Defendants' Response to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories

    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

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

ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al., 

Defendant-Intervenors. 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al., ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

) 
V. ) 

) 
JAMES B. HUNT, in his official capacity ) 
as Governor of the State of North Carolina, ) DEFENDANTS' RESPONSE 

et al., ) TO PLAINTIFFS’ FIRST SET 
State Defendants, ) OF INTERROGATORIES 

) 
and ) 

) 
) 
) 
)   

Defendants by and through counsel, hereby submit the following responsesto Plaintiffs’ First 
Set of Interrogatories pursuant to Rules 26 and 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. To the 
extent defendants are unable to provide complete responses in the time allowed for response, these 
answers will be supplemented in accordance with the rules of civil procedure. 

GENERAL OBJECTIONS 

Defendants respond to these interrogatories subject to the following general objections: 

1. Defendants object to any interrogatory that seeks mental i impressions, conclusions, 
opinions or legal theories of an attorney or other representative of the defendants concerning this 
litigation, or the work-product of the attorneys involved in this action on the defendants’ behalf, or 
information which is otherwise immune or protected from discovery pursuant to attorney-client 
privilege, the work-product privilege or doctrine, legislative immunity, or Rule 26 of the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure. 

2 Defendants object to the “Instructions” and “Definitions” contained in plaintiffs’ 
interrogatories to the extent that they contradict, expand, or are inconsistent with defendants’ 
obligations under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

3 Defendants object to the “Instructions” and “Definitions” contained in plaintiffs’ 
interrogatories which supplement the requests on the grounds that they (a) are overbroad and unduly 

 



  

burdensome; (b) are unreasonably cumulative or duplicative, or obtainable from some other source 
that 1s more convenient, or less burdensome; or (c) impose a burden that outweigh their likely 
benefit, taking into account the needs of the case and the importance of the proposed discovery in 
resolving the issues. Without waiving the foregoing objection, defendants are making a good faith 
effort to provide answers and relevant requested information which is reasonably available from key 
persons with knowledge about the subject areas inquired into by the interrogatories. 

A, Defendants object to the plaintiffs’ propounding of interrogatoriesto defendant state 
officials that have been sued only in their official capacities and have no personal knowledge of 
and/or did not participate in the enactment of the 1997 Congressional Plan which is the subject of 
this litigation. It is unreasonable and unduly burdensome to expect public officials sued only in their 
official capacities and having had no involvement in the redistricting process to have the necessary 
knowledge of facts, as well as an understanding of complex legal congepls, with which to respond 
to plaintiffs’ interrogatories and to verify the answers as required by Rule 33(b) of the Federal Rules 
of Federal Procedure. Without waiving this objection, defendants are making a good faith effort to 
provide answers and relevant requested information from key persons with knowledge about the 
subject areas inquired into by the interrogatories. 

5 Defendants object to the number of interrogatories. including subparts, served in this 
action by plaintiffs which number at least seventy. Although plaintiffs have deleted a total of eight 
interrogatories, the remaining requests exceed the limit of fifty established by the Court. Without 
waiving this objection, defendants are making a good faith effort to provide answers and relevant 
information from key persons with knowledge about the subject areas inquired into by the 
interrogatories, except where the requests are otherwise objectionable. 

INTERROGATORIES 

F, If you claim that the First Congressional District in the 1992 Plan was not drawn in 
violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, please state the grounds for 
that claim, including whether race predominated in its creation, what compelling government 
interests led to its creation, and how it was narrowly tailored to serve these interests? 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory as irrelevant, duplicative, unduly 
burdensome, and as not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. 
Defendants also object to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks either legal conclusions or information 
protected by attorney work-product privilege. Notwithstanding and without waiving these 
objections, defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: This case is a challenge to Districts 1 and 12 in the 1997 Plan, and the 
constitutionality of District 1 in the 1992 Plan is not only not at issue in this case, but has no legal 
relevance. Furthermore, defendants make no claim with respect to the constitutionality of the 
District. District 1 in the 1997 Plan is dramatically different from District 1 in the 1992 Plan, and, 

 



  

to the extent District 1 might have been vulnerable to attack under Shaw v. Reno and its progeny, any 
potential defects have been addressed. 

2. If the Court should find that race predominated in the creation of the 1st District in 
the 1997 plan and that therefore the 1st District is subject to strict scrutiny, list all compelling state 
interests you contend that the state of North Carolina has which led to the configuration of the 1st 
District in the 1997 plan and explain how the 1st District of the 1997 plan is narrowly tailored to 
serve each such interest. 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks legal conclusions or 
information protected by attorney work-product privilege. Notwithstanding and without waiving 
these objections, defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: See Defendants’ Answer to Amended Complaint. Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Defenses. 
Race did not predominate in the drawing of District 1, but it is narrowly tailored because it 
encompasses generally the northeasterninner coastal counties and region of the state. Those sections 
have a geographically compact and cohesive concentration of African-Americans which has been 
impacted by the State’s past history of race discrimination. They formed the old Black Second, are 
covered jurisdictions under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, have been subject to legal activity based 
on § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and show evidence of statistically significant racially polarized 
voting. See also Defendant-Intervenors response to Interrogatory No. 2. 

