-to be represented by a-member of a par.-
ticularrace." Seamony. [iplrunt, No. p-at-4gC.A. iU.nTet. Jan. 30, lg84).
I

il I !n" court below struck rrown the murti-member rris- a

l lpncts.atjssue because there rvas no gtrurantee that blacks I 
-t

t1//xllH?rYuJ:o l /

ry;l;,'"xi"ffi',L]ffi #xT,J,iJ.:i[xJil:ffi :.:*,n:;rlJ
own race, it also assumed that the right must U. Sr".,r,_ 1l

teed by safe black voting-nra.iority clis"tricts in *t i.'t, ni^,,t,
eandidates would arwaj's be successfirr as iong ,, [in.t,
residents vote as a bloc. This was crearrl,not th? intJnt ,,r'
congress'2 other rower fe'derar courti, horvever, har.e
also adopted erroneous corst.uctions ofSection 2 because
they have relied on isoratetr segments of the tugi.rutir,,
history ancl ignored the jurliciairvisclom rvhicn lirormo..r

.2.Senator Dole, one of the sl)or)sors of the compromise bill erplained that, "citizens of ail ,..u.. ,,,'. ontiliu,ito have an equarchan<:,.
of electing candidates of their ch,ice, u,,i ir ir,uu ,." rri"if ,nora,,,,that opportunity anrl tose, the las .houlJiii". ,,,, remerlies.,,S. Re1,at 193. Seealso,smith r,. Winrer. Tl? F..2rllirt 1;,11,Cir. l9g3)at lt)t.

10 p,,P-YY^y*



t2 f v u)udel {f*4-far-<_,*;*-t

the sl;tttttriry l:rrtguage. See, e.g., Jones v. City of Lub'
lxtrk . i27 F .2rl ;]61 (5th Cir. t984); Velasqrrcz v. City of
rlltil,'tre, No. 82-16110 (5th Cir. Mar. 2 1984). It is in-

cunrlitnt ulton Lltis Court to properly interpret this impor-

tunt lcgislrttit,n.

Il. Preclearance Of A Redistricting Plan Under Section 5

l)rt'clutles lte adjudication Of 'l'he lssue Of Discriminato'
ry ltcsult Ol"l'hat ['lan By l)rivate Plaintiffs Under Sec-

tion 2.

Tu'o of the rlistricts challengetl by the plaintiffs and

lirurrr I to violate Section 2 consistetl of counties coveretl by
Sr,ction l-r ril'the Voting Rights Act: House District 8, a
.l-nrt'nrber seat ttlntprisecl of Nash, Wilson and Edge-
crirrrlrr, cotttttics attrl Senate District 2 which included

Nort lurnrlrtorr, l lertford, Gates, Bertie, Chowan and seg-,

nrcrrls o1' I otltet'crtuttties. The plaintiffs claimecl that thel

lnrrItirrrentber cottliguration in District 8 diluted the black
v,tirrtL, potettti:tl in that district. As to Senate District 2,

tlrr, 1rl:rint il'1.* contr,'nrled that a black concentration sufft-
t'ient l(| ('r'eirte a sltfe black district was split between
l )i:trict. 2 (i,ir.l'.? black) and DistricL 6 (46Vo black).

l'trlsu:rr.rt to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42

tI.s.('. ll)73c, North Carolina must submit any change in
its voting lurvs or practice prior to implementation, to
lLrlt'r'al authorities. The scope of federal review, how-
e\'(,r', is lirniterl to tlulse 40 counties which are specifically
covel'crl bv itplllicati<ln of the fbrmula in Section 4(a) of the
Act. r\ccot'dirrglv, the State of North Carolina submitted
to Lhc r\ttorttev General Chapters I and 2 of the Session

Llru's ol'the Seconcl Extra Session (the final amencletl

Ilorr>r, tn(l S,.,nrte redistricting plans).

trn,lor Sectiort i-r, the coverecl State or subdivision has

lht, lrrn'rlrtt ot' pt'ttving, either by a submission to the
r\tLu'ne.\, (lt,rrt,t'rtl or by an action for declaratory judg-

ment, that the proposed enactment does not have tht.
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 burclen on the plaintiff to prove that
the challenged law has a discriminatory result. Insofar as

Section 5 reqdires the Stale to meet the burden of proving
the absence of both cliscrirninatory purpose and effect.
Section 5 necessarily presents a more stringent test for'
the covered jurisdiction than Section 2.

The legislative history of the recent amendment of
Section 2 bears this out. [n its Report, the House Com-
mittee on the Judiciary expressed its concern that the
then-current version of Section 2 required proof of dis-
criminatory purpose while a violation of Section 5 re-
quired only discriminatory effect. H. Rep. No. 97-227
(97th Cong. lst Sess.) at 2U. [n the Committee's vieu'.
Section 2 had to be revised so as to apply essentially the
same "effects" stanclard to nun-covered jurisclictions. The
lawfulness of a voting law shoulcl not depend, the Conr-
mittee stated, on whether Lhe jurisdiction u,hich imple-
ments it, is covered or non-coverecl.

Similarly, in the Senate lleport, the point was also
made that Section 5 preclearance would preclucle a sub-
sequent fincling of violation uncler Section 2. Rep. No.
97-417 at 35. The Committee had set out to refute the
findings of the Subcomrnittee'that iclentifiecl many cities
including Savannah, Georgiit, as vulnerable uncler the
new standard. The Senate Jutliciary Conrmittee, cleter.-
mined that this frnding of [he Subcommittee u'as obvious-
ly inaccurate. Savannah harl completed an annexation in
1978 which had requirecl preclearance. "After subjecting
the proposed annexation to the rigonrus requirements ol'
Section 5," the Department of Justice rle.cirlecl that thr:
election system provided ltllck voter.s rvith aclequatt,



14/

olrlrortrrrtitv {br participation and election. S. Rep. No'

l)T- I l7 lt lil-r. 'f he Senate Report concluded that insofar as

S:rvanrurh's cit.y council system had passed muster under
Set:tion i-r, it woulcl necessarily also meet the require-
rlrr,,rrts ol'the proposed amendmenL. Id. at 35.

I t wits apllarently the intent of Congless that Section 2

rn:rke a'tlllicitble nationwide the "effects" test contained in
St,ctiori 5. While uncovered jurisdictions remain un-

al'l'r,r:tt,rl [r.,'the Section 5 preclearance requirement, they
\\'ould lre iubiect to the same test of discrimination when

srr.rl lrv inrlivirluals or the Attorney Ceneral. In view of
tlrt, legisLrLivc intent, Section 5 has alreacly accomplished

1lrr, lirrr'1xr:ie of Section 2 in the coverecl counties.

1i.1, lt,tter rlatt'tl April 30, 1982 the Attorney General
irrliri'nicrl t,hc State ol North Carolina that he had deter- '

nrirrr:rl thrrt the reapportionment plans for the North
( 'irlolina (ietreral Assembly "clid not have the purpose and

u oultl rrot hrtve ihe effect of denying or abridging the
ritlhL to \,r)t("' in the 40 counties covered by Section 5 of
,1,,, \rol ing Iiights Act. Thus, the issue of the discrimina-
t rrr'1' pul'1rost' antl effect of the reapportionment had been

lurrthot'tl.rttively and conclusively determined in the cov-
(,rtrl counties, the plaintiffs claim to the contrary, in the
corrlt, belou', notwithstanding.

.\rlrrritiistrative preclearance and a rleclaratory iudg-
rnorrt :rre erlual alternatives under Section 5. Morris v'
(irlssttlr',.1:12 Lr.S. 491, (1977). Insofar as the Attorney
( it,rrelrtl's itppt'rtval has the same legal force as a judgment

r.r)rlr,r't,rl bl' Ihe District of Columbia f'etleral court, the
qnrrrtt,rl px'cleat'ance had a collateral estoppel effect in
llri:r t'rrsr.r. "tinrler the doctrine of collateral estoppel . . .

tlr,, .jrrrlunrent in the prior suit precludes relitigation of
isstres ru:trurllv litigatecl and necessary to the outcome of

t5

the first action." Pat'kl.ane Hosienl v. Shore,439 t.r.S.
322, (1979) at 326, n.5. All facts necessary to a finding,,f
discrimination uncler Section 2 were at isstre and nec,,s-
sarily determined by the Seetion 5 proceclure. Thus. the
Attorney General's decision as to the 40 counties shorrlrl
have precluded relitigatiorr of the same issue by the plain-
tiffs.

The court below rejectetl out of hand the appellants'
contention that insofar as the State had proven unde,r
Section 5 that the redistricting of the covered counties
had neither a discriminatoly purpose nor effect, a chal-
lenge under Section 2 to any preclearecl rlistricts u'as
precluded. The court found that the preclearance of Serr-
ate District 2 and House District 8 rvas not even probatir-e
of the issues before them.

The district court relied for this conclusion solely on the
opinion in Major v. Treen,574 F.Supp. 32b (E.D. [,a.
1983). In that ease, plaintiffs mounterl a Section 2 clrll-
lenge to a precleared Congtessionalrlislrict in Louisiarur.
The Louisiana district coult reasonetl as follows:

Private plaintiffs are free to mount a de noto attrcli
upon a reapportionment rllan notu'ithstandins t)1.(,-
clearance. United Slrrfes v. East Baton Rottoi P,,,'-
ish School Board,594 I--.2d bG, bg n. g (Sth Cirl tg;Zr.
See Mo'rris v. Gresse tte,432 U.S. 491, b06-0? (lt)?T)
("where the discriminatory character of an €trar,t-
ment is .not cletecterl upon revieu' of the Attorner.
General,'it can be challenged in the traclitionui.nli-
slitutional [or statutorv] litigation.") 5T.l F.Supp. lr
328, n. l.

Reliance by Major v. Trcr,n ancl the court below on tlrr,,
excerpt from Monis v. Gr.r,.sselte is doubly flau'ecl. Firsr
of all, the essential langtrage, "ol. statutory," appears in
brackets because the Mu.futr court sirnpl-v aclcleci it to t1,,,
actual LexL of Moms. This ('ourt has rrever held that unr.

I



16t

strrt rrtor'1' righL of action was preserved by Section 5, but
r':rtlrcr staterl that Section 5 did not preclude a con-

slitrrtionalaction in which the plaintiffs had the burden of
prrrving lroth rlisparate impact and discriminatory intent.
Irr rrrldition. ,l'forns v. Gressette was decided in 1977-
long be lore the atnendment of Section 2 and long before a

privrtte right of action uncler the original Section 2 w-as

i'cr',runizerl. The laulty logic of illajor severely taints the
ronclusion ol'Lhe court below regarcling the in-
tt,r'r'clatiotrship of Sections 5 antl 2 of the Voting Rights
r\r't.

'l'lrc sht,t-,r' absurdity of the clistrict ctlut't's ruling that
pl:rirrti[1.. nun' relitigate issues already disposed of by
St,r'lion i is nr;rtrifest in the court's discussion of Senate

l)isl-r'ict 2. I'lrc court acknowledges that increasing the
lrlirt'li lrercerttage in District 2 by adding black residents
l'r'rinr tlre ttljacent parts of Dist.rict 6 would necessarily
rk,lrletc t lre irtfluence of those blacks remaining in District
(i. Nevcrthcless, the court ruled that in enacting Section
2, ('onsress harl committed this dilemma "to the judg-
rnt,rrt. of the trlack community to whom it has given the
privlte right ol'action ttncler amencled Section 2." App. at
n.r.1. 11. il)1.

'['lre conliprrration of Districts 2 and 6, however, were
Dt',,,,

ilf r, Ti, i.;fi if . i., t6 
-.*. *,ifi i gn eit by ciiri rTs el an ct I e gi s la-

tivt'rlrtl'Lers in rlaily contact with the Assistant Attorney
(lerrenrl arrtl ntenrbers of the staff of the Civil Rights
Divisiorr. Untlet'section 5, the Attorney General is specif-
ierrllv t'lriu'gerl rvith representing the black voters of the
srrlrrrriltirrq stules. Donnell v. United Sfoles, 682 F.2d
3 lr) ( I).('. ('ir'. lf)li2). In the exercise of that obligation the
.-\tt,)l'n('\' (ierrenrl cletermined that it rvas in the best
irrtr,r'r,:ls ol' thc black voters not to diminish black in-

l7

fluence in District 6 in order. to "pack" District 2. The
State followed the suggestions of the Assistant Attornev
General in enacting these districts. Norv that the State. lt
great expense and consirlerable political turmoil, has

complied with the wishes of the federalofficial statutoril.v
charged with representing minority voting interests, it is
now ordered by the District court to comply with the
wishes of a group of minority voters who apparenth'
disagreed with the Attorney General. This is acuteh'
unfair to the State, especially in light of the fact that the
views of the plaintiffs and their counsel rvere given evel')'
consideration by the Civil Rights Division prior to the
preelearance.

, In light of the large number of Section 2 suits which I'
\, have been decided or are ;lending in covered jurisdic- f,
ll tions, the preclusive effect of Section 5 on Section 2litigl- /l
fl tion must be authoritatively resolved. See, e.g., ,11issi.*-/f

llsippi Republican Drecutirc Connnittee v. Ouen H.ll

t\f;:l&No. 
83-l?22 Juristlictional statement f,rled AnIilt 

I

III. Racially Polarized Voting Is Not Flstablished As A Mal-
ter Of Law Whenevcr Less Than A iflajority Of lVhite
Voters Vote For A Rlack Candidate.

The court accepted the opinion of the plaintiffs'expert
that racially polarize<l voting occurs u'henever less than
507o of the white voters cast a ltallot for the blacl<
candidate.s As a result, the court concluded that therr:

:lRecently in a denial of a rerluest for rehearing en banc. Jurlr,'
Higginbotham commentetl that. "s'hether polarizerl voting is prescIrr
can pivot the legality of at-large voting tlistricts." .lones v. Cilq,'r
Lubbock, No. 83-1196 (['ifth (]ilcuit, April ltt. 19t.,,. He also e:.
pressecl serious reserv:rtions abotrt. the methorlologv used b.r,expt,r't -

to'analyze polarized votirrg belirrt,thc lri;rl corrrt in that case. Jrrrls,,



l8

\\'rrs "s(,vere an(l persistent" racial bloc voting despite the

lirlkxving lacts:

ru) In the l9tl2 Mecklenburg House primary, Berry
$.ho is lrlack receivecl5070 0f the white vote and Richard-
son ,,\,hr) is also black, received 397o. Both black candi-

rlrrtes 
"votr 

the primary.

b) Irr the ltl82 House general election for Mecklen-
lret'g ('rrttt-tL1', 

'12c7o of the white voters voted for Berry:
21t' i of' the u'hites voted for Richardson. [n a fielcl of 18

c;rnrlitlirtes lirt'lJ stlats, 11 white candidates received fewer
rvlritt, r'otes than Berry. In that election Berry finished
stt'ol)tl. anrl Ilicharclson linished ninth, only 250 votes

lrehinrl the eighth place winner.

c) In the 1982 Senate general election for Durham
(lount),, a iJ member seat, Barnes, a black Republican
reeeivetl 17(,t of the white vote and \Vo of the black vote.

rl) In Lhe 11)82 House general election for Durham
('^r.rlrt)', lrlacl< canclirlate Spaulding receivecl 477o of Lhe

u'hite vote atrcl rvon the election.

c) In t-he l9tl2 Senate primarv election for Mecklen-

lrrr|g ( iountv, the blaclt canclidate, Polk, receivecl iiZc/o of
tht' u'hiLc vote ancl was successful in the primary.

l l i 11Lnrrl rqt [:r n) (]xpl'esse(l reservatiotrs about the reglessitltl model

u:r,rl 1111,1'1, to relirte ttre racial makeup of a precinct with t.he election
()ul(',)nr(, in thrrt 1lt'ecinct. He noted that the plaintitfs expert "did not

tr,:1 ljrr',rt lrt,r'r'rplitttatory factors than race or ethnicity . . ' Isuchlas
t';rrnqluir.ln t:rlletrrlitttre, party identification, merlia ttse measurecl by
c,r.L, r.r,ligio1. 11tlle itlentilication or tlistance that a canrlitlate livetl
lr''rnrllr)'1r:rt'ticttl:u'precinct...Itigrtorestherealitythatrace...
rrr;rl nlrsli rr ltost ttf other exltlanatr.rry variables."

I' i- irrtr,r't,:rting tr) note that the plaintiffs'expert in this case used

t,r',,,'isr,ll tlrc s;rrrrt: rnethodology criticized by Jutlge [Iigginbotham.

l9

0 In the 1982 Mecklenburg Senate general electiorr.
Polk, a black canditlate received 33Vo of the white vote.
The leading white candirlate received 59?c of the s'hite
vote.

g) In the 1982 Fors.yth House primary, the two black
candidates, Hauser ancl I(ennedy, receiverlZSVI and :J6(-2,

respectively, of the white vote. In a fielcl of 11, Kennerlv
received more white votes than six of those candidates.
Both black candidates u,on the primary.

h) In the 1982 House general election for Forsvth
County, Hauser and I(ennecly receivecl 42Vc and .lti'i
respectively, of the white vote. The successful u'hite
candidates received substantially equal support fronr
black and white voters-all within a range [glwssn {i1''i
and 63Vo. Both black canrlidates were successful.

i) In the 1982 House primary election for Wake Coun-
ty, a six-member district, the only black candiclate nrn-
ning, Dan Blue, received more total votes than any other.
of the 15 canclidates. Blue receivecl more white votes than
l1 of the other candidates.

j) In the 1982 House general election for Wake Coun-
ty, Blue ran second out of a field of l7 candidates. I-llu*r
also received the Seeond highest number of white votes.

k) In the 1982 House primnrl, election for Durhlrrr
County, one black candirlitte, Clement, received BZ,-', ri'
the black vote ancl 26a/c of the white vote. The blar.lr
candidate Spaulding received 90Vo of the black vote urrrl
37Vo of the white vote. Of the trvo black candiclates, onll'
Spaulding was successful in the primar.y. Hacl the bla,,,li
voters wanted.to elect C'lerment, thev could have cas[
double-shot insteacl of sinule-shot vorcs.



.t

l) l;'inallv, of the ll elected black incumbents who
h;rve srnlght reelection to the General Assembly in recent
v(,rrs, irll l l have won reelection.

lrr /irrr1r't',s v. Lodge,458 U.S. 613 (1982), this Court
rlr,,scrilxrtl polat'ization in terms of its ability to affect
elet'tiorr utttcomes.

Voting along racial lines allows those elected to
ig'norrj black-interests without fear of political cgn-
se(luence, and without bloc voting. the minority
caritlir'lates rvoulcl not lose elections solely because of
their race. 458 U.S. at 616.

Ii:rciull.y pr.,larized voting is probative of vote dilution onl
inso{iu' as it is trutcome determinative. In other words,
rn'lrere blacks consistently Lose elections because no
ruhiLes or t'erv whites will vote for them, the voting ir
r':rciallr' polarizecl. \Vhere blacks toirl because of bloc v6t-
irrrl unrl single shot voting by blacks, combined with sub-
st :rntirr I su;rllolt from whites, then racial polarization does
nrrt lr:rve anv legal significance. See Mcll[illan v. Escam'
ltirt (.tttrtrlq, Florido, 688 F.zd 960, 966 (sth Cir. 1982);

.\', 1.1('/' r'. Garls den, Courtty School Bourd,65l F.2d 978
( l lLh ( 'ir. 19112).

,\ canrliilate is primarily concerned with receiving more
r otes tharr his opponents, not with the color of the person
u'lro votes tbr hint. Diserete and different voting patterns
rulr()nq urciitl groups concel'n the cancliclate rvhen they
r)t,{,I'irt1,(1r 1rt'event him from winning. This politicalreal-
ilv lit:s at the root of Congress' inclusion of polarized
v'tirrg iu Set'Lion 2 analysis. The Senate Report explicitly
st;rtes tlurt "Iill' plaintiffs assert they are denied fair ac-
t'r,ss trr t.he lrolitical process in part, because ol the racial
lrLrc votint{ context within which the challenged election
slstenr u'orlis, they would have to prove it." S. Rep. at 34
(r,rrrllhusis :ultletl). The mere pl'esence of clifferent voting

{Jr'

21

patterns in the white ancl hlack electorate does not prove
anything one way or the other about the ultima," i.s11r, r,f
aecess to the political process. Insofar as the lower fede lrrl
courts have viewecl racial bloc voting as the "linchpin ,,1'

vote dilution" (App. A at 43a), it is imperative that this
Court formulate a standarcl by rvhich that condition cln
be established.

IV. The District Court Erred In Disregarding Substantial
Evidence That ItIan.v Illack Leaders lVere Satisfied'l'hlt
Electoral Access And Opportunity For Blacks ,tnd
Whites Were Equal And Furthermore Opposed The ('on-
ept Of Safe Single-i\lember Districts Advocated B.v '[he
Plaintiffs.

The appellants offerecl considerable evidence to the
three-judge court that showecl that many members anrl
leaders of the black community did not support the con-
tentions of the plaintiffs. Several black legislators hrrrl
opposed the creation of black districts during the legishr-
tive drafting and debates. Other state leaclers, white anrl
black, testifiecl that black single member districts worrltl
destroy the coalitions which hacl been forged ancl rvoulrl
resegregate and ghetto-ize the political lantlscape of the
State. Black leatlers testified that recent clramatic in-
creases in voter registratit)n among blacks, substantirrl
black influence and leadership in th,' State Democratic
Party, and substantialsultport for black candidates fi'orrr
the white community exltosed the disingenuousness ol'
the plaintiffs'ease.

The district court re.jectecl all this eviclence ls
irrelevant to the issues belirre them basecl on the follou--
ing rationale:

Congress necessarily took into account ancl rejecterl
as.unfou^nderl, or assrrmerl as outu'eighed. s"everirl

. risks to funclamental 1;rrlitical values thirt opponent..



ol'the amen(lment urged in committee deliberations
ni,,iii,ri,,'.i.brt.. Amdng these were the risk that the
ir,itlcl,it t'e'nrerly might lctually be at odds with the
ir,i-,,"nt of sirnifi&nt elemerits in the racial minor-
'ifu: li; r'ittt Tt ot creating "safe" black-majority
.ihLIo-*umber clistricts #ould perpetuate racial
gheitos antl racial polarization in voting behaviorl
ihe risk Lhat relianci upon the judicialremedy would
srtuulitnt the normal, more healthy processes ot
a,'i,iririnu uolitical power bv registration, voting and
.,,,ilitin,ibirildins: ind the lunrlamental risk that the
t'err:ogttition of "ffoup.voting rights" and the impos-
irrg iif al'lirmative obligation upon government to
.,ii',,,'" those rishts b1 race-ionsciclus electoral
rriechanismt wa5 alien" to the American political
trzirlition. (footnotes omittted). App. A at 17a-18a.

Nothing in the legilative history supports the coutt's
cont:lusion that these factors "are not among the cirqum-
sl:u'rtrs Lo tre ctttisitlered" in a Section 2 case. App. A at
Is;t. ('elt:rinl.v Congressional committees received testi-
ltrolvv leg;trrling such risks, but neither the Senate Com-

nrittee Iit,1-rort nrtr the House Report suggest that such

corrsirlt,r'alions wet'e not germane to an analysis of the
tol:rlitv ol'cit'crttnstances in any particular case' Nor did

lnr. oIl.he spottsors of the compromise language ultimate-
h' arlolrterl llropound this interpretation of Section 2.

'l'his ptecerlent set by the district court must be ad-

rlr',,sserl urttl correctecl. If not, courts will continue, as did
tlrt: corrrt belorv, to make finclings of fact which are inade-

rlrrate uncler Rule 52(a) because they fail to reflect "all the
strlrstirrrtial evidence contrary to its ollinion." Velasque.z

t' . C it 11 of' ;lbilerte, No. 82-1630 (5th Cir. March 2, 1984).

9,)
d.,

CONCLTISION

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

Respectfully submittecl,

* JnRRts LeorseRo
KeruleeN HrsNeN McGurrN
Lew OrrrcEsorr Jsnnrs LsoNeRo, P.('.
900 l?th Street, N.W., Suite 1020
Washington, D.C. 20007
(202) 872-1095

Jemns W,tt.lecr, JH.
Dnpury ArroRNsy GsNeRer,

FoR LEGAL Arrnrns
Attorney General's Office
N.C. Department of .lustice
Post Office Ilox ti2t)
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
(919) 733-;1377

Att orneq s .l'o r Appe llrr rr ls
* Counsel ol'Ilecortl



la

APPENDIX A
T]NITOD STATF]S DISTRICT C0URT

EASTERN DISTRICT 0T NORTII C,TItOLIN,I
RALET(;tI t)tVtstoN

No. 8l-t103-CIV-5

Relpu Grsr;r,ns. el a/.

vs.

Rurus L. Errrrrsrr:x, el rrl

FI[,ED

JAN 27 1984

J. RICH LE()NTI.RD, CLERI(
U.S. DISTRI('T COURT

E. DIST N(). CAR.

PlaintiJJs,

De.futdanls.

ORI)ER

For the reasons set forth in the Memorandum Opinion of thc
court filed this day;

It is ADJUDGED and ORDERED thar:

l. Chapters I and 2 of the North Carolina Session Laws of
the Second Extra Session of 1982 (1g82 reclistricting plan) ar.c,
declared to violate section 2 of the Voting rights Actof 1965.
amdnded June 29, 1982,12 U.S.C. $ l9?8, by the creation ol
the following legislative districts: Senate Districts Nos. 2 anrl
2, and House of Representatives Distr.icts Nos. 8, Zl, ZB, 86.
and 39.

