Defendant-Intervenors’ Response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions to Defendant-Intervenors

    o® wh 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

RALEIGH DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4:96-CV-104 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR, et al., 

Defendants, 

and 

ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al. 

Defendant-Intervenors 

) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 
) 

  

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS 

Pursuant to Rule 36, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant-intervenors Alfred 

Smallwood, David Moore, William M. Hodges, Robert L. Davis, Jr., Jan Valder, Barney 

Offerman, Virginia Newell, Charles Lambeth and George Simkins (“Smallwood Intervenors™) 

submit the following answers in response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions to Defendant- 

Intervenors: 

Request No. 1 
  

With respect to the 1st District, the North Carolina General Assembly in drawing up the 

1997 Congressional redistricting plan adopted by the North Carolina Legislature as HB 586 

(hereafter referred to as the 1997 Plan) used as its starting point the basic core of the 1st District  



EE "ve 

as created under the 1992 Congressional plan. 

Response to Request No. 1 
  

It is admitted that the “starting point” in creating the 1997 Plan was curing the 

constitutional defects found by the Supreme Court found in Shaw v. Hunt without disturbing the 

six-six partisan split of the state’s congressional delegation and that, consistent with this “starting 

point,” the General Assembly endeavored to maintain some of the general geographic, constituent 

and partisan core of District 1 as constituted under the 1992 Plan. Except as admitted this 

request is denied. 

Request No. 2 
  

With respect to the 12th District, the North Carolina General Assembly in drawing up the 

1997 Plan used as its starting point the basic core of the 12th District as created under the 1992 

Plan. 

Response to Request No. 2 
  

It is admitted that the “starting point” in creating the 1997 Plan was curing the 

constitutional defects found by the Supreme Court found in Shaw v. Hunt without disturbing the 

six-six partisan split of the state’s congressional delegation and that, consistent with this “starting 

point,” the General Assembly endeavored to maintain some of the general geographic, 

constituent, partisan and urban core of District 12 as constituted under the 1992 Plan. Except as 

admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 3 
  

The 1997 plan was an attempt by the North Carolina General Assembly to change the 

1992 Plan as little as possible, without violating the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause  



  

oh | og 
of the 14th Amendment. 

Response to Request No. 3 
  

It is admitted that curing the constitutional defects found by the Supreme Court in Shaw v. 

Hunt in the 1992 Plan without disturbing the existing six-six partisan split in the state’s 

congressional delegation was the primary goal in drawing the 1997 Plan, and that preserving some 

of the general geographic, constituent and partisan core of each incumbent’s district in the 1992 

Plan was a consideration in drawing the 1997 Plan. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 4 
  

While undertaking to draw the 1997 plan, the North Carolina General Assembly was 

informed by state officials that any district they drew that was not majority African American 

would not be subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection analysis of Shaw v. Reno and its 

SUCCESSOr cases. 

Response to Request No. 4 
  

Denied, except for an argument made by Senator Roy Cooper to persuade the Senate to 

support the 1997 Plan in which he stated that it made eminent sense that because District 12 was 

not majority-minority, the shape of the district would not trigger the test outlined in Shaw v. 

Reno, this argument was repeated by Representative Edwin McMahan in the House. 

Request No. § 
  

When it drew the 1997 plan, the North Carolina General Assembly believed that any 

district they drew that was not majority African-American would not be subject to strict scrutiny 

under the Equal Protection analysis of Shaw v. Reno and its successor cases. 

 



  

a we 

Response to Request No. 5 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable them to admit or 

deny this request, and this request is therefore denied. See also Response to Request No. 4. 

Request No. 6 
  

The 1st District of the 1992 Congressional Redistricting Plan violated the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by Shaw v. Reno, Miller v. 

Johnson, Bush v. Vera, and Shaw v. Hunt. 

Response to Request No. 6 
  

No court has held the 1st District in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by Shaw v. Reno, Miller v. Johnson, Bush v. Vera, and 

Shaw v. Hunt. Therefore, the Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable 

them to admit or deny this request, and this request is therefore denied. 

