Motion as Amicus Curiae for Divided Argument and to Participate in Oral Argument with Certificate of Service

Public Court Documents
November 30, 1998

Cite this item

Motion as Amicus Curiae for Divided Argument and to Participate in Oral Argument with Certificate of Service preview

9 pages

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Impact area
- Political Participation
Topic
- Redistricting
LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorneys
Organizations
Matter
- Cromartie v. Hunt (Daly v. Hunt)
Case
- Cromartie v. Hunt (Daly v. Hunt)
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 03b5fb73-e10e-f011-9989-002248226c06

Cite this item

Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Motion as Amicus Curiae for Divided Argument and to Participate in Oral Argument with Certificate of Service, 1998. 03b5fb73-e10e-f011-9989-002248226c06. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/0903488f-8f51-4bfe-b919-e962fbfcc9d9/motion-as-amicus-curiae-for-divided-argument-and-to-participate-in-oral-argument-with-certificate-of-service. Accessed July 31, 2025.

Copied!

    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER TERM, 1998 

  

No. 98-85 

JAMES B.- HUNT, Jr., ET AL., APPELLANTS 

iV. 

MARTIN CROMARTIE 

  

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

  

MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE 
FOR DIVIDED ARGUMENT AND TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT 

  

Pursuant to Rules 28.4 and 28.7 of the Rules of this Court, 

the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, respectfully 

moves for leave to participate in the oral argument in this case as 

amicus curiae supporting appellants and that the United States be 

allowed ten minutes of argument time. The state appellants have 

agreed to cede ten minutes of argument time to the United States. 

Granting this motion therefore would not require the Court to 

enlarge the overall time for argument. 

1. This case concerns the standards a federal court should 

apply when determining whether a state districting plan was drawn 

predominantly on the basis of race, in violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case arises 

 



  

2 

from a challenge to the constitutionality of a congressional 

redistricting plan that the State of North Carolina adopted after 

its previous plan was declared unconstitutional by this Court in 

Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996). Granting summary judgment to 

appellees, the district court held that the Twelfth District in the 

new plan was unconstitutional under the principles of Shaw v. Reno, 

509 U.S. 630 (1993). The court rejected the State's evidence that 

the predominant motive in the configuration of the Twelfth District 

was not race, but a desire to achieve a partisan balance in the 

State's congressional delegation. This case accordingly presents 

questions concerning the extent to which a correlation between a 

district's boundaries and racial demographics is sufficient to 

establish that the State's predominant motive in drawing the 

district was race. 

2. We believe that oral presentation of the views of the 

United States would be of material assistance to the Court. The 

United States enforces Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 

1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973, 1973c), and the United States therefore has 

an interest in ensuring that States have reasonable leeway to 

design districts that comply with both the Voting Rights Act and 

the Equal Protection Clause. The United States has participated in 

prior appeals in related litigation. The United States was a 

 



  

party-defendant in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), and filed a 

brief as agmicug curiae in Shaw Vv. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996).   

Respectfully submitted. 

SETH P. WAXMAN 

Solicitor General 
Counsel of Record 
  

  

NOVEMBER 1998 

 



IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

  

OCTOBER TERM, 1998 

HUNT, JAMES B. JR., ET AL. 

APPELLANTS 

VS. No. 98-0085 

o
t
 

N
e
 

n
e
”
 

N
e
 

n
e
 

S
e
 

S
a
”
 

S
N
 

S
e
 

S
r
 

CROMARTIE, MARTIN 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

It is hereby certified that all parties required to be 
served have been served copies of the MOTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE FOR DIVIDED ARGUMENT AND TO PARTICIPATE 

IN ORAL ARGUMENT by first class mail, postage prepaid, on this 
30th day of November 1998. 

See Attached Service List 

  

SETH P. WAXMAN 

Solicitor General 

Counsel of Record 
  

November 30, 1998 

 



  

98-0085 

HUNT, JAMES B. JR., (E) 

CROMARTIE, MARTIN ET AL. 

TODD A. COX 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL 

FUND, "INC. 

1444 I ST., N.W., 10TH FLOOR 

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20005 

ROBINSON O. EVERETT 

EVERETT & EVERETT 

P.O. BOX 586 

301 W. MAIN STREET 

SUITE 300 

DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27701 

ELAINE R. JONES 

DIRECTOR COUNSEL 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL 

FUND, INC. 