2. Pending further orclers of this eourt, the defendants.
their agents and employees, are enjoined from conducting anv
primdry or general elections to elect members of the.State
Senate or State House of Repr.esentatives to represen L, irtter



2at

rrlrrr. r't,gistt'rerl black voters resident in any of the areas now
int'lrrr led s,ithin the legislative districts identified in paragraph
l. ot't.his Orrler, rvhether pursuant to the 1982 redistricting
llllrr. or' :rtr.\' revisecl or new plan.

'l'his ( )r'rler rkles not purport to enjoin the conduct of any
othlr' prirnlpy {)r' general elections that the State of North
(lurolin:r nlav see fit to conduct to elect members of the Senate
or I I, rusr: oI Iiepresentatives untler the 1982 redistl'icting plan,'

or trr elttct cirnrlirl:ttes for any other offices than those of the
St;rll Sr'rrate :tntl House of Representatives. See N.C.G'S.
12tt-3.1 t198:t) Llum. Supp.).

;l .lrrrisrlict.ion of this court is retained to entertain the
srrl,rnissi,rn r,f a t'evised legislative districting plan by the de-

lirrrrl;urts, rrr to ernter a further remedial decree, in accordance
u'it lr the i\{emoran<lum Opinion frled today in this action.

l. 'l'he au'arcl of costs and dttorneys fees as prayed by

;rllintil'l.s is tleferred pending entry of a final judgment, or such

eallicr rlate as may be shown required in the interests of
just it'c.

J. Dickson Phillips, Jr.
United States Circuit Judge

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

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

I ct'r'tily the friregoing to be a true and correct copy of the
()t'r['t'.

.1. Iticlr Leonlrrl, Clerk
I Irritcrl Strrtr.s District Court
l',rrstr,r'n District of North Carolina

Ill' ('lrerh'rt \\'clls
I)r,1rutr'('lerk

3a

TINITED ST.{TES I)ISTRICT ()OT]IIT

EASTERN DISTRICT OT' !I()RT]I CAR0LINA

RALEIGII I)IVISION

No. 8l-803-CIV-5

RnlpH GlNr;t.r:s, el tr1.

vs.

Runus L. EuutsrsN, et cl.

Plaintiffs.

De.fendants.

FIL[]I)
JAN 21 te84

J. RICH I,EONARD, CLERK

U.S. DISTRICT COURT

E. DIST. N0. CAR.

MEMORANDU}I OPINION

Before Pttu,t tRs, Circuit Juclge, BRI'l-t, Chief Dist,rict Judge,
and Dupnsn, Senior District Jurlge.

Purr,r,tps Circuit Judge:

In this action Ralph Gingles anrl others, inrlividually and as

lPor consistency and convenience \\'e use the term "redistricting'
throughout as a more technically, as well :rs rlescriptivell'. accurate one than
the terms "apportionment" or "reapportionment" sornetimes usetl by the
parties herein to refer to the speciftc leqislutive action uttrltr challenge here.
See Corslels v. Lantnr, !13 l-. Supp. r;,i. 7:l n.:l tD. ('rrl. l9t{:l).

representatives of a class rd of all the black citizens of
North Carolina



4^ 
|

gr.urr:terl irr linal Iirrrn in 1982 by the General Assembly of North
(-llr.r,Iinu lirr.the clecLion of members of the Senate and Houseof

Il e| r rcst't r t t t i vcs ol' t hat state's bicameral legislature. Jt1!1d1-
ti,,ir ,,1 this tlrree-.iurlge district court is basetl on 28 U'S'C'
l$ l;l:il, l;l-l:1. rrntl 2:184 (three judge court) and on 42 U'S'C'
$ l1t7:ic.

IdtTrcsffioTElrarate voting minorities a comparable con-

rrrt r':rtiotr r r1'|rlirck t'oters, all in a manner that violates rights of
Ire lilrrintil'ls sccut'etl by section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of
{XiI.r, irnrt'tlrlr:tl,lune 29, L982,42 U.S.C. $ 1973 (Section 2, or

Section ll of the Voting Rights Act),42 U.S.C. $$ 1981 and

l9t{lJ, anrl the thirteenth, fourteenth and frfteenth amendments

to the Uniterl States Constitution.' In particular, the claim is

that the (lerrcral Assembly's plan impermissibly dilutes the
vuting stt't'n1{h of the state's registered black voters by sub-

rneruirrg hlack voting minorities in multi-member House Dis-

trict No. li(i (lJ tnernbers - Mecklenburg County), multi-
rnernbet' House l)istrict No. 39 (5 members - part of Porsyth
L-orrrr[.y). rnulli-tnember House District No. 23 (3 members -

Durhlnr Oottnty), multi-member House District No. 2l (6

nrernbers - Wake Cr-runty), multi-member House District No. 8

(.1 rnrmbet's - Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash Counties), and

multi-nrt'tnbt:r Senate District No. 22 (4 members - Mecklen-
burg tntl Oatrart'us Counties), and by fraciuring betweell lqqe
thuir,,ne sr-.nitle rlistrict in the nu

a-Emrc.ffifSTulficient in numbers and con-

r'l h,r rrrir.lirrirl eorrtlrluittt also includerl challenges to population deviations
in tlr,, r'r.,lr,.t rirt irrg lrlart allegerlly violative of one-person-one-vote princi-

l,lr..s. :rrrrl l, c('ngn,ssional redistricting plans being crrntemporaneously
r.n:r(t,.rl lrv tht, slrrl.e's (ieneral Assernbly. Both of these challenges were
,1ro1,1,,.,1 lrr ;rnl.rlrlr.rl rrr sullplemental plearlings respottsive to the evolving
lrlur'ri rl l,,tli:llrtivr rrt ti,rrr, leaving on[y the state legislattlre "vote dilution"
cl:rrrrr'. l,rr' l'r.sl)l!ltir)n-

'l'hc gntvamen of plaintiffs' claim is that the plan ma-kes use

rrt rnr r lt i-rnernber rlistricts rvith substantial rvhite votrnglgr-
ffitate in whtch therq are sulnclen[
eri..'ffi blinffi ofrfi u^' -x si n gte-

rrn-Jr-llFi-.rtisn.kts;flnd thatlii Snbthei ar6a of ttie.stCte the plan

;)a

ticuitv to constitute a voting majority in at least one singie-
-nimsardffi u;nn-1hc conseqfirrce, as ln-tenrtett, that-in
none-e of the senate districts into rvhich the concentration is

fractured (most notably, Senlte District 2 rvith the largest

mass of the concentration) is there an etfecti' e voting majoritv
of black citizens.

we conelude on the basis of our factual findings that the

redistricting plan violates Secti0n 2 of the voting Rights Act in

all the ."rpi.tt challenged, and that plaintiffs are therefort'

entitled to appropriate relief, including att order enjoining

defenclants from ionducting elections under the extant plan.

Because we uphold plaintiffs' clairn for relief under section 2 of

the Voting Rights Act, we do not ;rcldress thr:ir other statutorl'
and constitutional claims seeking the same relief'

I

General Background and Procedural History

e,,tN;;iJ:;.;. ; 1e73c (section 5, or Section s or tne voting Rights

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

redistrictings compelled by the 1980 decennial census, the

North carolina General Assembly enacted a legislative
redistricting plan for the state's House of Represetttatives anrl

senate. This original l98l plan nsecl a combination of multi-
member and single-member rlistricts across the state, rvith

multi-member districts predominating; had no district in which

blacks constituted a registered voter majority and only one

with a black population majoriti'; ancl hail a range of maximum
population deviations from the eclual protection ideal of more

Lhan20Vo. Each of the districts \\'as composetl of one or more

whole counties, a result then mantlated by state constitutional
provisions adopted in 1968 by amendments that prohibited the

division of counties in legislatiYe districting. At the time this

original redistricting plan rvas enacterl (and at all clitical times
tJU in this litisation) forty of North Carolina's one hundretl coun-

s/
1.

Act.).



6a
/

I'trrint.iff.s lilerl this action on September 16, 1981, challeng-

irru I lral. rrrigirtal retlistricting plan for, bt'ter alin, its Populatiol
rk'r'i;rtiorrs, itt1trl11ggence of black voter concentrations in

-xmr,.otr tri, 
", 

ilT i -fr I * ireTa i-st ii 
"t 

S,-t nd-t hii fa i I u re o f th-C s ta te

to .lrtiritt 1tt'ttleitritnce, purstlant tt$A[ioii5, of the'1963
-c-onvitnr i.m aT-a'-nr er n rl m 6 nts prohi bi ting cou n ty d iv1 siq1 it1
It,gislativc rlistricting.

.\ lter t his ilction had been filed, the state subntitted the 1968

rro-rlivisiorr-ol-counties constitutional provisions for original
Srr:lon 5 prcclcurance by the Attorney General of the United
St;rtes. lVhile action on that submission was pending, the
(it'rrr.t'irl Assenrbly covenecl again in special sglllqn and in
Oct oIrt:r t1Ix I reIre.ilbrlthe-original?iSiric-ting pl,n fo*he state
Ilotrse ol'[tepreserttatives and enacted another. This new plan

rerlrrt:erl thc, r'artge of maximum population deviations to ap-

lrroximately lli'16, retained a preponderance of multi-member
tlist ricts acloss the state, and again divided no counties. No
revision of the extant Senate districting plan was made.

In Novenrber 1981, ihe Attorney General interposed formal
ob.jt,c'tion, untlcr Section 5, to the no-division-of-counties con-

, stitrrt iorrll lrrovisiotts so far as they affected covered counties'
+a '6 ( )lr jtctiolr u'rrs basetl on the Attorney General's expressed view

*h,l.s,Jh:rt thcu,s:tltt!ryLgqg_q{lgp-Ulggtqlativeaish:ic'tingrequiretl
c u,/Y, u{ h,, riie , i[l:n'u'r: rnulLi- rnember districts and that this "necessar-
,"$ ml i Ir, .. r rbiix, r:*e S .;*;UaUte m iiioiffi opulatio ii- co ncenti:Itifr s.*"]' ' iirto Lu'sti.rvTri![-el-ettoiateS]'Tollowing this objection to the('t iilt rit,',ti;n;i'pfrilionil-the Attornef Generai further ob-

jet'tt:rl, on l-)ecemberT, 1981, antlJanuary20, 1982, tothethen
extrrnt rr,rlis[rieting plans for both the Senate and House as

thr:r' irlTt,ctetl covered counties.

Irr F-elrnrar'1' 1982, the General Assembly again convened in
t,rlr';r sr,ssir)r) iuul on Febn:ary 11, 1982, enacterl for both the
Slrr;rte rrrul Housu revised retlistricting plans rvhich divided
s(|rn', c{runLir:s lroth irr areas covered and areas not covered by
Slr'lion ir. ;\r-flin. on April 19, 1982, the Attorney Gendral
ir)t"r'lr)s('(l ob.ilctions to the revised districting plans for both

7a

the Senate and House. The letter interlrosing objection :rc-

knowledged some improvemerrt of black r oters' situation b1'

reason of county division in Section 5 covered areas, but founrl
the improvements insufficient to pernrit preclearanee. The
General Assembly once more reconvene(l in a second extra
se ssi di-6n-rfi ,ri 126*,1982; a;I o nT pfr-iT?lTg gz,- E n a C re[lr 

-

filfinerTeviseri-fiian wlii-ch again divided counties both in areas
covered and areas not covererl by Section 5. That plan, embo-
died in chapters I and 2 of the North Carolina Session Laws of
the Second Extra Session of l[)u1], received Section 5 preclear-
anee on April30, 1982. As precleared under Section 5, the plan
constitutes the e.xtant legislative districting law of the state,
and is the subject of plaintiffs' ultimate challenge by amended
and supplemented complaint in this action.'l

During the course of the legislative proceedings above
summarized, this action proceeded through its pre-trial
stages.{ Amended and supplernental pleadings accommodating
to successive revisions of the originally challenged redistrict-
ing plan were allowed. Extensive discovery and motion prac-
tice was had; extensive stipulations of fact were made anrl
embodied in pretrial orders. The presentl.y composecl three-

sThe final plan's division ofcounties in areas ofthe state not covered bv
Section 5 was challenged by voters in one such county on the basis that the
division violated the state's 1968 corrstitutional prohibition. The claim was
that in non-covered counties of the state the constitutional prohibition re-
mained in force, notwithstanding its suspension in covered counties by virtue
of the Attorney General's objection. In C aao nag h v. R rock, No. 82-&lb-CI \'-
5 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 22, 1983), which at one time rvas consolidated with the
instant action, this court rejecterl that challenge, holding that as a matter r.rI

state law the constitutional provisions were not severable, so that their
effective partial suspension un<ler fetleral law resulterl in their complete
suspension throughout the state.

'At one stage in these proceerlirrgs another action challenging the
redistricting plan for impermissible rlilution of the voting strength of black
voters waa consolidated with the instant action. ln I,ugh v. Hrorf. N,r.
8I-106&CIV-5, also decided this dar'. rve earlier entered an order of tho
deconsolidation and permitted the blae k plaintiffs in that action to inten'ent,
as individual and representative ;llairrtiffs in the instant action.



8ar

.irrrlrc court u';rs designated by ChiefJudge Harrison L. Winter
ol'f he I I niterl States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit on
October l(i, l9lJ1. The action was designated a plaintiff class
act irrrr bv stipulation of the parties on April 2, 1982. Following
crr;rcfmcnt anrl Section 5 preclearance of the April 27, 1982,
Senate and IIouse districting plans, the pleadings were closed,
rvith issue joined for trial on plaintiffs' challenge, by amended
anrl supplementerl complaint, to that finally adopted plan.

I"ollorting a final pre-trial conference on July 14, 1983, trial
to t he three-jurlge court was held from July 25, 1983, through
Auuust;1, t9)13. Extensive oraland documentary evidence was
ret'r,iverl. I)t:cision was deferred pending the submission by
bot h parties ,rf proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law,
bricling anrl trral argument. Concluding oral arguments of
counsel n'ertr heard by the court on October 14, 1983, and a
limited submission of supplemental documentary evidenee by
both parties wils llermitted on December 5, 1983.

Iltving consitleretl the evidence, the memoranda of law sub-
niitted bv the parties, the stipulations of fact, and the oral
irrgrrrnerrts of counsel, the court, pursuant to Ped.R.Civ.P.
52(l), cnters the following findings of fact and conclusions of
lan'. llrr'(ireerl u,ith a discussion of amended Section 2 of the
Votirrg Itights Act and of certain special problems concerning
the lrropr-,r interpretation and application of that section to the
evirlcnce in this case.

II
.\nrcntled Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act

If rrrrn the outset of this action plaintiffs have based their
clairrr of lrrcial vote rlilution not only on the fourteenth and
llltecnth amenrlrnents, but on Section 2 of the Voting Rights
Act. As interll'e,ter1 by the Supreme Court at the time this
actiorr \r,irs c()r)lrnenced, former Section 2,6 seeured no further

; l',r'rnr,r'Scr:t iorr l, enacted pursuant to Congress's constitutional enforce-
nlent l,r)\\'{,1 s. llrovirlerl simply:

\rr v,tirr( rluirlill('iltion or llrererluisite to voting, or stanrlarrl, practice,
',, r,,')('(',1* (' sh.ll'e imp.serl,',1lfli1l"oLill,::f:." ;:,li[fii

9a

voting rights than were directfy securecl by those con-
stitutional provisions. To the e.xtent "vote dilution" claims la1'

under either of the constitutiorral provisions or Section 2,6 the
requirements for proving such a claim were the same: there
must have been proven both a discriminatorily "dilutive" effect
traceable in som-e me@roifil meifi-anism
and,behindt*[aFeIfeA[aspeclfi clntenf on-tn-epertoliesponsi
ble-srritE--off ielelrfi-mr!!19..,f :,"-.-trnism jfi-eufdha*-bEE
etrerf.-Ci@bfliliffie1. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 ( 1980).

While this action was pending for trial and after the
ultimately challenged redistricting plan had been enacted and
given Section 5 preclearance, Congress amended Section 2t in
drastic and, for this litigation, critically important respects. In
rough summary, the amended version liberalized the statutory
vote dilution claim in two fundamental ways. [t removed any (7
necessity that discriminatory intent be proven, leaving onl-l'.-
the necessity to show dilutive effec!

explicit that the dilutive
effect might be found in thq_:'t of the circu tt

m operat

(footnote continued from previous page)
suklivision to deny or abridge the right of an-v citizen of the Uniterl
Slates to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the
guarantees set forth in Section 1973b(0(2) of this title.

42 U.S.C. $ 1973 0976).
6 It is not now perfectly clear-but neither is it of rlirect consequence

here-whether a majority of the Suprerne L-ourt consirler.s that a racial vote
dilution claim, as well as a direct vote rlenial claim, lies under the fifteenth
amendment and, in consequence, lay unrler former Section 2. See Rqers t.
Lodge,Affi U.S. 613, 619 n.16 (1982). It is well settlerl. horvever, that such
claims lie under the fourteent.h amenrlnrent, though onlv upon proof of intent
as wellas effect. See City ol'Mobile y. Bolden,446 tJ.S. D5 (1980).

7 H.R. 3112, amending Section 2 anrl estenrling the Voting Rights Act of
1965, was passed by the House on O,,.toher 15, l9lJl. On.lune 18. 1982. the
Senate adopted a differe*i version. S. I [ll)2. reporterl ou t of its Committee on
the Judiciary. The House unanirnouslr. ldopted the Senate bill on June 33,
1982, and it was signetl into larv by the Presirlent on.lurre 2!). lgSZ. There nas '

no intervening conference comntittee tction.

'-L
n2url

withinwhic meeh
in direct operation of the mechami



l0a
/

l'ollorving Section 2's amendment, plaintiffs amended their
comlrl:rint in this action to invoke directly the much more
firvorable pror,isions of the amended statute. All further
pt'oct't:rlirrrls in the case have been conducted on our perception
that the vote rlilution claim would succeed or fail under
amenrletl Section 2 tu now the obviously most favorable basis of
clainr.'

Because of the amended statute's profound reworking of
applicable lan'and because ofthe absence ofany authoritative
Supreme Court decisions interpreting it,0 we preface our find-
ings :rnrl conclusions with a summary discusson of the amended
statute anrl ofour understanding ofits proper application ofthe
vote rlilution claim, we may properly rest decision on the
amenrlerl statuLe alone and thereby avoid addressing the still
subsisLing constitutional claims seeking the same relief. See
A s It w tn d e r u. T emt es see V allelj Authority, 297 U. S. 288, 34'l
(193(;) (llrantleis, J., concurring). :

I Of courst,, the direct claims under the fourteenth (and possibly the
fiftet'ntlr) :rrnenrlmerrt remain, and could be established under Bolden by
proofol'a rlilutive effect intentionally inflictecl. But no authoritatlve decision
hirs srrggestr'rl that proof alone of an unrealized discriminatory intent to
rlilut. r*oukl sutficr:. A tlilutive effect remains an essential element of con-
stitrrl irrnrtl as u'ell as section 2 claims. See Hadman, Racial vote Dilution
(nd S,'l)ut'ut;orr o/ l)orr,er.s. Atr, Etploraton ol the ConJlict Betueen the
Jttdirt,rl "lttttttt" tttd lhe Legislatiue,,Results,, SlonrJards, E0 Geo. W.L.
Ilev- tirif), 7jl7-jt8 n.:.lllJ (lgu2), Neither is there any suggestion that the
lernerlv lirr lrr urrconstitutional intentional dilution strouitt trc any more
favorablc th:rn the remerl'r,of discriminatory intent might nevertheless have
lirnit.rl releranctr irr establishing a Section 2,,results" claim is another
nlattr.r.

e'l'h+rrr: ha'e, h,r*ever, been a few lower ferreral court tlecisions interpret-
ing anrl lplrl'irrg rnrerulerl section 2 to state and tocal electoral plans. All
gerrerrrll'sul)lx)rt the .l/rrlor v. Treer, civil Action No. g2-llg2 bection c(Ll.l). l.ir. Srpr. -rii, l1)13;i) (three-judge court); Rybicki v. stare Board of
Electt,ttts, No. l.ll-(l-{il)i,l() (N.D. Ill. Jan. 20, l98g) ithree-juflge court); T/ro-
ttrttsrillt lJnrttch ,/ .\'Arlc/' v. r'honrus cotmty, civil Action No. is-al-
TIIOII (i\l.l). (.ia..lan. 2(i, l98B); Jones v. City o!:Lubboct, Civil Action No.(lA-i)-7{i-li'l rN.I). 'l'r's. .1a,. 20, l98l}); raylor v. Hoyu,ood corotry, ilr4 l-.
Su1rp. I l:9 (w.l). Tenn. lgtl2) (on granr of preliminary injunctioni.

lla

Section 2, as amended, reads as follows:

(a) No voting qualification ('r prerequisite to voting or
standard, practiae, or procerlure shall be imposed or ap-
plied by any State or political subdivision in a manner
which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any
citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or
color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in
Section 4(f)(2), as provided in subsection (b).

(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on
the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political
nrocesses l"adins to nomination or election in the State or
bo I i ti cal s u b?i vib*anT.re n of Eo flil I v 

-o 
oeT t ri-n a rt i c i Dd t i 6 n

bymembers-of !i-clasS- of-citiTdns-pi'otbctijrl b'y sribseCtion
(d) in-ttrat its members have less'opportuniti than other
members of the electorate to participate in the political
process and to elect representatives of their chofce. The
extent to which members of a protected class have been
elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one
circumstance which may be considered: Prwided, ThaL
nothing in this section establishes a right to have members
of a protected class electerl in numbers equal to their
proportion in the populatior).

Without attempting here a detailed analysis of the legisla-
tive history leading to enactment of amended Seetion 2, we
deduce from that history and from the judicial sourqes upon
which Congress expressly relied in formulating the statute's
text the following salient points rvhich have guided our applica-
tion of the statute of the facts rve have found.

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 under the statute.r0

l0 Senator Dole, sponsor of the conrpromise Senate version ultimatell,
enaeted as Section 2, stated that one of his "key objectives" in offering it rvas

to

make it unequivocally clear that pluirrtiffs may basr a violation of Sec-
tion 2 on a showing of discriminatur'1' "results", irt rvhich case proof of
discriminatory intent or purl)ose rvorrld be neither reqrrirerl, nor rele-
vant. I was convincerl of the inapplolrt'iateness of arr "intent standard"

r (tirotnote continued on next page)



loa 
t

l"olLru'inq Section 2's amendment, plaintiffs amencled their
corrrpllinL in this action to invoke directly the much more
l'rrtorable provisions of the amended statute. All further
pror:eerlings in the case have been conducted on our perception
th;rt the vote rlilution claim would succeed or fail under
lrrr+:nrlerl Sr:ction 2 as now the obviously most favorable basis of
r:lltint.'

llecause ol' the amenderl statute's profound rervorking of
irlrlrlieatrle lan'anrltlecause of the absence of any authoritative
Sulrrenre (lurrt tlecisions interpreting it,e we preface our find-
inqs an,l corrclusions with a summary cliscusson of the amended
st;rt ute rrntl of our understanding of its proper application of the
r',,tt rlilution clairn, we may properly rest decision on the
;un,'n(lr,(l slrttute alone and thereby avoid addressing the still
srrlrsi51il,* cotrstitutional claims seeking the same relief. See
tl,; I t 1 1'1 1 1 1 a I p,' r, .'l' e n u e :;see V alley Aut hority, 297 U. S. 288, 347

1 1't:i(i) ( [Jllnrlt,is, .I., concurrin$).

't )l t'r,urse. thr, rlirect claims unrler the fourteenth (anrl possibly the
lrlrf ','nthl ;rrnr.trrlrnr.nt remain, and coukl be establisherl urrrler Bolden by
l) r', r'l r 1l'11 r lilr rl il t r.lfect intentionally inflicted- But no authoritative decision
f 1;s. .:1;ggr,:tr.rl th;rt grloof ulone ol an unrealized discriminatory intent to
rliirrtr,r'.rrlrl :rrl'lit.r,. A rlilutive effect remains an essential element of eon-
:,lirlrlion;rl rrs ur,ll irs Section 2claims. See Harlman, Ruciall/ote Dilution
,11t t ,ly1r,ttlitt, t)l I'ru'et.:r: Att Exploruton oJ- the Conllict IJeln'een the
.l ','i,,rtrl "ltrttrrl',rtttl lhe Legislutiue "Rcsu/ts"Slrrrrdrrrrls, b0Geo. W.L.
ll,, rislr. 7;ii-:is n.;lllJ (1982). Neither is there anv suggestion that the
rr.rrrr.rlv li,r' un utrc.rrstitutional intentignal dilution shoukl be any rnore
l:r,,,,r'lrblr' Ilrirn th,, r'+,,rnerl^y of intent might nevertheless have
litrrtl,,rl lr.lrviltr(.r, irr tstabli h Section 2 "results" clairn is another
nr;lll('t'.

