TERMINATION OF VOTING RIGHTS JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS The Thomasville Experience

Evolution of the Voting Rights Act Section 2 (42 USC Sec. 1973) At-large elections (e.g.,White v. Regester) Mobile v. Bolden 1982 amendments Thornburg v. Gingles

Thornburg v. Gingles Sufficiently large and geographically compact Politically cohesive White bloc voting prevents black success

The lawsuits begin Halifax and Bladen: Lose and pay lots of money Consent decrees About 90 cities, counties, school boards

Typical consent decree District elections Increase size of board No expiration date

Pay attention if you are from: Ahoskie Greensboro Roanoke Rapids Albemarle Greenville Robersonville Asheboro High Point Rocky Mount Benson Jacksonville Sanford Clinton Jamesville Siler City Dunn Laurinburg Smithfield Elizabeth City Lexington Statesville Enfield Mount Olive Williamston Goldsboro Reidsville Wilson

The Thomasville lawsuit Five-member council, all at-large, four from residency districts African Americans 32 percent of population No black candidate ever elected NAACP lawsuit 1986 Consent judgment March 1987

The new election method Seven council members Five from wards One majority African American ward Four-year staggered terms Two at large Two-year terms

Those meddling voters Petition under GS 160A-104 All seven at large, all two-year terms Referendum April 15, 2003 It passes

The city goofs Council starts to implement new election method Extended debate over whether to inform the court “I don’t see why the City Council of the City of Thomasville has to take this to Federal Court. Really, I don’t. It’s not our job.” The judge is not happy 2003 election enjoined Election in February 2004

Thomasville gets on right track Rule 60(b) motion NAACP opposes Bivariate ecological regression analysis

Thomasville wins Institutional reform consent decree Remedial At-large election results Lewis v. Alamance County, NC, 99 F3d 600 (4th Cir. 1996) Different election method

Lessons Voting rights court orders are not meant to be permanent “It is in the public interest to return control over elections to local authorities unless doing so would interfere with the voting rights of minority citizens . . . .” Motion to vacate judgment allowed when circumstances have changed or order has served purpose It’s the voting history, stupid