Correspondence from Pamela Karlan to Prof. Richard L. Engstrom Re Whitfield v. Clinton Whitfield v. Clinton

    * DEC-01-98 TUE 16:08 wd DC OFC FAX NO. ag P. 02/04    
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER TERM, 1998 

  

No. 98-85 

JAMES B.- HUNT, Jr., ET AL., APPELLANTS 

Ve. 

MARTIN CROMARTIE 

  

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE: EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

  

MOTION OF THE UNITED STATES AS AMICUS CURIAE 
FOR DIVIDED ARGUMENT AND TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT 

  

Pursuant to Rules 28.4 and 28.7 of the Rules of this Court, 

the Solicitor General, on behalf of the United States, respectfully 

moves for lcave to participate in the oral argument in this case as 

amicus curiae supporting appellants and that the United States be - 

allowed ten minutes of argument time. The state appellants have 

agreed to cede ten minutes of argument time to the United States. 

Granting this motion therefore would not require the Court to 

enlarge the overall time for argument. | 

1. This case concerns the standards a federal court should 

apply when determining whether a state districting plan was drawn 

predominantly on the basis of race, in violation of the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case arises 

PRGE. G2 

 



DEC-01-98 TUE 16:08 we DC OFC FAX NO. 2026821312 P. 03/04    
2 

from a challenge to the constitutionality of a congressional 

redistricting plan that the State of North Carolina adopted after 

its previous plan was declared unconstitutional by this Court in 

Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996). Granting summary judgment to 

appellees, the district court held that the Twelfth District in the 

new plan was unconstitutional under the principles of Shaw v. Reno, 

509 U.S. 630 (1993). The court rejected the State's evidence that 

the predominant motive in the configuration of the Twelfth District 

was not race, but a desire to achieve a partisan balance in the 

State's congressional delegation. This case accordingly presents 

questions concerning the extent to which a correlation between a 

district's boundaries and racial demographics is sufficient to 

establish that the State's predominant motive in drawing the 

istics was race. 

2. We believe that oral presentation of the views of the 

United States would be of material assistance to the Court. The 

United States enforces Sections 2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 

1965 (42 U.S.C. 1973, 1973c), and the United States therefore has - 

an interest in ensuring that States have reasonable leeway to 

design districts that comply with both the Voting Rights Act and 

the Equal Protection Clause. The United States has participated in 

prior appeals in related litigation. The. United States was a 

 



- DEC-01-98 TUE 16:08 “eo DC OFC FAX NO. ir P. 04/04    
3 

party-defendant in Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993), and filed a 

  

brief as amicus curiae in Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996) .   

  

Respectfully submitted. 

SETH P. WAXMAN 

Solicitor General 

Counsel of Record 

  

  

NOVEMBER 1998 

CA 1 24 vm Ea] gL § 
DEC Bl S58 io:l8 2026821312 ; 

+ 
mag. O%