'"1'ltr-,t'r, havr'. lrr rryt,r'er a few lower federal court rlecisions interpret-
irrr{ :rrrrl aplilt'irrc iunt,ru,l6d Section 2 to state and local electoral plans. All
g,,rr,,r'rrl11'srrgrlrrrt the.Ilciol v. Treet, Civil Action No. 82-llg2 ihction C
tl', 1t. La. Se;rt. ?il, ltf&i) (three-judge court); Rybicki v. .S/ole Bmrtl o|
l'; !,., 1t1111s, No. Sl-('-til):10(N.D. Ill.Jan. Z0, lgSB)(three-jurlgecourt); 7nlro-
rt,rr., tllr, l!nrr,r.h,r/.V.-l.lCP v. ?'/roDros Couttty, Civil Action No. Zb-lJ{-'t'lloll rll.l) ril..lln.2(i, l9gB); "/oaes v.Citytl'Lubhrtck, Civil Action No.('.\ 1.7(i-iil (N.ll.'li,r.,lan.20, l9&l); ?aulor.v. Huuutnil Crrrrrrly, b-l,l F-.

Srrl'1r. l l:l'l r\\ I)'l'cnrr. lg82) (on grant of preliminart, injunction).

lla

Section 2, as amended, rearls as follorls:

(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting ot'
standard, practice, or t)l'o('edure shall be imposed ot'll)-
plied by.any State or political subdivtslon tn a mant)t'r'
which results in a denialor ahridgement of the right of anv
citizen of the United States to vote on account of race ot'
color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in
Section 4(D(2), as provi(le(l in subsection (b).

(b)

1
\

)

nothing in this section establishes a right to have membel's
of a protected class eleetetl in nunrbers equal to their'
proportion in the populittiott.

Without attempting here lr tletailed an:llysis of the legislrr-
tive history leacling to enactrnent of amcnrled Section 2, rr.,,

deduce from that history anrl from tht, jutlicial sources ul,),)r)

which Congress expressly relicd in lbrmulating the statutt''.
text the following salient points u'hich havt guicled our applicl
tion of the statute of the facts. u'e have forrnd.

Ftrst. The fundamental pul'f'ose of the amentlment to Stt''
tion 2 was to remove intent as a necessal'v element of racrll
vote dilution claims brought urrder the statute.r"

l0Senator Dole, sponsor of the cr)ml)romise Senate version ultimat,,ll
enactetl as Section 2, stated that one of his "ke1' ob.lectives" in offeling it rrrr.-
to

make it rtnequivocally cle;rr that plaintiffs rnat base a violation of :,',.
tion 2 on a showing of rliscrirnirr;rtor.v "results". irr rthich case prorrl ,,r

discriminatory intent or l)ut'l)os(, ruoulrl be rrt.itlrer rer;uire<l. not. r.r,l,.
vant. I was convincerl of the irrupprollriaten(f sr of arr "iittent starxllr., I

,. (footnote crrrrtirruerl on ne\t l)irr,,,

the totalitv ofci'rcunrstances, it is shorvn that the politir':rl
processE>Itra.ding to nonrination ot'election in the.Statt or'

subdivis-ion-are not equally open to participation



l12t

'l'lris ',r':rs ut'colttltlished by codifying in the amendetl statute
tlr,, r;rli;rl vote tlilution principles applied by the Supreme
('rurt irr its pre-/l rildendecision inWhiteu. Rellester', 412 UrS.
?;; (lll73). 'l'lurt rlecision, as assutned by the Cong'ess,rr re-
rlrrilerl n() rnore to establish the illegality of a state's eleetoral
nrcr-'hanisrn tlurn yrroof that its "result," in'espective of intent,
u'lrrn assesserl in "the totality of circumstances" was "to cancel

rrul rrr rrrininrize the votrng-ilfgltgtlof racialgroups," Id. at765
Tt1-Iffit case by submerging racial min-ofity-voter concentra-

t i r, r rSln-st :ilE-m ultiffe-mAer legrilariv6 diiliicts. The W hite u .

li r' t 
1 e il i t: Tircfrl-wite dilutlon*pr:iricillleS,- as assumed by the

( 'olllll'(,ss, u'r:r'e tnatle ex;rlie iL itt nelt'subsection (b) of Section 2

in tlrt, lrrovisiott that. such a "l'estllt," hence a violation of se-

t:rrr.tl voting rights, could be established by proof.'based on
(lr. totrrlitv of circumstances . . . that the polittt6l processes

1,,;rrling to nonrination or election. . . are not\qually open to

1r:rlticilxrtion" lly nrembers of protected minorit\Q/. :y!
7(;ti.

Slr:r.,rrr1. Irr rletermining whether, "basetl on the totality of
cilt'trnrst arrces." it state's electoral mechanism does so "result"
irr r';rcirrl vote rlilution, the Congress intentled that courts
slr,,rrlrl look to the interaction of the challenged mechanism
rr it t, 11,,,*,, histolir:lrl, social and political factors generally sug-
u,'-trrl ;rs l)r'()l)ittive of dilutioninWhite u. Regester and sub-

l l,,,,trrutr, corttintrt,rl frorn previous page)
:rs tlr,' s,,k, mcarrs of establishing a voting rights claim, as were the
rnrri,rlitr' ,rl' rnv r:rtlleagues on the Committee.

S lit,1r. No. ll?. 1l?th Clong.,2d Sess. 193 (1982) (atl<litional viervs of Sen.

l),rl{,) thr,r'eirtirlttr S. Rep. No.97417).
rr ('()r'rgl'()ssi{)rurl opgxurents of amendetl Section 2 contended in debate that

ll/,./r,r'. llt,ttslt,r rlirl not actually apply a "results ortly" test, but that,
pr',,1,r.r1v irrtr.rpreterl, it required, and by implication found, intent also

I,11,\ r,n 'l'hr: right or \r/rong of that clebate is essentially beside the point for
,rn'l)url)(){ec. \Vt'seek only Conglessional intent, whir:h clearly was to adopt
;r "r'r,sull s onlr"' stanclard by codifying a decision unmistakably assumetl-
l lr,,tlir,r'rrr uot (f rr'oncously-to have embodied that standartl. See Hartman,
llrr, tttl \',rle l)il rrlirttt,.sr{r)r'o note tJ, at ?25-26 & n.236.

llla

sequently elaborated by the firrmer Fifth CireuiLin Zinmrr '"
McKeithm,'485 F.zd 129? (irth Cir. 197i1) (en banc), a.fl''l 'ttt
other grou,rtds srrb nom. Eosl Carroll Parish Sc/rool IJoar'l ''
Morshall,424 U.S. 6il6 (1f)?(;) (per cttriam). These tyoic:rllv
include, per the Senate Iteport accompall)'ing the comprontisrr

version enacted as amended Section 2:

l. the extent of anv historv of official discrimination in
the state or political silbrlivision that touched the right "t'
the memberS of the minorit.v group to register, to vote. t)l'
otherwise to participate in the democratic process;

2. the extent to rvhich voting in the elections of tlte
state or political subrlivision is raciallv polarizerl:

3. the extent to rvhich the state ol' political .u5,llf iriolt
has used unusually largc election tlistricts, majority vott'
requirements, anti-sin[le shot provisions, or other votirtrl
prdctices or procedures that may enhance the opportunitr'
tor discrimination against the minorit.v group;

4. if there is a candirlate slating process, whetler the
members of the mimoritv group have been tlenied acc(rss
to that process;

I 5. the extent to rvhich nrembers of the minority gt'rrrrl)
/ in the state or oolitit':rl subrlivisiorr bear the eflfect. "l'
/ discrimination iri sttch :treits as etl.;t'rttion, emplol'ntt'trt
/ antl health, which hinrler their abilit.r'to participate el'li't'-

I tively in the political l)r'()cess,

i 6. whether political camllaigtls have been charaettt'-

f ized by overt oi subtle racial apperrls;

7. the.extent to which members oI the minority g']'orrl)
have been'elected to prrblic office in the jurisdiction.

Additional factors thlt in some cilst:s have hacl pt'olr;t-
tive value as part of plaintiffs' evi,lettce to establish l
violation arei

whether there is a significant lack of responsiven('ss
on the part of electerl officials to the pafticularizt'rl
needs of the membel's of the minority group.

whether the polic.v trnclerlf ing the state or politi,''r!
subdivision's use of such voting tltralification. prrrl'''-
quisite to voting, or stantlarcl. pt'actice or procedttt',' '-
tenuous.



l4a
I

l\Ilrilt' tlrcsc ttnttmerated factors will often be the more
r.ltvlrrrt ortes, in some cases other factors rvill be indica-
I ir t, ol' tltt lllegerl dilution.

S. Ilr,1r. No. 1)7- I I T. .s///)r'o note 10, at 28-29 (footnotes onritted).

'l'ltn'rl. ( rrn11l'r-,ss also intentled that amentled Section 2
shoulrl l)e intcr'l)t'etetl and applied in conforntity with the
uerrt,r'rl brrrlv ol pre-Boltlen racial vote dilution jurispruclence

tlrat rrlrlrlicrl the ll'/ri/e u. Regestet'test for the existence of a
rlilut ivc "t'esult. "'l

(lrit ical in th;rt lrtrrl.y of jurisprudence are the follorving prin-
ciplrs l-[1[ 11,1-, cottsitlct' embotlied in the statute.

'l'h,, (,ss(,nce ol'racial vote dilution in the Wlite u. Regester
serrst is this: tlr:rt primarily because of the interaction of sub-
slarrti;tl arrtl persistent racial polarization in voting patterns
(r'acirtl bloc votittg) rvith a challenged electoral mechanism, a
raciul rninoritv rvith rlistinctive group interests that are cap-

abL, r, l', 11 1 . r' u rn e l i ora Lion by goGi'nfr efrfi s effectil ely-ddnie-d 
-

tli; rrolitir;;rl uiiri ei: iii-frrrtfi-er thoSe interedtJ that numb-efs

irl,,n,,-ir'i,irlilf,*.,r"iiti"-o ty, sri Uritecl f etuish Oi:grtrii2ation i.
('ui.r',1. l:t(i Ir.s. t.l.l. 166 n.24 (1977), g1_ysjLin-a_yq$_ng co!-r.-

slitrr,.rrcy rrot nrt'illlv polarized in its voting behaviol-Egc
vr lr,// ,.. s i r/r,.s, i,? I Fl2il 209, 223-&-ii 16 (5tli Ciil 197$.qa:*
rlilrrti,,rr irr thi: scnsr can exist notrvithstanding the relativerlilrrlr,,rr irr thl: scnst can extst notwlthstandlng t,he relatlve
irIrs,,rr,'(. o f' strurt u ri,i-6lrrGrs To efeicisO dfthEelee tdralfran-
c;lir.sr,. It ,lriii-br:t,rr[i;ulctd.byathOr factors - Cuitiu:al, politicil,
s,r,rirrl. ccorronric - in rvhich the racial minority is relatively
rlis:r,lr rrnt;ruerl rrrtrl rvhich furlher operate to dirninish practical

lrrrlit ir':tl el'li,ctivt'rtt,ss. Zimnrcr u. illcKeithen, supr(t. But the
rlr,nrorrsLnrlrlc rrnu'illirrgness of substantial numbers of the ra-

rr\/, :-. lir,1,. N,r. lr?-Il?..slprcnote10,at32("[Tlhelegislativeintent[isl
l,r ir){.,,ff,,fr':rlI lll'lttl,'r'. lleqesletl and extensive caee larv. . . rvhich de-

vr,l,,1r,,,1:nr)urr,lj1.'t..Sr'rrr/soid.at19-21](Bolderrcharactelizcrl as"amarked
(l',lr:rlrulr. llorn llhrl pt'iot' law" of vote dilution as applied itt White v.

li,'r1t,'t,r,/,irt,ttrr'tt'..llrKrilhen,andanuntberofotherciterl tbderal deci-

si,rrr> l,,ll,,rltti( ll'irr/,' v. lilqe.sler').

AO

I

I

i
P

PJ e^v

(t xtYt

The me19 fact that blacks cottstilute a u9!ilg 9f-p9plletiq,!
miffity in-i muili:mii-mber rlisfricl doe5-n-o-t alone establish
that vo[e-dilut-ion has resulted-fi'om the tlilstriiting ['lan. See

Z imme i,485 F. 2d ai I 304 ("a.x i i r rri a[ic" [haT at :l arge ahd mult i---'
memberdistricts are not perse unconstitutional). Np1-dgg$Ie- \
fact that blacks hav-g:-uq$een--elegqqd-grl,l.'. tif,iii6g".l- \aiffirs pro;rot'tional t.r tliiir p"i.*ggqg!',

I5:r

cial majority to vote for any minority race candiilate or anv

candidate identified with minoritv race interests is the linchpin
of vote dilution'by districting. \'cuelt u. Sides, supro; see alsrt
Rogers u. Lodge,458 U.S. 0l:1. tizg (1981) (emphasizing cen-

trality of bloc voting as eviclence of purposeftrl tliscrimination).

On the other hand, proof that blacks constitute a population
majority in an eleetoral district does not pcr se establish that no

vote dilution results from the tlistrieting platt, at least where
the blacks are a registered voter minorit.v. Irl. aL 1303. Nor
does proof that in a challenged rlistrict blacks have recentll'
been elected to offrce. /d. at llt07.

Vote dilution in the White u. llrqest.er seltse mav result front
the fracturing into several single-member districts as well as

from the submergenee in one nrulti-member district of blacli
voter concentrations sufficient, if not "fracturecl" or "sub-
merged," to constitute an effect ive single-tn,'rnber district vot-
ing majority. See Neuett u. Side.s, 571 F.2d 209,219 (5th Cir.
l9?8).

Fourth. Amended Section 2 ernboclies a conp;ressional pur-
pose to remove all vestiges ot' rninority race vote dilutiolr
perpetuated on or after the amendment's c'ft'ective date bv
state or local electoral mechanisrtts. r' To accotttplish this, Con-

rlThisweconsidertobethelimitol'thc ntenrletl rrlr';rtlingrlfthetlisclaimcr'
in amended Section 2 that "nothing in this section estabiishes a right to havc

members of a protected elass electetl itr ttrtnlbers equal ttr their prolnrtion irr

the population." 42 U.S.C. $ 1973.

l{ Both the Senate and House Crrtntttittee Reports assett a l,urlns€ t'
forestall further purposeful rliscrimitlr:',,rr that migh: ,'i1rle 7rn'te!l'. 'nrl'''

'tirvf.flttl-t r:,tl,':.l"wl (fi ne:'.r. Oa!'



l6a

grcss has lrlrr:iserl its enforcetnent llower.s unrler section b of
thr, firrrrtrr,rrlh ;rrrrl serction 2 of the f'ifteenth arnendlnentsri tu
('l'('ilt(,r r),,\r' jrrrlici:rlt'eme,rl.y b.y llrivate action that is broader
itt st',r;rt, llr;rlr u't,re e-risting ;rrivate lights of action for con-
stitulir)l):rl r i,rl:rti,ns of minorit.y race voting rights. slrer:ifical-
l.v. tlris rlrrrlrlv is rlt,signetl to pr.ovirle ir means tirr.bringi4g
sllrlcs ;rrr,l lot.trl govcr.nrn(flrts irrto cotnglli:rnt,e with con-
st i t rrl ion:r l rrr t;t rrl nt r,t's oi crlrral vol itrg r.iulrts lirr. r'lrcial nrinori-
Iir,: rr illr.rrl tlr. rrt,t'r,ssit\. to lrr,r r, lrrr irttttttiorurl virllation of
t ltr rsr, r'i rt l rr ' '

l"tlil, I,r ,,trrltirru irtnenrletl -st,eliorr i. ('orrur.r:ss marle a
rllltlrlt';rtr' 1,r l1li,';rl.ittrlgntettt tlr;rt tlt. tirrr. S:rrl t,,,r,c t. allllly

i1,,,,111,,r, ,,,, ' ,:,,i :r,,trr 1,r'r,titttts gr;t1y,,t

I lr,, -l r rrrr., t,, ,rt, trr 1,1u. ,.lt'ects test ul lirrlr/r,l arrrl to r.r;rrlirate existing of
nr'\\ nr., lr;u,r rrr.. llrirt lrr,r';retuate tlrc clli,cts rrf grast rliscrirrrirratiotr. See S.
li.t'1r. lfi-J ll . ,,11 11v,1 rtgttr ll), at {0; }1.R. ltr,;1. N6. 22?. lf?th (',,g., lst Sess.
:ll r lllll ) (hr,rlirrtrltcr Il.lt. Rep. No. 1t7-227).

\\'r';rlt.r,lrl ;rrrrl rt is n,,t challengurl irr this at:tion b.\'thc staterlefendants_
Il];rt ( ,'ntrr'r .. rrl,,rrl',(l tht,anrenrlrnerrt to llr|lv to litigltiorr lrntlirrg upon
il:,,lli',.tnr.rl,rtr, .'.,,..1/,r/rir.v.'l'ttett, sr,7rrv1, 5ljp rr1l. :rt.ll)-{l n.20.

r'li,tlr rlr, \,,n;ttr, :rrrrl llouse (lrrrrntitt,rt liegxrrts oxl)r.(,ss an intention
llrrrl urrr,'rr,l,',1!:,,"1 r,nSlrr:r'cgarrlerlaslenrrrrlial latherthanrnr-.relyrerleflni-
lir,lt;rlll ,,ri.rprqr'olstilrrtrorral votirrgr.iglrl.s.Ser,S. lltp. Nl. 1)?-{lT,srrprO
rrrrtr, ltl. ;1t .lit.lii. ll It. llr,p. No. l)7-tli,.sr./lu nolr) l.l, aL:ll.

r'' { ',rrrlt r,. -r,,rltl lrl'()l)r)rr(,trts of atneruk,rl Section 3 rvere at pains in debate
Ittt,l r:,,rrurtilll,,tr,l)ot'ts trl rlisclainr anv irrtgntign or po\l,cr try CgngreSS to
,)\'r'r'f'lrlr' 111r' ;i11n1 1'111q. ( '')ult's constittrtional inter'grrt,tatiorr in Softlerr only
llr;rl tlrl r'r'1. \;rrr r'('nstitutional prrrvisirrns lrrolribiterl irrterrtional racial vote
,lilrrlir,rr. :nr,l rr, ;r".:r,r't irrstt,rtrl a l)rlr'tr corrt;r:rurlrlt, to tlutt ext,rciserl in the
('il;r,tnr,'nl rrr .'1,'r't irrrrirltrlreYotingltights.,\t.ttoplovirh,ir.lrrrlicial rentedy
loI r'rrl,,r,,'rrr.nr ,,l llrr.st:tt(.'s allit'tnittivr,olrliglrlirrns to cr,nrc into com-
J,lil,rt,,' .r,, ,7 S. llr'gr. 1)7-117, J,r/lrl r)rtt 10. 'lt .ll r.,(_'ongress cannot
lrlt,'r tlr,' 1r'li, r rl rrrr.r'1rrr.l:rtiolrs irr /lrrlri.r, .l'l'lhe JrrrrPosal is a llroper
-l;tlltl'rr\. ,\, ', r r r,l ('o1s111.1,sS'ttrlilt.t'r,lrrtnt txl\r,tf. .").

\,,,.1r rll,,r',,, r nr;t,h.rrr tlrisar.tiont.otlrlrnnstitrrtionalitl.of Section2asa
r:rlr,l r'',, r, ' , , I r r,!lL,r'r':is's ett[trt't'r,ttttttl lr)\\'rrls uttrlt,t'thr. lirtrrteenth (antl
I'i,:..rlrl\ t,ll, , ,irl" iln.nrlntL,ltt, :tnrl rrr, ltssu,l(, trtttstitutiottitlitV orr that
l,;1..i ,.5,, .Il',,,, lt.,,t,t,..srPrrr,sli1rrrlr. ll-riltrrplr.lrlingc.nstitutiorrality
rtr,;ritr:l ,ltt,,' :rll ,,1,r

l7a

Lhe statute's remedial measures Lo present contlitiott s of racial

vote dilution that might be establishetl in particultr litigation:

that nationalpolicy respecting minority voting rights cotll(l n(

longer await ihe iecuring of those rights by nortttitl lxrliticr
processes, or by voluntary action of state antl krcal g('vern-

ments, or by judicial remeclies limitetl to proof of itttctttionirl

racialcliscrimination. See, e.g., S. Rep. 97-417, sttP''tt ttote l0'
at 193 (adtlitional view of senator Dole) (assertittg;rttt'pose to

eradicate "l.acial tliscrimination which . . . still exists itt thrr

Anterican electoral process").

In making that political judgment, Congress nccessat'ilv

took into accoult antl rejected as uttfouncletl, or :rsstllne(l as

outweighecl, several risks to funtlamental political y{99s !!a!
opponents of iilelib-eTiiti6ni(

L->----

were the nSk thalt thd ititliiialandtloor-tle5ete. Among these were the rlsk that tne Jtl(llclal

'TEffi'6ilrE[[TTctually be at oclds with the judgment of signifi-

cant eiements in the racial minodty;" the risk thaL creating
.l'safe" black-majority single-member clistricts woul(l perpetu-

ate racial ghettos and racial polarization in voting behavior;''
ttre risk thit reliance ru)on the jurlicial remedy woul(l sul)l)lant

the tacquiring polit'icirl pou'-

el-6y registration, noti tr g anr-l-coa] ilion- biiilt'li n g]n aiiil t h c

-*----ts-----
r?Seel?lirrgRigilsrlcl:l/eurirry.s l e.limtheSttbt'rttttttt. ttttlltt('rtttslilrr

I iotr o/lhe Senote C ont tn . on the J udicitL ry, 9?th Colrg' , 2<l Sess. 5tsl2-'l(i ( F eb'

l, 1982) (hereafter Serrole Heurings\ (prepared statement of I't'ofessor IVlc-

Manus, pointing to disagreenrents within black community k,arlcrshill ovor'

relative virtues of local districting plans).

fESee Srrlrcorrttttillee on the Cousliltttiotr ol'lhe Sertrtle l'rtttrtttilltt'on thr

Juilitiuru, g7th Cong.,2tl Sess., Vr-rting Rights Act, Relxrrl rrrr S. l1l1l2. tt
.lll-.lli (comm. Print l1)ti2) (hereafterSrrbcorttntiltct, Reynl), rrltritrlul itr s.
Itep. No. $7-1l7,.stt2ru note 10, 107, 141) (asserting "rletrirnental crttl-

se(lucnce ofestablishing racial polarity in votiltg rvhere tlone rllistetl. rll'tvits
merely episrxlic, antl of establishing race as an acceptetl factot'irt t ht' rlccisiotr-

rnaking of elected oflrcials"); SrrDcorrllitlee lltpotl , $rlr),1r. ilt ll, .rltt'ittlr',1

irr S. Itep. No. 97-117, sr.pru note 10, at 150 (assertirrg that ittttt'rttlctl St'tt it,tr
2 rvould aggravate segregated housing Patt(rl'lls b1' cttcottt':tgittg lrlrttlis 1,,

rernain in safe black legislative <listricts).

r!'seeSttbcortrtttillee Reytrt,.sl.Pro note llJ, at'l:l-'l'1. t't'1tt'itrl, rl itr S. lir'p.
No. 9?-417, srrp,'(r note 10, at l-19-50.



l,!;r

I Ilrl I lre rccrrgrrit ir'n {'l'"ql'ott1I t'otitlg t'ights"
.,1 ;rll'i t mittir.r,olrlirl;tIirrll tlf )ol] llr)\ ('t'lllllent to
lrl-: lrr, l':tec-cr)n:r('ir)tls ('l('etot'ltl ttttlchanisms
,.\ r rrr.rrican politicir I tt'ittl itirttt. t"

I"or r:otrt'ts rrpplvittg Sectiorl 2, the sigrlilicatrctt ttl Congt'ess's

gr,ner';rl rr'.ilt'tiott ttr assunlJrtion of these risks as a matter of

1,oI it ir':r I .i r t, L, t r rt' t t t i. l!gLJJfeJ-!!1S- Iot antottg Lhe circum-
,.t:rrrt',,. lrr lr. r',rr:itlrn,rl in tteterntiltittgTrjlictl,t'r .r tlla-lGiigbl
tllrl ,i';rl trr,','lrrnisttt l)r'esently"t'esttlts" itt tjat:iitIvotetlilution,
litlr,,r';ls;ur{'\\ ()r'l)oll)t:tuiltetl contlitirrrr. Ifittlot's, lheremedy
lirlLnls. lrll risks to these valtles havittg beett assessetl antl
;rr.r't,ptr,,l l,) ('rlnt1l't,ss. It is thertiitt'c it't'eluvlttrl fot'tourts
lrl rl rll ir rtl ;r r r rr,rtr lt't l St:cLion 2 to slleculitte r.rr to att.t'tttllt to make
llrrrlirru:, rr: lo u'lrttth(-'r a presentl.y existing condition of racial
v.tc rlilrrti,,rr is lilietv in riue cotll'se lo bc'remrwql!-ly normal

.Irt 11IT-,,,{, 
1q (, 5l r 6y 1iffi iili t i t' t' acii .i[ Tlie 

- 
affected

gri:iirliinr,rrt, ot' tltitl. some eletncnts of the racial minority
1'r'r,li,r' lo r.lv ulrotr those processts t'ather thiur having the

.jrrrlit'irrl r'(,ln('rl\. ittvolit'tl.

III
lrinrlings ol' l.'at'l

,\.

'l'ht Challengttl I )istriels
'l'ltr, t',',li,lrictirrg pl;tns fot' thc North Citt'olitta Senate and

I l, rtrs,. o I' ll,'1rrt'st,ntirt ives ettitctcr I ltv t ht' Gt'ttct':tl Assenlbly of
N.r'tlr (':rr',rlirrrr irr.\;rril of l9l]2 irrclttrlerl six rrtttlti-member
rlislricts :rr)rl r)nt sittglr-,-member tlistrict thitt ttt'e the subjects
rrl'tlrc nrt'irrl vllr, rlilution challenge in this actirltt.

