Defendants’ Response to Court Order

    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