Memo from Berrien and Cox to Jones et al. Re: North Carolina Congressional Redistricting Case Decision

Correspondence
April 3, 1998

Cite this item
Memo from Berrien and Cox to Jones et al. Re: North Carolina Congressional Redistricting Case Decision preview

1 page

Cite this item

  • Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Memo from Berrien and Cox to Jones et al. Re: North Carolina Congressional Redistricting Case Decision, 1998. 4210ad52-dc0e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/1bf9fdd3-52a6-4186-865f-98ffd9800def/memo-from-berrien-and-cox-to-jones-et-al-re-north-carolina-congressional-redistricting-case-decision. Accessed October 09, 2025.

    Copied!

    * ¢ 
‘EDF MEMORANDUM 
TO: Elaine Jones, Ted Shaw. Norman Chachkin and Victor Bolden 

  

Te . AL . FROM: Jackie Berries Todd Cox 

RE: North Carolina Congressional Redistricting Case Decision 
DATE: April 3, 1998 

      
      

As you may recall, after the Supreme Court's 1996 decision in Shaw v. Hunt invalidated North Carolina’s Twelfth Congressional District (represented by Congressman Me] Watt), the North Carolina Legislature adopted a new congressional Plan ("the 1997 plan"). A group of white voters, represented by the same attorney who filed the Shaw case. challenged the First and Twelfth congressional districts of the 1997 plan in Cromartie v. Hunt, Civil No. 4:96CV104- BO(3). The 1997 plan was drawn using data from past elections, with the goal of preserving a balance of six Republican and six Democratic congressional districts in the state. African ANS comprise a minority of the population of the revised Twelfth Congressional District, th the new Twelfth, and the First Congressional District of the plan (which remains a ty-Black district) are more geographically compact than thejr companion districts in the - congressional plan, 

   

    
   

  

Despite these revisions, a three-judge federal court in North Carolina entered an Order oday which invalidated the revised Twelfth Congressional District and y tl - otate from conducting elections under the 1997 redistricting plan. The ruling was entered owing a hearing in which the Court refused to rule on our pending intervention motion and 

      

    

  

did not allow us to participate in oral argument. Todd Cox, Anita Hodgkiss, and Adam Steip attended the hearing, 

A copy of the Order and Permanent Injunction, which was entered by Judges Boyle and Voorhees, is attached to this Memorandum. Circuit Judge Ervin dissented from the Order. Neither majority nor dissenting opinions have been issued by the Court yet. The majority lirected the parties to Propose a timetable for the legislature to enact a new plan and a revised election schedule by April 8, 1998. The State is planning to seek a stay of the decision (Chief Justice Rehnquist is the Circuit Justice). 

/attachment 

Ac BE. SE Hdd Ble Ol Zs) 882 F128 QWNd 30 HTT Jd dd 55:8 ri-Zia Td S28TT

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.