1".'i,, 
", t,', llr'rr,'i trrl (. sr/)rn. not.e l?, at tl|51-,'il tFeir. 12, 1982) (pre-

1,;rlr.rl .t.rtr,rr,,.,rl ,,l l'toli,ssot'Blunrsteil); rr/. at 5{)9-10 (Jln. !8, 1982) (pre-

Irrur.rl5l;rtr'rrr,'trl ,,l l't'olessor Erler), reprinlctl irr S. Re1l. No. {l?-{lT, sttptu
rrol r. ll). ilt Ili. ,r1. at 2iil (Jan. 2?, l1)t,l2) (tcstinrony 0f l'r'ofessor Berns),
tr ltttrttt,rl r,i S. ltr,[r. Nrr. 1]7-417, $rrl)r'(t llr)te ll), at 147.

l9a

'l.he multi-member districts, each of which contilltl(l(l pre-

existing tlistricts and apportionments, are as follows' with

their compositions, and their apportionments of nlembers all(l

the percentage oftheir total populations antl oftheir legistererl

voters that are black:

% of Registered l'oters

?o of Populatiort thut is Rlack

that is Black (as rtl' l\ll/tl!)Dislriet

Senate No. 22 (Mecklenburg 24'3

and Cabarrus Counties (4

nrenrbers)
House No. il6 (Mecklenburg

Count.v) (8 members)

House No. 39 (Part of ['or-
syth County) (5 membqrs)

l{ouse No. 23 (Durham

' County) (3 members)
House No. 2l (Wake CountY) 2l'8

. (6 members)
House No. 8 (Wilson, Nash 39'5

and Edgecombe Counties)
(4 members)

As these clistricts are constituterl, trlack citiztltts malte u;r

of these districts, only House District No. 8 is itl an itrea oI

the state covered by $ 5 of the Voting Ilights Act'

At the time of the creation of these multi-mernllot' rlistricts,

there were eoncentrations of black citizens within the bounrl-

aries of each that were sufficient in numbers anrl corttigtrity to

" 
o ir. t i t u t " e fffi ilvo ti n[-m$o ri tie*s r n s i iigle - r, e m be. t l i s -

tricts lying wholly within the boundaries of the multi-membet'

clistric[s, *t,i.tt single-member districts woul(l satisfy all con-

stitutional requirements of population and geographical con-

figuration. For example, concentrations of black citizetts em-

26.5

25. I

36.3

Iri.8

l.8.0

20.8

28.6

lir. I

21,.5



_lt l; r

lrt';r,',,, I rlrt lrirr llrt' lirllowing siugk'-tttt'rn[)et' rlistt'it'ts, as (le-

lrir:tt,rl otr r,rlrilrits belirt'e the cout't, rvottltl nleet those criteria:

.ll trltt .ll,'ttrl" ' llr.lttrl

Strr:rtl Nri. ll.-l

t illr.r'li,lr,trlrrtt'r: t';rl,irt'ttls
('nrttrl ics t

Ilottsr'Nr,. illl
I Nlr,clilr,rrlrut r' ('r'ttttl t')

llrrtt:rl Nn. lill
(I'it1l 9l' l.rrr--, I lr t 'orrnty)

llort;rr, Nr,. 'jll
(l)ttllr:rtrr ( ,'trttlr I

ll,rtt:,t.Nrr. lll
( \\'rrlir, ('otttrl r r

lll1,.r, Nl. )i

t \\'ilsott. l',,1t,'r',,tttl rr'. N:tslt
( r'11111 i,'u 1

S i nql r.,1[,' ttt lttr D i sl t'itt
Itx:ut iotr rt ttrl xtriul

tt)nt l)t)sll it)tt

Part of Mecklcnhtrrg ('rtttntl';
70.()(,i, Illark

(l) Part of Mecklcrtbrlrg Cotlnty; Pl. Ex. 4

6{i. l'lr [Jlar:k
(2) Palt of l\krcklenburg Countv; Pl. Ex. 4

71.2'7, Black
px1[ of F'orsyth (',runtt': 7().(l',{

Black
['art of Durhrtnr (lruntl'; 7().11'i

Black
Part of \Yakr, ( 'rru rtt y ; 1i7 .l)<It

Black
l)arts of \f ilsorr, I')rlgeconrbe anrl

Nash (',rttntics: lill.7',? lllack

Erhibil

Pl. Ex. 9

Pl. Ex. 5

Pl. E.x. 6
substitute
Pl. Ex. 7

Pl. Ex.8

'l'lrt, sirrrtl,, n)r,nrlr(,r' rlistricL is Settittc District No. 2 in the
I'llIul ll('r'l lt,,rr:tr,l'n st,r:tion of the st:rte. It was forllle(l by ex-
terrsivl l'r';lliunn)(,nt oi existing rlistricts to ettcotnltass an area
tvlrich lirrrrrlllv sul)l)lied conlpon('nts of two mttlti-member
Serrrte rlistrit:ls (No. I of 2 membet's: No. ti of 2 membel's). It
('or)sisls ol'tlrc n'hole of Northanlpt()n, Ilertlbrrl, (iates, fler-
tie, lrrrt[ ('llr)\\'rur ()ourtties, atxl l)alts oI Washington, I|1artin,
Illlilirx arrrl I')rlgecornbe Coultties. ['tlack citizens ma(le tlp
5l>.lel rrf tlrc total population of the <listrict , antl 4$.2o/o of the

lx)l)ulutiorr tlrirt is re.gistere<l to vote .'l'his does not constitute
thcrn irrr t,l'li,r'tive \'oting majori[y in this tlistt'ict.r'

:r \\'t. rrr,:,1 rrr't irttr.rnl)t at this point to tlcltne the e.ract population level at
rllriclr lrlleks rrrrulrl corrstitute art effectivt'(non-rliluterl) voting rnajority,
r.illrr,r'gtrrllrrllv rrr in this area. Defentlatrt's expert u'itness testifierl that'a
g('l)(,r':ll "r'rrh' ,,1'l hrrrrrlr" lirI insttrirrg an cllt:ctive v0ting nudo[itY is 65%. This

(frxrtnote eontittttt.rl ott ne-rt page)

2La

This district is in an area of the state covered b.v $ 5 0f th0

Voting Rights.Act.

At the time of creation of this single-member tlistrict, there

was a concentration of black citizens within the boulrdaties of

this tlistrict and those of adjoining senate Distriel No. (i tlrat
was sufficient in numbers an(l in contiguity to constititute an

effective voting majority in a single-member rlistrict, rvhich

single-member district would satisfy all corrstituti0nal rerluit'e-

ments of population and geogTaphical conhguratiort. F'or ex-

anlple, a concentration of black voters embrace(l rvithin a tlis-

trict depicted on Plaintiffs Exhibit 10(a) coulcl mininrally me'et

these criteria, though'a still larger concentration mighL l)ro\/e
necessary to make the majority a truly effective one, (lc.pell(l-

ing upon experience in the new district alignments. [n such a

diJtrict, black citizens would constitute 60.77o of the total
,population and5l.02to ofthe registered voters (as contrastetl

wilh percentages of 55.l?o and 46.27o, respectively, in chal-

lenged Senate District 2).

B

Circumstances Relevant To The Cltim Of Racirrl Vott'
Dilution: The "Zimmer Factors"

At the time the challenged districting platl wils enacte(l in

1982, the following circumstances affected the plan's effect

(frrotnote continued from previous page)

is the percentage used as a "benchmark" by the Justice DeJrartrnent in

administering $ 5. Plaintiffs' expert witness opinetl that a liO{t poptrlation

majority in the area ofthis district eould only be considered a "conrptttitive"
one rather than a "safe" one.

On the uncontradicted ovi<lence adduced we (intl-and neetl onl.v fintl for
present purposes-that the extant 55.17o black population nlajority tloes not

constitute an effective voting majority, i.e., does not establish;rer se thr'
absence of racial vote dilution, in this district. See Kirk.sr'1 t'. li.trxl ril
Superuisors, 554 F.zd 139, 150 (5th Cir. 1977) ("Where . . . cohesive black

votingstrength is fragmented amongdistricts, . . . the pt'esence oftlistricts
with bare ytpulation majoilies not only tloes not necessarily preclutltr

dilution but . . . may actually enhance the possibility of contitrttetl ntinorit'r'
political impotence. ").



22a

upon tlrr, ',,,tirrll strurgth of blar:k voters of thc state (the
;rl;rirrtil'l ll;r..s), rrrrrl 1r:rrticularly those in t.he area.s of the chal-
lclrult I ,Ii:,t t'ii't s.

,\ llistorl ()f ()l't'icial l)iscrinrinati1;l r\gainst lllack Citizens
In Voting lllatters

l"olLruirrl' tlrt trnarrripation of blacks from slavery and the
perior I o l' 

1 
r,::t . u lrr llet:onstruction, the Siate of Nrlrtlr Carolina

Irarl rrl'l'i.irrllr ;rrrrl el'l'ectivel.y rliscr.irninated against black
citiz.,,rrs irr rrr;rltt'r's torrr,lring their r.xer.r.ise of the voting h.an-
cltisl lirr';i lr, r ir,, l,,l'itl'r rtllrl sevetttt'\'(,i1's, rettgfth.tq'rigenera-
(l.u:,, l'r'r)nt , ir. litl lO l, r,:r. lll7tl. 'l'lr. lristor.)'ol'lrllrt,l< citizens'
:rllr,;s11;1:: rri,'..tlrr lir,,.,,n:itl'u('tion r,t';t lo lrllrtit,ilutl,'el'f'ective-
l, rrr t lr,'l,r,ir ,. ,11 1,.r.r. ,s;tnrl tltc rt'lrrll trrlr.i,,t'ilt":r t.r,sistance to
llt,:r,,,ll.r' r rl,rrl{,t.,,n(), Ii.:rtrg}rt uillrr.;rr.iltlirrrilrr,rsitiesthat
lirrt,,,r rlr ,l,yrrr;,, ir,.,l lrul still ct,itlerrl lirr.rrt to tltr,pr-esent attd
(lr;rt 

'r'rrr.rr! 
,,r:r,'i,,lrl1,,ntllr,r',tirr(strt,nrlthol'lr[l<,licitizens

:r:., ;tti i,lrtrltl:r ,i ,', 'rrtI.
l''r'r,1y1 ;-r, r,r 1,,i.'. lrl;rck r:iti;,.orrs, n(,\\.ly errurrrci;r;tted and

givltt Iltl l,',1:rl t'irlht- to yote, gllgt'tivslv exer.r:isqtl the tran-
t:lri,,r,. in t.r,:rliti,,rr rvith n'hite Iiepulllicarrs, to c()ntx)l the state
It'ui*lrrl rtt'r' lrr lS'i.1. tlrt, f)em6e1atit, I)artv, ove.*'helmingly
',r lritl in i',,t'i1,,,:;1ir111. t'tgailterl Contl'()l ol'stale g()\refnment
,nrl lrr,1,;,1 ,1, lrl,, ,r':rtr. r,l'lilt.Ls t.o r.erlrrr.t,par.tici;lirtion b1, black
,'itr,,,.rrsirrtlr, 1',,lilrt,;rl l)t.r)ces.srts.'[ltt,ser,Uirt.Ls\\'(]t.(tnotirnnte-
, lilt l l l,r' r rtrr l r' !r.ll.r' -rrt:r.r,ssfttl arrrl tll;rcI lr r;rlt, e it ize rrs r,6ltinuetl
[, \rl , ilr'l r,r lr.l,l t,l.ct.ive,l'fir:e lirt. tlte t.etnairtrlet. ol the
llllll'l ('t'lll l1 , , ,11 111'','.

'l'111s t'r,rrtirrrr*rl pirrtieipation b.t. bllt'h rnales in tht' l)oliticar
l,r'r)('{':.s rr';r: llil'r lrl,r'orl liv Irusionists'(l'opulist anrl Iitlpublican
r',r;tlili,ril r ir:'rrrrrlrl i,lr ol'r.rlntr0l 0f thc st:rtel lcgislirtrrr.e in lgg4.
l ',rr' ;r lrri,,l' ,,;r: ()n. tlris r.esulterl in legislation lirr.orable to
I'l;r,'li , il','rr l',,1r1ir';rl p;trticipatiotr ;rs u'cll as tht,ir.ecottomic
;rrlt tl,',,1,1,.,,i

.l l',. | '1 ;.r, t:' l,'1ri',f;11iye l)l.ogl.iu)t lai'rrt.irltk.,to lllacks im-
1',,11,., 1 i11,. ',. I ,', ,l,,rrrinrrtt'rl [)r.ntoo.;rtir, lrlrrtv t, trrrrlcrtake an'

23a

overt white supremacy political compaign to tlestroy the
Fusionist coalition by arousing white fears of Negro rule. This
campaign, characterized by blatant racist appeals by pamphlet
and cartoon, aided by acts of outright intimidation, succe'e(le(l

in restoring the Democratic Party to control of the legislature
in 1898. The 1898 legislature then adopted cotrstitutional
amendments specifically designed to disenfrarrchise black vo-

ters by imposing a poll tax and a literacy test for voting with a
glanrlfather clause for the literacy test rvhose effect was ttt
limit the disenfranchising effect to blacks. The amt'ttrltnerrts
were a(lopted by the voters of the state, following it ('otnl):lr!t-

ble white supremacy campaign, in 1900. The 1900 ofl'rcial litenr-
cy test continued to be freely applied for liO yeat's itt :t 'i'itt'it'tv ol'

ftrrrns that effectively disenl'ranchisetl most trlacks. ln ll)til.
the North Carolina Supreme Court declarerl uttcottstitutional
[he practice of requiring a registrant to write the North Caroli-
na Constitution from dictation, but upheld the llract,ice of
requiring a registrant "of uncertain ability" to rearl att(l colry il)
writing the ltate Constitution. Bazernore u. [Jeflie Cotrtrlrl
Board of Elections,254 N.C. 398 (1961). At least until arounrl
1970, the practice ofrequiring black citizens bo rearl and rvrite
the Constitution in order to vote was continuetl in sonre areas of
the state. Not until around 1970 did the State Boarrl of Elec-
tions'officially direct cessation of the administration of anv
form of literaey test.

Other official voting mechanisms designed to nrinimize or'
cancel Lhe potential voting strength of black citizens u'erc also
entplo.yetl by the state during this perirxl. In l1)l-rir, an tttti-
single phot voting larv applicable to specifred nrunici;lalities antl
counties was enacted. It was enforced, with the intenrlerl effect
of fragmenting a black minority's total vote betu'een trvo or
more canrlidates in a multi-seat election and prevcnting its
concentration on one cantlida[e, until declarerl unconstitutional
in 1972 in Drrnslorr r,. Scoll, 336 F. Supp. 206 ( E. D. N. C. l1)72).
In 1967, a numbered-seat plan for election in multi-rnenrber
legislative districts was enactetl. Its effect was, as intcnclerl, to
prevent single-shoL voting in multi-nrentber legislative tlis-



'll;r

tt'rr r l' ' r ;r1,1rlierl urrtil rl.cllrr..(l ull(,(,trstitutional in the
I)rr tt..,'',/, ('il!r,, sttltr0.t iff l1)?2.

lrr rlr'r,r,t (.r)l)s('(luence of the ;l,ll tax anrl the literacy test,
lrl,i'1., , rlj',,11., i11 rrrrtch lar.gr_,1'lx,l.(,(,rntilgcs,f their total num-
lr,'t . llr,rrr llrr, ,.orrrllarnlrlu l)r,t'c(,nt;tgt's of u.lrite citizerts were
r,illr,', ,l11r,r,th'rl.,ierl r.egistruti.rr ,r.chillerl l)',nr makiqg the
irlt'nrlrl ll rrrrr tlrt,tirne of irnpositiorr of tlrese rlt'r,ices untiltheir
r'(,nlr )\ ;rl .\ l't t'r' t lrtrir. rernrlval as rlirtr.t barrier.s to registration,
llr.ir',lrrllirrt,'l'lc.tontn'ool'nl()r'egerreratiorrsoIblackcitizens
llirs 1,r'r'-r:.1,'rl to lhe present as;rL lt,irst ()nrj cilr.lse rif con[inued
rtlrrlir',.1\' (lr,l)t'(,sst:rl levels o1' lllack voter legistration. Be-
tn'r'r.rr lll:lu;rnrl II)-19 Lhe per.ct,nt:rge of lll:rcl< citizens who
riil('('(,.:-:llrll\'>orrght to r.egister trntlt'r.the lroll ta.x anrl literacy
l('sls irrr'r'r'rr:r.rl l'r',rr zeru to ll-rl'i. l)uring tlris eighteen-year
1,r'r'i',, I llrrrl rrrrlv r:rrrlerl :rftet. l\/or'kl \Var Il, no black was
r,lr'r'lr,,It,,;rrrlrlil.t'ficeintlrestate. Irrll)(iO,tu,elveyearslater,
rr t'l .r' l l r,, i- r ; 

1 
11'1'1111, ( lourt rlecision in lJ rc u, tt r'. ljrxr rrl o| E tlut:u-

ltrtt'. )'.li l' ;r. .l,e:l (tgj-){), onlr. llf).1,)i, .1'the black voting age
lrrrlrrrl:rliorr u ir^-i t't,gistererl to y6tg, (:()l1l)i1'e(l tog2.lol of age-
r;tt:rirli,,,l 'r lritls liy l1)7l.lirlIrrliltgtlrer:iyilrightsnrgvement,
ll. I , ,,1 .rr,,, ,1rr;rlilit,rl lrllrcks *.r,r't, r.t.gistr_,r't,tl corngtaretl to
ri().tl', ',1 '.',lril.s. l'lris gt,rrerirl l'iurg(,! ,l' st:rtervirle rlispar.ity
t'rrnlrnrr.ri inr, l1r\0, n'hen irl.ii/i ol'irge-rlturlil'ierl blacks and
l(1. |' i lI r,. lrrtr,s \\'(rl'0 r.egister.t,rl. unrI into l1tliZ n,hen it2.77a Of
rug. r;ilrrlilir,,l blirt'hs antl ti{i.7'z of u,lrites $'eIe r.egistered.r

i"'l lr, r", r'nr ll:.(or'\'uf u'hittanrl lrlacl<t,ottt'rlgistr.utionstates,irleantl in
llr,':rr',;r,,1'lr,'rlr;rll*rrqerlrlistlietsisslllllll,rrrtlr.rirlr,rringchlrt.

,,,,,,',,','ir',,i,i'i,'11,,'ir!,),,'i|,,'),lll,,^,t,','r.,,,,,

ll)t ;,\ ll)1,9J
tl'irile lllurk ll'lt itr Rltt|. ll'hite Rlack
ril.? .13.? 7().1 5t.it ri(i.7 52.7
71.:i .10.8 7:t.rt .t,t..l [li.o 5r).8] --
ti;'r.tj nB.7 ?1i.3 67.7 'til).1 li.t. I
li:i.(.) ;11).{ itt.7 l;-r.tt !ili.() iZ.$ -r;t.3 :t?.5 ?ri t) ls.lf 71.? .t9.7 r-'
lil).l) :lri.;i titi.1) .10.lt '{i.1.3 {tj.0 -llirotnotr. t:oiltirilrt,rl on next llage)

\\ |1r 111. ;i1 .q 1,.

ll,'t'lilltrI,,r,1,
l"ot'st'l lt
I lrrrh;rrrr

\\'ir k,'
\\ il.,,|l

ZSa

Untler the present Governor's arlministration ln inte lligt,nt
and determinetl effort is being made by the State lloarrl of
Elections to increase the percentages of both rvhite arxl black
voter registrations, with special emphasis being placerl u;lon
increasing the levels of registration in groul)s, irrclrrrlins
blacks, in which those levels have traclitionally 111,p11111,111'r.ssul

relative to the total voting age population. 'fhis gotxl lirith
effort by the currently responsible s[ate agt,ncv, rlirettll
reversing official state policies which 1rcr'sistetl lirr more tlrarr
seventy years into this century, is demonstrablv now llrrxluc-
ing some of its intended results. If continue(l on a sustairrt tl
basis over a sufficient period, the effort might succeerl irr
removing the disparity in registration which survivcs as a
legacy of the long period of tlirect denial and chilling by the
state of registration by black citizens. But at the presc,rrt tirne
the gap has not been closed, and there is ofcourse no guarantee
that the effort will be continued past the en(l of the present
state administration.

The present condition - which ure :rssess - is that, orr rr

statewide basis, black voter registration renririlrs rlt,prcssr,rl
relative to that of the white majoril.y, in parl at lcast l)cc;ru:t. ,,1

the long period of official state deniul anrl chilling of bllt,lr

(footnote continuerl from previous page)

Etlgecombe
Nash
Bertie
Chowan
Gates
Halifax
Hertford
Martin
NorthamptoH
Washington

Percent oJ'Votittg Age
Populution Registered to \/ole

10l7tl t0t8(,
White Black lYhite Rlmk
63.8 37.9 68.2 50..t
6l .2 39.0 72.0 .l I .2
75.6 46.0 77.0 ;}l.l
71.3 44.3 7i.4 .11.9,

80.9 73.5 &3.9 77.t)
66.8 40.9 72.0 5()..1

75.6 5{i.6 81.8 62.5
69.3 .r9.7 76.9 55.3
72.4 58.5 77.0 8t.9
7{.3 62.8 82.2 {;6.0

IOtUJ

l1'/rifu' lllutk
ti?.i ;-rlt. I

frrg--- 'u*.=- ?.1.(i t'fi.0<
?l.l i'.l.tt {
i{:t ri x!."1)
l;7.:l l-r5.:l

{itl.7 Dti.:l
?t.2 i:t.:t/
r{?.1 73.1,

?;-r.{i ti7. I

ou- b

*q .f
(6 .L



?{iu

citi:,.r.rr,.' r r','r lr':rliorr el'fot'ts. This sl.lrtervirle rlellression of
l,l;rr.li vr,!r,t r'r,r:i,{r';rtion levels is gt'tto'all.t' replicatetl in the
,irrtlrs ol tltl .lr;rllltttr'rlrlistricts, atrrlilt eat'lt is tritceable in patt
rrt lr.rrsl I , r I lrr liistot'ical staLeu'irlr-' 1t:rttet'n rtf tltlicial dis-
crirrrirurli,rr ltt,r'r, lottttrl Ltt hitve e.risterl. /

l)lli't'ts ( )l' llrtr:itl l)iscrimination In l'acilities. Education,
l')rrrpkll'ntent, llousing .\nd llerrlth

tn ('r,ll:i(,{lu(,rrt'r,of :r long history, otlly recentl.v alle'viated to
sorrro rl,,trr','. o[' t'atiirl rliscrimirtatiott in llublic ancl private
l:rcilill ns(':i. {,(lll(:rrl iott, entploymeltt, hrtusittg all(l health care,
lrllrr:li rr,!'i rtll'r,(l \'{)t(f t's of the state retrtaitt hintlet'etl, relative
t o t lrr: u'lrit,, rn:r.j, rritr', in their abilit.v to participaLe effectively
irr t lrr, lxrlit irul l)l'()ccss.

r\t t lrt' st:rt't o[ this cc'ntury , de jure segregation of the races

in pr':rt'ticirllv lll at'eas of their commotr life existed in North
(lru'olinrr.'l'liis cotulitiotr colttinttetl essetttially unbloken for
;rrr,llrlr si'. lr -rrrlrl ),cirrs, through bttth Worlrl Wars antl the
lior',,urr i'rrtrlli.l, rrttrl tlrrough the l1)i-r()'s. I)ul'irtg this lleriotl, in
;rrl,liliorr l,r 1r1'rsl11[vilittg intet'-t'acial tttat't'iitges, st.itte stittutes

lrrovirlr,rl l'r,r' .,r'1,v'1'g',liolt of tht' t'at'r's itt fl'irtr-'t'llitl rlrtlers atttl
sor'i.tir.s: llr,,-,,;rlitrglrttrl u'lrititrgt'o(|ttlsol't'ttilt'oitrlsltntl other
('()ntrrr.rtr ('Il r.tr'r' .: t'r'lnr'lr-'t'les; pt'is,'rrs..ilrils;tttrl.ittYcllile rleten-
tiorr r:r,trlr'r . ,r lillrli',ns liir'llrr'l,litt,l, rlt'rrl'ittrrl rrlcrrtltllf ill;
1,rrl,lrr' ,,1,i ,,r',,' 1r1'1r lrlr: toilr,tsi :r'ltool:: :ttttl :rrltool rlistricts;
,,1 1,1, ;y1 , ,, ,.,i1, r,,,'. ,ttttl lilrt'lrt'r' t'r,ltrlittg l'rr(itlls. With the
r,\,,lrr i,,tr,,' '1,,.,'l;r',r,t't'llttitlgtrt:.,'ltoolsittt,l,'r'llt'Ues,ttfttStOf
llt. r, t,rirrr, \ 'r',, n,,, ,',,yrlltlr,rl fffrtfl ltl'tt,t'yr;rssttge rll'the
l,,,l, r;rl r ,, I I I \',r ol llXil .('ntl lts l;rtr, lrs l1)7i1.

