Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' First Request for Admissions

    we we 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WESTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4-96-CV-104-BO(3) 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., in his official ) 

capacity as Governor of the State of North ) 

Carolina, et al., ) DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE 

) TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST 
Defendants, ) REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS 

) 
and ) 

) 
ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al., ) 

) 
) Defendant-Intervenors. 

1, With respect to the 1st District, the North Carolina General Assembly in drawing up 
the 1997 Congressional redistricting plan adopted by the North Carolina Legislature as HB 586 
(hereafter referred to as the 1997 Plan) used as its starting point the basic core of the 1st District as 
created under the 1992 Congressional plan. 

RESPONSE: It is admitted that virtually every plan drawn by the State includes a district in the 
same general area in which District 1 is located or in the counties which comprised the old “Black 
Second” district. The “starting point” in drawing the 1997 Plan, however, was the creation of a plan 
that would cure the constitutional defects in the 1992 Plan without disturbing the existing six-six 
partisan split of the State’s congressional delegation, and that consistent with this “starting point,” 
the General Assembly endeavored to maintain some of the general geographic, constituent and 
partisan core of District 1 as constituted under the 1992 Plan. Except as admitted this request is 
denied. 

2. With respect to the 12th District, the North Carolina General Assembly in drawing 
up the 1997 Plan used as its starting point the basic core of the 12th District as created under the 
1992 Plan. 

 



  

we we 
RESPONSE: It is admitted that the “starting point” in drawing the 1997 Plan was the creation of 

a plan that would cure the constitutional defects in the 1992 Plan without disturbing the six-six 

partisan split of the State’s congressional delegation and that consistent with this “starting point,” 

the General Assembly endeavored to maintain some of the general geographic, constituent, partisan 

and urban core of District 12 as constituted under the 1992 Plan. Except as admitted this request is 

denied. 

3. The 1997 plan was an attempt by the North Carolina General Assembly to change the 

1992 Plan as little as possible, without violating the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause of 

the 14™ Amendment. 

RESPONSE: It is admitted that curing the constitutionaldefects in the 1992 Plan without disturbing 

the existing six-six partisan split in the State’s delegation was the primary goal in drawing the 1997 

Plan, and that preserving some of the general geographic, constituent and partisan core of each 

incumbent’s district in the 1992 Plan also was a considerationin drawing the 1997 Plan. Except as 

admitted this request is denied. 

4. While undertaking to draw the 1997 plan, the North Carolina General Assembly was 

informed by state officials that any district they drew that was not majority African American would 

not be subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection analysis of Shaw v. Reno and its successor 
cases. 

RESPONSE: Denied, except to the extent that the level of minority population in a district 

triggering strict scrutiny remains uncertain, an argument was made by Senator Roy Cooper to 

persuade the Senate to support the 1997 Plan in which he stated that it made eminent sense that 

because District 12 was not majority minority, the shape of the district would not trigger the test 

outlined in Shaw v. Reno; this argument was repeated by Representative Edwin McMahan in the 
House. 

5. When it drew the 1997 plan, the North Carolina General Assembly believed that any 

district they drew that was not majority African American would not be subject to strict scrutiny 

under the Equal Protection analysis of Shaw v. Reno and its successor cases. 

RESPONSE: Defendants are unable to admit or deny what the 170 members of the General 
Assembly believed individually or collectively with regard to the legal ramifications of the non- 
majority minority status of any district under Shaw v. Reno and its successor cases, especially since 

the extent to which the level of minority populationin a district is a factor in triggering strict scrutiny 

remains uncertain today. This request for admission therefore is denied. For one of several 

arguments made by Senator Roy Cooper and Representative Edwin McMahan in support of the 

constitutionality of the plan, see Response to Request No. 4. 

 



  

ww we 
6. The 1st District of the 1992 Congressional Redistricting Plan violated the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by Shaw v. Reno, Miller v. Johnson, 

Bush v. Vera, and Shaw v. Hunt. 

