North Carolina State Conference of the Naacp, Et
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF THE NAACP, ET. AL V. PATRICK LLOYD MCCRORY, ET AL. United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina Civ. No. 1:13-cv-658 Hon. Thomas D. Schroeder, Hon. Joi E. Peake Expert Report of James L. Leloudis II, Ph.D. April 11, 2014 JA1338 Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 117-8 Filed 05/19/14 Page 1 of 62 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS .................................................................................................. 2 II. Background and Qualifications .............................................................................................. 2 III. Materials reviewed ................................................................................................................. 3 IV. Disc uss io n .............................................................................................................................. 3 A. Race, Voting Rights, and Democracy ................................................................................. 4 B. Civil War to Post-Reconstruction and Impact of Sharecropping Economy........................ 5 C. Sharecropping and Economic Subjugation ......................................................................... 9 D. Fro m Fusion Politics to the Wilmington Riot and Jim Crow Economy ........................... 10 E. The Long Civil Rights Movement to 1980s Judicial Intervention .................................... 21 F. Gingles v. Edmisten and Judicial Intervention .................................................................. 29 G. Conservative Electoral Victory and House Bill 589: 2010 to Present .............................. 32 V. Conclusion............................................................................................................................ 34 JA1339 Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 117-8 Filed 05/19/14 Page 2 of 62 I. SUMMARY OF OPINIONS 1 My name is James L. Leloudis II. I have taught history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for 25 years, with a focus on North Carolina and the American South. I have published extensively on the history of the state and region, and my scholarship has won awards from the nation's leading professional associations in my field. I was retained by the NAACP Plaintiffs in this case to assess whether there is a history of racial discrimination in North Carolina, specifically with respect to voting practices. Based on my 37 years of researching, writing, and teaching in this field, and having reviewed published works by historians of race and politics in the American South, newspapers from the time period covered by this declaration, the public laws of North Carolina, archival sources for individuals and institutions, and reports from various federal and state agencies, it is my opinion that: • North Carolina has a long and cyclical history of struggle over minority voting rights, from the time of Reconstruction to the present day. • Throughout the period covered in this declaration, political campaigns have been characterized by racial appeals, both overt and subtle. • Over the last century and a half, North Carolina leaders have employed a variety of measures to limit the rights of minority citizens to register, to vote, and to participate in the democratic process. Those measures have included vigilante violence, a literacy test and poll tax, multi-member legislative districts, the prohibition of single- shot voting, and a host of other regulations regarding the preparation of ballots, procedures for challenging electors' right to register and to vote, and the monitoring of polling sites by election judges. • Historically, when minority voting rights have been constrained, North Carolina state government has been decidedly unresponsive to minority concerns and interests related to social and economic policy. That lack of responsiveness has perpetuated minority disadvantages in employment and education, further hindering the ability of minority populations to participate fully and freely in the political process. • House Bill 589 represents the latest chapter in the long struggle over minority voting rights in North Carolina, and in its origins and provisions recapitulates the history of earlier eras. Each of these opinions is explained and supported in detail below. II. BACKGROUND AND QUALIFICATIONS My name is James L. Leloudis II. I am employed as Professor of History at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I received a B.A. degree, with highest honors, from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (1977), an M.A. degree from Northwestern University (1979), and a Ph.D. degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 1 This report is based on information that is currently available for my review. Discovery in this matter is ongoing. Therefore, I reserve the right to update my report and opinions upon review of any additional documents or information previously unavailable to me. JA1340 Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 117-8 Filed 05/19/14 Page 3 of 62 (1989). My primary training was in the history of the United States, with a specialization in the history of race, politics, labor, and reform in the 19th- and 20th-century American South. For the past 25 years I have taught undergraduate and graduate courses in my area of specialization. I have published four books, nine articles, and numerous book reviews. I have also made more than 50 presentations to academic and lay audiences. My scholarship has won a number of prestigious awards, including the Louis Pelzer Prize for the best essay by a graduate student (1982, Organization for American Historians), the Philip Taft Labor History Award for the best book on the history of labor (1988, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University), the Merle Curti Award for the best book on American social history (1988, Organization of American Historians), the Albert J. Beveridge Award for the best book on the history of the United States, Latin America, or Canada (1988, American Historical Association), the Mayflower Cup for the best non-fiction work on North Carolina (1996, North Carolina Literary and Historical Association), and the North Caroliniana Society Award for the best work on North Carolina history (2010, North Caroliniana Society). In 1982, as a graduate student in history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, I conducted research that became part of the expert testimony provided by Professor Harry Watson in Gingles v. Edmisten.2 A detailed record of my professional qualifications is set forth in the attached curriculum vitae, which I prepared and know to be accurate. III. MATERIALS REVIEWED I have conducted qualitative research on the history of race, voting rights, and voter suppression in North Carolina, from the end of the Civil War to the present. Sources that I have consulted include: published works by historians of race and politics in the American South, newspapers from the time period covered by this declaration, the public laws of North Carolina, archival sources for individuals and institutions, court cases, and reports from var io us federal and state agencies. IV. DISCUSSION House Bill 589 is best understood in the context of three historical periods of political realignment in whic h African Americans' access to the franchise in North Carolina has been significantly redefined. This history of voting rights in the state reflects significant ebbs and flows in black citizens' ability to exercise fundamental constitutional rights. This expert report details that history, reviewing fierce conflict between highly successful efforts to expand access to voting rights to all citizens, especially African Americans, and campaigns to impose extreme restric tio ns o n Afr ica n Amer ica ns' access to the franchise. The declaration begins with the Civil War and Reconstruction era and concludes with the present day. This declaration additionally highlights the origins and persistent effects of race-based and 2 Gingles v. Edmisten, 590 F. Supp. 345 (1984). 3 JA1341 Case 1:13-cv-00660-TDS-JEP Document 117-8 Filed 05/19/14 Page 4 of 62 economic subjugation of blacks in North Carolina that continues to limit the opportunities of African Americans and other minorities to exercise voting rights. A. Race, Voting Rights, and Democracy In North Carolina—as in the nation—race and democratic rights have been, and remain, tightly intertwined. Part of slavery's legacy has been to position race and African Americans' rights as the pivot point in a long contest between Conservative and Progressive philosophies over one of the most fundamental privileges of citizenship: the right to vote. That contest has often played out in the context of party rivalry, but at its core it is driven by differences in ideology in interplay with racial prejudice and our national history of racial discrimination, rather than by partisanship. Traditionally, Conservatives argue that the state exists solely to defend property rights and preserve public order, and that its authority is limited by a contract with its subjects, who surrender individual liberty only so far as "their own welfare is increased and their property protected."3 By the same logic, those without property have no standing to make demands on government or the wealth of others. Historically, that principle has informed arguments for a limited franchise. Progressives, on the other hand, embrace a range of philosophical traditions, from Utilitarianism to Social Christianity,