Fax From Broderick to Cox RE: Amended Answer of Defendant-Intervenors

Correspondence
May 14, 1998

Fax From Broderick to Cox RE: Amended Answer of Defendant-Intervenors preview

8 pages

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Fax From Broderick to Cox RE: Amended Answer of Defendant-Intervenors, 1998. 50d17f3e-e90e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/041be895-3de3-41ee-939b-b0b89a4f7aa5/fax-from-broderick-to-cox-re-amended-answer-of-defendant-intervenors. Accessed October 05, 2025.

    Copied!

    P.B1/16 

LDF NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC, 
99 Hudson Street 

Suite 1600 
New York, NY 10013-2897 

(212) 219-1800 

Fax: (212) 226-7592 

  

MAY 14 '98 12:47 FR 0 LEGAL. DEF FUND 212 226 7592 TO LDF-DC 

  

FACSIMILE INFORMATION SHEET 

one Hay 1% [756 

TO: “todd (ox, £p. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

COMPANY: 

FAX #: 

FROM: I=SmE BRIDE ek 

SUBJECT: 
  

Number of pages to follow: ___ including cover. 

COMMENTS: Atoched pre He bl Documeshs Bde 
Anendel Quage of Def: Tteeris % Mewma, 

  
  

  

bo Suppod_Q blob iN Sedearena   

  

  

  

    

. Nuanonal d onmbutions are The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund. Ine. (LDF) is not part i fp Fapional Off 
weeluctiobe for LS, of the National Assosuation for the Advancement af Colored People : edi State 208 
"come tax prposes. INAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares ins Now py ho ies Muth Supe: commutment to equal rights. LIF hat had. since 1957, 3 separate (OL Zier 30 Anions CA 3085 

Fax: (212) 226-7592 Fax: (213) 624-0075 
Beard. program. surf, office and budge. 

 



  

MAY 14 '98 12:48 FR NAACP LEGAL DEF FUND 212 226 7592 TO LDF-DC P.O5-16 

AMENDED ANSWER OF DEFENDANT INTERVENORS 

Defendant intervenors Alfred Smallwood, David Moore, William M. Hodges, Robert L. 

Davis. Jr., Jan Valder, Barney Offerman, Virginia Newell, Charles Lambeth and George Simkins 

answer the titled and numbered allegations of the Complaint as follows: 

Preliminary Statement 
  

Plaintiffs’ preliminary statement is a summary description of the nature of their claims and 

need not be admitted or denied. To the extent an answer is required, the allegations are denied. 

The Parties 

1, Defendant intervenors do not have sufficient information upon which to form belief 

about the accuracy of the allegations of Paragraph 1. Those allegations are therefore dened. 

2. It is admitted that James B. Hunt, Jr. is the Governor of the State of North 

Carolina. sued in his official capacity. and that pursuant to Article III of the constitution of North 

Carolina the executive power of the State is vested in the Governor and it is his duty to take care 

that the laws are faithfully executed. It is further admitted that pursuant to N.C.Gen Stat. §163- 

194. the Governor shall issue a commission attesting to a person's election as 2 member of the 

United States House of Representatives upon the person's production of a certificate of his or her 

election from the Secretary of State. Any remaining allegations in Paragraph 2 are denied. 

3; It is admitted that Dennis Wicker is the Lieutenant Governor of the State of North 

Carolina, sued in his official capacity, and that pursuant to Articles IT and III of the Constitution 

of North Carolina, he is President of the Senate and performs such additional duties, including 

signing enacted legislation, as the General Assembly or the Governor may assign to him. Any 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 3 are denied. 

 



     



  

MAY 14 ’98 12:48 FR NAACP LEGAL DEF FUND 212 226 7592 TO LDF-DC P.06/16 

4. It is admitted that Harold Brubaker is the Speaker of the North Carolina House of 

Representatives, sued in his official capacity, and performs duties, including signing enacted 

legislation, assigned to him by the House of Representatives. Any remaining allegations of 

Paragraph 4 are denied. 

3. Paragraph 5 is admitted, 

6. Paragraph 6 is admitted. 

7 It is admitted that plaintiffs rely upon the constitutional and statutory provisions 

cited in Paragraph 7. Any reaming allegations are denied. 

8. The allegations of Paragraph 8 are admitted. 

9. It is admitted that venue exists in the Eastern District of North Carolina. The 

remaining allegations in Paragraph 9 are denied. 

Three-Judge District Court 

10 Itis admitted that the convocation of a three-judge district court is required to 

adjudicate this action as required by 28 U.S.C. §2284. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 10 

are denied. 

History of the Case 

11. Paragraph 11 is admitted upon information and belief. 

12. Paragraph 12 is admitted. 

13 Iris admitted that North Carolina became entitled to twelve representatives in 

Congress as a result of the 1990 Census, and that the General Assembly undertook to prepare a 

 



MAY 14 '98 14:29 FR NAACP LEGAL DEF FUND 212 226 7592 TO LDF-DC P.01-01 

  

redistricting plan that would contain twelve districts. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 13 

are denied. 

