Correspondence from Edmisten to Leonard; Answer to Second Supplement to Complaint

     

finds Hf Emil; Claudine:

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN @epmment Hf 3111511”
ATTORNEY GENERAL _ P. 0. BOX 629
RALEIGH
27602

March 26, 1982

Honorable J. Rich Leonard, Clerk
United States District Court
Eastern District

Federal Building _

Raleigh, North Carolina 27611

Re: Ralph Gingles, et al., V. Rufus Edmisten, et al.,
Civil No. 81-803-CIV-5
Alan V. Pugh, et al., V. James B. Hunt, Jr., etc., et al.,
Civil No. 81-1066-CIV—5 ’

Dear Mr. Leonard:

 

'Enclosed please find, for filing, four copies of
Answer to Second Supplement to Complaint.

Please mark one copy "Filed" and return the same to me in,
the enclosed, stamped envelope.

Thank you for your usual cooperation.
Very truly yours,

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

    

JWJR:ew

Enclosures

IN THE
FOR THE E

RALPH GINGLES, et a1
Plaintiffs

VS.

RUFUS EDMISTEN, etc.

I

Defendants.

The Complaint,

upon which relief ca

The Defendants
allegations containe
follows:

1. The allegat
effect that the Cour
Second Supplement to
that give the Court j

28 U.S.C. 51331 and

as supplemented,

31343 and 42 U.S.C.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

ASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

RALEIGH DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION NO. 81-803-CIV-5

ANSWER TO SECOND SUPPLEMENT TO
COMPLAINT

et al,

VVVVVVVVVV

FIRST DEFENSE

fails to state a claim

n be granted.

SECOND DEFENSE

in the above-captioned action answer the

i in the Second Supplement to Complaint as

ions contained in Paragraph 105, to the

t has jurisdiction over the claims in the

Complaint pursuant to the same statutes
urisdiction over the original Complaint,

§l973c, are admitted.

Defendants deny the remaining allegations of Paragraph 105.

2. The allegati

3. With respeci
following an objectic
pursuant to SS of the
repealed the October,
House of Representati
Laws of 1981 and the
lina Senate contained
With respect to those
which allege that the
the Session Laws of l

intended as a respons

gations are specifica

: to Paragraph 107,

ons contained in Paragraph 106 are admitted.
it is admitted that
n by the United States Department of Justice
Voting Rights Act, the General Assembly
1981 apportionment of the North Carolina
ves contained in Chapter 1130 of the Session
July, 1981 apportionment of the North Caro-
in Chapter 821 of the Session Laws of 1981.
allegations contained in Paragraph 107
repeal of Chapter 1130 and Chapter 821 of
981 was brought about by, or was in any way

e to, the filing of this action, those alle-

lly denied.

 

4. The allegations contained in Paragraph 108 are admitted.
5. The allegations contained in Paragraph 109 are denied.
6. The allegations contained in Paragraph 110 are denied.
7. The allegations contained in Paragraph 111 are admitted.
8. The allegations contained in Paragraph 112 are denied.
9. The allegations contained in Paragraph 113 are denied.
10. The allegations contained in Paragraph 114 are admitted.
11. The allegations contained in Paragraph 115 are denied.
12. The allegations contained in Paragraph 116 are denied.
13. The allegations contained in Paragraph 117 are admitted.
14. The allegations contained in Paragraph 118 are denied.
15. The allegations contained in Paragraph 119 are denied.
16. With respect to Paragraph 120, it is admitted that the
Plaintiffs' attempt to base a claim on §2 and S5 of the Voting

Rights Act of 1965
the extent that tA

differ from the re

17. The alleg
18. With resp
Plaintiffs' attemp

51983 to enforce t
clause of the Four
ment to the United
§l981. To the ext

graph 122 differ f

denied.
19. The alleg
20. The alleg
21. The alleg
22. The alleg
23. The alleg
24. The alleg
25. It is adm

States Department¢

Act, the North Car

as amended, 42 U.S.C. S1973 and §l973c. To

e allegations contained in Paragraph 120
sponse herein, those allegations are denied.
ations contained in Paragraph 121 are denied.

-ct to Paragraph 122, it is admitted that

t to found a claim for relief on 42 U.S.C.
he Thirteenth Amendment, the equal protection

teenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amend-

States Constitution and pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
ent that the allegations contained in Para-

rom the response herein, those allegations are

ations contained in Paragraph 123 are denied.

ations contained in Paragraph 124 are denied.

ations contained in Paragraph 125 are denied.

ations contained in Paragraph 126 are denied.

ations contained in Paragraph 127 are denied.

ations contained in Paragraph 128 are denied.

itted that following an objection by the United
3f Justice pursuant to S5 of the Voting Rights

Dlina General Assembly repealed Chapter 894 of

 

the Sessions Laws of 1981, which was the July, 1981 Apportion-

ment of North Carclina's Congressional districts. With respect

to the allegations

contained in Paragraph 129 which allege that

the repeal of Chapter 894 was brought about by, or was in any

way intended as a response to, the filing of this action, those

allegations are specifically denied.

26. The allegations
27. The allegations
28. The allegations
29. The allegations

30. The allegations

are denied.

contained in Paragraph 130 are denied.
contained in Paragraph 131 are admitted.
contained in Paragraph 132 are denied.
contained in Paragraph 133 are denied.

contained in your second Paragraph 133

31. It is admitted that Plaintiffs attempt to found their

claim for relief on the Fourteenth Amendment and to bring their

action pursuant to

42 U.S.C.

§l983 to enforce the Thirteenth

Amendment, the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amend-

ment, and the Fifteenth Amendment to the United States Constitu-

tion, 42 U.S.C. S1981, and §2 and §5 of the Voting Rights Act

of 1965, as amended,

tions contained in

response herein are denied.

42 U.S.C. S1973 and §l973c. All allega-

Paragraph 134 which are inconsistent with the

WHEREFORE, Defendants having fully answered each and every

allegation contained in Plaintiffs' Second Supplement to Complaint,

and having set forth their defenses in their earlier pleadings,

pray that this Court deny the relief requested and dismiss the

Complaint with prejudice.

Respectfully submitted this the élé; day of March, 1982.

 

RUFUS L. EDMISTEN
ATTORNEY GENERAL

Aég', A%/%é:/€%f///

Jav . WaIlace,“U /

D-onty Attorney eneral
for Legal Af airs

Attorney General's Office
Norflh Carolina Department

of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

    
 

 

Attorney for Defendants

Norma Harrell
Tiare Smiley
Assistant Attorneys General

John Lassiter
Associate Attorney General

Jerris Leonard

Kathleen Keenan

Jerris Leonard & Associates, P.C.
900 17th Street, N.W.

Suite 1020

Washington, D. C. 20006
Telephone: (202) 872-1095

.«°
b,‘

.5-

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing

Answer to Second Supplement to Complaint upon Plaintiffs' attorneys

by placing a copy of said Pleading in the United States Post Office,

postage prepaid, addressed to:

J. Levonne Chambers

Leslie Winner

Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, Wallas,
Adkins & Fuller, P.A.

951 South Independence Boulevard

Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

Jack Greenberg

James M. Nabrit, III
Napeoleon B. Williams, Jr.
10 Columbus Circle

New York, New York 10019

This the ézé' day of March, 1982.

 

   

_, /
Jam waééégeffigéégéff
/ /