1. TERMINATION OF VOTING RIGHTS JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS
The Thomasville Experience

2. 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

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

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

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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

10. 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

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

12. 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

13. 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