RESPONSE: It is admitted that the design and shape of District 1 in the 1992 Plan raised concerns 

that the district was vulnerable to constitutional attack under Shaw v. Reno and its successor cases. 

Except as admitted this request is denied. 

7. The North Carolina General Assembly drew up the 1st District of the 1997 plan with 

the purpose that it be a majority black district. 

RESPONSE: [tis admitted that one of several purposes influencing the drawing of District 1 in the 

1997 Plan as a majority African-Americandistrict was to address a strong basis in evidence that the 

plan otherwise would be vulnerable to an attack under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the 

northeastern and inner coastal plain region of the State and to respond to the concerns raised by 

African-Amercian legislators. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

3. In determining the existence of the first Gingles threshold factor, i.e., whether the 

minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single 

member district, the correct method is to determine whether African-Americans of voting age 

constitute a majority of citizens of voting age in that district, rather than to determine whether 

African-Americans constitutes a majority of the total population or a majority of the registered 

voters. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

9, In North Carolina, almost all inhabitants are citizens and so the voting age population 

of the African-American very closely approximates the citizen voting age population of African- 

Americans. 

RESPONSE: The census data contained in the data base of the General Assembly’s redistricting 

computer system does not contain information relating to inhabitants versus citizens (nor have 

plaintiffs defined these terms) so that information known or readily obtainable by the defendants 

upon reasonable inquiry is insufficient to enable the defendants to admit or deny this request, and 

this request therefore is denied. 

10. Between 1792 and 1992, Mecklenburg County was not in the same congressional 

district with either Forsyth or Guilford counties. 

RESPONSE: Admitted, although it is also admitted that in the State’s first several plans prior to 

1792, Mecklenburg, Forsyth and Guilford were in the same district. 

os 
J 

 



  

ww "- 
11. The African-American minority in North Carolina consists of 22% of the total 

population of the state and 20% of the voting age population. 

RESPONSE: [t is admitted, based on the 1990 Federal Census data contained in the General 
Assembly’s redistricting computer system data base, that African-Americans in North Carolina 
constitute 21.97% of the total population and 20.07% of the voting age population. 

12. Atleast 95% of the registered voters who are African-Americans in North Carolina 
are registered as Democrats. 

RESPONSE: There is no data contained in the General Assembly’s redistricting computer system 
data base -- and the North Carolina State Board of Elections maintains no data -- establishing the 
percentage of African-American voters in North Carolina who are registered as Democrats or vote 
as Democrats. It is admitted that it has been estimated that 95% of African- Americans are registered 
as Democrats in the urban counties (and a slightly higher percentage in rural counties). This 
estimation is based on calculations done in 1991 or 1992, in about 35 counties by cross-tabulating 
race and party affiliation data. Except as admitted, this request is denied. 

13 At least 95% of the registered African American voters in North Carolina regularly 
vote for Democratic candidates rather than for candidates of other parties. 

RESPONSE: See response to Request No. 12. It is further admitted, that African-American 
voters in North Carolina are politically cohesive and as a general rule are supportive of Democratic 
candidates. 

14. Mecklenburg County is principally served by the Charlotte Observer. Forsyth County 
by the Winston-Salem Journal, and Guilford County by the Greensboro News. 

RESPONSE: Admitted, except that the Greensboro newspaper is the Greensboro News & Record. 

15. Only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Mecklenburg County subscribe to or 
regularly read a newspaper published in Guilford or Forsyth counties. 

RESPONSE: It is admitted that only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Mecklenburg County 
subscribe to a newspaper published in Guilford or Forsyth counties. The information known or 
readily obtainable by the defendants upon reasonable inquiry is insufficient to enable the defendants 
to admit or deny the percentage of Mecklenburg County inhabitants that regularly read a newspaper 
published in Guilford or Forsyth Counties. 

16. Only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Guilford or Forsyth counties subscribe 
to or regularly read a newspaper published in Mecklenburg County. 

