Defendants’ Response to Court Order
Public Court Documents
April 8, 1998

4 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Defendants’ Response to Court Order, 1998. 6dcdd40e-e70e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/27643328-24cf-4a0d-bf5e-a318998e31b9/defendants-response-to-court-order. Accessed June 17, 2025.
Copied!
FROM HC AG SPECIAL LITIGATION 19-TLE6~BTEY A4.68.1998 D Pe 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ILED EASTERN DIVISION 4Py ; 8 199 Civil Action No. 4-96-CV-104-BO(3) DAVin 8 peace, al CARSUET MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al., Plaintiffs, V. JAMES B. HUNT, JR,, in his official ‘capacity as Governor of the State of Nor, Carolina, ef al., R R O R L I N B e i L T Defendants. DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO 3 APRIL 1998 COURT ORDER On 3 April 1998, the Court directed the parties to file written submissions addressing (a) an appropriate time period for allowing the General Assembly to correct the constitutional defects in the 1997 Congressional plan, and (b) a proposed election schedule for congressional elections after redistricting. Defendants’ counsel have conferred with the leadership of the North Carolina General Assembly regarding the Court’s request. It is the opinion of the leadership of the North Carolina House and Senate that the General Assembly desires to and in fact has a duty to attempt to redraw the State’s congressional plan. However, the Court’s order directing the parties to submit a timetable for redrawing the Congressional plan and a proposed election schedule was not received by defendants’ counsel until after the close of business on April 3rd, and the two chambers of the General Assembly have not had FROM HL "AG. SPECIAL LITIGATION 9109-7 16-670% f4.88,1998 ® an adequate opportunity to consider and discuss the full implications of the Court's order internally or with each other and to prepare a substantive response by Wednesday, April 8th. At the request of the General Assembly, defendants respectfully request the Court to allow the leadership of the House and Senate additional time to consider the questions raised by the Court. Additional time is requested in part because the Court has not issued its memoranda identifying the constitutional defects it has found in District 12. Plaintiffs offered at least two theories for finding District 12 unconstitutional: (1) the fruit of the poisonous tree, and (2) the predominance of racial considerations. The size of the task facing the General Assembly, and the time needed to perform that task, will differ depending on the theory which is the basis for the Court’s ruling invalidating District 12. In addition, the defendants have filed an emergency application to the United States Supreme Court seeking to stay the Court's order pending appeal. The legislative leadership needs the benefit of that Court’s ruling on the stay application before making irrevocable and costly public policy decisions about the election. In addition to the myriad of technical details involved in establishing a new election schedule, a decision must be made whether the other federal, state and local primaries, as well as bond issues and other referenda scheduled for May 5th should continue to go forward, or be postponed to coincide with the new schedule for congressional primaries. Either choice poses serious policy questions and administrative complications. It may already be too late in the campaign process to delay all of the State’s other primaries. These are matters implicating important public interests and cannot be decided without proper discussion and consideration. A new congressional election schedule, resolving filing dates, absentee balloting dates, possible elimination of the second primary and other administrative details, cannot be finalized before 2 FROM NC ‘AG SPECIAL A I TIGATIAON 9189~-F16=6T763 P4.08.1998 D decisions on the State’s other primaries are made. The cost to the taxpayers in terms of dollars, confusion and frustration must be given careful consideration. The defendantsand the General Assembly are well aware that time is of the essence, but wish to avoid unwise and costly decisions made because of undue haste. For these reasons, the defendants respectfully request that the Court allow them to have five work days after the issuance of its memorandum opinions to file the necessary timetables and schedules. This the J _ day of don , 1998, J MICHAEL F. EASLEY ATTORNEY GENERAL Edwin M. Speas, Jr. Senior Deputy Attorney General N.C. State Bar No. 4112 1are B. Smiley Special Deputy Attorney Gend N. C. State Bar No. 7119 itr of Borst Norma S. Harrell 4 Special Deputy Attorney General N.C, State Bar No. 6654 N.C. Department of Justice P.O. Box 629 Raleigh, N.C. 27602 (919) 716-6900 FROM NC AG SPECIAL LITIGATION 913-716-6763 A4.088,.1998 D CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Response to 3 April 1998 Court Order in the above captioned case upon all parties by depositing these documents in the United States mail, first class mail, postage prepaid addressed as follows: Robinson O. Everett Suite 300 First Union Natl. Bank Bldg. 301 W. Main Street P.O. Box 586 Durham, NC 27702 ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS Anita S. Hodgkiss Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham & Sumter, P.A. 741 Kenilworth Avenue Charlotte, NC 28204 ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANTS FOR INTERVENTION This die T nt of 2 , 1998, lee 5 onde, are B. Smiley Special Deputy Attorney General sk END kok