3 If the Court should find that race predominated in the creation of the 12th District in 
the 1997 plan and that therefore the 12th District is subject to strict scrutiny, list all compelling state 
interests you contend that the state of North Carolina has which led to the configuration of the 12th 
District in the 1997 plan and explain how the 12th District of the 1997 plan is narrowly tailored to 
serve each such interest? 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks legal conclusions or 
information protected by attorney work-product privilege. Notwithstanding and without waiving 
these objections, defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: See Defendants’ Answer to Amended Complaint, Fifth, Sixth and Seventh Defenses. 
Race did not predominate in the drawing of District 12. However, it is narrowly tailored because 
it was drawn based on partisan considerationsand is not a majority-minoritydistrict. In addition the 
district encompasses: a geographically compact and cohesive concentration of urban Piedmont 
Crescent African-Americansimpacted by the State’s past history of discrimination; the § 5 covered 
jurisdiction of Guilford County; counties where there has been legal activity based on § 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act; and counties where there is statistically significant racially polarized voting. See 
also Defendant-Intervenors’ response to Interrogatory No. 3. 

 



  

4. [dentify any and all witnesses, sources, and documents which you contend support 
the position that the African-Americanpopulation in northeastern North Carolina is sufficiently large 
and -geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member North Carolina 
Congressional district? 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks either legal conclusions 
or information protected by attorney work-product privilege. Defendants also object on the grounds 
that providing all maps, data. information, and sources of information as requested is not only 
duplicative, unreasonableand unduly burdensome, but is justas conveniently obtainable by plaintiffs 
who have been provided full access to the General Assembly ’s redistricting computer system and 
data base, the 1991, 1992 and 1997 Section 5 submissions, as well as having available the entire 

~ evidentiary record in Shaw v. Hunt. In addition, plaintiffs have had an opportunity to depose the key 
persons involved in the drafting of the 1997 Plan. See also the affidavits submitted by defendants 
in the summary judgment and preliminary injunction proceedings in this case. Notwithstanding and 
without waiving these objections, defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: Numerous maps have been prepared from 1991 through 1997 which support or 
illustrate that the African-American population in northeastern North Carolina is sufficiently large 
and geographically compact to constitute a majority of the total population in a single member 
congressional district, including the 1991 Plan. Examples relied on or known by Senator Roy 
Cooper, Representative Edwin McMahan, Gerry Cohen or Linwood Jones were provided at their 
depositions and include deposition exhibits 5, 6 (and its predecessor plans), 7 (the enacted 1997 
Plan), 32,33, 34, 35, 36, 37 38. 39, 40 and 41 (and its predecessor plans), as well as Everett's Bane 
I, 2 and 3 (and other contest maps). See also response to Interrogatory No. 6. These four 
individuals are the defendants’ primary witnesses on this matter. 

5. Identify every redistricting map or plan you are aware of which illustrates the 
presence of an African-Americanpopulation in northeastern North Carolina that is sufficiently large 
and geographically compact to constitute a majority of the total population in a single member 
Congressional District. 

OBJECTION: See objection to Interrogatory No. 4. 

RESPONSE: See response to Interrogatory No. 4. 

6. Identify every redistricting map or plan you are aware of which illustrates the 
presence of an African-Americanpopulation in northeastern North Carolina that is sufficiently large 
and geographically compact to constitute a majority of the voting age populationin a single member 
Congressional District. 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks either legal conclusions 
or information protected by attorney work-product privilege. Defendantsalso object on the grounds 
that providing all maps, data, information, and sources of information as requested 1s not only 

4 

 



duplicative, unreasonableand unduly burdensome, but is justas conveniently obtainable by plaintiffs 
who have been provided full access to the General Assembly’s redistricting computer system and 
data base, the 1991, 1992 and 1997 Section 5 submissions, as well as having available the entire 
evidentiary record in Shaw v. Hunt. Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, 
defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: A number of maps have been prepared from 1991 through 1997 which illustrate the 
presence of an African-American population in northeastern North Carolina that is sufficiently large 
and geographically compact to constitute a majority of the voting age population in a single member 
congressional district. Examples readily available include the 1991 Plan (and its predecessor plans), 
96 CONGRESS MARTIN 1.0, 2, and 4. 

7. Identify every redistricting map or plan you are aware of which supports or illustrates 
the presence elsewhere in North Carolina of an African-American population that is sufficiently 
large and geographically compact to constitute a majority of the voting age population in a single- 
member North Carolina Congressional district. 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds that the existence of other 
maps or plans “elsewhere” in North Carolina illustrating an African-American population that is 
sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority of the voting age population 
in a single member congressional district is not relevant to any of the issues to be tried in this 
proceeding. See also objection to Interrogatory 4. Notwithstanding and without waiving these 
objections, defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: See the 1991, 1992 and 1997 Section 5 submissions. 