l" I'l ,r: l,,,r th ('rrlllirr;r rrlt'r'r,l'llt'i:rllv scgregittetl
Irj ll,', rf 11r1i l!', 1 rr ltt,tt ljr'otltr r'. llrutnl ttl l')rltr,'rtliorl rvas

rlt'r'irlt',1 l)rrrirrrl tlre hrttg perir.rtl ot' rlt' .j un's()gl'ogitti()lt, the
lrl;rcll .,'1t,,,,1- r\ "r'r' ('oltsisLetttl)' loss rt'ell ftttttltlrl attrl rl'ere
(lu:rlit;rlir',,1r rr,l','r'i,rt'. l"ttlluu'ing tlro llntrrtr rlecisiott, the pub-
li,' -,,'lr,r,l:: r','r11.1irr,,rl sttlrstitntilrllv stgt't'.grttcrl lirr f'et another
lill,,,.1r \ ,,;,r ,,rr ir ilr !,tt:lo bitsis, itt prrt't itt lt'ltst bccattse of
r.':r'j,,11. l,r:r,'i,;rl ittrlrcrlintettts e l't't'lrrl lll tlte stittt'trl jutlicial

\ l^ \

/ t-r
I

27a

enforcement of the constitutional right to clesegregtted public
education recognized in Browtt,. As late as 1960, orrll' 22(i black
students throughout the entire state attended frrrntet'l.y all-
white public schools. Untilthe end of the l1Xj0's, practically all
the state's public schools remained ahnost all rvhite or almost
all black. Substantial desegregation of the public schools only
began to take place around a decade ago, following the Su-
preme Court's decision in Sttnnrl u. Mecklertltrtrg Corntlll
Boartl of Educatiott,402 U.S. 1 (1971). In the interval sittce,
"rvhite-flight" patterns in sonte areas of lhe state have pre-
vented or reversetl developing patterns or clesegregation of
the schools. In consequence, substantial pockets of de |acto
segregation of the rabes in public school education have re-
arisen or have continued to exist to this time though without
the great disparities in public funding and other support that
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 citizens of the
state who were educated in this state antl who are over ll0years
of age attended qualitatively inferior racially segregaterl llub-
lic schools for all or most of their primary antl secotttlarl'
etlucation. The first group of black citizens who have itttctttlerl
integrated public schools throughout their etlucirtion:tl citt'eet's
are just now reaching voting age. In at least lrat'tial co

sequence of this segregaterl pattern of public eclucat iorr artr l tltt'
ge,neral inl'eriority of de jnre segregaterl black schools, hlar:k
citizens ofthe state lvho al'e over 25 year ofage are substantial-
ly nlrre likely than whites to have completul less th:rn 111'e:rrs

rrf crlucation (34.6% of blacks; 22.0o/r, of rvhites), itttrl at'e sub-
stantially less likely than rvhites to have had an.v schooling
be.yrrnd high school (17.37, of blacks; 293q(, of rvhitos).

lle,sitlentialhousing llatterns in North Cartlina, :ts gt'net'allv
in states with histories of dejrn" segregatioll, have trltlitional
ly been separaterl along racial lines. That pattern persists *, 

i-
torlay in NorLh Carolina generally antl in the areas covert'tl by , ^ftfithe challenged districts specitieally; in the latter, r'it'tturl[r'lll 1u 

t'
resirlential neighborhootls are raciall-v itlentiliablt. St rtt t'u'tr L'./

ta\

)r



2,Brr

lrl:rr'li lr,,rr. , lr,,lrl, ,rl',, 1 tvice:ts lilir,lr' ;rs \\'llil('lr(,tts('holtls to be

tr'rrlnrr: r:rtr,,'r' Ilr:rtt prtt'ch:tsing tlrt'it' t't'sitlr'ttt'r's ;tttrl are sub-
.,l,rrrli:rllurr,,r ,, lilir,ll lo llr: livinu itt ot'r't'(t'ort'rlcrl hottsittg,
>ltlr,.l:rrtrl:'r', 1 lr'rrt.inu, or ltuttsilt( rvitlr itutrlerlrr;rtt' grltttnhing.'

lilrr, l, , 'r,', r ,,l' ."r,r'Llt ('itt'olitut lr;tvr.1 ltistot'it'irllv suffered
,lis;',lt;rtrl;r,,,'t,'irrli',r'lrt rt'hitp r'ilizt'tts irt prrlrlic lrrr{ pfivate
t,nr;'l,rr rrr.rrl I lrr'rrrllr li,(lel'al (rtlrl)lr)\'t)t(|ttt rlisct'itttitra[iott laws
hrvr', :,ilr,'r lltril. lr.rl trt im;trovet)rtnL, the efti-,r'ts of past dis-
r'r'irrrirr:rtion ir(irinst blacks in entplo.vtnent contilltte at present
Io t'orrlrilrrrtt to their relative tlisatlvutrtitge. ()n a statewide
lr:rsi:r. r'r'rr,,r';rllv rtrl;lir':rterl in the challengetl rlistticts in this
lt,'li,,tr. lilrr, l,,rriuru':rllt'holtllorvt,r'graving.iobsthltndotvhites,
;111,1 rols r rr,rrllt srrl'li'l'higher irrcirk.rrt'cs ot'ttttctttployment. In
lrrrlrlitr,nll'1,,q';q11'1rt h.r'thestate, lirt'e.rirnrple, a ltiglterpercen-
ltttlt ol'lrl:r' li ,'tttpL).vecs than gf q'lrites is emplg.vecl at every
s;rl;rr'v lor,,l lrt,lou $111,000 per yeiu'iln(l a higher l)ercentage of
rvltitc lnrlrl.\'r'r\s tlrirrr black is etnploverl at every level above
$ll.txltt

,\t lt':rsl 1,;rrl irrll5- lrcriruse of this (:ontinue(l rlisparity in em-
p lnl rrrc n t 

' 
r l) l ,ort urrit ics, black cit ize ns ilr'e three titnes as likely

;rs ulrilr,s l.' lr;11'f itl('()mes belorv the llovert.y level (il07c to
ll)/, t; tlr,'nr,.;lr inr',r)rc of black eitizrtrrs is li'l .1)(:i tlrat of white
ril r:,,tr.. rr lrit, lrrrrrilir,s at'€ more thirn trvice as likely as black
lirrrrilir,:. 1,, lr;r,, r, irrt'orrrr,s over $l3tt,ttt)(); anrl 25.1(:/( of all black
llrrrrilir.,.. , ,,rrrI,;n'r,rl lt 7.37c of rvhitr' [arnilies, hirve no private
vr.lri,,lr' :rr rrl:rl,lt, lirr' Inrnspoll atiorr.

Irrrrr:rlI,,r'.,,l r,r'nr,r';lIlrculth.bl;rt'[ir:itizt,nsol'NorthCarolina
lll'r,. .n ;rr;rilrrl,lr, ;rrirrr;rr'.y iltrlieators, lrs ir gt'()ul) less physically
lrtlrlllrJ' llr:rrr ;rlr, rllrrlc citizens irs ir !{r1)up. Orr :r statervide
lr:r:iis, tlrr,irrl';rrrl lrroriulity rate (llrl stanclirrrl ht'ulth measut'e
ttst', I lrr':,r,'iolt,Uists) is allppo.ritrtittt'ly ttt'ice as high for nOn-
rt'lrit,ts (l'r'r',l,rnlir)'rttly blacks) as lirl rr,hites. This stateu,ide
I'i11urt' is,,'.n'.r';rll\' t'(fplicirterl irr Nlr.cklcnllrrrg, !'orsyth,
l)trrlrlrrrr. \\ ;ri..r., \\'il:rrn, Erlgeeonrlre arrtl Naslt Llounties (all
irrt'lrr,li',1 rr rt lrirr thc challenge(l tnulti-nrenrber tlistricts).
.,\u;rirr. ,n r :rrrtr.u'itle ltitsis, the rleuth late is higher for black

s

29a

citizens than for white, and the life-experct:urcy of blirck t'itizctts
is shorter than is that of whites.

On all the socio-economic factors treaterl in the alxrve ljttrl- I
ings, the status of black citizens as a gToup is lowet'thart is thilt 

I

6 of white cit izeps as a gToup. This is true staLervide, arrr I it is true i

/ *ii'r, *-p;;;; .r";y county in each of the tlistlicts un(ler 
IL challenge in this itction. This lower socioeconomic status gives 
I

rise to special group interests centered upon those lirctols. At 
I

r.the same time, it operates to hinder the group's ability Lo--J
I plrticipate effectively in the political process and to elect rep-
I resentatives of its choice as a means of seeking govel'nment's
L,*rru,russ of and attehtion to those interests.rt
L-

Other Voting Procedures That Lesscn The Opporturrity Of

, Illack Vgters To lllect Candidates Of Their (lhoice

In atltlition to the numbered seat re(luirement antl the attti-
single shot provisions of state law that wel'e declaretl unconsti,Wd,/
tutional in l9?2, see supra p. 28, North Carolina ltas, sittce - !,
1915, hacl a majority vote requirement which applies to all Vat '-
I)rimary elections, but not to getreral elections. N.C.G.S'
li 163-111.,.r

The general effect of a nrajority vote reqtliremettt is to nlake

it less likely that the candidates of any identifiable voting

Jl Section 2 claimants are not rt'r;uired to rlentottstt'ate b.v rlilet't t'vitlettct'lt
causal nextrs bets'een their relatively depresserl socio-ecttttontic stttttts lttt,l :t
lessening of their rrpporturtity to participate tffectivelv irr tlrr' ;r,rlitir';rl

l)r(icess. See S. Rep. No.97-{l7,.sltpt'u llote l(), at 2ll tt lll trnrk't'
incrrrporaterl lYhite v. Regeslerjurisprurlence', "[i]rrerlualitv ot itccess is ittt
inference which flows frrirn the existence of ecotrrtmic attrl t'rltteatiottirl
inequalities." Kitkseu v. Ilutrd o/ .Srr2ert'isnrs. 55.1 l'.211 l:t9. I l5 (irth ('ir'. ).

cerl . denied, .134 U.S. 9{;8 (197?). lnrlepenrlentlv of an.v such generrrl

presumption incorporated in amen<led Section 2, rve wottkl rcarlilv tlrart tht'
inference from the evidence in this case.

:{ There is no suggestion lhat when originally enacterl in l1)lo, its llut'1lusc
was racially disct'iminatory. That point is irrelevant itr assessitlg its lrresent
effect. as a continued mechanism, in the totalitl' o[ circuntstlrttct's troariltg
upon plaintiffs' rlilutinn claim. Sec Part ll, .srrpru.

r
L



ll0a

rniru,r'ilr rrill lirrirllv u'irr eleetions, givcn the necessity Lhat

tlrlr';rt'lti,'r'r';r tttit.i,rt'ilt'rrf votes, if 191 irr a first elc'ctirttr, Lhen

ril'r'rrlllrl llrt'r itr ;t t'rrn-rrl't'rrlection. Tlris g(-'llol'all.v atlt'ttt'se eff'ect

on itnl t'r,lrr,:,iir' \'rrIi11g rrrinority is, oI cottrse, el)hill]ce(l for
r';rt'irrl rrrir,rt'ilr gt'ortlrs il'. :ts rve finrl trl be the lircL in this case,

::r't' ttrlrrt 1r1r. lx .il , t'itt'i;tl ltolarization in voting patterns also

r,.risl s.

\\:lrilt'11,,1,1;r,'l' r';urrlirlrrttl for eleetiort to thtr North Carolina
(icrrt,r'lrl ,\s:r'trtl,lr - t'illrer in thc ch:tllelrgerl rlistricts or
tlsr,tvlttltr''--11;1'r'rrr l':tt'lost (or failerl lo u'in) ittt electitln solely
lrt't':ru,.t: ol tltc trt:r.iot'itv vote t'eqttit'r:tt'lcnt, the t'tlrlttirenlent
rrcvt,r'tlrr,lr,:.- r'rirtSltslt('otltittttinglrt'ltcticltl itttllerlittlt'nttothe
opporl,,1;i11' .l l,l:rt'k vnting minoritics itt the challcnged dis-
Lrit'ts trr ,,[1,1'1 r';111r]itlltt r,'s of their clroice.

'l'lre Nort lr ('rLlolinl ln:rjority vote re(ltlil'ement rnanit'estly
o1rr.r'irtr,s rvillr tlr,: gr-,rtet'al effect notetl ttprltt all cantliclates in
prilrurrv tlt,r'tiorrs. Since 1950, eighttett can(li(lates tbr the
(ir,ntrrl ,\sslnrl,lv rvho letl ftrst pritttarics rvith less than a
rrra.joritl ol' r',tt,s hrrt'e k-rst run-off elcctions, as have tu'elve
c;rrrrlirlutt,s lirr ollrr:t'statewide offices, inclutling a lrlack candi-
rlrrte tirr l,t. (lrrvernor and a black cantlitlate for Congress. The
rr,tlrrilcrnclrt I hcrclirt'e necessarily o;terates as a get)eral, ongo-
ing irrrprrrlirllrrt to any cohesive voling tttinot-ity's ol)portutlity
to r,lrtt crtrrrlirl:rtes of ils choice in any conLestetl primary, ancl

1lrltrt'rrl:u'lv t,;111r,, r'acial rninority in a racially-l)olarized vote
sr,t t irrg. r''

Nrirtlr ('rrr',rlinir rlot,s not have a subtlistrict residency
l'(](luir(,nl(-'nt lirr lnentbers of the Senate ancl I{ouse electetl
h'orn rnulti-rn('nll)el' tlistricts, a requil'ement which could to
solrrt' tlegret. ,l'l'-set tlrt tlisadvantage of any voting minority in
rnrrlt i-rntrrrl rtt' r I ist t'icts. r'i

,, 1l i /, !' " ',,, lll L: S ?7;. ;r;ri rllr;:i)

, ,l :rr , , .r lrl

3la

Use Of Racial Appeals In Political Campaigns

From the Reconstruction era to the present time, alllleals to

racial prejudice against black ci[izens have been eli'cctively
used by persons, either candidates or their supporters, as a

means of influencing vbters in North Carolina poli[ical cam-

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

more subtle and furtive at others. They have tendetl trt be most

overt and blatant in those periods when blacks wrrt'(-. oJrertlv

asserting political and civil rights-during the Recottstt'ttctir,rn-

Fusion era and during the era of the major civil rights move-

ment itr the 1950's and 1960's. During the period frorlt ca. l9l)0
to ca. 1948 when black'citizens of the state were generally
quiescent under de jure segregation, antl when there rvere ['ew

black voters and no black elected ofticials, racial appeals in
political campaigning were simply not relevant and according-
ly'were not used. With the early stirrings of what treearne the
civil rights movement following World War [], overt racial
appeals reappeared in the campaign of some' North Carolina
candidates. Though by and large less gross and virulent than
were those of the outright white supl'emacy campaigns of l-r0

years earlier, these renewecl racial appeals pickerl trp on the
same obvious themes of that earlier time: black domina[iott or
influence over "moderate" or "liberal" white canrlirlates ancl

the threat of "negto mle" or "black power" by blacks "bloc
voting" for black candidates or black-"dominated" canrlidates. \
In recent .years, as the civil rights movement, culmintting in
iG eiriimghts Act of 1964, iompleted the eradication of rle 

:

.jure segregation, and as overt e.rpressions of racist attitutles I

became less socially acceptable, these appeals have become ,i
more subtle in form and furtive in their clisseminatiotr, trut Lhey/
persist to this time.

The record in this case is replete with specific e-rrttttllles o[
this general pattern of racial appeals in political catnpaigtts. Itt
addition to the crude cartoons and pamphlets of the outright
wh i te supremacy_,cafitpaigni'ft9-sf-the I 8.{)'s w h ich t t' i t t u t't'rl
white political/6pllonents in the com\any of bltek lroliticalwhite politicaffpllonents in the com\any of bllck lr,rlitir':tl
learlers, later/examples irtclutle variou$ cantpaigrt nr;tl t't'irtls.



;i2a

tttttrti:'t:rl.;tl'l' :rt'l,r':tliltU to the sltttt. t'lt('iltl lc:r.s ittttl 1ll'e-
,irrrli,',',.. llr;rI ir 'r'r,rlissr.rrrinatt,rlrluring s()nte of tht.most hotly
(()nl,,..tr,, l .t ,1, rri,l', r.;rntl)aigl).s ollltr,st:tte's l.eccnt histOfy:
tlt(, l');{l (.:rrll,;ulrn lirr'(he Unitctl Stitttis Senirtu. the l9{i4 \
r';rnr1'lriu'rr lirr llrt' | 'rritt,tl States Serrrrte; tlre lt)li() c:rnrpaign for I
(lovr,r'rlrrt.Ilrr, llrti: t'rrrrrlririgll frlrLkrvt,r'nor: the lt)(iu l'}r'esirlen- I
ti;rl r'1r1111,;rr1rr rn N,rr'llr (iarolina: tlrr 11172 carn;.r:tign lbr the I
llrritr,,l Sl:rl,' . )ir,tr:llr,; ;rrrrl rnost I'ec(f ntl.V, in the inrrninent t98a 

/r';rrrrlr:r jg, 11 1.1' tlrr ['rritr,rl Stltes St,rr;rtc.

Nurnt,r'r ,ti., ,'l lrt,l' t,-\lunl)les ol'itsst,r'tcrll.\' tnot'e strlttlt' fortns
ol"'lt'lt'ql':tl,lr,'rl" t';lciitl ;t1r1leal.s itt a gt't'ltt tttttttber rrl'loCal anCl
sl;rtctt'itll ll,','li,'lts, ;llI)lLlldjtl tltt' t't:t'6ttl. [,ayittg asitle the
Irlol'r. :tt tt'nnirtlrl lirt'ttts of at'guabl.\, r:rcial alltrsions in Some of \
lhest,, rvl lrrrl tlrirt. r'acial appeals in Nbrth Calolina political l"
t.ltlrt1utigttl.lt;rt.r,lirt'tho1lastthirtyyearSlreenwirlesl)l.eadand>
lrct'sislcrr( 

- 

4
'l'lrt corr(r,rrts rrl'tlrt:sc nraterials reveal an unmistakable in-

tcrrtiorr lrv llrr.ir rlisserrrinators to exllloit existing fears and

1lt't',itttlit't's ltttr I tr, ('l'():itei new fears antl prejrrrlices o1the part of
u'ltitr, t'ili;:r,rtr, in t't,gtnl to black citizens an(l to black citizens'
p:rt'tit'i1xrl i,,rt 1,, t,,,' lrolitical pl'ocesses gf the state. The con-
t inrrr,rl tli;<:,,,rrrrrltli,n olthese matcrials throughout this periocl
IrrrrI rlor,r'n [,r llr, prr:st,rrt time evirlen(:es an irtformerl l)ercep-
tiorr In' thr' 1,,,r'sorrs u'hrt have rlisserrrinatetl theru that they
lrlvr lrirrl t.lrt,il intt,ntlcrl effect to a rlegree warranting their
crltlt illu(,( I u:ir,.

()rr t his lursis. l'r' I'irrrl that the historic use of racialappeals in \
p,rliliclrl t'lrrrr1,:ritlrrs irr North ( llrrolinrr rrersi_sts_to the ;treserrt
I i nrr. ; l rr I t I r : r t i t s t, I tFln-r.rTi€.er]m t., 1,,;",f tlxrni.;Auglee the
,,q-4rrt-,,fmr="l-i-,lii.ii,:it"q!.:la i[iti.]irirfli?ffecaiici;'iritno
1;iiiii,;A pr',,;. .,shrrlI-i1i 

"t".t-,,frif 
iif.ii"" ot'their choic.. 7

'l'lrt l'l rltrrl ( tl l.llctiotr ()[ lllrrck ('ilizerrs'lir l'rr6lit'Office
llrrlr'i1'tri, ! lttt'rt ll lrlt;tt':tt's t[r:rt, rritlt 6t11,1,1,.1,1rtitttt. ttrl

I'l;r,'l;,'rli, r,tr , r ,,l,,r'1,.,1 rltrt'irrr-J tlris r.r'rrlnt'\'t() lrttlrlir.ol'lice itt
)r,,q t |1 1 ;q1',irr,r ,ltrr rl ;rllr,r' \\'r,l hl \\';rr I [. lrr l1l.lN ;rrrrl tlrrrittg

3lla

the early 1950's a few black citizens were electetl to various city
councils. Twenty years later, in 1970, there were in the state (i2

blaek elected officials. In 1969 a black citizen was electe(l ttl the

State House of Representatives for the first tirne since ltecott-

struction; in l9?5 two blacks were elected, for the first titne, trr

the Senate. !'rom l9?0 to 1975 the number of black electr:rl

officials increased fi om 62 to over 200 statervitle; in 19t'{2, thal
number had increased to 255.

At present the number of elected black officials remaitrs

quite [ow in relation to total black population' which is22'41'' of
the state total. Black citizens hold 97c of the city cottneil seats
(in cities of over 500 population); 7.\vo of county conttnission

seats; 4Vo of sheriffs ot'tices; ancl lo/o of the otfices of Clerk o[

Superior Court. There are 19 black mayors, l3 of whom are in

majority black municipalities. Of the black city council mem-

befs, approximately 40Vo are from majority black municillali-
ties or election districts. Three black judges have been elected

in statewide elections to seats to which they had been ap-

pointed by the Governor. Other than these ju(lges, no lllack has

yet been elected tluring this century to any statewirle oftice or
to the Congress of the United States as a represen[aiive of Lhis

state.

Between l97l and 1982 there have been, at any given tinte,
between two and four black members of the North Carolina
House of Representa[ives out of a total of l20-between 1.07o

and 3.37o. From l9?5 to 19&] there have been, at any given
time, either one or two black members of the Stale Settatc' ttttl
of a total of 50-between 27o and 4Va. Most rccetttly, in t9ll2,
after this action was filed, I I black citizens rvere elee tetl to the
State House of Representatives. Six of those ll tvere clcctetl
l'nrm multi-member districts in which blacks coltstittttetl a

voting minority (inclutling 5 of those challengt'tl); i tvere
elected fi'om newly ct'eated ntajority black rlistriets.

Historically, in those nlulti-menlber tlistricts rvht't'c sotnt'

blacks lutve succeetletl in being elected. ovtlt'lll black e:rttrlirllr-

cies have been signilicantly less successtirl thlrn u'ltitt'erttttlirlrt-



ll.lrr

.ir,,r lr;r'.,' lr,'r,u sit].nillcltntlv less srrccr,.sslirl thalr u,hite candicla-
t'ils. lillr,'li r';rnrlirlirtes u'ho, betu'een ll)70 trrrl ltl82, won in
| )t'tttor't';rl ir' lrt'ittt'tt'it's in ihe six rrrrrlti-nrcnrtler.rlistrictS under
t'lr:rllr,rru,' lrt.r',, 11'6,1'1, three tirnes as like l.v to lose in the general
.lt,ctirrrr ;l:r \\'(,1'(, tlrr:ir.rvhiLe [)ernrleratic cotrnterparts, a fact of
st;rt.istic;rl siqrril]c:rnre in assessing the continued elfect of raee
ilt t hrrsc llr.r'1.i11111;.

I n'!'hr: ('hallenged Nlulti-illember l)istricts

llorrsr, l)istrict 36 (Mecklenburg()ounty); Senate District 22
( il I r,r'li k'trburg/(labarrus Count ies).

I n t his (','ntlu'], one black citizen has been electerl to the State
Ilrtttsc ol' Iir,lrt'eselttittives antl one tllack citizen has been
clectt,rl t, {[rr. Scrrate from Mecklenburg County. The House
rnerrrlrt,r' rvrrs clt,cterl as one of an eighL-member delegation in
l!)l'12, rrl'tlr this ltu,suit was comnlenced. Seven other black
citizcns hrrrl prc.r'iously run unsuccessfully for a House seat.
'l'hc St,,ut,, l,t'rnbel. serverl as one of a .l-member delegation
florn Nlt't,l,l(,1)l)lrrg arrtl Cabarnrs Counties from lg?5 to 1g80.
Sirrr:c tlr.n tr'rr bluek citizens have mn successttlly and no
bl;rcli norr s(,1'\'r,s orr the Senate <lelegation.

Sirtr:r, \\',rrlrl \Vur II, blacks, who now r:onstitute Bl% of the
t'itr,'s p,,l,rrl:rlirnl. lurve bee rr ele<:terl to the (lity Crluncil of
('lr;rrl,t t r', l rrt l r){' \'('r' i rr tttrntlrers rtrmr)ttl\, proportiottal to their
l)r't'(,{,rrt;111r, .l t lrt, t:itr"s polrrrlirti'rr. I)rrrirrg the ;ter.iorl lg4S to
llli., u'lr,,rr Ilrr' (,,r,.,,i1 *'lts r.h,t.tt,rl lrll ;rt-lur'1gr.. blacks con-
:rlilrrl.il , l'. ,rl'rl.: nt(,ntlx,l'lrltilr. l,'r'r ,rrt lll'ii-l l)lil. u,hen lhe
r",urr( ll,\ | , l{,'r, 'l1,lrr'r iallvlrL-l:rrrl. lurrlPirt'tirrllvlrvtlistricts,
lrl;r, li. \\,,r,.'. ri', ,l tltt,tlistt.it:t r.r,lrtsr.,trrlrirr..rl *,ith lli.iloof
tlrt' rrt l.rr' , ,'rrr', rlrrrrtgh prol'(' r'ilp lirp tlrt' llrttpr. thalr the
li,' 1,,,'' 

:

(ly1r.l;1,1, 1,,,,,,1r1i;r-lr.r'trr,lr.,,.l,.rl(tht'rt.ti.t.s)itttrlrlefcatecl
,rr''rlnr, lir'nl,rrrl,,,1'-lrilrotrtlrcl'irr,-nrt,rtrlret.('oulrt.vlloarrlof
( 'otttltti; si,,nr.t'*. lllrl lryeSetrth, sgl.\,es. 'f rv, hlaCl< citiZenS haVe
lt.t,rr eltr.tr,,l ;rnrl tro\\'serve ort the rrine-menrlle r.Cloun[.y Brlarcl
ol l'.tlttr';tl i,'tr.