14. It is admitted that on July 9, 1991, the General Assembly enacted a congressional 

redistricting plan which included one majority African American district. All remaining allegations 

of Paragraph 14 are denied. 

15. It 1s admitted that the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice denied 

preclearance of the 1991 plan under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The remaining 

allegations in Paragraph 135 are denied. 

16. [t is admitted that on January 24, 1992, the General Assembly enacted a second 

congressional redistricting plan which included two majority African American districts. All 

remaining allegations of Paragraph 16 are denied. 

17. Paragraph 17 ts admitted. 

18. Paragraph 18 is a legal contention which does not require an answer. 

19. The allegations of Paragraph 19 constitute legal contentions. To the extent an 

answer required the courts’ opinions speak for themselves and any remaining allegations are 

denied. 

20. Paragraph 20 is admitted. 

21. It 1s admitted that subsequent proceedings were stayed in this action pending the 

outcome of the proceedings m the Shaw litigation, including possible legislative action by the 

General Assembly to enact a new congressional redistricting plan to cure the constitutional defect 

held to exist in the 1992 plan. Any remaining allegations of Paragraph 21 are denied. 

  
  

  

  

  
  

        

a2. Paragraph 22 is admitted. 
Post-it* Fax Note 7671 [Pete LTA 98 [olor] 

© odd Coe |" Emme Ryadesd 
4 Co./Dept, be Co. 

Phone # Phone # 

Fax # Fax #     
  

    

xk TOTAL PAGE. D1 kok 

 



MAY 14 '98 12:48 FR NAACP LEGAL DEF FUND 212 226 7592 TO LDF-DC P.a7/16 

  

23 It is admitted that as a result of the general elections conducted in November, 1996 

under the redistricting plan which in June. 1996 the Supreme Court had ruled unconstitutional, six 

Democrats and six Republicans were elected to Congress and continue to serve there at the 

present time. [t is admitted that Melvin Watt, and Eva Clayton are African American, registered 

Democrats, and members of Congress. The remaining allegations in Paragraph 25 are denied. 

24, Paragraph 24 is denied. 

25. Paragraph 25 is denied. 

26. Paragraph 26 is denied. 

27. Paragraph 27 is denied. 

28. Paragraph 28 is denied. 

29. Paragraph 29 is denied. 

CLAIM FOR RELIEF 

30. Defendant intervenors incorporate and reallege their responses to prior allegations. 

31. Paragraph 31 is denied. 

32. Paragraph 32 is denied. 

33 Paragraph 33 is denied. 

34. Paragraph 34 is dented. 

35. Paragraph 35 is dened. 

36. Paragraph 36 is denied. 

FIRST DEFENSE 

Plaintiffs Cromartie and Muse are barred from bringing this action by the doctrines of res 

judicata and collateral estoppel. 

 



  

MAY 14 '98 12:49 FR NAACP LEGAL DEF FUND 212 226 7592 TO LDF-DC P.038/16 

SECOND DEFENSE 

The 1997 Remedy Plan is not a racial gerrymander. 

THIRD DEFENSE 

Racial considerations did not predominate, and traditional districting principles were not 

subordinated in the construction or design of the 1997 Remedy Plan or in any of the districts in 

the Plan. 

FOURTH DEFENSE 

The state had a compelling interest in creating a majority African American district in the 

area of the State covered by the First District in order to comply with Section 2 of the Voting 

Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. §1973¢c. The African American population m that area of the 

State is sufficiently large and geographically compact to afford the opportunity of creating a 

majority African American district and is politically cohesive. The white population in that area 

votes sufficientlv as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the African American population's 

preferred candidate when elections are conducted in political units with a majority of white voting 

age residents. The 1st congressional district is narrowly tailored to serve that compelling interest, 

FIFTH DEFENSE 

The State had a compelling interest in creating a majority Aftican American district in the 

area of the State covered by the First District in order to comply with Section 3 of the Voting 

Rights Act, as amended, 42 U S.C. §1973¢, and that district is narrowly tailored to serve that 

mnterest. 

 



MAY 14 '98 12:49 FR NAACP LEGAL DEF FUND 212 226 7592 TO LDF-DC P.09/16 

  

SIXTH PEFENSE 

A majority African American district is required in the area of the State covered by the 

First District in order to remedy past discrimination against African American voters in 

congressional redistricting, voter registration. political participation, and elections. 

WHEREFORE, defendant intervenors respectfully pray that: 

1. This action be dismissed: 

2 Plaintiffs be taxed with the cost of this action; and 

3. Defendant intervenors have such other and further relief as the Court deems just 

and proper. 

This 25th day of November, 1997. 

    

// rorln fooler 
ADAM STEIN V 
ANITA S. HODGKISS 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham & 

Sumter, P.S. 
512 West Franklin Street 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 
(919) 933-5300 

ELAINE R. JONES 
DIRECTOR-COUNSEL 

NORMAN J. CHACHKIN 
JACQUELINE A. BERRIEN 
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, Suite 1600 
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

Attorneys for Applicants to Intervene as Defendants

Copyright notice

© NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc.

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.


Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.