8. Do you claim that the 1997 Plan’s 12% District was drawn so as to maximize the 
Democratic strength among voters included within the district boundaries? 

RESPONSE: The 1997 Plan was drawn with a goal to maintain a six-six partisan balance in the 
State’s congressional delegation and District 12 was drawn to be one of six Democratic districts 
based on partisan voting behavior. Although a major goal was not to waste piedmont Democrats in 
the sea of surrounding Republicans, defendants do not contend District 12 “maximized” Democratic 
voting strength to the greatest extent possible, since other considerations influenced the design of 
the district boundary. 

9, If you claim that race was not a predominant motive in the drawing of the 1997 plan’s 
12th District, identify any procedures, criteria, principles, tests, or safeguards, whether written or 
verbally agreed to, that were used by the North Carolina General Assembly which you claim tend 
to show that race was not a predominant factor in the drawing up of the 12th District of the 1997 
plan.  



  

RESPONSE: Defendants do claim that race was not a predominant motive in the drawing of 
District 12 in the 1997 Plan. The goals discussed and agreed upon by the respective Chairmen of 
the Senate and House redistricting committees are described in the affidavits of Senator Roy Cooper 
and Representative Edwin McMahan, submitted in this case in the summary judgment and 
preliminary injunction proceedings. See also the deposition testimony of Cooper and McMahan, and 
the 1997 Section 5 Submission. 

10. Ifyouclaim that race was not a predominantmotive in the drawing of the 1997 plan’s 
Ist District, identify any procedures, criteria, principles, tests, or safeguards, whether written or 
verbally agreed to, that were used by the North Carolina General Assembly which tend to show that 
race was not a predominant factor in the drawing up of the 1st District of the 1997 plan. 

RESPONSE: Defendants do claim that race was not a predominant motive, although it was an 
important consideration, in the drawing of District 1 in the 1997 Plan. The goals discussed and 
agreed upon by the respective Chairmen of the Senate and House redistricting committees are 
described in the affidavits of Senator Roy Cooper and Representative Edwin McMahan, submitted 
in this case in the summary judgment and preliminary injunction proceedings. See also the 
deposition testimony of Cooper and McMahan, and the 1997 Section 5 Submission. 

11. Identify the times and dates of any meetings that took place between any then- 
incumbent North Carolina congressmen and any members or employees of the North Carolina 
General Assembly significantly involved in the drafting process of the 1997 plan, or their respective 
agents or representatives, in which redistricting was discussed between June 28, 1993 and March 26. 
1997 as well as any documents or records produced during or following any such meeting which in 
any way discussed the subject matter or substantive comments made in such meeting. 

RESPONSE: Gerry Cohen talked with David Price (because they are personal acquaintances) 
several times during 1993 to 1996 on an informal basis when he ran into him somewhere or when 
he was visiting Washington, D.C. Linwood Jones met with Mike McIntyre at some point in the 
process (because they are personal acquaintances), but sent him to see Senator Cooper; he also met 
several times with Glenn Downs regarding Districts 1 and 3. Representative McMahan recalls 
telephone calls with Mike McIntyre, Sue Myrick, Walter Jones, Mel Watt, Cass Ballenger, and 
Walter Jones’ representatives, Mark and Karen Rotterman and Glenn Downs. The Rotterman’s 
came by his office once and Jack Hawke came by his office several times. Senator Cooper met with 
several congresspersons and talked at least by telephone with all of the incumbents at some time. 
See also, the deposition testimony of McMahan, Cooper, Cohen and Jones. 

12 Identify when, by whom, and under what circumstances lines in the 1997 plan were 
first proposed or thereafter modified for congressional district boundaries that in the 1997 plan split 
any of these counties, in the manner the county was ultimately split in the 1997 plan: Washington, 
Beaufort, Craven, Pitt, Wayne, Lenoir, Jones, Mecklenburg, Iredell, Rowan, Davidson, Forsyth, 
Person, Granville, Wilson and Guilford. 

 



  

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds it is overbroad and unduly 
burdensome in that Gerry Cohen and Linwood Jones, the 1997 Plan drafters, worked on about 200 
plans from 1993 through 1997, during which time the lines in different counties were split for a 
variety of reasons including, but not limited to, partisan considerations, incumbency protection, 
compactness considerations, geographic and aesthetic considerations, population deviation, and 
Section 2 considerations. Notwithstandingand without waiving these objections, defendants make 
the following response. 

RESPONSE: Neither Gerry Cohen nor Linwood Jones remembers the precise map that was used 
to create what eventually became 1997 Congressional Plan A (Cooper’s Senate plan) or House 97 
Congressional Plan A.1 (McMahan’s House plan). Some of the major line changes that can be 
recalled at this time include the following. 

