State Appellants' Reply Brief

    JAN-15-93 FRI 11:09 NAACP LDF DC OFC FAX NO. 2026821312 P. 02/03 

LDF MEMORANDUM 

To: D.C. Office Staff 

Todd Che AC 
Oral Arguments in Cromartie v. Hunt, S. Ct. No. 98-85. 

January 14, 1999 

  

For your information, next Wednesday, January 20, 1999, the U.S. Supreme Court will 
hear oral arguments in Cromartie v. Hunt, No. 98-85, a challenge to the constitutionality of North 
Carolina’s First and Twelfth Congressional Districts under the theories established in Shaw v, 
Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993). The Legal Defense Fund, as well as the North Carolina law firm of 
Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Gresham & Sumter, represent African-American and white voters who 
have intervened to defend the districts’ constitutionality. A brief description of the procedural 
posture of the case follows. 

In Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996), the U.S. Supreme Court invalidated the post-1990 
North Carolina Congressional redistricting plan that sent the first African-American Congressional 
Representatives to Congress since Reconstruction. On remand, the North Carolina General 
Assembly adopted a revised plan that created a new Twelfth District that was 47 percent African- 
American in total population (originally it was 53 percent total African-American population). In 
the next congressional elections, incumbent Representative Melvin Watt was re-elected to 
represent the new Twelfth Congressional District and incumbent Representative Eva Clayton was 
re-elected to represent Lhe majority-African-American First Congressional District. 

Subsequently, a group of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in 1996, Cromarti v. Hunt, No. 
4:96CV104-BO(3) (E.D.N.C. April 14, 1997), prob. juris. noted, 119 S. Ct. 28 (1998), seeking 
10 have the new Twelfth and First Congressional Districts ruled unconstitutional racial 
gerrymanders and to enjoin the then upcoming congressional elections which were to take place 
under the new plan. We immediately moved to intervene and filed subsequent renewed motions, 
however, the three-judge court did not timely rule on any of the motions. 

In March 1998, the three-judge district court held a hearing at which it heard arguments 
on the plaintiffs’ motions to enjoin the election and for summary judgment. Despite our attempts 
to be heard by the three-judge district court on these motions and on our request to intervene, the 
court refused to hear from us. Consequently, the only lawyers speaking exclusively on behalf of 
the mLerests of African-American voters were excluded from the process. 

On April 3, 1998, by a 2-1 vote, the three-judge district court subsequently granted the 
plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their claim that the new Twelfth District was 
unconstitutional. Even though it was not a majority-African-American district, according to the 

JAN 15 ’99 11:20 2026821312 PRGE. 82  



~~ JaN-15-99 FRI 11:10 NAACP LDF DC OFC FAX NO. 2026821312 P. 03/03 

three-judge district court, the Twelfth District was drawn with race as the predominant factor, as shown by its shape and the inclusion of majority-African-American, Democratic precincts and the exclusion of majority-white, Democratic and Republican precincts. The three-judge district court 
did not hold that the First Congressional District was unconstitutional because, as the court 
reasoned, the district’s peculiar shape was due to incumbency protection; otherwise, there would have had two incumbents in the adjacent Third District. The three-judge district court 
permanently enjoined the use of the new plan, ordered the State to devise a new congressional 
plan before the 1998 elections, and ordered that the case would proceed to trial to decide the 
constitutionality of the First District. 

The State sought a stay of the decision in the U.S. Supreme Court. Because the three- 
judge district court still had not ruled on our motion to intervene, we filed an amicus curiae brief 
in the Supreme Court, in support of the stay. On April 13, 1998, before the three-judge district 
court entered an opinion explaining its April 3, 1998 decision, the Supreme Court denied the stay. 

Subsequently, the State developed a new plan, but also appealed from the three-judge 
district court’s decision. We renewed our motion to intervene in order to participate in the 
proceedings on any new plan. While the three-judge district court finally granted our motion Lo 
intervenc, it did so after the time for filing an appeal in the Supreme Court had run 

On September 29, 1998, Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction. Tn order to press our 
rights on appeal, we filed a motion to intervene as partics in the Supreme Court to defend the 
Twelfth District. The Court granted our motion in October 29, 1998 and we completed merits 
briefing in December 1998. 

I would encourage anyone interested to attend oral arguments next Wednesday. Copies of 
our opening brief were distributed in November and Angela will have copies of our reply brief and 
other briefs filed in the case. If you would like more information about the case, please do not 
hesitate to ask. Thanks. 

CC; Norman Chachkin 

Jacqueline Berrien 
Victor Bolden 

Deborah Archer 

JAN 15 ’99 11:28 2826821312 PAGE. 83