Memo to Stein RE: Cromartie Written Discovery

1 page

Document text

The following text has been generated automatically during the document scanning process. It may contain errors, omissions, or incorrect formatting. Please refer to the PDF document if this text is not usable.

Download

By downloading, publishing, or reusing the Materials outside of the Website, you hereby confirm and attest that you have read and agree to the LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use linked below. We draw your attention to the following:

For those Materials owned by LDF, your use of the Material outside the Site is solely for one or more of the following (the “Permitted Purposes”):

Non-commercial research and private study;
Teaching, scholarship and instruction (including distance learning);
Non-commercial print and non-commercial online use;
Criticism, comment or news reporting; or
For people with visual disabilities (See Section 121 of the Copyright Act).
For those Materials not owned by LDF you understand that:
- It is your responsibility to determine whether the way you plan to use the materials falls within the copyright exception of Fair Use.
- For any use outside of Fair Use, it is your responsibility to seek and obtain all required permissions from any existing rights holders.

LDF hereby grants you the right to use LDF owned Materials for the Permitted Purposes without seeking further permission from LDF.

If you publish or redistribute any Materials (including excerpts and quotes), you must include a credit line and/or proper citation to the source of the Material. However, you may not use the name of LDF in any manner which creates any false association between you and LDF or that incorrectly implies any sponsorship or endorsement of you by LDF.

NOTICE: Uses that do not comply with these Terms or that do not fall under Fair Use (or another exception) may make you liable for copyright infringement.

Read the full LDF Archival Collection Terms of Use Here.

I agree to the terms and conditions for use of this content.

If you would like to use this content in other ways, contact us at

Impact area
- Political Participation
Topic
- Redistricting
LDF Attorneys
Cooperating Attorneys
Organizations
Matter
- Cromartie v. Hunt (Daly v. Hunt)
Case
- Cromartie v. Hunt (Daly v. Hunt)
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 0d038f23-ee0e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6

Cite this item

Case Files, Cromartie Hardbacks. Memo to Stein RE: Cromartie Written Discovery, 1999. 0d038f23-ee0e-f011-9989-7c1e5267c7b6. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/2c775048-295a-4928-9bbf-2ae01b109b46/memo-to-stein-re-cromartie-written-discovery. Accessed October 08, 2025.

Copied!

MEMORANDUM

Adam Stein

Todd Cox PL

Cromartie Written Discovery

September 30, 1999

Attached is the State’s draft responses to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions. In

general, I do not disagree with the State’s responses. However, I have concerns with a few

specific responses and I think the State should modify accordingly. In any event, I think we

should respond differently. My concerns with the admissions are outlined below:

Response to Admission 6: I do not think the State should specifically identify the

characteristics of the district that made it vulnerable to constitutional attack or even concede that

it was vulnerable to attack. Such an admission/concession would prevent it from using any of

these methods in redistricting in the future and unnecessarily taint the 1997 Plan to the extent they

argue that any of the 1992 Plan is the “core” of the 1997 Plan. I think it is enough to admit that

the 1992 Plan was attacked and that the Court held it unconstitutional and deny everything else.

Response to Admission 13: I do not think that it is necessary to specify that black and

white candidates rely on the votes of black voters, as it could lead to Vera-type allegations. The
balance of the admission is sufficient.

Response to Admission 22: In addition to Section 2, I think that the State should list the

effect and purpose prongs of Section 5 as possible grounds for a Civil Rights Division objection.

Response to Admission 27 and 28: 1 do not think it helps the State to admit that

Districts 1 and 12 of the 1992 Plan are not compact. I think that it could in fact help to dignify

Everett’s “fruit of the poisonous tree” argument, since the State is arguing that the 1997 districts

use the core of the prior district.

I have also attached the interrogatory answers I drafted. Tiare and I agreed that I would

take the lead on answering the first 3 interrogatories and the State would take the lead on the

others. I will contact you soon. Thanks.

Copyright notice

This collection and the tools to navigate it (the “Collection”) are available to the public for general educational and research purposes, as well as to preserve and contextualize the history of the content and materials it contains (the “Materials”). Like other archival collections, such as those found in libraries, LDF owns the physical source Materials that have been digitized for the Collection; however, LDF does not own the underlying copyright or other rights in all items and there are limits on how you can use the Materials. By accessing and using the Material, you acknowledge your agreement to the Terms. If you do not agree, please do not use the Materials.

Additional info

To the extent that LDF includes information about the Materials’ origins or ownership or provides summaries or transcripts of original source Materials, LDF does not warrant or guarantee the accuracy of such information, transcripts or summaries, and shall not be responsible for any inaccuracies.

Memo to Stein RE: Cromartie Written Discovery

Impact area

Topic

LDF Attorneys

Cooperating Attorneys

Organizations

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in