35a

Following trial of this action, a black citizen was electe(l

mayor of the City of Charlotte, running as a Democrat against

a white Republican. The successful black candidate, a widel.y-

respected irchitect, received approximately li87o of the white
vote.

House Distribt No. 29 (part of l'orsyth County)'

Before 19?4 Black citizens had been elected to the City
Councilof Winston-Salem, but to no oi,her public office. In 1974

and again in 19?6 a black citizen was electecl to the House of
Representatives as one of a ftve-member delegation. In l97tt

^nd 
tg80 other black citizens ran unsuccessfully for the gouse.

ln 1982, after 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 l9?4, a black citizen has been elected, twice failed to be

reelected, then succeeded in being reelected to one of eight

seats on the otherwise all-white Board of Education; antl

another has been elected, failed to be reelected, then suc-

ceeded in being reelected to one of five seats on the othenvise

all-white Board of County Commissioners.

Ilouse District No. 23 (Durham County)' /
Since 19?3 a black citizen has been elected eaclt tu'o-1'eltr

term to the State House. No black citizen hits beett elec[erl to

the Senate. Since 1969, blacks have beerr elec[erl t0 the I',()at'rl

of County Commissioners, antl three of t,n'elve Durlnm (-lit.y

(louncil membefs are blacks elected in at-large electiotts. Thc

City of Durham is 47Vo black in population.

Ilouse l)istrict No. 2l (Wake County). '/
A black citizen has been twice electetl to the State Hotrse

five-member delegation from this district and is l)resently
serving. Another black citizen was elected for two terms trl thc

State Senate, serving from 1975 to 19?8.



iJfia

r\ lrl;r,'li ritiz.r,rr lrrrs lxrt,tr twice elected Sheriff of lVake Coun-
t.y anrl is lrxrserrth'in that office. Another black citizen, rvho
lives in lrrr ;rl'l'lrrt,nt u'lrite neighborhood, has serverl since 1972
as tht.onh'lllrrt'li rrn tlre seven-mernber Count.y Board of Com-
tnissiorrr-,r's. Arrotht,r' lrl;rck citizen, electerl l'r'onr a majority
black rlistrict, sclvr,s as the only black on tlre nine-menrber
Courrtv Sclurol IJrxrrrl. Arrother black citizen servetl one term
as nll\,or of thc ('itv ril'ltuleigh from l97lJ Lo 1975, and still
another ser\,es orr l lre lialeigh City Council.

Iftrusr l)istrict No. ll (Erlgecombe, Nash, Wilson Counties).

Tht,re hus nevt'r' Irr,en lr bluck member of the State House or
Senatc l'r'orn the al'(,1 c(,\'ererl by this district. There had never
treen a black rnenrlrer ol'the lloard of County Commissioners of
any ol'thc thrt't,t,ourrtit-.s until lgtiZ when two [rlacks rvere
electerl to the llvr,.rrrt.rrrbt,r' lioarrl in Erlgeconrttt, Coultty, in
which lrllclis t,orrstit ut(' l:.i.Z, rrt'the regisLert.rl voter.s. In Wilson
Corttttr', u'lr(,r'r, I lrl lrl;rck polrrrlation is lii(i.5'?,ol'the total, one of
nilte tttt'rttlrr't's ol'lltr'( 'nr111f 

.1' li6at'tl ttl'litltrlirtisrr is lrl:rck. Inthe
L'i(r','l'\\ ilrorr. rr lrrr,li i:; u\'('t' l()7o bllrek in lrolrtrl:rtittn, one of six
cit\, ,',',tttrr' ltrrr,tr i:, l,l;r, 1...

Sclr;rle l)i:lrirl \rr. .l r \or lh:unpton. llct.llirrrl. (ltles, tlertie,
('ltorr:ttt. ;tnrl ;r:rt l r ll \1';1sllilglllrr. Jllrr lirr. ll:rlil'lrr lrtrl

l.rlrlr.r'ornlrr. ( lrtrrtrl ies ).

No lrllrt'li lr('r's'rn lrrts t,r't,r'lreen electerl to tlie State Senate
t'roln lny,l'lhe ir.1,ir co\,cl.erl by the tlistricl. In the tasL four
.yeilrs, lilrrt'li t,:rrrrlirlirtr,s lurve won three elections for the State
Hotlst,l\'ottr;rrclrs rr illrirr tlrc lrorders of this rlisLrict, one in l{}tl0
in u rrrrr.i.r'itr'-rr lrit { r)lulti-nrt'rnber clistrict, tu,o in 1982 in dif-
l'ert,rrt rrrrr.i,,r'ilr'-lrl;r,'li rlistrir:ts. In Gttes ('otrrrty,, u'here -lgrzo

rlf thc t'r'gl;r[1,1'1,11 \,rtll's :trt black, a bl:rt'k citizen has bien
ele'ctt,rl :tnrl p.t,s,'rrtlr' :,ul'r'cs as Clerk of Cotrrt. In Halifax
Llottntr'. lrl;rt'lt ,-'iti,.:,,tt* lr:rt't, t'1n successtirlly lbr the B.artl of
Llountv (',rrnrrissi,,n(,t's :ul(l tilr the City (.lluncil of Itoanoke
llalrir ls.

Looking only to these basic historical facts respecting black

citizens' e-lection to public office, we draw the following in-

ferences. Thirty-five years after the first successful cantlitla-

cies tbr public office by black citizens in this centttry, it has norv

37a

inference. tleavily enrphasized with respect to successful black curlirllrcies

in l9tt2 was the fact that in some elections the penrlencl'o[this !9Dr]iriE-rttiorr
rvrtrkerl a one-titne arlvantage for black canrlirlates in tffil6rnr of uttttsttal

become possible for black citizens to be electetl to offrce at all

Ievels of state government in North carolina. The chances ofa

black canclidat6's being elected are better where the candidacy

is in a majority-black constituency, where the canditlacy is in a

single-mJmber rather than a multi-member or at-large 6is-

trici, where it is for local rather than statewide office, anrl

where the black candidate is a member of the political party

currently in the ascendancy .with voters. Relative to rvhite

cantlidates tunning for.the same office at whatever level, black

candidates remainlt a disadvantage in terms of relative 1l^rba-,

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

leveis of elective office are minimal in relation to the percen-

tage of blacks in the total population. There are intimatiotrs

from recent history, particularly from the 1982 elections, th:tt a

more substantial breakthrough of success coul(l be immitterrt-
but the're wel'e enough obviously aberrational asltects 1lt'escttt

in Lhe ntost recent elections to ntake that a matter of sheer

sl)rlculation.3? ln any event, the success that has beett achieverl

t1V black candielates to date is, standing alone, too minimal in

total numbers antl too recent in relation to the long historv of

complete elenialof any elective opportunities to compel or even

:? Errth parties offered evittence-anecdotal, infornretl "lay olrinion," atrrl

rlocumentary-to establish on the one hanrl that recent black successes

indicaterl an established breakthrough from any preexisting raeial vrrte

rlilution and on the other, that those successes are too "haphazanl" anrl

abcrrational in terms ofspecific canclidacies. issues, anrl prllitical trenrls ltrrtl.

in any event, still ton miniinal in numbers, to support any such ulLirrtlrte

orgarrizetl political suppot't by white learlers concerne<l trl forcstitll
single-rnember tlistricting, ancl that, this cannot be exllectetl trl recttt'. Ottr

nniling, as statetl in text, reflects our weighing of thcse conllicting
ilrft,rerrees.



iltla

;rrgtt:rblv t.():nl)lx)l't an trltimate fintlirrg that a black canrlidate's I

r':rcr, is llo lontlrt' lr signilicant atlvet'stt factor in tlre ilolitical I

llr'o(j(,:ises ol'tlttr slate-_either generally or specitically in the \
;u'r,;rs rrl'tl.rrr t'lt;tll,'ttgt'tl tlistricts. 2

llirr:iitl l'olarization in Voting

Strrtisl it'irl t'r'irlttttr'(' l)resentL)d by rltrlt' rlrralified expert wit-
n(,ss(,s lirr' ;'l;rirrlil'l':. srrlr;llentetttetl to srrtttt] tlegt't:t' by direct
litst irrronr-.1'lrrl u iln(,ss{'s, cslalrlisht's, ;ttttl rve tinrl, that u'ith-
irr lrll tlrl r'lr;rllltrt:r',1 rli;-l ricts t'lrt:i:rll1' Polltt'izt-rl votitttI exist,s in
it l)r,l'5rjyrlltrl ;rnrl :r'tr't'r' rlegt'ee.

\l rrll i-IIenrber I )isl ricls
'l',,;tttlrl-,.', t11,',''.i-:lltlt'Cittttl t'Xtpttl rtl':ll)\'t'aCiltllf'pOlafiZed

\rr11111, rrr I lt, , lr'111,',11,1,,1 ttrulti-trtt'trtlr,'t'rlistricts. I)r'. lJernard
(it'.1'rrr;rrr.;r,lrrl. ,l'r:rliltrtl erprt't't tt'itttt'ss lirr lrlirirrtitfs, had
r:oll,.'r'lr,,l ;lrr,l .l rt,lit',1 tl:rta fi'onr irll sets rlf rttcetlt election re-
Irrrrrs irrvolr irrrL.lrlirck cuIXli(lacies in allol'the challcngetl multi-
rntlrrlrt'r' il isl rirt s. r" IJaserl upon lwrt cotnplelnentary methocls
ol':rrrlrl.r'sis ol llrr.r'lllet'tctl tlattt,s(irothtatt gave as his opinion,
rrrrrl u r, llrrrl. llr;rl itt t,:rch of tht elcctiotts anill)'zed racial

lrrrlrn'i;:ltl i,rrr rlrrl r,.; ist lrrtrl that tht, rlegt'ce t'evealcrl in every

''ln, lrtrl,.rlu,'r,,rll tlrth.,'tionsforthr,(ir.rrelirl ..\sstmhlvinrvhichthere
rlr,r'r, l'l:i,'li r'irr,lt'l:rlr,. irr JIr.r:klertlrut'g, l)urh:rrtt, iuul I.'r,rst'th L'ounty;
llr.r'l ilrr:l',,r'llrr,'-l;rlr, lIoust.ol'Reltrt,setttirtivcsirtWilsrrrr,Firlgeconrbe,and
N;rrlr(,'rlrlir,-.rrrr, Irlr,,'ti.rrslirrtheStateSettatcin('atrarrus('rlttntyforthe
r,lr.r'tirrrr l.in':. lltr\. lllrll. ;rrrrl lt)82; crrtrrrtr'-rvirL: local elet'tions in each <lf

\\'il.:'rr. l,rlr:r,, r'rrrl,r. ;rtrrl Naslt Countit.s in rlhiclr thttre rvere black
r':rrrrlrrl:rlr,s.'l'lr,.lji,'1,,r'l innsittclttdetl trothlrt'itrritrvatttl gettt't'al t'lt'etirlnsatxl
t(.1)t'(,\r,nllrl :t rrrt;rl ol :il rlill!rent electiotr cr)tltlsts.

''' l'11.1',ro lr,,rlr,rrl:,,nrl'1,\'e(1, lroth stitttrl:rrrl in tlrc litt't'ttttrrt lilr the
Ittt;rlt .t . ,rl t:t, ' rll. ;,,,1111 i71',1 r'oting, \\'el'e llll 'u-\tl'tlttl(f t'ase" irnitlySiS anrl an
''r,,,,1,,r,r'-rlr',,, r,rr;rn:rl\-rs.'l'lretxttt,tttr',':tslttt:tl)'sisf,rctlsr-'srtnvrlting
rrr r',, r 'll ' r't ir,'l I'rr','trrrls tltt,r'rgt'r'sriott itttitllsls ttses lrrrtlt racially
,r.r',.:,:rl.rl,rrr,rrr,r.rll'rnt\, ,lprccincts,ttt,lPt''rvirlt'slttt,r'cttt't'eutivenltlth<ld'

l,rlr,llr,t'l,,,ir,"lt,rr ',,r,,r"irrtlrr,tuott'1rt'srrr;rt'lrtltitrcrlil'li'r't'rrth'. ln[)r.
I lilrr[111r11,,.otrtitrttr,rl r)n nc\1. l)itge)

IJ- J.[,n'*
,/u'' I

(Gtu.tlnn analyzed was'statistically significant' in the sense that

\ the probability "fil";;;"g 
uv cf,ance was less than orre itt

L,l 00, 000 ;'' and th;;; 
"1i 

u't iyq, "t'T j,'*i::?,}!, 
"t].,:,fl 

: :'ruut\TT'' 4r't' v.qv':it; 
;t to betlubstaniivply signiltcirrtt' itt

ffi ::f * ffi 'r"n X'#; ;;- o r i t e i n a i, i o, 
"i " 

i \.i i 

" 
n'*' i u t' t n *,' 

"

tt ''1 co..at

Grofmatt's analysis the results under both nlethods confortnerl cloself itt mttst

cases. 'Ihe ptrrpose tf u"ir'-*tit'"tfs is. simply ]" S:",.::l'l:":::;:l;,:1,\:

39a

i]ii'n ,lln'i'l,iJ -n,i*l;te Jinerentry rrom each .the. in rtrlati,tt t, tlte

race of candirlates.

Defentlants' rluly qualifietl expert witness.' f)r' Thonras lltrfclltr' hltl

sturlierl I)r. Grofman's tl;;;';;Jtfu mathematics of his analvsis of that tlata'

and heard his live testimo",iyl isil; i;;; rwo mathematical,r tv,.gra,hical

errors, Dr. Hofeller did noiquestion the accuracy of the data, its arrcr;uacy as

a relia'le sample f,t tht ;;;;t;""J' ^'itr'^t 
ihe methotls of analvsis userl

were statttlartl in the lit";';i;;;' He questioned the reliability of un extreme

case analysis stantling ^ffi;;'il'';t1nai1"t9a' 
Dr' Grofman's did not stanrl

alone. Dr. Hofeller 
"rr"'q"".tirnltl 

Dr. Grofmaris failure to make iln exact

cqunl o[ voter turn-out iy t^t" rather than usins estirnated [rgurcs' The

literarure makes no such ;i#ii, ;i;;;.iri", i*Ut'iining this [rgtrre. antl Dr'

Grofman's method 
"f 

t"i#;;]t'"tttp"a' Dr' Hofeller matle no specific

tugg"ttiou of error in the figures used'

Wehaveacceptedtheaecuracyanrlreliabilityoftherlatacollecterlantltlrc
methotls of analysis 'JJE},r' 

G'ofman fnr the purlxrses-off"retl 'llr.

general rt.liability or p..'cr'or*"n,s analysis was furlher cottfirmt'rl llY tlrt

testinrony of Dr. Theotlo;1;"gt"tt' a dlly qualifreri e'tpert witness lor tltt:

Prglr intervenor-plaintiffs, see iote 4' 'srrpro' Procee<ling by a sotnewhnt

tlifferent methodology a"i"i'g tlifferent'data' Dr' An'ington came to the

sante general .ou.l'sioi-ietputiing the extent of racial polarization in the

n"r.u*"r area of his studY'

I) These conclusions were reached by tletermining the correlation between

i.he voters of one race ,n,i tt 
" 

number of voters wh,, votetl for a carrtlitlate of

slrecified race. Itt "-;;;;;-' 
tutt"tttiunt above an atrsolttte valuc ol '5 itt'e

relativelyrareand.u..ot"tiun.abrrve.gextrernelyrare.Allcort.elations
fountl by ur. crorman in iil"i".,i""..tudied ha<l absolute values hetrveen .?

and .98, with most ti"'l-'S' this reflected statistical significance at the

.f)0il)l level - prnbabffi oi .r,"".. as explanation for the coint'irleno' of

voter,s and cantlitlate;;;less than one in lu).(xx). (l/ ,1/rrtrrr' :'.'1.'tt'|'tt.

slprn, slip op. 30-32 
" 

j;l;;t;;*ble arralysis of racial vote prtlirt izrtti,tt t^'

correlation coeffi cients)'



. 40a

becn rlilTererrt ,lr'l,rnrlirtg tlpon u'hether it had been heltl among
onl.y tlrr, rr ltil l votcl's ()l' only the black vrlters in lhe election.'"

as lr u'lr,rli.. "'lrl n,rn,'oltltl electirttts. ;lt'itn:tt'.\'ot'gt'tttlral, rlirl a

t';rnlir,rl ltl;r,1. ,;rrrllrlirl,'- l:tst lllllutlg l)clll()('l'itts il'rrrlt lasl or
Ircll lo lir:l ;rrrr,,trr' ;rlllrrttrlirlates. ltt litct.,;t;tltt'rlxirrtittcll'trvo-
thirrls ril'ulrttt'\rrtr,r's tlirl not vote ftlt'lrlaek candirla[es in
gcncral eler:tions ('\'e r) alter the cantlitlate had wotl the Demo-
crut it' 1rt'irtuu'r' rtttr I t ltc only choice wits ttt vote l'rlr a Ilellublican
ol' u() (lr1e. lll;r,'li inr'rttnl)r'tlcy alleviirterl the ge'neral level of

llol;u'iz.:rtiorr l.i'r'illlrl. lrrrl it dirl rrot elimittatt' it. Some black
irtrlrnrlrr,nIs rr ' r'(, r'('t,l(,('t(,r1, but ttolrt-' rtlct:ivcrl a nritiority of
u'lrite vot(,s llr,rr ulrr:tt t.lte electiott rvAs essenti:rllv uncon-
testcrl. lit,lrtrl,litrtt vrtters were nlol'o rlislloserl ttl vote f<rr

!r'l'lr,'l\\,,r.\l,l'lilrr.irrvolverl t{}}32Statellortseeltctionsin[)trrhamanrl
\\'rrlir,('rrrrrrli,,:r,r',,.I,,, 1irlh,.inrvhichblackclrnrlirlatesuttrertlectetl toseats
irr nr:r,i,rlill ulril,'rrtrrlti rrtttttlret rlistricts. Rotlt ltrt'irtr:rtrnhents, antl in
thu'lr:rrrr ('ourrll Il),.r'r' rr,,r'(, rrnlv two u'hite canrlitlutcs itt thr: t'irce firr threc
s{,irts so llr;rt llrr, l,l:r, l' ,'irrrrlirl:rtt, harl to rtitr. 'l'h,rttglr each lrll,'k cantlirlatc.
\r'on. nr,illrlr' r'r.r'i r\ (.il ;r rtrir jot'ilt'of tht shitr, \ott'cilst. 'l'ltt'st'trr'rl excep-
Ir,rn:rli,lnul :rltr.r lrl tir',,lirr:rrr':conclusiorttltirt.irtlristet'nts,rircilrl lxrlat'iza-
lilrrtrrllr,,r.lr', 1i',r,:rrr,rl\';'r'illrs:rrvholert'asstttrstitntiirllvsigrrilrclrrrt.Norrlo
tlrr.r' :rll,,r',rlrl lln,llnri',, I lr srrttte el'ft,ttt.

r:: l),,li,rrrl;rnt r,.lr,,r'r ,rrttrr,r,srlttestirrtterl tlrclccttt'acyof attl'opinionasto
111q, "r1;lr:l;rrrli',, rr: nrlj.lurt'r:r'l :.tatisticlll.r-sigrrilic:rrrt rircial lxrlulizationin
vrIi111' 1lr;rl ,li,l r"r riri l,,r' irr rrll ll'tltc circttntstittlcos thlt rnight influettee

P:lrlir'trl;rt 1rr!r. it,.r r,rrlir'rtl;rllh,ctiott.'flrisl'lit'sirrtltelirct'uf tlrr-'gt'tteral
tt:r., itt ltlirJ:tlt,rtr ,rtr,l ttt tlrl g,'ttrt'itl social stitttt'rt literatrrre, rlf cotrelation
irrr;rlr':i,,iri. lllr'.1;in, l;r,ltrrrllr,xllirrrlettrtninittt{l'hetltervoterliltrtiottinthc
k,[;tl t.rrl,.tlrnlt'.r,t,.r'rr:r,r,sistr, a use cotlt:r,tlrrl ll\' rlel'ertrlartt's cxpert.

4la

white f)emocrats than to vote for black Democrats. The racial
polarization revealed, of course, runs both ways' but it rvas

much more disarlvantageous to black voters than trr n'hite.

Aside from the basic population and registered voter lnajol'i[y
--.--.----adv.antages had by white voters in any racially polarizetl set-

ting, ie.yer white voters voted for black catxli(lates than rlirl

black vo'ters for white candidates. In these elections, ir sigrriti-

cant segment of the white voters would trot vo[e frrr:rn1' hlatk
cartdi(late,ibut few black voters woul(l not vote titt' :rtt.1' *'hite
canrlidate.;One revealed consequence of this disatlvallt:lge is
that to harle a chance of success in electing can(li(la[es of their
choicc in these districts, llack voters must rely extensively otl

single-sh6[ voting, thereby forfeiting by practical necessity

)heir right to vote for a full slate of canditlates.

The racial polarization revealed in the multi-menlber elec-

tions consi as a whole exists in each of the challenged
clistricts separately, as indicated by the fr.rllowing

specific fiflings related to elections within each clistrict.

House District No. 36 And Senate l)istrict No. 22

(Mecklenburg And Cabarrus Counties).

ln elections in House District No. 36 (Mecklenburg ()ounty)

between 1980 and 1982, the following percentages of black antl
white voters vot'ed for the black candidates inrlicaterl:

Primary Genenrl
White Black Whit.e Black:

1980 (Maxwell) ?2
1.982 (Berry) 50

1982 (liichartlson) 39

In elections in Senat€ District No. 22 (Mecklenbtlrg att(l

Cabarrus Counties) between 1978 and 1982, the follorvirrg pet'-

(

7l -, 28 92

79tct ) ,12 112

7t\--/ 29 u8

L/4--

et



78

ri3

'l'lrt'ljrt't tlr:tl t'rrnrlirl:rlt,Iicr.t.V t.e(:(,i\,(,(l votcs li.orn onc,h:rlf of
tlr. rrlrilr,\,rr,r':- irr llrr, l,r'il,r^i.1.rl,es rr,t .lter.th. c,rclusion
tlrirl tlr.r'r' i. "rrl,:.tlrrrrirrl r':r.irrilv p'lir.izr,rr 

',tilru irr t\rt,criren-
hulu (.'orrrrlr, irr 1,1.i111;11.i,.s. 

'l'l.relrt n.er.t,rlt.:g1f,_UlU!t,C4tttli_
(l:llt': Irl'r'lrtlrl lr,' tl tr,t){ ttr I Irt: llt.intitt,itttrl'rtr,lrl:rCk r:lr,rlirlate
hrrr[t.fir;"['"t,,T Xi;i.i:\: lh. iircurrtberi( i,lriii,i*,;fi]r;ft;;i:,|
ril''tirJtrr';rtiorrJrrrrll,,,l lirst lrnrong brar.k votr:r's but scventh
:lrIr(|rrg u lril t's

'l'lrt',rah',1 lr, r'lrl;r,.li ,.;rrr,ri,llt[r: tr.lt'irPPr.,,rt.ltt,rl t.t,ceit,irtgas
rn;u ll rs lrr ll , ,l'r lr,, rr lril r' \'rrr r,s rvas Iit.r,r l r\lt:.tlyrt[,t., r.rrnrririg in
tlrc lltr'S Stti,rlr'l,t'i1r;1\'ltli i1) itterttttLrt,ttt. ,\lexaprlt,r.r.t,nkerl
l:.lst lrtttotrq rr lrit,, rnrr,t..; itr the gtriptitt.r, lrrrrl g.,trlrl lyr't,beelt
tlt'lt'irtr,rl tl'llrt,,,l,.liln hiyl lreen Iglrl ()11\. l1lt(]t]g tlrp rylrite
vot t't's.

_- 
r\pPrrrrirrr:rrtl', rir r', ,,,' tlrr rvhite voLe r.s voterl fr.,l. neither

[lt,r'r'.r' n,rt' ,\lr.xlrrrrlt,r. rrr thc general elcctrr.rrr.

ll,rtt:,t' l)isl f i1'1 N6. llg ( ['urs1,th g.,unt1.].

Irr l[,rrsr';urrl,'i,,rr;rr,,r,lct,tiottsinF-nt'svt]tcoutrtvfronr 
lgTS_

19,{l tlr. lirll,ir irrr ;rr,r'ccrrtirges of rvhite. anrl black voter.s vr.rtecllilr tht l,llrr,k,.irrr,li,l;rtr.s itrrlicate4:

t't,tll;rt1r,: ol rr lrrt,
rl;tt r,,. irr, lir.rrr,,, I

I l)7,\ ( .\ 1,,\:rrr, 1,,r. r

I llx(, (..\ lr,x;urr lr,r. r

llli'il (l'rrllt)

l!i,\'ll,tu:;,
Kertncrlt', ll.
Not'rttrrrt
ll.oss

Sttttttt,r' ( lit,lrrrlr. i

.t2a

rlul lrl:rrli votr-,rs vo(r,rl

l'ri tttut.t1

ll'hite RltrA.
.17 tt7
. ).)rtt
.r. )

:,c
r.j

r7
tliil

l'ritnanl Getterul
ll'h ile BlacA. llth ite lllu&

lirr the lrllrclt canrli-

()rnrntl
ll'h ite ltlrtck

.l I lf.l
r/a rr/a
33 1)4

:\2

n/a
tr/a

76

29
53

I l/:l

9:l <h-lrr/a-, \
trla
25

43a

. Prirnaru General
Wh.ite Black White Blork

l9tl0 House -

I(ennedy, A.
Norman

1980 Senate -

Small 12

1982 House -

Hauser 25
Kenned.y, A. 36

As revealed by this data; no black candiclate, rvhether suc-
cessful or not, has reeeived more Lhan 40%o of the white votes
cast in a primary, and no black candidate has received more
than46% of the white votes cast in a general election during the
last four elections.