 



ww ww 
RESPONSE: [tis admitted that only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Guilford or Forsyth 

Counties subscribe to a newspaper published in Mecklenburg County. The information known or 

readily obtainable by the defendants upon reasonable inquiry is insufficient to enable the defendants 

to admit or deny the percentage of inhabitants of Guilford or Forsyth Counties that regularly read 

a newspaper published in Mecklenburg County. 

17. Mecklenburg County is in the Charlotte television market (DMA) while Forsyth and 

Guilford counties are in the Piedmont Triad market (DMA). 

RESPONSE: Admitted, except that the DMA which includes Forsyth and Guilford Counties is the 

Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point, N.C. DMA. 

18. Mecklenburg County is in the Charlotte Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, and 

Forsyth and Guilford are in the Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem Standard Metropolitan 
Statistical Area. 

RESPONSE: It is admitted that Mecklenburg County is in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Forsyth and Guilford Counties are in the Greensboro- 

Winston-Salem-High Point MSA. 

19. Only a small percentage of inhabitants in Mecklenburg County listen to radio stations 

licensed to communities in Guilford and Forysth Counties. 

RESPONSE: The information known or readily obtainable by the defendants upon reasonable 

inquiry is insufficient to enable the defendants to admit or deny this request, and this request 
therefore is denied. 

20. Only a small percentage of inhabitantsin Mecklenburg County listen to radio stations 

licensed to communities in Guilford and Forsyth Counties. 

RESPONSE: The information known or readily obtainable by the defendants upon reasonable 

inquiry is insufficient to enable the defendants to admit or deny this request, and this request 
therefore is denied. 

21. In the 1997 plan, Representative Susan Myrick's residence was included in the 12th 
District. 

RESPONSE: It is admitted that the General Assembly’s redistricting data base still shows 

Representative Myrick’s residence to be in District 12, but her current residence is actually in 

District 9 in the 1997 Plan.  



” - 
22 When drawing the First Districtin the 1997 plan, the General Assembly believed that 

the Civil Rights Division would not grant Section 5 preclearance if the newly drawn district did not 
have a sufficiently high percentage of African American voting strength. 

RESPONSE: Defendants are unable to admit or deny what the 170 members of the General 
Assembly believed individually or collectively with regard to the conditions under which the Civil 
Rights Division would or would not grant Section 5 preclearance. It is admitted that when drawing 
District | in the 1997 Plan, legislative leaders believed the Civil Rights Division likely would deny 
Section 5 preclearance if the General Assembly failed to create a majority-minority district in the 
general area comprising District 1. It is further admitted that there was concern that unless District 
1 was at least 50% African-American, the Civil Rights Division would receive significant opposition 
to Section 5 preclearance from North Carolina’s African-American community which more likely 
than not would result in a denial of Section 5 preclearance. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

23 When drawing the 12th District in the 1997 plan, the General Assembly believed that 
the Civil Rights Division would not grant Section 5 preclearance if the newly drawn district did not 
have a sufficiently high percentage of African-American voting strength. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

24. The 12th District of the 1998 plan is more geographically compact than the 12th 
District of the 1997 plan. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

25, The 12th District of the 1997 plan is not geographically compact. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

26. The 1st District of the 1997 plan is not geographically compact. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

2%. The 12th District of the 1992 plan was not geographically compact. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

28. The Ist District of the 1992 plan was not geographically compact. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

29, When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split 
Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Rowan, Iredell, Davidson, and Guilford counties. 

6  



  

w - 
RESPONSE: Admitted. 

30. When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split 

Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Rowan, Iredell, Davidson, and Guilford counties in a manner that conforms 

to racial lines. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

31. When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split Pitt, 

Craven, Wayne, Lenoir, Jones, Washington, Person, Granville, Wilson, and Beaufort counties. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

32. When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split Pitt, 

Craven, Wayne, Lenoir, Jones, Washington, Person, Granville, Wilson and Beaufort counties in a 

manner which conforms to racial lines. 