With regard to the House, the first plan released by the House (Plan A.1) and several other 
plans that followed Plan A.1 and that were used in negotiations with the Senate did not divide Iredell 
County. District 12 went through Cabarrus instead of Iredell. By the time the House got to House 
Plan G (the one the House redistricting committee introduced as a committee bill), Cabarrus was 
back together and Iredell was split. Concerns raised by the Cabarrus delegation about dividing their 
county was one factor in switching back to Iredell. Iredell also was part of the core of 
Representative Watt's then existing district. Forsyth County was not originally divided in the House 
plans in part to reduce the number of divided counties and also as a potential bargaining chip with 
the Senate. The House fairly quickly moved to the Senate proposal regarding Forsyth because 
putting Forsyth Democrats into District 12 helped ensure District 5 was more Republican. 

In the plan the House Rules Committee prepared in 1996, Iredell is split between Districts 
8 and 10, and District 12 ran from Charlotte to Fayetteville, with both cities split. Guilford, 
Davidson and Rowan were not divided in that plan, and the plan was clearly favorable to Republican 
interests and detrimental to Democratic interests. 

In District 1, House Plan A.1 split Nash, Wilson, Pitt, Lenoir and Wayne Counties, and the 
district stretched nearly all the way to the Atlantic Ocean, with only Currituck County separating the 
district from the coast. House Plan B, which was the House’s second offer to the Senate, moved 
Camden County into District 3, left Chowan, Perquimans, Pasquotank and all of Washington in 
District 1, and left Nash County divided. House Plan B. 1, the third proposal to the Senate, made 
Nash County (Senator Cooper’s home county) whole by putting it in District 2, but still left Camden, 
Washington, Perquimans and Pasquotank in District 1. (These counties were all part of Senator 
Marc Basnight’s State Senate District 1.) House Plan C, the fourth offer to the Senate, moved 
Perquimans, Pasquotank and Chowan into District 3, and probably for the first time divided Craven 
and Jones Counties. There were then a series of House plans (Plans D through J), where most 
(though not all) of the changes related to Districts 2 and 4. It was not until nearly the end of the 
entire negotiation process that Washington County was divided at the Senate’s request. This 
essentially was the end of a slow retreat by the House from Senate District 1, so that its boundaries 

 



did not overlap congressional districts. In addition. Chowan and the other counties to the east were 
kept together because of economic ties. 

The progression of Districts 1 and 12 from the initial House Plan A.1 to the 1997 Plan, 
moved towards the Senate plan, with the movement being quicker in District 12. Looking at these 
negotiations broadly, the House along the way obtained some of the things it was most interested 
in such as placing Representative Jones’ residence in his district, keeping Harnett, Johnston, 
Cleveland and Wilkes Counties whole, placing particular precincts in Wake and Sampson County 
in District 2 so that the district, though Democratic leaning, would still be competitive, and 
configuring District 9 in a satisfactory manner. 

With regard to the Senate, near the end of the process, based on a legislator’s request, the 
southern part of Granville County was included in District 2. To make up this population shift 
between Districts 1 and 2, northern Person County was moved from District 4 to District 1 and some 
precincts in Wake County were moved from District 2 to District 4. 

Jones County went in and out of District 1 in various iterations of the Senates proposals. 
It was included wholly in District 1 so as to approximate the old Black Second, but was eventually 
divided so as to allow more precincts in Wayne County to be included in District 3. In addition, all 
of the city of Goldsboro was included in District 1, except an agreement was reached specifically 
to put one Goldsboro precinct (No. 4 containing the Air Force Base) into District 3. 

The division of Beaufort and Washington Counties was an attempt to approximate the 
western boundary of Senate District 1, and in fact, in each county there is just one precinct (or 
township) different between the Senate District 1 and Congressional District 3 boundaries, most 
likely for reasons of population balance. In Beaufort County, Washington Township and all of the 
county south of the river are excluded from both Congressional District 3 and Senate District 1, and 
the only difference in boundaries is one township north of the river. In Washington County, the 
congressional and senate district boundaries also are identical, with the exception of one precinct. 

There were numerous iterations of District 12, with the Senate ultimately looking to create 
an urban piedmont district which included portions of Guilford, F orsyth and Mecklenburg Counties. 
Once the House -- which originally included only Mecklenburg and Guilford Counties -- agreed to 
include all three urban areas, decisions as to which precincts to put into the district were based on 
Democratic voter performance, shape and population balance (one person, one vote). Adding or 
removing a precinct in one area meant comparable modifications in another area, nearby or on the 
other side or other end of the district, which could create undesirable effects in the adjoining 
districts. The most desirable precincts in terms of Democratic vote could not always be included in 
the district because the population would not balance out. Thus, the symbiotic relationship between 
the lines in the three urban counties resulted in many line changes. In addition, municipality lines 
and major geographical features were utilized in several places. For instance, the eastern boundary 
of District 12 in Guilford County generally follow the Greensboro city limit line (as denoted in the 
General Assembly ’s redistricting computer data base). Similarly, much of the eastern boundary of 

8  



District 12 in Forsyth County follows the Winston-Salem city limit line. In Greensboro, straight 
lines were drawn along the district's western edge by following precincts along Elm Street, Lee 
Street, and High Point Road. Similarly in Mecklenburg County, a portion of District 12 follows the 
precincts along South Boulevard. Additionally, several Democratic leaning districts in west 
Winston-Salem were left in District 5 so as to provide more home town advantage to Congressman 
Burr. 