Though black candidates Kennedy and Hauser won the
House election in 1982, this does not alter the conclusion that
substantial racial polarization of voting continuerl through that
election. White voters ranked Kennecly anrl Hauser seventh
and eighth, respectively, out of eight candiates in the general
election. In contrast black voters ranked thenr first anrl scconrl
respectively.

llouse District No. 23 (Durham County).

In House and Senate Elections from 1978 through 1982. the
following percentages of white and black voters volecl for the
black canclidates indicated:

Prbnaru Cenerol
White Bhck White Rlu<:h

1978 Senate, -
Barns (Repub.)

1978 House -

Clement
Spaulding

40
l8

r ,!
3? 1r(; 

- 
L.

n/a n/a
86

n/a

8?
1)4

42
46

36 rl.f

nJa nla
1

-l89 '-_

6l

80
87

10

l6
nla n/a
37 fil)$z



It)7,\ tr\ l(,r(lilr lr't )

lll5{} 1 r\ lr,\rrrr, lr,r' t

lllSf t l'olli r

t,r.pl ;tpt':;,,1 r, ltil r, ;tttrl
r l;tl cs itrrli,':rl r',1:

42a

lil;rck votet's t'otcrl

Pt'i ttttt t'r1
llth ito llltrtk
.17 s7

43a

Pimary
White Black

General
lVhite. f]lackfbr the hllck canrli-

Grnt'rul
ll'hite Bku:k
4l 9-l

t/:r
3:l

f):l

lt/il
l), il
lir

nla,
94

2:I
32

7l(

,q;i

19t10 House -

Kennedy, A.
Norman

1980 Senate
Small

cast in a Dri
Llian467o
last fi elections.

respebtiyely.
t\

1978 Senate -

Barns (Repub.)

1978 House -

ClbrnenI
Slraulrling

40
18

L2

86
36

6t

32
nla

n/a

96
r/a

n/u

'l'lrll'trlt tlr;rl ,';tnrlirl;rl,,llet't'.)'rect,it't'rlvotesftttnolrehalfof
llrc rvlritr.\rll,,r':i irr tlrr, llrimat'.v rLrt,s ttrtt lrltcr thc cottclusion
tlr;rf Ilrcrl i;r -rrlrstlrntill t'aciall.t,;tolrrt'izcrl vrtting irt I\'1er:klen-
lrrrlu ( lrrrrrtl irr Ir'int:rt'i,,s. 'l'ltet'e ttet't otth's('\'ctl rvhite canrli-
rl:rtt,s li,r',,ir-lrt g,r,sitions in the ltrirnlf ittttl ottc black canclirlate
Irirrl lo ltr, r,lct'llrl. Iltr'r'\', the incurntlt,ttt t!tlirman o( the Board .

ol' I'lrlucutiorr. r'rrrrlicrl lit'st antong trlar:k voters but seventh
ilrllorltr rt ltit,''..

'l'1r,, orrIr' r,l lr,,r' lrl;rt:k t'irnrlirlate rvho ullgtrolchetl receiving ad .

nllul\';rs lrlrll'r,l {lrl rr }ritt votes u'as Ifrerl Alexantler, runttittgin
tlrt' llf7l. Scnrrlr' lrrirrrarv as an incumben[. Ale.rantler ranked
llrst urrrorr( ulritt votet's in the llrintarv itntl rt'ottltl hitve been
rlt:[r,,ltcrl il'tlrt,rlction hatl treen helrl ottlv amring the rvhite
..'ot t,l's.

Alrlrrorirrrrtt,lv li0'{ of the white votet's votecl for neither
Iit,r'r'r' rror',,\l,,r;rrrrlt,r' ilr the general election.

llorrsc l)istrict No. 39 (l'orsyth County).

Irr llorrst,rrrrrl St:nltc elections in F-orsyth Coun[1'from 1978-
I ll,{! t lrc lirlL,rr irrg ptrt:ttrrtages of whi[e anel black voters votetl
tirr llrt, ltllrt'li r':urrlirllrtt,s ittrlicaterl:

Prinru n1 (}cneru I
llthile IJltrrA' ll'hite Bluck

1982 House'
Hauser
Kennetly, A.

As revealed by this da i-no black canditlate, whether suc-

cessful or not, has more than 40o/o of. the white votes

87
94

42
46

25
36

rfrnd no black candidate has reeeivetl more

white votes cast in a general election during [he

/Though black candidates Kennedy antl Hauser u'on [he

House election in 1982, this does not alter the conclusion that

substantial racial polarization of voting continuetl through that
election. White v-oters ranked Kennedy and Hauset'sevetlth
gncl eighth, respectively, out of eight canrliates in the general

election. In eonirast black voters ranked them first antl secontl

Houqe.District No. 23 (Durham Countv)'

In House and Sbnate Elections from l9?8 through 19U2, t'he

following percentages of white and black voters votetl for the

black canriiclates indicatbcll

P'd;tqary
White \Blcc[-

\
\

Genexrl
lVhite lJlltk

nla

l0
16

nra \ 17
lll),\ llrtrtsr'
licrrtrr,,lr'. I I

)il)l't)t;rll
H,,- .

"riltrl,'ll',t,1

2S

,c

r7
II,it

89 tt/a llr:t

92 :]7 l'ill



.lJit

Prt trtrtnl
llthitt Rlucl-

(ienerul
Wh ite Black

l,t,\rt llrtt,.:,.
Sp:rrrlrlirru

l!t,t2 11,,,, ',' -

( |lt'rnr,rrt
S;urr rk lir ru

llfTS tlilrr,,r
lltSt I rlilrr,.r
llt.ll rlilrrr,,

7l; llr ir n/a\l .il gt)

-19il/an/a

26 326\
37 txt

[')ittrtrt.rl (]tuerol
ll'hitr lilrrrl; ll'ltitt, Ill.uck

n/it nla
4:J g9

l'll.rl< r';trrrlitlrrte spaurrri,g 
'a, u,c,ntestetr i, the generar

.lt't'( ir,r i r r I I t7,*1 . rrrl i' t he prirna.v .'tr ge^er.ar erection i'n l gg0.
lrr tlrr, lllsl .k,cti,n there,,r,,iu Repirblican nlrporltir, ana
t Irt'gt'rrer';rl .lt'r'ti,rr rras, for alr practicar l)ul'r)oses, unopposecr.
r\ nraj,'itv ,l'rvhitc' voters faireri to'ote ftr tirc black.";iiJ;;"i. th. g.rr.ral ek:ction in each of these years eve, rvhen the
ha,l ,,i,rth,','.ru,i.o. Furthermo.o, iiiitu lgr32 primary, tneJ 1*'er.,rrl'tr'. r'hite candidates for three seats so that onJ IIrlrr.k lr.r'r'ss;r'il' harl to win. Even in this ,itrution, 6sg, oi Ir'hitt'r',t,'r's rlirl not vote for the black incunrbent, ti".ru*J
e lr<ric. ,l' tlr. bl:rck voters. At reast B7?o of white ,oi".. ,oi"alir. rur lrl,r'li t':rrrrlirlate even whe. one ll.as ce(ai. to be elecied.

llouse l)istrict No. 2l 0Vake County).
Irr .lt't'ti,rrs rir. thc' North carorina lr'use of Representa-ti'es fi',r, r1f7r'i thrrrugh tgg2 ilr. ftrilorvirrg po,..oiiirs;-orrvhite,.rl lrlrr.k 

',tr:r's 
lioted tbr th. black candirlate i*rlicated:

!l
3l
;l!) xl l; 9t

I ll1;p; I'lrt.l, ,,ltnrlirllrtt- lilrr* *..rr .lt,r..ti.rr irr the last' ' i.rr,rlr,l;rr.it.s tlrrr,s nrrI ltltt,t. (lte cottt.lrtsiorr tltaC,, .r, I,,,1;r|izlrlion irr r n1 j11q 
1rr,r.sist.s itr tlris rlistrict.

r t' r i I r rr i r rq. tlre I )r,lrror.r.;rt ie 1lr.intirr.r. is lristorical_lo t,ltt:(ion. Ncvt,r.Ilrrlt,si. in tliest, elect.ir_rtts

.l5a

frorn 607o lo 80oft, of white voters did not vote firr the blatk
candidate in the primary compared to 767o and tJ0'/o of lllack
voters who did.

Wake County is overwhelmingly Democratic in registration
and normally votes along party lines. Nonetheless, 55c/o ot
white voters did not vote for the black Democrat in the general
electioin.

House District No. 8 (lVilson, Nash, Edgeconrbe Counties)'

In county-wide or district-wide elections from 1976 through
1982 in House District No. 8 and Wilson, Eclgecombe and Nash
Counties, the followihg pereentages of white and black votet's
voted for the black candidates indicated:

Pimor-y General
White lllack White Black

House District No. 8
1982 House-Carter

Wilson Cou,rtty
1982 Congress-

lst Primary-Michaux
2nd Primary-Michaux

1976 County Commission-
Jones

Edgecombe Cou,rtttl
1982 Congress-

lst Prirnary-Michaux
2nd Primary-Michaux

l9li2 Courity Commission-
(lreen
McClain
Thorne
Walker

66

696
798

Qc)ou

2Us s7 (ty

;}J 9l
:|t; 9t

0
0
4

2

14 -5k
27 -sv
75
82



.l(ia

.\'rr.s/r ('rtlur!tl
ll)Sj L'otut'r,.rs-

lst I'r'irrrut'r'
2nrl I'r'irrrrrrv

lllx2 tl()unl\ ('r)lnntission-
Sttrrttrtt'

l)ti trtut-tl Gen.eral
ll'hite Blo,ck White Blac,k

(; 73
681

82

\Vit lr ,.t, i'rr.t';rti.r.r. over this peri,d mtire than g0% of the
ru hitl votcrs l)rlvr, failetl to vote for the lilack canrlirlate in every
lrrinurr'\' in r,rrt'h ol'tlrese three counties. 'Ihe one tinre, in lgll2,
thlt lrllck [)(,r)r(x.r.ati(.canditlates have run in a general elec-
tiorr. thll llriltrl to reccive over (i()cl.,of the u'hite vote even
t ltuttu lt l'lr l ut,t',, rr r l rt: L'r.rturty is ovenvhelrnirrgl.v (tjtl. irqo) f)emo-
rt'lrt it'.

'l'lris rllrt:r t'r,\'(';rls r';rt,iul polarizltion ol'r,otirrg in I{ouse Dis-
It'ict Nrr. ,\i.r. r,'ilt',,trre thilt, all other lirctrrrs:rsirle , rto black has
:rrrl r,lr;rrrr.r,,,l rr irltirrrt.lcr_.tion in tlrt,rlistr.ict as il is prr.esently
(.otr:.tilut(,(l l'lri..,.,rtrr.lrr::ion,:rs(,\Il.('ssr., littr..r'irlcrtt.t, ll.vlllain-
I jll :' r,\-l",t t \, it tt,
irtll

s. \\':rs ,1,,1 sl,f ioush' t'h:rllt'nur', 1 lrv rle[end-

:..i rrr: lt.-]lt,lrrlx.r I )isi rir.l

),.'nitlr l)istrill \o. l.
l'.,.,r,rrt ;;r ll. rrrrllurllr,nue(l :rnrl urrr.t,lrtrl trrl opirtiorr evirlettce

r{ir trr lrr grlrrrrrtill's'c.rpt,r't witness, [)r'. (_ir.,lin:rn, :rnrl testinto-
tti;tl t".'irl.,ttll ol'r,rllgf iettced l6eal political6llset.r,el's and black
('rlrl)runit',' l,,r,lr,r's estultlishes that seYere tlrrl pcr.sistent ra-
,'i;11 gr,rltr'i,r;rti,rr irr ',tirrg exists in the :lrett cover.etl by the
r'lurlllntlr,rl rlrll,' r)t(,tr)lr(,1' Senatc I)istr.ict No. 2.

,r 'lrr,:.r, r,r irllrrtiarl, firrrlirrgs n'ith r.eslrt,ct to
irr r,,tirru, u e lirrtl that irr elu'h of tlro ehal

o"l

47a

Other Factors Bearing Upon The Claim
Of Racial Vote Dilutiern

Itrcreased, participation by black citizens in the poliliurl
process.

The court finds that in recent years there has been a measur-

able increase in the ability and willingness of black citizens lo

participate in the state's political processes and in its govern-

in.nt ut state and local lev-els. The present state administration

r,"* 
"ppointed 

a significant number of black citizens to judicial

and eiecutive positions in state goveratment, antl evinces a

good faith cleteimination further to open the political processes

[o black citizens by that means. In some areas of the state'

inclucling some of those directly involved in this litigation,

iher" i.lncreased willingness on the part o[ influential white

politicians openly to draw black citizens itrto political coalitions

In4 openly io support their candiclacies. Intleetl, anrong [he

witnesses for the state were respected and influential l)olitical
flgures who themselves fit that description'

The court has consitlered what this implies for the lrlaintiffs
claim of present racial vote cliluti0n-of a presettt lacli tlf ctlual

opportunity bl,black citizens relative t0 rvhite citiz.t'ns to lrat'-

ticipate in lhe political l)rocess and to eleat aandi{tdqs.of tlrt'ir'

clroice. Our conclusion is that though Lhis rvholesonttihetqlo,-

ment is undoU6teclly underway and will presumably contin\\
ithasS6(pr,ccee6erito the point of overcoming still e,[renched

@T,d ".q-hirtrli::lllil' ?:^1 l:: !l :ffi#ii?ffi;i in^t singte *o.t pn*.r'iirl lirct,rr'i.f
nETtaial-vote tfilution. The participatory level rif iiacl/
n"s is still minimal in relation to the overall black popgXr-

tior\. antl. quite understandably, is largely cottfinerl t9'Lhe

relailvgly few forerunners who have achievetl. lyl6ssiortal

:atstns raclal vote (lllutlon. I ne partlcll'atulJ rc'vt'r ,r 'rarz A
,itt"n-. is still minimal in relation to the overall black ,lo,gJ{r' I
;;I-;;,1. ouit. ,",rurstandably, is largely cottfinerl t9' Lhe I
relailvelv few forerunners who have achievetl ,r1[Kssiortal I

statusfiotherwise emerged from the getyft+1.{tL.'1rt't'sserl I t
socio-econlfnicsfatus-Whlgh, allyehtve-6111111 otl t-lte t't't'rrt'rl lM
produced in this case, rem:-i-ns the presenL krt of tht'great lirtlk ) \)

of black citizens. ' ' U

statusbr.otherwise emerged from the ger tk-,llresserI

socio-econolnic-stat ich 6il-u.,d,,i



.llla

l)ivisions lVithin The llltck Conrmunitl'.

N,t irll lrl;rck r:itizens in North Carolina, n,trvithstanding
t lr:r t t lrt' r'lrrss l.t'lrnic:rll.v cert ified in this action includes all whtl
itt'r' t'r'qist (,1'('( l Ir ] \'ol (J, share the satne vi€:n,S lrhlttt the present
t't':rlitv ol' r'rr.ilrl vrte clilution in the challengtrl rlistr.icts (or
;rresurrrulrlY t.lst'\\'lrere), nor about the allpro;tr.iate solution to
attv rlilttliotl 11,',t mir.y exist.

S.r't,r'ul trLu,k citizt,ns testified in this action, as rvitnesses for
the st:rte, t, tlris effer.t, irlentilying their orvn vieu's as ollposed
t. th.st' rrrl'rrnt'er1 bv plaintitfs' w'itnesses. In ter.rns of their
cl pcrit,' rrcr', ;rr'h i t'verlr)nt anrl general crerlibili t.y as witnesses,
tltt' r'it,tt's ol'tltt,sr: tlcl'cnrlant-witnesses g'er.c cleullV as tleserv-
irrg,l';11.r,r'lrtl,lt,r'lr' the crrurt its \\rer(, those,f the btack
t'iliz.rrs u lrr,. i11 lrrru,'r'lrrtnrbt,t's, ttstilierl ;rs t'it-nesses for.the
1rl:rirrl il'l:.

'l'rto llt, 1..itlrlr,,;rt'r'rl, hrlq't,r'et'. t6 thp cl}rtt.t.'l'lr. ljr.St iS that
tltr t it'rt ,,'\lrt r,s:.(,rl lrv 1;,-.1",1,ltrlrts' g,itll(iss(.,s rr.ertt almOSt
(,\:(,11::iir.l,,l,,-llr1_,1,',.ir:rbilit],ol'llrr,,r'r,rlt,rl-V_rougll!_bJplqin-
liff,,- rifil ;'t -r; rir", r,ii'"eiicx-i"t,,ri,, ,,f' ,, 

",,,.,,1itiio.,-,,f 
unt"

;Im i;;,.=li,;. , ,t ii"r.liiii lsTli?rt t li. ilitr;rilJiir iit rviiili,i.-e*; uiorrs
TIttr-t-1r,.;1,,,,it,1,,r1. r,tr tlti.,l.r,r,1t'rl;r,lrlttgr,rl iff tlfis C:lSLr, a
rli i irrr I r rr' ,,r " ' : r'".\ r',)int rvitlrirr tlrr, Irl;tirrtil'l't'lirss as certi-
li,.,l 'l'1r,, ,1, r r,,rr 1,,,1,.r r,+,,tr tlt. ttr., r,lt,ttt,lrts is t,ssr,tttially one
ol Ir'olrr'r'r,',ijrr, lrl trr,l:i antl rneans to lrreali ti'ee ot'rircial vote
r lilrrt irrr lt:, ir I'l'('{('lll r.ortrlition, altrl nrlt rtf tlrt, llr.esent existence
,,|'[liit i;,,i,, lii i, rn. ( )nly if a clissiclent clement wel.e so rarge as to
rlr':rrv irr rrlr,'iri.n tlr(' \,el')' existt,nce ol arr irlerrtiljable black
t'r ,rrilllrrrrit\' 

"', 
lr,r:.r,"lrlrilit1't() 1lilrtir,ilrirtr,"ilnrl"l).oerl0nr toelect

('itlt(Ii(litlr,.: ,l'rl:i t'lr,rict"'Crrttltl t'atilllrlly lle ilssgssr,(1. COtf lrl the
t'\isllttr't,r,l rr rli:sir[,ttt viery hityc t't,lglttttt,e t, the establish-
r)r.rrt ,l';r nrt'i;rl r,tt'rlilution clairn. 'fhlt crcar.h,is not the
t'ir','rrnr:lirrrr'r lrr,r'r'. ,rr the recorrl lrrarle irr this actiorr. As earlier-
irrrii.rrrr',1.ll','rlrr''hu'politicalquestionof thel)r'r)l)er.meansto
,'trrrli,.:rt,,.rrr'lrr.;r,.ilrl r.r,terlilutionlsnrighltreshou,npresently
lrr r'.,i-l lt:r I'r.,,tr rk,t,irk,tl bt, CO.gt'r,ss irttrl tkles.,t pfOpet.ly
liUtn'r, iIr,,,I1' Irr,li,.iirl inrlttirV. S3r, I,1t't t l. .str7rrrr.

49a

Fairness of The state Legislative Policy underlyirrg The

Challen ged Redistricti ng

Under amendetl $ 2 ii presumably re.mains relevallt to con-

sider wheth". r"."-""-'ili;;tl comfielling state policies might

il;f, ;;;,listricting plan that concededlv' or at least arguab-

ly, "results" piml'licie in racial vote dilution' The Senate

iiiprt ,-Ji.cussing lhe continued relevance of the "tenuotts

*i.[u pof i.v]' lnqui,y 
"t 

one of the incorporate cl Z imnrcr factors

that evolve d in whili u'.--iigrxt, dilution jurisprurlence' 
.in-

dicates as much, ttt"ush''"t";uousness" as a gauge of in[ent is

obviously no tongu' 
'Elevant 

under li 2's "result-onlv" test'

If the procetlure.markedly departs from past lrractices

or from pract.rc; iri.*rr"i""in tlie jurisrlictiotr, that tre :trs

on the frirn"tl"#']:* i;pli"gitf 
"uun 

a cottsistentlv

ilpii;iil;;iil";**iiuir.on.araciallvl]etltrltllltllicY
woultl nnt nugii" [';i;ili'ff;'shorving ttilough :]l!:I flg
i;;'iililrir"d>;ir;ttdnserl practice tlenies r}'rin',r'rtres rilrr'

access to the Process'

S. Rep. No.9?-417' sxp''(t note 10' at 29 & n'll?' Scr ttl'so

Iflajor v. Treett, 
''"1''o, 

slip.op' 6l'1'l (anal'vz'ing state

tlnOitlti.ting policy in terms of fairness)'

Thepartiesinthislitigation}ravearltlressedthelxritttutrrlcr
the "tenuous state poiit/; *Utit' antl we will assume the

inquiry's continuei tltituuntu under a "restllts"-onlv test' on

this basis,we are persuadetl that no state policy.'.either as

demonstrabfy u*p[l"Jiy ttt" legislature in its deliberations'

or as now ar.ertediy the state in litigation' coultl "negate a

showing,, here thai .itr^i vote dilution results fr0nr the chal-

lenged district Plan'

Dtrring the legislative tleliberations otr the rt'rlistrictinq

platt, the legislature was well aware of the possibilitv that its

,',len eould resutt under then applicable federal larv in itnlxrt'-

Irittii,i" airrti", ,i Lr"ck citizens' voting st,ength if concetttra-

tions of black voteit *ttt int"ntionally "s'UTtt:q:il 
, -in 

rnulti

member aistriets or ijfra.turerl" into .separate districts.'Thlrt

fact was brought io itt utttntion by special counsel' by lllack

citizens' groups .on*tn"a with thl problent' antl by vat'iotts



50a

l.gislrrlr)r':. 1\'ho Irt.ol)ose(l plans specitjcallv <lesigned to avoid
;ttlr'lxr:rsilrilitvo('iptpgpmissibl.yrlilutipgblackcitizens'votesin
tlr.se *'rr's. '['ht. specific dilution lrroltlents presentetl by the
blitt'l< r'ot.r' t'rrrrcr)nLrations in thc challengerl clistricts in this
litrgirti,n u.r'e lirron'rr to and cliscusserl in legislative delihera-
t iorrs.

'l'ht, lxrsir' prlicv jrrstification ail'ancerl by the state in this
Iitig:rtirrr lirr tlre legislature's rleclination to create single-
nrcnrlurr rlist rit'ts l.o avoid submerging concentrations of black
v.[1,,;'5 in tlrt, r,lr;rllengetl multi-member rlistr.icts ivas the main-
t.r'lrirrrct' ,l':rrr lrisl.olicrl, functionallv sriurrrl tr.arlition of using
u h,k' t',urrl ir,s rrs tlr. irreversible "[ltrilrling trlocks" of legisla-
tivt, rlistt'illitru. i\lLlrouglr tlte state arlrlucerl lirirlv per.suirsive
cvirltrr,'r' llrrrl llrr, "u lrolc cuuntr"' 1r,lir,v rlirs rlt.ll-ristablishecl
Irisl,rri,';rll. . lr;rrl l,'uilirrratc lirrrct.i,rrirl l)ul'lx)scs, lrrrl u,as in its
oritiirr' r',r111;rlr,rr,l., rvithorrt nrcitl irrrlrlicirtiorrs, tlr:rL all became
l;rlu,,l' i'r',.1,,,,;r.t ir:r rnatter.s rl.r,r:l'pr,rl in this llarticular
h't1i:,lrrtit,, r'r,rli r1'1,,1irrrg plarr. r\t thr,tirn. tlf its lj,at e^aCt-
ll'lt'll(. llt, l:rl,' 1rnl1r'.,,' ,- tlrgttgI grrrr;tr,llt,rl--g'lrs tSitt COUntieS
tttt,ilrl lrr' -1,111 \\'lrr,rr tlte i\ttor.rrit' ( jr,rro'lrl rlcclirrerl to give
1rr','t'lt'rrrinr, r, l, r l)t, :titte consLiIutiorrlrl grr.ohillitiorr ol' cotrnty
rlivisi,rrs irr r',',listlit'ting, the stare at.rluiescetl antl, intleed,
rlivirl.tl ('.lurli('s lhr,rcfafter both in non-covelerl as rvell as
t'r)\'{,t'(,rl r:r,ltrlits i1 t}re final rerlistlicting plan. .See pote B,
st ln u 'l',r l lrl t.\tlnt tlre polie.y the r.t,after rvas trt split coUntieS
.rrlr r'lr.rr rrr'r'r,);srr')' to meet Prilrrrlirtion tleviation reqttire-
tllrlllsrtl'lo,rl'l litts\51rt'eCleat'apcc6l'llur.ticUlarrlistriCtS-an4
I lti:, is rt lr;rt Ilr,, 1'1'g,,,',1 rlemonstlatt,s--srrch a ;xrlicv obviotrsly
t'oltlrl rrrrt lrl rlnru'n rrllon to justilt,, urrrlcr a tirii.ness test
rlistr.ir,tittr'rr,lti,.llt.tlsttltsinracialr,rrterli[trtirrn.

