Gingles v. Edmisten and Pugh v. Hunt Stipulation

    at

IN THE I'NITED STATES DISTRTCT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
RALEIGH DIVISION

RALPH GINGLES, et d1.,
Plaintiffs

vs.

RUFUS EDMfSTEN, €t 81.,
Defendants

)

)
)
) No. 81-803-cIV-5
)
)
)

ALAN V. PUGH, €t d1., )

Plaintiffs )

)

vs. ) No. 81-1066-CrV-5
)

JAMES B. HUNT, JR., etc., €t a1.', )

Defendants )

STIPUI,ATION

The parties in the above-entitled actions, by and through

their respective attorneys, .do hereby stipulate and agree as follows:

(I) By letter of 30 November 1981, the Office of the

United States Attorney General i-nterposed objection to tr''o proposed

amendments to the Consti-tution of North Carolina, Article II,

Sections 3(3) and 5(3) (Attachment A);

(2\ By letter of 7 December 1981, the Office of the United

States Attorney General advised the State that it would not pre-clear

Chapter 894 (S.e. 87, 1981) or Chapter 821 (S.9. 313, L981), North

Carolina's reapportionment plans for the Sltate Senate and the United

States Congress (Attachment B);

(3) By letter of 20 January L982, the Office of the

United States Attorney General advised the State that it would not

pre-clear Chapter 1130 (tt.s. L428, L981), North Carolinars reaPPortion-

ment plan for the State House of Representatives (Attachment C);

(4) On 9 February 1982, the Dlorth Carolina General

Assembly convened for the purpose of enacting apportionment plans

for the State House of Representatives, State Senate, and United

States Congress;



t

(5) The General Assernbly did in fact adopt three ner+

apportionment plans with the ratification of H.B. 1, S.B. l, and

S. B. 2 (Attachments D-P) ;

(6) In addition to enacting its reapportionment plans

for the State Senate, State House of Representatives and United

States Congress, the General Assembly enacted H.B. 3, orovicling

alternative dates for North Carolina's filing period and primaries,

as more specifically indicated in Attachment G.

17) Pursuant to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of
1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c, North Carolina's three new apportionment

plans must now be submitted to the United States Attorney General

for pre-clearance;

(8) The parties hereto stipulate that they ean complete

discovery in the actions pending before this Court by the 30th day

following the United States Attorney General's decj-sion on the

issue of whether to pre-clear each and every apportionment plan

last enacted by the North Carolina General Assembly;

(9) With respect to interrogatories and requests to

produce submitted to any party during the discovery perio<1, response

to said interrogatories sha11 be due by the 15th day folloving

service of the interrogatories or reguests to produce.

This the <1ay of February , L982.

RUFUS L. ED}{ISTEI'I
ATTORNEY GENERAL

James Wallace, Jr.
Deputy Attorney General

for Legal Affairs
Attorney General ts Office
ll. C. Department of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (9I9) 733-3377
Attorney for Defendants



E^i.

,. l,

Leslie l{inner
Chambers, Ferguson, Watt, $Ia11as,

Adkins & f'uller, P.A.
951 South Independence Boulevard
CharLotte, North Carolina 28202
Telephone; (7041 375-8461
Attorney for Gingles Plaintiffs

Arttrur I. Donaldson
Burke, Donaldson, Holshouser & Kererly
309 North l{ain Street
Salisbury, North Carolina 28L44
Telephone: (704) 637-1500
Attorney for Pugh Plaintiffs