99 HUDSON ST., STE. 1600 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10013 

LAUGHLIN MCDONALD 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 

UNION FOUNDATION 

44 FORSYTH ST., STE. 202 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 

MARTIN B. MCGEE 

WILLIAMS, BOGER, GRADY, 

DAVIS & TUTTLE, P.A. 

P.O. BOX 810 

CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA 28026-0810 

BURT NEUBORNE 

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT 

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 

161 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

FIFTH FLOOR 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10013 

 



   
58-0085 

HUNT, JAMES B. JR., (E) 

CROMARTIE, MARTIN ET AL. 

STEVEN R. SHAPIRO 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION 

125 BROAD ST. 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004 

PAUL M. SMITH 

JENNER & BLOCK 

601 THIRTEENTH ST., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20005 

EDWIN M. SPEAS, JR. 

CHIEF DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

P.O. BOX 629 

114 EDENTON STREET 

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603 

ADAM STEIN 

FERGUSON, STEIN, WALLAS, 

ADKINS GRESHAM & SUMTER 

312 WEST FRANKLIN ST. 

CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516 

MATTHEW J. ZINN 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON 

1330. CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20036 

 



  

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER TERM, 1998 

HUNT, JAMES B. JR., ‘ET AL. 

APPELLANTS 

VS. No. 98-0085 

N
e
 

N
e
”
 

S
a
 

S
e
 

S
e
 

S
e
 

a
 

S
a
”
 
S
e
 

CROMARTIE, MARTIN 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

It is hereby certified that all parties required to be 
served have been served copies of the MOTION OF THE UNITED 
STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE FOR DIVIDED ARGUMENT AND TO PARTICIPATE 

IN ORAL ARGUMENT by first class mail, postage prepaid, on this 

30th day of November 1998. 

See Attached Service List 

  

SETH P. WAXMAN 

Solicitor General 

Counsel of Record 
  

November 30, 1998 

 



  

98-0085 

HUNT, JAMES B. JR., (E) 

CROMARTIE, MARTIN ET AL. 

TODD A. COX 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL 

FUND, INC. 

1444 I ST., N.W., 10TH FLOOR 

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20005 

v Atanty O. EVERETT 

EVERETT & EVERETT 

P.O. BOX 586 

301 W. MAIN STREET 

SUITE 300 

DURHAM, NORTH CAROLINA 27701 

ELAINE R. JONES 

DIRECTOR COUNSEL 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE & EDUCATIONAL 

FUND, INC, 

92 HUDSON ST., STE. 1600 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10013 

in MCDONALD 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 

UNION FOUNDATION 

44 FORSYTH ST., STE. 202 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 

MARTIN B. MCGEE 

WILLIAMS, BOGER, GRADY, 

DAVIS & TUTTLE, P.A. 

P.O." BOX '810 

CONCORD, NORTH CAROLINA 28026-0810 

/ 

WY A NEUBORNE 

BRENNAN CENTER FOR JUSTICE AT 

NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW 

161 AVENUE OF THE AMERICAS 

FIFTH FLOOR 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10013 

 



98-0085 

HUNT, JAMES B. JR., (E) 

CROMARTIE, MARTIN ET AL. 

STEVEN R. SHAPIRO 

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION 

FOUNDATION 

125 BROAD ST. 

NEW YORK, NEW YORK 10004 

Yi 

os 
PAUL M. SMITH 

JENNER & BLOCK 

601 THIRTEENTH ST., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20005 

o a M. SPEAS, JR. 

CHIEF DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

P.O. BOX 629 

114 EDENTON STREET 

RALEIGH, NORTH CAROLINA 27603 

ADAM STEIN 

FERGUSON, STEIN, WALLAS, 

ADKINS GRESHAM & SUMTER 

312 WEST FRANKLIN ST. 

CHAPEL HILL, NORTH CAROLINA 27516 

MATTHEW J. ZINN 

STEPTOE & JOHNSON 

1330 CONNECTICUT AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 20036

Copyright notice

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.

Motion as Amicus Curiae for Divided Argument and to Participate in Oral Argument with Certificate of Service

Impact area

Topic

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorneys

Organizations

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in