Correspondence from Suitts to Guinier; Summary of Proposed Single Member Districts for N.C. Senate; Excerpts from the Deposition of Terrence D. Sullivan

    EGIONAT

TONY HARFISON. Prosidont

MARY FRANCES DERFNER. VicePregidsn| .

. JULIUS L. CHAMBERS. Past Prasldent

STEVE SUITTS, Exoculive Oiroclot a JOSEPH HMS, Couns€l

75 MARIETTA STREET. N.W. ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 (404) s22-8764

December 3, 1981

Ms. Lani Guinier
NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Inc.
806 15th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006 EXPRESS MAIL

Dear Lani:

Itm placing under this cover the documents which show three
hypothetical single member districts for the North Carolina
Senate in seven North Carolina counties covered by the Voting
Rights Act under Section 5. While the proposed hypothetical
district in Cumberland County has a black population of only
48.02 percent, I should note that if we had block data that
district could probably becorne a slim najority black district.
WhiLe circumstances ordinarily would suggest that such a
district would not be a true majority of black voters, the par-
ticular registration figures in Cumberland County show a rate of
registration for 1980 which is an almost precise reflection of
the rate of black population in the county. In other words,
because of some unique circumstances in Cumberland, there is a
fairly high rate of registration among blacks and a district with
a bare majority black population would be more meaningful in
Cumberland than in many other places.

Fina11y, please note that we have used only seven North Carolina
counties covered by the Voting Rights Act as our universe in which
to explore the possibilities of single member districts for the
North Carolina Senate. The counties do reflect a variety of urban,
suburban, and rural populations. Under the circumstances, I think
it is fair to conclude that in all forty counties covered by the
act several black majority districts could be created for the
North Carolina Senate. Finally on this point, it is important to
note that no black state senator from North Carolina has ever been
elected in a senate district in these areas of the state since
Reconstruction. Obviously, the plan submitted by the state of
North Carolina adheres to the guidance of the L967 state constitu-
tional provisions and thereby submerges the black voting strength

sure that you will let ne know if there are any questions.

e]-Y ,

St
SS/
ENCL

uitts

ffit,trrc rtff



oo
SLMMARY OF PROPOSED SINGLE IvlEl,tBER DISTRICTS FOR N. C. SENATE

IN SEVE.N NORTH CAROLINA CgIJNUES COVERED BY THE

VOTING RIGHTS ACT I]NDER SECTION_s

TOTAL TOTAL BLACK
COIJNTIES POPUTATION POPULATION 8 BLACK DEVIATION

OF DISTRICT OF DISTRICT OF DISTRICT POPULATION FACTOR*

Cumberland** 118r 338 57r 040

Guilford 111,992 631088

Wilson, Nash,
Bertie,
Edgecombe,
and Martin 112r563 66,559

48.02

56. 3

s9. 15

+r7*

-4.7t

- 4.?,2

* Ideal Senate District would have LL7r489 residents.
i* Cunberland percentage of blacks includes small number of other
racial minorities in two census tracts.



PROPOSED SINGLE MEMBER

o
DISTRI CT FOR N.C. SENATE IN tSON

o
WI NASH BERTIE

EDGECoMBE, ANg {ARTIN CoIINTIES

Wilson County

Nash County

Edgeconbe County

Nash County tract
Edgecombe County

Bertie County (entire)

Martin County twships of
Harnilton, Goose Nest, Popular
Point and Robertsonville

CENSUS
TRACT

TOTAL
POPULATION

L,926
6,946
3,7L7
2 r580
1,530
2 1192
3r085
5 rZZ0

488
6 ,991
4r359

BLACK
POPULATION

1, 461
5r328
3 r77L
1,803

569
1,040
1r405
2,L25

229
3,860
1, 461

367
3,7L8
6,299
1,585
1,932

450

t2 ,44L

5r37L

2,L75

530
L,892
? rL35
2r980
L,692

66r559

*
BTACK

2
7
8.01
8.02

10
11
LZ
13

101
L0z
104

?OL
202
?04
203
2\0
2tt

L07

205
207
208
209
206

401
7 ,042
6r818
5,264
3,888
3,132

21,024

9, 039

3 1255

636
3 r224
3r854
3,44L
z ,SlL

112 r 563TOTAL 59. 13?



PROPOSED SINGLE T{EI{BER DISTRICT FOR N.C. SENATE IN GUILFORD COT]NTY:

CENSUS TMCT

101
109
110
111 . 01
111.02
LLZ
115
114
L19.05
126.04
126.08
126.09
126 .11
L26.L2
L27 .0s
L27 .07
128.03
L28.04
128.05
t38
139
141
L42
14s.03
144.06
153
154
165
L27.06

TOTAT

TOTAL POPUTATION

L,679
2,4L6
4,831
5, 448
5r384
5,500
3 r9L2
6 rL42
2 1616
4 1927
2 rLD4
4,077
2 r042
4 1961
4 1642
z rs4z
41704
2,862
1, 806
4 r6L4
5,882