Request No. 7 
  

The North Carolina General Assembly drew up the 1st District of the 1997 plan with the 

purpose that it be a majority black district. 

Response to Request No. 7 
  

It is admitted that one of several purposes influencing the configuration of District 1 in the 

[997 Plan was the creation of a majority African-American district in order to address the State’s 

strong basis in evidence that the plan otherwise would be vulnerable to an attack under Section 2 

and/or Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 8 
  

In determining the existence of the first Gingles threshold factor, i.e., whether the minority 

 



  

oh | 

group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member 

district, the correct method is to determine whether African-Americans of voting age constitute a 

majority of citizens of voting age in that district, rather than to determine whether African - 

Americans constitutes a majority of the total population or a majority of the registered voters. 

Response to Request No. 8 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 9 
  

In North Carolina, almost all inhabitants are citizens and so the voting age population of 

the African-American [sic] very closely approximates the citizen voting age population of African 

Americans. 

Response to Request No. 9 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable the defendants to 

admit or deny this request, and this request therefore is denied. 

Request No. 10 
  

Between 1792 and 1992, Mecklenburg County was not in the same congressional district 

with either Forsyth or Guilford counties. 

Response to Request No. 10 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 11 
  

The African-American minority in North Carolina consists of 22% of the total population 

of the state and 20% of the voting age population. 

 



a Rd 

Response to Request No. 11 
  

It is admitted that, according to the 1990 Census, African-Americans in North Carolina 

constitute 21.97% of the total population and 20.07% of the voting age population. 

Request No. 12 
  

At least 95% of the registered voters who are African-Americans in North Carolina are 

registered as Democrats. 

Response to Request No. 12 
  

Based on rough estimates or approximations made by the State of North Carolina, it is 

admitted that the figure 95% in the urban counties (and a slightly higher percentage in rural 

counties) of African-Americans are registered as Democrats. This estimation is based on 

calculations done in 1991 or 1992 in about 35 counties by cross-tabulating race and party 

affiliation data. Except as admitted, this request is denied. 

Request No. 13 
  

At least 95% of the registered African American voters in North Carolina regularly vote 

for Democratic candidates rather than for candidates of other parties. 

Response to Request No. 13 
  

It is admitted that African-American voters in North Carolina are politically cohesive. 

Except as admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 14 
  

Mecklenburg County is principally served by the Charlotte Observer, Forsyth County by 

the Winston-Salem Journal, and Guilford County by the Greensboro News.  



a o® 

Response to Request No. 14 
  

Admitted, except that the Greensboro newspaper is the Greensboro News & Record. 

Request No. 15 
  

Only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Mecklenburg County subscribe to or 

regularly read a newspaper published in Guilford or Forsyth counties. 

Response to Request No. 15 
  

It is admitted that only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Mecklenburg County 

subscribe to a newspaper published in Guilford or Forsyth counties. The information known or 

readily obtainable by the Smallwood Intervenors upon reasonable inquiry is insufficient to enable 

them to admit or deny the percentage of Mecklenburg County inhabitants that regularly read any 

newspapers, including those published in Guilford or Forsyth counties. 

Request No. 16 
  

Only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Guilford or Forsyth counties subscribe to or 

regularly read a newspaper published in Mecklenburg County. 

Response to Request No. 16 
  

It 1s admitted that only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Guilford or Forsyth 

Counties subscribe to a newspaper published in Mecklenburg county. The information known or 

readily obtainable by the Smallwood Intervenors upon reasonable inquiry is insufficient to enable 

them to admit or deny the percentage of Guilford or Forsyth Counties inhabitants that regularly 

read any newspapers, including those published in Mecklenburg County. 

Request No. 17 
  

Mecklenburg County is in the Charlotte television market (DMA) while Forsyth and  



  

» Ra 

Guilford counties are in the Piedmont Triad market (DMA). 

Response to Request No. 17 
  

Admitted, except that the DMA which includes Forsyth and Guilford counties is the 

Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point. N.C. DMA. 