See also response to Interrogatory No. 32. 

13. Identify and describe the nature, extent, and use of any and all racial data, 
demographic data, voter registration data, election contests results, or other statistical data used or 
evaluated by any member or employee of the North Carolina General Assembly significantly 
involved in the drawing up of the 1997 plan but not reproduced in the 1997 plan Voting Rights Act 
Section 5 submission. 

RESPONSE: The only data not contained in the General Assembly’s redistricting computer data 
base considered in the House were (1) some more current registration and elections data from 1996 
put together on a spreadsheet for Districts 2 and 4 for purposes of gauging the Democratic and 
Republican strength in the districts; and (2) some updated population data for District 1 showing the 
actual African-American population in District 1 was greater than the 1990 Census data. The only 
additional data considered in the Senate were some analyses provided to Senator Cooper by NCEC 
regarding the Democratic voting strength of various plans considered during negotiations with the 
House. 

14. What relative weight did the General Assembly give to each of the measures of 
Democratic/Republican strength or support known to it prior to drawing the plan, in determining 
which precincts to include in each redrawn district? 

RESPONSE: Inthe House, all three electionsin the General Assembly ’sredistrictingcomputerdata 
base were used in looking at various districts. Generally, total figures were looked at and not much 
precinct by precinct analysis was done, except perhaps in Districts 2 and 4 at the very end of the 
process. Representative McMahan looked at registration data, but he assumed Republican strength 
was much greater than actual registration. It is not possible to reconstruct the relative weights given 
to the three election results in the data base during the redistricting process. In District 12, the House 
relied on the Senate to draw District 12 as a strong Democratic district, because it would benefit the 
Republican districts around District 12. - Similarly, the House agreed to place Forsyth County 
democrats into District 12 because it helped ensure District 5 was more Republican. 

In the Senate, no weight was given to party registration data. Equal weight probably was 
given to the Rand/Gardner and Lewis/Smith elections for pure partisan issues. Weight was given 
to the Helms/Gantt election when examining or analyzing racial block voting patterns for Section 
2 purposes, particularly in eastern North Carolina, and in arguing for Section 5 preclearance. NCEC 
data that was considered by Senator Cooper included a category for “Democratic Performance” 

9  



  

which was an analyses of data including elections more recent than the elections in the General 
Assembly’s redistricting computer data base. 

15. Prior to adoption of the 1997 plan, was any analysis performed of any other voter 
registration data by race as to any congressional district being drawn other than data which was used 
in the Legislative Services Office, Information Services Division computer program for the 1992 
Plan, and if so, identify the source and date of this voter registration data? 

RESPONSE: The National Committee for an Effective Congress provided Senator Cooper with 
some analysis at various times of plans and modifications being considered by the Senate, including 
estimated registration data. 

16. Identify and produce any computer program used by any member or employee of the 
North Carolina General Assembly si gnificantly involved in the drawing up of the 1997 plan to assist 
that person in the drawing up or evaluation of any redistricting map, whether publicly released or 
not (other than the Legislative Services Office, Information Services Division program referred to 
in the VRA Section 5 Submission). 

RESPONSE: Gerry Cohen, Linwood Jones, Senator Cooper and Representative McMahan did not 
use any computer program other than the General Assembly's redistricting computer program to 
draw up or evaluate any redistricting map. Senator Cooper was provided copies of some analyses 
of redistricting plans performed on a computer program in the possession of NCEC. 

17. List all plans, whether released publicly or not. that were generated by any member 
or employee of the North Carolina General Assembly who was significantly involved in drawing up 
the 1997 plan as well as the location of the computers and terminals where the plans were generated. 

RESPONSE: A log of the plans generated by Gerry Cohen and Linwood Jones from 6/28/93 
through 3/26/97 is attached. See also deposition exhibit 15. 

18. Listand produce all official listings or records of race of candidates and office holders 
for the last 10 years for political jurisdictions (including county, city, school board, or General 
Assembly positions) which include any part of the 26 counties included in whole or in part in the 
1st or 12th Districts. 

RESPONSE: The notice of candidacy form used in North Carolina does not request information 
on race so that the North Carolina Board of Elections and the local county boards do not record the 
race of candidates or office holders at the state or local level. The official listing of statewide office 
holders is “The North Carolina Manual,” which is published biannually by the Secretary of State’s 
office and includes pictures of legislators, council of state members, and appellate court judges. The 
manual does not record the race of individual office holders, but does summarize the number of 
minorities elected to the State Senate and State House without identification by name. 

10 

 



  

19. List the names of all black elected officials in all twenty-six counties in the 1997 Plan 
Ist and 12th Districts who were elected during the 1988 to 1996 elections, including elections to 
county, city, school board, or General Assembly positions, together with the black voting age 
population for the jurisdiction from which they were elected. 