RESPONSE: It is admitted that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was one factor 

contributing to the splitting of counties when drawing District 1 in the 1997 Plan, but it is 

specifically denied that Wayne, Jones, Washington, Person, Granville or Beaufort were split for 

reasons related to race. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

33. When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the cities 

of Ayden, Battleboro, Fremont, Goldsboro, Greenville, Kinston, New Bern, Rocky Mount, 

Sharpsburg, Trent Woods, Washington, Whitakers, and Wilson. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

34. When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the cities 

of Ayden, Battleboro, Fremont, Goldsboro, Greenville, Kinston, New Bern, Rocky Mount, 

Sharpsburg, Trent Woods, Washington, Whitakers,and Wilson in a manner which conforms to racial 

lines. 

RESPONSE: It is admitted that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was one factor 

contributing to the splitting of cities when drawing District 1 in the 1997 Plan, but it is specifically 

denied that Battleboro, Fremont, Rocky Mount, Sharpsburg, Trent Woods, Washington or Whitakers 

were split for reasons related to race. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

33. When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the 

cities of Charlotte, Statesville, Thomasville, Salisbury, Winston-Salem, High Point, Greensboro, 

Cornelius, Davidson, Mooresville, Troutman, Lexington, and Spencer. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

 



  

w - 
36. When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the 

cities of Charlotte, Statesville, Thomasville, Salisbury, Winston-Salem, High Point, Greensboro, 

Cornelius, Davidson, Mooresville, Troutman, Lexington, and Spencer in a manner which conforms 

to racial lines. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

37. It is not possible to draw up a geographically compact Congressional District in 

northeastern North Carolina where the African-Americanpopulationis greater than 50% of the total 

population. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

38. It 1s not possible to draw up a geographically compact Congressional District in 

northeastern North Carolina where the African-Americanvoting age population is greater than 50% 

of the voting age population in that district. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

39, The Republican Party first allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in its primary in the 

May, 1988 primary election. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

40. The Democratic Party first allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in its primary in the 

May, 1996 election. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

41. The five largestentire cities or towns in Congressional District 1 are Roanoke Rapids, 

pop. 15,722, Henderson, pop. 15,361, Tarboro, pop. 10, 991, Oxford, pop. 7,750 and Roxboro, pop. 
7.219. 

RESPONSE: Admitted, based on the 1990 federal census contained in the General Assembly’s 

redistricting computer data base. 

42. The five largest entire cities or towns in Congressional District 3 are Jacksonville, 

pop. 29, 196, Elizabeth City, pop. 14, 237, Havelock, pop. 12, 359, Morehead City, pop. 6, 046, and 

Edenton, pop. 5, 164. 

RESPONSE: Admitted, based on the 1990 federal census contained in the General Assembly’s 

redistricting computer data base. 

 



  

w ww 
43. In the ten counties District 1 shares with other districts, every single precinct in which 

African-American residents constitute a majority of the total population is included within the 

boundaries of the 1st District. 

RESPONSE: Denied. 

44. In the ten counties District 1 shares with other districts, 22 of the 26 precincts in 

which black residents comprise between 40% and 50% of the total population are included within 
the 1st District. 

RESPONSE: Admitted. 

This the | day of Orpen , 1999. 

MICHAFL F. EASLEY -* 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

  

/ 

Jpn AC i 
win M. Speas, Jr. 

Chief Deputy Attorney General 

N.C. State Bar No. 4112 

   
  

Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

N. C. State Bar No. 7119 

Norma S. Harrell 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

N.C. State Bar No. 6654 

N.C. Department of Justice 

P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh, N.C. 27602 

(919) 716-6900 

 



wh - 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Response 

to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions in the above captioned case upon all parties by hand 

delivery or depositing these documents in the United States mail, first class mail, postage prepaid 

addressed as follows: 

Robinson O. Everett HAND-DELIVERY 

Suite 300 First Union Natl. Bank Bldg. 

301 W. Main Street 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 

Adam Stein U.S. MAIL 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, 

Gresham & Sumter, P.A. 

Suite 2 

312 W. Franklin Street 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516 

Todd Cox U.S. MAIL 

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 

1444 I Street NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS 

rare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

This the 4th day of October, 1999.