'l'lre s;rrrrr' I'irrrlirrgs ayr;rly, though rvitlr trltltlrl ltrr.ce. to Senate
l)istlir'l .\-o.-1.'l'lrere. of cr)urse, in the linalPlarr eounties rrrat
slrlil: irrrl.t'rl li,ul'\\'r,l'e split in the tirce of a pluposerl;llan rvhich
\t ottlrl lrrrr r.1i1';,1,,,1 irrt r,ffectiye blacli-nta.jglitv sirrgie-ntt,mber
rli:rtri.r rr lri,'lr ,'rrll irr'olverlsplittinu tu-rr cotrnties. ()ther poli-
,'.\, ,'"r) '1,1, r'1r ilrn- rlrlrr rvere plitinlv sh,rt'n [o ltitvr, influenced
llr,'i.t'r'llrrrr. rrr il,,rirurlrlt'au'ing,l'Sg;1;111, I)istrict No. 2lines

5la

were the protection of incumbents and, in the words 0f one

legislator-witness in this action, swallowing the "smallest of

thiee pills" offered by the Justiee Department in preclearance

negotiations respecting the lowest permissible size of the black

po[ulation concintration in the district. Obviously, neither of
lhese policies could serve to outweigh a racial dilution result.

The final policy consideration suggested by the state is the

avoidance of race-conscious gerryman(lering. Whilt-' there ma.v

be some final constitutional constraint here, cl. Iiorcher v.

Daogett, 

- 
U.S. 5l U.S.L.W. 4tl5:i, 4860 (U'S'

June 12, 1983) (Stevens, J., concurring), we ftnrl that it is not

approached here by the available meatrs of avoirlirrg sttb-

mergence or fragmentation of any of the black voter coneentt'rt-

tions at issue. The most serious problem is that ;losetl b.v tht'
crintiguration of the black voter concenLl'ation in .l{ouse [)is-

r trict No. 8, conprised of Wilson, Nash arrrl Etlgccontbe Cottn-

ties. The configuration of the single-tnember district specil-rcal-

.ly suggested by the plaintiffs as a viable olle is obviously not rt

motlel of aesthetic tidiness. But given the evirlencc, ttot chal-

lenged by defendants, that in the present mul[i-member dis-

trict the black population, 39.57o of the total, sitttllly canttot

hope ever to elect a candidate of its choice, aesthetics, as

opposed to compactness and commonality of interests, cannot

be accorded primacy. See Corsterts v. Lunm, s?(pro,' SA'olnick
v. Stote Electoral Board,336 F. Supp. 839, 843 (N. D. Ill. 1971)

(three-judge court) (even compactness not a fttndittnettLal
requirement).

Ultimate Findings Of F'act

l. consirlered in conjunction with thc totalitv of relevitttt

circumstances found by the court-the lingering efl'ects oi
seventy years of official discrimination against blach citizens itr

matters touching registration and votitrg, substart[ialto severe

racial polarization ih voting, the effects of thirty .vears of per-

sisten[ racial appeals in political campaigrts, a t'el*ti'ely de-

llressed socio-economic sLaius resulting in signilicant de$r'ee

i.o* 
" 

century of de jure and defirr:to segregation, and tht:



contirruirrg t'f'li'ct of a rna.jority vole rerluirement-the creation
.l'eut'lr of tlr. nrulti-member clistricts challenged in this action .

r.esrrlts in llr,, lrlir,:li r.t,gisteretl voter.s of that rlistr.ict beinE
sulrrrr.r:g+Tl,rsT-r,16rlq-n:i\rity in the rlistr.icl arrtl thereb.i) rt
lurr'(nt lt'ss,rllrrrrrurut),Jher{(kr othcr.rrrembers ol'the electo- Iru"rl.
1',,1,\r;fifl+r-qr;11.. il the political l)l.oc(lss ancl tr_r elcct, repre- |
scttt itt ivcs ol' t lrr,ir r,lroict l:. (',rrsitl,r'r,rl irrt',rr.irtrrcti.n rvith trr. s;une cin.urnstances, '

tlrt t.r.r,;rtirtr ,l :.irrrilr, rrr,,rrrltt,r.St,rrirtr,[)istr.ict No. ? r.r.strlts in
lhl lrl;tcli t'r,r'islr't'r,rl \11(,I's itr att irr.r,lr 1qr,r,t.('rl lrf.St:pate I)iS-
tlit'ls N,r:':. r-l ;urrl ri lrirr irrg tlrcir v.tirrg str.rrrgtlr rliluterl by
lr';r.l rrli rru llrr,rr r',nt.r.rrlratiort iltt, trr., tlistt'it:ts in eaeh of
u lri,.lr I lr,,r :rr.r, :q ,..,,l irrt trrittot.itv lrrrrl irt t.otrscrlttcttc0 ltavrt less
olrl)rrr'l trrril.r rlr:rr,,l,,,rl lrr,r'plpprl)rrl's,rl'tht,elpctgt.ittgtglrartici-
1r;ttl itt llrr, 1,,,lilr,;rl lrt'n(.gss;tlrl 11 ,,1,,a1 1.trl)l.esertt:rtives of
t Irr,ir t'lrotr.r,

r:r'l ltr,st;rtl r'lr;rjlr,nllr,s thtt basic;x.ernise of tlris finrlirrg u,ith the familiar
irIt{tllrr.lll tlr;rt llr''t,'l:ttittrrrt'r'itsoflegislativt:rlivisirlrro[:tnrirtor.itypollula-
tir,tl llrlrl istrol l:rlr:,.,,nr,rt(ltlllbrnryotingrrr:r,iplitilsirrtryrr.irrgle-nreinber
rli'lti.l: irll,r;rtt 'll,', li','rotittgnrajoril.r,irlrrrresirrgk.-rtrsrnlrt.r.rlistr.ir:tan6
:ttt ilI'll"t'l l\ t' rlrllr',t it t itt rtrtotht,r or, rln thc otlr*r.hartrl. rlivirlirrg it irrto trvo
srrlr.t;rrrtirrllr. irrl'lrr,.rrtirrl rrrirrrr.itics in trvo rlistr.icts is so prrrhlei;1atical that
ttlit ltr,r' l ltr. , rtrr, r ror t hr. ,,t lrpr r liyisi6p carr ;r16;rrrly lre arljurlgerl ,,rlilutive,, 

b.y
rr r,,;111.1 .\,,i,. r,i,, :<rtutttlt ,,. (iplmtn, iri|(i 1.,. Srrlrp. l):tt, l).ltt (H.D. l.ex.)(tlrllr' irrrllgr, r',,1r'r r f /,/'tl tnt tiher, grprprr/s, 156 li.S. iti tlg,B:l): Contpere
.lrrtlrrtr r'.ll ttr',, ;lr l'. Strlrp. llll5, ll,l:r (N.l). rIiss. lr)r?) tthree-jurlgc
('(lrl11 ). , rrr'r,/, 'l 't t.',1 t,'tt,rt rtrtttl ritr l ttrtltet'clttsitlcnttirtn i tt liqht rl'a tttt,ttded
rr .'. ltr:l S ( t ,U;'; (llrs:lr rl,,gislative lrrcli,t.r.rrcr .rnr:hallitrrgr.able) rvith
lltrl:.r'it ,' li,ut,,r ,,1 :itt1tt,1.r,1:i,rls, iir,l t-.211 lr li0 trlilutirxr lrossihle even ifonlrrl rli .rlr,'r.. 1r.,:rl,:rr',,1'l;rt.lipopulati1trtnlri,1.it.r,).'l'|t,spr.,.itit.argrrnrent
Ir,'r'r'i.- rh:rl ;rrr,. rl,r'r.:rri(,irr trte Jrt.esetrt tnirror.itr.1l,,1,ttlitti,,rr,,l ii.l,I inlir'r;rr'l)r'rrr.r r,,' rl rrill 1,,.;11 the t,xpensr,,rl'thir jrres.rrt lr,.:),I hlack
1r',;rrrl:rri,,rrirr;r'rr.rrr,l)1r11.j1.1 N,r.(i,thtr ,rl)virrussoul.ceot. I)istr.ict..lirrcrease.

\Vr,rIr.rr,,rrnt1r',,,r,,lrlithrlrr,arl,nrnrcrtt.\\'ltiletherlilertunaisareal 
one,rt,'llttttl.,tl t-,,tr,.rlr il(,),gt.r,.i\lrirS,irr.fli,ct,c,rrn,rittt,rl t,tltc.jtrrlgnrentof

lh,'lrl;rr'li'ilr,lnrrlrrrr,, r,,.rll,rnr ith;rsrrtvctrthr, Irir,;rtcrightol',i.tiunun,ter
irrrrlrrrl,',1 \ l' 'l l,' r'rulrr , r'r,:rrr.(l is, ln.rkrlirtitilrr. tlrlt rrfu ..,.1:rss" anrl the
1,1',',',,'l,rrrl rr., ,,; r , irirli,.:r1tr,r,11 1,,'l(:l:rssir(,li,rtt lt;tsrtlsol,er,tt Pt.rrr.irletlll.r,

llirrrlttrrlr,,,ntrlitrttr.rl,1 lt,St,itge)

53a

IV

CONCLUSIONS OF LA}V

1. The court has jurisdiction of the parties an(l of the sub-
ject matter ofthe action under28 U.S.C. $$ 1331, ll]43, and 42

U.S.C. $ 1973c.

2. The court is properly convened as a three-ju(lge court
under'28 U.S.C. $ 2284(a).

3. The aetion has been properly certifietl as a cl:tss action oll
behalf of all black residents of North Carolina $'ho itt'L' reg-
istered to vote. No challenge is made to the prol)riety of the
class action under any of [he criteria of the governillg class

action rule, Rule 23, Fed. R. Civ. P.

4. Of the challenged districts, only House District No. 8
(Wilson, Edgecombe and Nash) and Senate District No. 2
include counties that are covered under $ 4(a) of the Voting

(ftxltnote continue(l from previous page)

Congress in Fed.R.Civ.P. 2:|. When, as here. suclt a class actiorr is brought
by a class which includes such a fragmented cottcentratitltt ol l,llck votcrs, A

group judgment abr.rut the grorrp's best means of access trr tltc lr,rliticrrl
process must be assumed reflecterl in the specilic claint tnlrle bv thc clitss.

The legitimacv of that group judgrnent, front the stantlJxrirrt of ttrenthers of
the class identified, can be llut to test by stan<lard llrocetlures: trt'ch'rllengt'*
to the adequacy ofrepresentatiorr or the typicalitl'ofclaims b1'any tnenrbels
of the identified class who question the wisdom or validity of the class clainr
under Ilule 23(a)(3) & (4), l'ed.R.Civ.P., or even by attempte<l intcrvention
under Rule ?4, F'e<|.R.(liv.P. When, as here, no such challerrgts are nratlc. a

rlilution claim made by the class is 1u'operly assessetl in the ternrs tnarlr. arttl
on the un<lerstanding that any jurlgment entet'erl rltr its llasis s ill be binrlitrg
on all memllers of the class who rna.y not later seconrl-guess it urtrk'r rlrrlinarl'

lrrirrciples of claim preclusion, ree Restatement (Secorrrl) ,lurlgnrerrts !i 2l
cornnlents b, c; $ 25 comments f, m; $ {l(lXe), (2) comment e. rlr. possiblv,
jrrdicial estoppel, seeAllenu.Zurichlns.Co.,6{i7}'.2rl ll(i2(tthCir'. l{l}i2t.

If this rvere not the approach taken, a foolproof rneans rvoukl be prrrvirlr,rl
for irremediable fracturing of any such minoritv \'()ter corrcentt'atiorr. That
cannot have been intenrlerl try Oongress. A rliffcrcrrt situ:rtiorr ol'coursr,
ra'oultl be;rresente<l if the class of lllack voters bringirtg such ;r rlilutiort'lrr'-
fracturingclaim inclutle<l onl.y the voters in olte ol'thl rlist.r'icts ittt,r rthit'lt tlrt'
fracturing harl occumrl. That is not this casc.



liir:. lrl., ,\,l ;rrr,l l,rr'\\ hr,'lr ptrrt,h,:lr';lrrr,(,is t.t'r1ttit.t,rlun(lel-$ 5of
tlr;rr .\r,r t't t' I ( \ ll)7iic.

'l'lr,' .\, 1 r 11', 11, r l,r rrlr';tl : ittrlir.;rt i,rl .rr r\,r.il 3?. ll)lij, that, sO
lltt' ;t,, il ;rllr.,'lr,rl , n\r'r't,rl r,111ttlir,s. ltr, \\,o11(l itttt,t.;lOS. t.t.
,rlr.ir,,,li,,l1 ,,,,,1r r. . .-r lo Iho lcgisl;rt.ir.r, (,nactntent of the
lcrlistrit'l,irrq lrl;rrru lrich. i rrrerrrlru, cr.eatt,tlHouse I)istrict No.
.*{ arrrlSt'nrrtr, l)istrit.t N,. 2tloes not have Lhe ellbct of Jl.eclud-
irrg tlris cllirrr lr.r' lrllintifTs brough[ unrler arnentletl li 2'to chal-
l.rrg. th'r'r'rlislrictirru pl;rn in rcsllect,rl'these tu'rl rlistricts. 42
ll.S.t'. q llrl:ir.: .llrt j,tr v. 7'ret,,, s,l)r(t, slip op. at 200 n.l;
l'trilt'rl S/r/,'r, r'. 1'.rrs/ lirrlott Il,tttlc lr,trislt.\jrirr,/ Iltmrd,Sg4
l.'.]l iri, ilf rr ! ritlr ('ir.. ll)79); sre rrl.srr,l/on.is v. (irrs.sette ,,tgZ .

U.S. .llll. inr;o; (llt7?). [Jecause the sta,4ar.rls b.v rvhich the
Al I r u'nt:\' (l'rr.r'rrl :lss.s.s(f s voting crrarrges unr ler $ 5 are clift'er-
r'rrt ti',nr tlr.s. lrr u'lrir:lr jurlicial clairns unrler $ 2 are to be
:lsst'ssctl lrv t lrr' .irrtliciar.y, see S. Ite;r. N6. g?-417 , slrpr.o note
Itt, ,,1 {iH, liis;ill, ;rrul llccause the frlr.nrer are nlrlriiud in a
r)orr-rrr l vcr':rru'ill lrrl rninisLrative ;lrtrceerling, the Attorney
(;('n('r'rrl's 1rl.r'lr':rr':ur.t: rlcternrination has ,ro isstre lrreclusivL(r.'.llut.r':rl .str'[1rcl) cl'lect in this lction. see ttt,staLement
(S.t.r,rrrl).lrrrlt,nl.ltts :\s\,1? eontrnent (l; tfl(Z) & (:]) 0{rft0).

;. 'l'lrl rrrlrrrrinl iurrl irrterrrlcrr alllrlication rlf anrelrlcrl fi 2 of
tltc \:olirru liillrlr-; .\r.t irr r.elation tothr chims at issue in this
itt'l iott ll'r. l:. ..llrlr,rl ip l';rr.t [ 6l' tlris ilIerp9r.1prlp11 ()piniol.

li. ()rr rlrl l,;r'i:,or'tlri:, (:()rrt't's ttltirrr;rtr. tirrrlingsr-rf fact, the
1rl:rirrtil'1.. lurr,, ,,..1;rlrli5111,,; t}1lrt the t,r'r,:rti61 [r.v tht Gerieral
A:.st,rrrl'h' .l 'r'111 rlr ( ';rr.r,lirra ot'lrrtrlti-rnernller..[lotrse l)istricts
Nos. s, i I, 'l:i, iiliiul' I iil), rnulti-me11lrgr.S.late IJistr.it:t No. 22,
arrrl sirrqlr:-lrr.rrrlrr.r' S..rurte Distrit,t No. 2 rvill, as applierl,
rt'sull irr rrrr ;rlrri,lgcrlrr,nt of tlreir voting l'ights. as rnernbe;s of a
cl;rss 1rt'otr,r'l,,rl lr.r'srr[spelion (a) 6f arperrrlctl $ ? 6f the Voting
Iiiglrts r\i:t. irr r iol;rtiorr of that section.

-i. 
1'hr, lrlirirrtil'l.s lre entitlerl to a;lPropr.iate relief front the

violirt iorr.

115a

v

REI}TT]DY

llaving determined that [he state's retlistricting lllarrs. itr

the respects challenge(I, are not in compliance wit.h the mltn-

clate of amendecl $ 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the cotrrt rvill

enter an order declaring the reclistricting plan violative of $ 2

in those respeets, and enjoining the defenrlanls from conduct-

ing electioni pursuant to the plan in its present form'

In deference to the primary jurisdietion of state legislatures

over legislative reappottionment, While v' Weiscr"ll2 U'S'

?83, ?9i, (19?3), rve will defer further action to allor' the Gettcr-

al Assembly of North carolina an opportutrity to exercise tlttrt

jurisdiction in an effort to comply with $ 2 in the respects

required. This is especially appropriate where, as here, tht:

,General Assembly ahopted the plan found violative of $ 2 be-

fore the enactment of the amended version of that statute

which now applies, and where there has accordingly been no
'previous legisiative opportunity to assess the antetrcle6 stat-

ute's substintial new requirements for aftirmatively. avoirling

r.acial vote dilution rathei than merely avoiding its iritentional

imposition.

I{aving rletermined that the present plan violates a secttretl

voting ttght, our obligation remains, howevet', [o provide

affrrriative judicial re[;f if needed to ilsure compliance b.y thrr

state with ils duty to construct districts lhat clo tr,t tlilute tht'

voting strength of the ptaintiff class in the ways het'e tbuttrl, 0t'

in other way;. See In re: Illiltois Congressirtrrnl /li.sl,irls Ile-

ttpportiomnent Cuses, No. 8l C 1395' slip op. (N'l)' Ill t?81)'
,r.lj'd ,rrrrn. s'ub nom., Ryan v. Otto,454 U.S. ll:t0 (198?):

i-ybicki v. Stote Board o| Elections, No. 81 C 6030 (N'D' Ill'
Jin.12, t982); Kirkseyv. Boat'dof Superuisors, S|r4 l''2d l:11)

(5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S- 968 (1977).

Recognizing the difficulties posed for the state try the immi-

nence of 1984 primary elections, the court rvill convene at iln)'

time, upon request of the state, to consider and promptly to

rule upon any ie6istricting plan that has 5een enactetl b1'the



r-l

Riglrts ;\t't itttrl li,r' \\'111,'h f)l.eclearance is r.et;uir.erl unrler $ b of
that r\rt, l:l tt.S.('. $ ll)?ile.

'l'lrrr .\tt,r'rrr,r' ( it,rrr:1.;ll's intlication on April 27 , *)gZ, that, so
far ;rs it lrll.t:t.rl c,\'ere(l counties, he rvould interpose no
objecti,n rutrl.r' $ 5 to the legislative erractnrent ,f the
rerlistrict i ng pl:r rr u'hit'h, it t l t' r al ia,createrl House District No.
8 arrrl scnlte I li-*g1'1.1 No. 2 cloes not have the erfect of preclutl-
ing this clrrirn hr' pllintiffs brought under amencred $ 2 to chal-
Ienge t h. r'erlistrictirrg lrlan in respect of these trvo districts. 42
U-.S.C. ,s lff?:lt,: ,l[rt.1rtr v.T'reen, s?{p}lr, slip op. at 200 n.l;
Urrilcd S/rrfr's v. l,jrrs/ llutott llouqe Par.isl St:ltool [Jourrl,5g4
P. 2il ir{i, irf) rr. 1} t Ir h (.'i r.. l{t?g); see al so l/on.i.s v . G ressett e, 4JZ
U.S. .llll, ;0(i-t)7 (ll|?7). Ilt,cause the stantlar.rls b.y u,hich the
Altot'ner.t, (]enenrl rrs-s1,51ig5 r'oting changes untler $ 5 are tliffer-
ent ti',nr tlr,sc lrv rr-lrich jurlicial ctainrs untler $ 2 are to be
asscsserl h.y tlrt'.irrrlitrilr),, s,:p S. Rep. No. 97-417, slr71u lote
l(), at (;,*l, l;]H:l:t. ;rrrrl lr.ctrrrse the [or.nrer ilre appliecl in a
ncrn-arlversirli:rl ;rrl rnirristr.ative proct,erling, the Attorney
Gen*l'al's prt'cl*a.urrc. rlet.r'mination has rro issue preclusive
(collrteral estolrlrrrl,) r,t'lbct in this action. .See Ilestatement
(Secunrl),Iurlerrrt',ts $$ 27 comment C; 88(Z) & (B) (lgg0).

l-r. 'l'lre nrcarrirrg anrl intcnrled application of aniencled $ 2 of
the \Iotinu Itiqht:, Aet irr relation to the claims at issue in this
acLion al'e us slrt.rl in I)art lI of this Memorancrum opinion.

(;. On the basis rif this court's ultimate findings of fact, the
plaintiffs har,e r.sttbli-shg.1 that the creation Uy- tne General
Assenrlllv ot'N,r'th ('arolina of multi-member House Districts
Nos. ft. 21, ::1, lj(ilrxl :!1), nrulti-member Senate District No. 22,
and single-nrr:lr1l.,,r Senate District No. Z r,r,ill, as aplllied,
result in an abrirlgemcnt of their voting rights, as rnembeis of a
clas.s proteeterl lrv subscction (a) of amenaea $ Z of the Voting
Rights r\cl, irr violation of that section.

7 . Th. plttirrt if'l's ;rr.e .ntitled to appropriate relief fr.om the
violation.

55a

.v
REMEDY

Having determined't,hat the state's redistrictirlg plarts, itl

the resplcts challenged, are not in compliartce wiLh thc man-

rlate of'amended $ 2 of the voting Rights Act, the court will

enter an order declaring the redistricting plan violative of $ 2

in those respects, and enjoining the defendants from concluct-

ing electioni pursuant to the plan in its present form'

ln cleference to the primary jurisdiction of s[ate legislatures

over legislative reapportionment, Whit'e v' Weiser,412 U'S'

?83, ?95 (19?:]), we will defer further action to allow the Gener-

al Assembly of North Carolina an opportunity to exercise that
jurisdiction in an effort to comply with $ 2 in the respects

required. This is especially appropriate where, as here, the

General Assembly adopted the plan founcl violative of $ 2 be-

fore the enactment of the amended version of that statttte

which now applies, ancl where there has accordingly been no

previous legisiative opportunity to assess the amen6erl stat-

ute's subst*tirt new iequirements for affirmatively av,i6ing
racial vote dilution rathei than merely avoiding its intentional

imposition.

Having cleterminetl that the preseni plan violates a securetl

voting 
"Igt 

t, our obligation remains, howevet', to provide

afnrriative juclicial relief if needed to insure compliance by the

state with ils duty to construct districts that do not dilute the

voting strength of the plaintiff class in the ways here found,-or

in oth-er *ay.. see ln re: Illinois congressional Distticts Re-

apportiottrrient Cases, No. 81 C 1395, slip op--(N'D' Ill 11-8-1)'
nlitl ,rrnrrr. sub rto'rtt,., Ryan v. Otto,454 U'S' 1130 (t982);

R'ybicki v. State Board of Electiorts, No' 81 C 6030 (N' D' Ill'
Ja-"n. t2, 1982); Kirksey v. Boarrlof Superuisors, 554 F'2d 139

(5th Cir.), cert. d,enied, 434 U.S- 968 (1977)'

Recognizing the difficulties posed for the state by the immi-

nence of toaa primary elections, the court will convene at any

time, upon request of the state, to consicler ancl promptly to

rule upon any iedistricting plan that has been enacterl hv the



rrl

I-rGa

St:rlr, irr ;rrr t'llirrt to r:ornlrly lvith the rnlnrlates ot' li l and with
t.his rlt'r:isiorr. I";tilirrg lcgislative action having that elfect wiLh-
itr ;r t',.;lslrr;rlrlr, tirrre tttrrler the circrtrnstilllces, ttot later than
Nrrrr,lr lti. l:ls.l. tlre court u,ill dist:har.ge its obligation to de-
vt,lop :rnrI iurpL,nront iln appr'opriate r.ernerlial prlan.

r\tt ltlrlrt'olrrilrtt orrlt.r' u'ill issue.

67a

APPENDIX B

IN THE UNITT]D STATES DISTRICT C:OIIRT

fOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTII CAROLINT\

RALEIGH DIVISION

No. 8t-tt03'ClV'5

RUFUS EDMISTEN, Et AI.,

v.
Relpit Glt'tcles, et rrl.

Plainti.fl's,

De.l'e trtkttts.

NoTICE oF APPBAi;1,?#lLil'#EME couRr oF rHE

Notice is hereby given that Rufus L' Edmisten' et al'' de-

f.na"nir in the aboie-captioned action, hereby appeal to the
'5"i|,[n|; C*.t 

"r 
the Unitecl States from the final orrler ancl

i.J;;;li;-entered in this action on January 24' 1984'

This appeal is taken pursuant to 28 USC $ 1253'

Rurus L' EoutstsN, ATTuRNEY GENERAL

Je'ues Welt lce, JR.

Deputy AttorneY General for
Legal Affairs

AttorneY General's Office

N.C. DePartment of Justir:t:
' Post Office Box 629

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Telephone: (919) 733-3377

Taire SmileY 
-

Norma Harrell
Assistant AttorneY's General