RESPONSE: See response to Interrogatory No. 18. 

20. List and produce any additional data added to the Legislative Services Office, 
Information Service Division's computer system after the 1991-1992 redistricting and before the 
1997 plan was adopted, as well as any data removed from said computer system since the 1991 
redistricting and note the time of its removal. 

RESPONSE: None. 

21. Before the adoption of the 1997 plan, what information from the NCEC or National 
Committee for an Effective Congress was made available to any member or employee of the North 
Carolina General Assembly significantly involved in the drafting of the plan? From whom and to 
whom? 

RESPONSE: NCEC provided Senator Cooper with some analyses at various times of plans and 
modifications being considered by the Senate regarding Democratic voting strength based upon 
election data more current than the elections contained on the General Assembly’s redistricting 
computer system. 

22. Before the adoption of the 1997 plan, what information from either of the major 
national political parties or their affiliates was made available to any members or employees of the 
North Carolina General Assembly significantly involved in the drafting of the plan? From whom 
and to whom? 

RESPONSE: No information from either of the major national parties was made available to 
Senator Cooper, Representative McMahan, Gerry Cohen or Linwood Jones. 

23. Listand describe all partial or complete North Carolina Congressional redistricting 
plans that were drawn up between June 28, 1993 and March 27, 1997 by any member or employee 
of the North Carolina General Assembly significantly involved in the drafting of the 1997 plan that 
are not mentioned or described in the Voting Rights Act Submission for the 1997 plan. 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds it is duplicative, overbroad 
and unduly burdensome as there are hundreds of plans listed on the General Assembly redistricting 
computer system, and over 200 plans created under Gerry Cohen’s and Linwood Jones’ names. The 
plans and their statistical data speak for themselves and are just as conveniently obtainable by 
plaintiffs who have been provided full access to the General Assembly’s redistricting facilities. 
Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, defendants make the following response. 

11 

 



  

RESPONSE: See response to Interrogatory No. 17. 

24. What present (August, 1999) precincts will -be split between two or more 

congressional districts if the 1997 plan is used in the 2000 cycle of elections? How many registered 

voters are on each side of each split within each such precinct? 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds it is unreasonable and unduly 

burdensome. The North Carolina State Board of Elections does not itself maintain precinct. 

boundary records and the burden of collecting this information from 100 county boards of election 

outweighs its likely benefit, especially since it is not information known to the General Assembly 

at the time the 1997 Plan was enacted. Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, 

defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: There probably have been hundreds of precinct changes since the data base for the 

General Assembly’s computer redistricting system was established in 1991. Many changes were 

made or are in the process of being made as part of the Redistricting Data Program for Census 2000. 

However, many of the changes made over the decade and being made for census purposes simply 

involve subdividing precincts for population purposes and are expected in most cases not to result 

in splitting a precinct between congressional districts. 

25. What percentage of African-American persons who were within the boundaries of 

the 1992 Plan Congressional Districts 1 and 12 are within the boundaries of the 1997 Plan 

Congressional Districts 1 and 12 respectively? 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs have deleted this interrogatory. 

26. What percentage of white persons who were within the boundaries of the 1992 Plan 

Congressional Districts 1 and 12 are within the boundaries of the 1997 Plan Congressional Districts 

1 and 12 respectively? 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs have deleted this interrogatory. 

27. What percentage of African-American persons who are within the boundaries of the 

1997 Plan Congressional Districts 1 and 12 were within the boundaries of the 1992 Plan 

Congressional Districts 1 and 12 respectively? 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory on the grounds it is unduly burdensome and 

can be computed as conveniently by plaintiffs from the data made available to plaintiffs since they 

have been provided full access to the General Assembly’s redistricting computer data base. 

RESPONSE: See deposition exhibit 68. 

12 

 



28. What percentage of white persons who are within the boundaries of the 1997 Plan 
Congressional Districts 1 and 12 were within the boundaries of the 1992 Plan Congressional 
Districts 1 and 12 respectively? : 

  

OBJECTION: See objection to Interrogatory No. 27. 

29. Identify and describe all facts relied upon by the defendants in support of the 
following defenses set out in their Answer. Include among your response the factual support for the 
following specific allegations made in the Answer: 

A. The Third Defense, that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief under the 
Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendment. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs have deleted this interrogatoryv. 

B. The Fifth Defense, that the State has a compelling interest in complying with § 
5 of the Voting Rights Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c. 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks legal conclusions 
or information protected by attorney work-product privilege. Notwithstanding and without 
waiving these objections, defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: Because 60 of North Carolina’s 100 counties are covered jurisdictions under 
§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act, the burden is on the State to redistrict its congressional districts 
in a manner that does not have the purpose or have the effect of denying or abridging the 
right of African-Americans in North Carolina to vote. Establishing a redistricting process 
free of discriminatory purpose and effect includes engaging in an open process in which 
African-Americans have the opportunity to participate and which is responsive to their 
concerns. See the 1997 Section 5 Submission for the facts and information relied on by the 
State to carry its preclearance burden under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

C. The Seventh Defense, that the State has a compelling interest in eradicating the 
effects of past racial discrimination. 