Request No. 18 
  

Mecklenburg County is in the Charlotte Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, and 

Forsyth and Guilford are in the Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem Standard Metropolitan 

Statistical Area. 

Response to Request No. 18 
  

It is admitted that Mecklenburg County is in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and F orsyth and Guilford Counties are in the Greensboro- 

Winston-Salem-High Point MSA. 

Request No. 19 
  

Only a small percentage of inhabitants in Mecklenburg County listen to radio stations 

licensed to communities in Guilford and Forsyth Counties. 

Response to Request No. 19 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable the defendants to 

admit or deny this request, and this request therefore is denied. 

Request No. 20 
  

Only a small percentage of inhabitants in Mecklenburg County listen to radio stations 

licensed to communities in Guilford and Forsyth Counties. 

 



  

o® "ee 

Response to Request No. 20 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable the defendants to 

admit or deny this request, and this request therefore is denied. 

Request No. 21 
  

In the 1997 plan, Representative Susan Myrick’s residence was included in the 12th 

District. 

Response to Request No. 21 
  

It is admitted that the General Assembly redistricting data base shows Representative 

Myrick’s residence to be in District 12, but her current residence is, in fact, in District 9 in the 

1997 Plan. 

Request No. 22 
  

When drawing the First District in the 1997 plan, the General Assembly believed that the 

Civil Rights Division would not grant Section 5 preclearance if the newly drawn district did not 

have a sufficiently high percentage of African American voting strength. 

Response to Request No. 22 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable them to admit or 

deny what each member of the General Assembly believed individually or collectively with regard 

to the conditions under which the Civil Rights Division would or would not grant Section 5 

preclearance. It is admitted that when developing the 1997 Plan, the State of North Carolina was 

concerned that if it failed to create a majority-minority district, the Civil Rights Division might 

deny preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act if the Division’s analysis showed a 

clear violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or demonstrated that the 1997 Plan was 

 



  

pe Nt 

tainted by discriminatory intent. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 23 
  

When drawing the 12th District in the 1997 plan, the General Assembly believed that the 

Civil Rights Division would not grant Section 5 preclearance if the newly drawn district did not 

have a sufficiently high percentage of African American voting strength. 

Response to Request No. 23 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 24 
  

The 12th District of the 1998 plan is more geographically compact than the 12th District 

of the 1997 plan. 

Response to Request No. 24 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 25 
  

The 12th District of the 1997 plan is not geographically compact. 

Response to Request No. 25 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 26 
  

The 1st District of the 1997 plan is not geographically compact. 

Response to Request No. 26 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 27 
  

The 12th District of the 1992 plan was not geographically compact. 

10 

 



i "we 

Response to Request No. 27 

  

  

The Smallwood Intervenors admit that the US. Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 

899 (1996) determined that District 12 of the 1992 Plan was not geographically compact. 

Request No. 28 
  

The 1st District of the 1992 plan was not geographically compact. 

Response to Request No. 28 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 29 
  

When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split 

Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Rowan, Iredell, Davidson, and Guilford counties. 

Response to Request No. 29 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 30 
  

When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split 

Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Rowan, Iredell, Davidson, and Guilford counties in a manner that 

conforms to racial lines. 

Response to Request No. 30 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 31 
  

When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split Pitt, Craven, 

Wayne, Lenoir, Jones, Washington, Person, Granville, Wilson, and Beaufort counties. 

11 

 



ae 

Response to Request No. 31 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 32 
  

When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split Pitt, Craven, 

Wayne, Lenoir, Jones, Washington, Person, Granville, Wilson and Beaufort counties in a manner 

which conforms to racial lines. 

Response to Request No. 32 
  

It is admitted that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was one factor 

among others contributing to the splitting of some counties when drawing District 1 in the 1997 

Plan, but it is specifically denied that Wayne, Jones, Washington, Person, Granville or Beaufort 

were split for reasons related to race. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 33 
  

When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the cities of 

Ayden, Battleboro, Fremont, Goldsboro, Greenville, Kinston, New Bern, Rocky Mount, 

Sharpsburg, Trent Woods, Washington, Whitakers, and Wilson. 