OBJECTIONS: Defendants object to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks legal conclusions 
or information protected by attorney work-product privilege. Notwithstanding and without 
waiving these objections, defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: See 1997 Section 5 Submission; Gingles v. Thornburg, 590 F. Supp. 345 
(E.D.N.C. 1984); Shaw v. Hunt, 861 F. Supp. 408 (E.D.N.C. 1994); the trial record in Shaw 
v. Hunt, including defendants’ and defendant-intervenors’trial exhibits, witness statements. 
and expert reports; trial transcripts of defendant and defendant-intervenors’ witnesses; 
stipulations and proposed findings of fact submitted by defendants and defendant- 

13 

 



  

intervenors; the pleadings in this litigation, including the affidavits filed by defendants: and 
the expert reports served on plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil 
Procedure. : 

D. The Eighth Defense, that James B. Hunt. Dennis Wicker, Harold Brubaker and 
Elaine Marshall, sued in their official capacities, are not proper defendants to this action. 

RESPONSE: Plaintiffs have deleted this interrogatory. 

E. The Ninth Defense, that plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief on the 
grounds their claims are barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks legal conclusions 
or information protected by attorney work-product privilege. Notwithstanding and without 
waiving these objections, defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: See plaintiffs deposition transcripts. 

30. What, if any, post-1990 census data do you intend to rely upon in order to establish 
the existence of the Gingles preconditions as to District 1? 

RESPONSE: There are no “post-1990 census data” although that data included a post 1990 release 
of socio-economic data; however the General Assembly did have available some population 
projections which are referenced in the 1997 Section 5 Submission. See 97C-27N and Attachment 
97C-28A. 

31. List any and all persons who provided advice to the North Carolina General 
Assembly concerning the constitutional requirements to comply with the Equal Protection Clause 
in drawing up the 1997 plan as well as any documents authored by these persons in regard to 
complying with the Equal Protection Clause in drawing up the 1997 plan. 

OBJECTION: Defendants object to this interrogatory insofar as it seeks a list of documents, if they 
exist, which are protected by attorney-clientand work-product privilege. Defendants further object 
to the request as overbroad and the burden of compiling responses from 170 legislators, who are 
entitled to assert legislative immunity, outweighs its likely benefit taking into account the needs of 
the case and the lack of relevance of the requested information in resolving the issues in this case. 
Notwithstanding and without waiving these objections, defendants make the following response. 

RESPONSE: The primary person providing advice to the North Carolina General Assembly 
concerning constitutional and other legal issues relating to the drawing of the 1997 Plan was 
Edwin M. Speas, Jr., Chief Deputy Attorney General, and to a lesser extent Tiare B. Smiley, Special 
Deputy Attorney General. Advice was also provided, to a minor extent, by committee counsel Gerry 
Cohen and Linwood Jones. In addition, legislators and other persons spoke at the public hearing 

14 

 



(including plaintiffs’ counsel Robinson O. Everett), at committee hearings and during the House and 
Senate floor debates, offering their opinions on legal and policy issues relating to the drawing of the 
1997 Plan. See 1997 Section 5 Submission transcripts. It is not possible to identify every person 
who at one time or another spoke to Senator Cooper, Representative McMahan, Gerry Cohen, 
Linwood Jones or to the other 168 legislators offering their advice on the redistricting process. 

32. If you claim the 1997 plan was drawn with the specific purpose of protecting the 
incumbency of one or more of the existing officeholders elected in the districts of the 1992 
Congressional plan in the 1996 general election, including specifically Representative Eva Clayton 
and Representative Mel Watt, state the facts and basis of this claim. 

RESPONSE: Maintaining the six-six partisan balance of the state’s congressional delegation was 
the most important goal in drawing the 1997 Plan. Another important consideration was protecting 
all twelve incumbents. Senator Cooper at one time or another spoke to all incumbents, and 
Representative McMahan talked with several incumbents or their representatives. See response to 
interrogatory No. 11. Some of the particular efforts made to protect the incumbents included the 
following. Each incumbent was put in his or her own district (except Congresswoman Sue Myrick 
who, at the time, resided in the same neighborhood and census block as Congressman Mel Watt) and 
each district was designed to favor the political party of the incumbent. (Congresswoman Myrick’s 
residence is now in her district, although the General Assembly's redistricting computer data base 
does not reflect her current address or when she moved.) Congresswoman Myrick’s district was 
considered a favorable one for her since it included much of her home county of Mecklenburg, 
especially Republican areas. 