Response to Request No. 33 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 34 
  

When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the cities of 

Ayden, Battleboro, Fremont, Goldsboro, Greenville, Kinston, New Bern, Rocky Mount, 

Sharpsburg, Trent Woods, Washington, Whitakers, and Wilson in a manner which conforms to 

racial lines.  



oh »e 

Response to Request No. 34 
  

It is admitted that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was one factor 

contributing to the splitting of some cities when drawing District 1 in the 1997 Plan, but it is 

specifically denied that Battleboro, Fremont, Rocky Mount, Sharpsburg, Trent Woods, 

Washington or Whitakers were split for reasons related to race. Except as admitted this request is 

denied. 

Request No. 35 
  

When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the cities of 

Charlotte, Statesville, Thomasville, Salisbury, Winston-Salem, High Point, Greensboro, Cornelius, 

Davidson, Mooresville, Troutman, Lexington, and Spencer. 

Response to Request No. 35 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 36 
  

When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the cities of 

Charlotte, Statesville, Thomasville, Salisbury, Winston-Salem, High Point, Greensboro, Cornelius, 

Davidson, Mooresville, Troutman, Lexington, and Spencer in a manner which conforms to racial 

lines. 

Response to Request No. 36 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 37 
  

It is not possible to draw up a geographically compact Congressional District in 

Northeastern North Carolina where the African-American population is greater than 50% of the 

13  



Et 

total population. 

Response to Request No. 37 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 38 
  

It is not possible to draw up a geographically compact Congressional District in 

northeastern North Carolina where the African-American voting age population greater than 50% 

of the voting age population in that district. 

Response to Request No. 38 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 39 
  

The Republican Party first allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in its primary in the May, 

1988 primary election. 

Response to Request No. 39 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 40 
  

The Democratic Party first allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in its primary in the May, 

1996 election. 

Response to Request No. 40 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 41 
  

The five largest entire cities or towns in Congressional District 1 are Roanoke Rapids, 

pop. 15,722, Henderson, pop. 15,361, Tarboro, pop. 10,991, Oxford, pop. 7,750 and Roxboro, 

14  



ht »h 

  

pop. 7,219. 

Response to Request No. 41 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 42 
  

The five largest entire cities or towns in Congressional District 3 are Jacksonville, pop. 

29,196, Elizabeth City, pop. 14,237, Havelock, pop. 12,359, Morehead City, pop. 6,046, and 

Edenton, pop. 5,164. 

Response to Request No. 42 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 43 
  

In the ten counties District 1 shares with other districts, every single precinct in which 

African-American residents constitute a majority of the total population is included within the 

boundaries of the Ist District. 

Response to Request No. 43 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 44 
  

In the ten counties District 1 shares with other districts, 22 of the 26 precincts in which 

black residents comprise between 40% and 50% of the total population are included within the 1st 

District. 

15 

 



e® we 

Response to Request No. 44 

  

  

Admitted. 

This 4th day of October, 1999. 

Elaine R. Jones 

President and Director-Counsel    
  

Todd A. Cox 

NAACP Legal Defense 

& Educational Fund, Inc. 

1444 1 Street, N.W., 10th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 682-1300 

Won B= / Bite 
Adam Stein / 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins 

Gresham & Sumter, PA. 

312 West Franklin Street 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 
(919) 933-5300 

  

16 

 



wh ae 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

[ hereby certify that true and correct copies of Defendant-Intervenors’ Response to 

Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions to Defendant-Intervenors have been served by first-class 

mail, postage prepaid to the following: 

Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 

Chief Deputy Attorney General 
Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

North Carolina Department of Justice 
Post Office Box 629 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629 

and have been served by telefacsimile and first-class mail, postage prepaid to the following: 

Robinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett 

Post Office Box 586 

Durham, North Carolina 27702 

This#h day of October, 1999. 7 

a y 
Todd A. 6