One aspect of protecting incumbents was preserving the territorial, constituent and partisan 
cores of each district. For Congressman Hefner, all of his home county of Cabarrus was included 
in his district. In addition, the House had initially looked at running District 12 from Charlotte to 
Fayetteville, which would have had a significant effect on Hefner’s and other Democratic districts. 
In deference to the Senate’s wishes and acknowledging the need to preserve Hefner's district, the 
House backed off its proposal. The House also accepted the Charlotte to Greensboro route not only 
to preserve a Democratic district for Mel Watt, but because going anywhere else would disrupt the 
Republican districts bordering District 12. Congressmen Burr and Ballenger were interested in 
having two counties switched between their districts (as best recalled, Davie and Yadkin) as the 1997 
Plan was being negotiated. CongresswomanMyrick was interested in several northern Mecklenburg 
precincts which were in her district in the 1992 Plan. (Having these precincts in District 12 had 
pushed District 12 through Cabarrus County.) Ultimately Cabarrus was not split, and Myrick only 
kept part of northern Mecklenburg. Splitting Charlotte Precinct 77 allowed Myrick to have heavily 
Republican east Mecklenburg in her district and avoided placing it in Hefner’s District 8. 

The original House plan did not include Forsyth County. The House, very soon after the 
release of its plan, agreed to include Forsyth Democrats in District 12, in part because it helped 
bolster the Republican strength of Congressman Burr's district. The other reason for agreeing to the 
change was because Winston-Salem was the only major Triad city missing from the very urban 

15  



  

District 12. In addition, three to five precincts that might be considered Democratic leaning in west 

Winston-Salem were included in Congressman Burr's district rather than in District 12 so as to 
provide a buffer between his home precinct and District 12 and to provide him more of a hometown 
advantage. This would be significant in a general election, and also in the event of a Republican 

primary. 

In the 1992 Plan, Congressman Jones’ residence was not in District 3. The original House 

plan put Jones’ residence in the District 3 and the Senate at some point agreed to this and reached 

into Pitt County to place all of his hometown Farmville into District 3. Jones and his representatives 
were not happy with the initial Senate plan for District 3, and additional changes were made to the 
plan to accommodate Jones. This meant making District 1 more Democratic and District 3 more 
Republican. A Jones representative kept close watch over District 3 in the negotiations. Early on 
additional precincts on the eastern side of Wayne County, a county where Jones ran well, and outside 
the city of Goldsboro were moved into District 3. The Air Force base part of Goldsboro was also 
moved to District 3. In another area, the Senate plan had put the Republican portions of New 

Hanover and Pender Counties into District 7 and the more Democratic portion of Wilmington into 
District 3. This raised concerns because it bolstered the Democratic vote in District 3. The initial 
House plan was exactly the opposite. putting the Republican area of New Hanover and Pender 
Counties in District 3, and Democratic Wilmington in District 7. Ultimately changes were made so 
that neither Pender nor New Hanover Counties were in District 3. As a result, Congressman Jones 
did not get the Republican areas of two counties he wanted included in his district, but he was also 
not forced to take the Democratic Wilmingtonarea. In terms of Congresswoman Clayton, her home 
county of Warren was included in District 1. One reason for not including Durham County in 
District 1 was the historic differences between the African-American communities in Durham and 
the northeast, and not having Durham in District 1 was thought to benefit Congresswoman Clayton, 
especially in a primary election. Consideration had to be given to racial block voting and Section 
2 considerations in drawing District 1 so that the incumbent would have a fair opportunity to be 
reelected. Another factor contributing to the placement of Durham in District 4 was to build a 
district politically favorable to Congressman Price. A large democratic portion of Wake County was 
included in District 2 to improve the Democratic base for Congressman Ethridge, which had 
weakened the Democratic base in District 4. Other accommodations which cannot be recalled in 
detail are reflected in the final plan. | 

33, What role did race play in the North Carolina General Assembly’s construction of 
Districts 1 and 12 in the 1997 plan? 

RESPONSE: Partisan voting patterns, especially Democratic voting strength drove the redistricting 
process in District 12. Although the summary report for each plan included racial percentages, there 
was never any intent to reach a particular racial percentage. In addition, although Representative 
McMahan was looking primarily at election and registration data, he would pass along the racial 
percentage to African-Americans in the House when he was trying to gauge their support for the 
plan in the House. The overriding concern was to create a Democratic district. See responses No. 
14 and 32. Race was important in drawing District 1, primarily because of Voting Rights Act 

16 

 



considerations, but was only one of several factors. The political negotiations over Districts 2, 3 and 

4, and to a lesser extent 7, all affected the political, racial and geographic features of District 1. 

  

This the 4th day of October, 1999. 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

td TL cindy 
  

Edwin 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 

17 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

  

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

to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories in the above captioned case upon all parties by depositing 

these documents in the United States mail, first class mail, postage prepaid addressed as follows: 

Robinson O. Everett 

Suite 300 First Union Natl. Bank Bldg. 

301 W. Main Street 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 

Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas. Adkins, 

Gresham & Sumter. P.A. 

Suite 2 

312 W. Franklin Street 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516 

Todd Cox 

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 

1444 I Street NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS 

This the 4th day of October, 1999. 

Sie 8 pn 
Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

  

18