890
4,355
5,845
3,L21
3, 810
5,625
6r069
3 ,186

111,992

BIACK POPULSTION

772
73L

4 r786
5, 111
3r37I
5,433
3,695
5,534

832
1r585

683
s57
570
907

4r 538
1,091
1,804
1,508
1,329
3 r962
5 1207

619
L r687
1, 101
2 r07?,

797
977
298

2,L24

63,088

*
BLACK

s6. 38



PROPOSED SINGTE MEMBER DISTRICT FOR N. C. SENATE IN CUIEERLAND -CqUNTY

TRACT/
TOWNSHIP

0001
0002
0003
0 004
0 010
0011
00Lz
0013
002 0
002L
0022
0024
0055. 02
0053.03
0033.04
0033. 05
0034
0 035
0033.01

TOTAL

TOTAL
POPULATION

TOTAL BI,ACK 6/OR
MINORITY POPULATION

523
2 1249

958
l1704
3,490
5r002
2 r579
2 ,196
1r 388

766
1,303
3r276
3r422
1, 330
3,059
2 r520

L7 1524
2 r4L6
1, 345

5 7, 040

*
BId.CK

1r005
2 r787
Lr482
1r888
3 1976
5r582
5r354
2 1269
7 ,L02
3 r481
2,834
6r045
4,269
6 ,140
7 ,326
6,822

40 , 819
5r098
4,059

118,558 48.20*



I N THE UN I TED STATES D I S TR I CT COURT
FOR Ti-18 EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLI

RALEIGIl DIVISION

NO. B1-BO]_CIV-5

RALPH GINGLES, ET AL., )
)

PLAI NT I FFS, )
)
)
)

IN HIS )
ATTORNEY )

cAROLI NA, )
)
)

DEFENDANTS. )

DEPOSITION
OF

TERRENCE D. SULLIVAN

NA

VS.

RUFUS EDI'4ISTEN,
CAPACI TY AS THE
GENERAL OF NORTH
ET AL.,

AT RA LE I GI-1,
I0:00 A.M.
NOVEI1BER 9,

REPORTED BY:

NORTH CAROLI NA

1981

JUDITH A. MORAWSKI

0R$
Court
Reporting

P.O. Box 1729
Raleieh, N.C. 27602
(919) 832-4114

P.O. Box 4592
Charlotte, N.C. 28207
(7O4) 37s-5133

P.O. Box I 10
Laurel Springs, N.C. 2864.1
(919). 359-2289

NCNB Blde.
Durham, N.C. 27702
(9r 9) 683-86s6

Services



a a

1

2

3

4

5

t)

7

8

I

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a

A

MR. SULLIVAN D I RECT

THIS IS SUBSTITUTE NO. 2?

THIS IS SUBSTITUTE NO. 2. IT IS CONTAINED

MINUTES OF THE JUNE L6,1981 MEETING, JUST

I T I S EASY TO F I ND .JUST BEFORE THE .JULY 7 ,

CONFERENCE COMMITTEE MEETING.

AND THIS IS IN EXHIBIT NO. 9?

THIS IS IN EXHIBIT NO. 9. OKAY.

DO YOU KNOW WHO PROPOSED THIS SUBCOMMITTEE

NO. 2?

14S'

AFTER THE

BEFORE__

198i

a

A

a

A

SUBST I TUTE

THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF JUNE L6, i981 STATES

THAT THE ALFORD-DANIELS MAP NO. 1 AND 3, BEING THE

SAME MAP WAS SELECTED BY THE COMMITTEE AS THE ONE TO

BE PRESENTED ON THE CITY--SENATE FLOOR. SENATOR

MATHIS MOVED THAT WE THE COMMITTEE ACCEPT THE MAPS.

SENATOR DANIEL SECONDED THE MOTION, WHICH PASSED.

SENATOR ALFORD MOVED THAT WE ADL'OURN.

DID YOU HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH EITHER SENATORS

ALFORD OR DANIELS PRIOR TO THEIR DEVELOPMENT OF THEIR

MAPS ?

I IVE HAD CORRESPONDENCE WITH ALL THE SENATORS AT ONE

TIME OR ANOTHER. BUT I CANIT REMEMBER ANY PARTICULARS,

REALLY, OF THIS PARTICULAR MAP. I WAS NOT CONSULTED

ON THIS. OR IF I WAS, I HAD A VERY MINOR PART. SO

MINOR THAT I CAN'T REMEMBER IT.

a



o o

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

150
MR. SULLIVAN D I RECT

a so You DoN I T KNoW FROM YOUR OWN PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE

WHAT CONSIDERATIONS SENATOR ALFORD OR DANIELS WERE

USING IN DRAWING THIS MAP?

A I THINK THAT IF YOU--THE CONSIDERATION THAT CAME OUT

DURING THE MEETING OF THE PUBLIC HEARINGS HELD, I

THINK IT WAS IN RALEIGH ON CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING

AND OTHER PLACES WAS THAT THE RETENTION--COULD WE GO

OFF .JUST FOR A MOMENT.

(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN OFF-THE-RECORD

DISCUSSION, WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED BY

THE COURT REPORTER.)

A YES. FOR THE RETENTION OF CONGRESSMAN L. H. FOUNTAIN.

I NCUMBENCY .

A AND THIS IN YOUR OPINION WAS BEHIND THE PLANS DRAWN

BY SENATORS ALFORD AND DANIELS?

A I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE MA.JOR CONSIDERATIONS.

A DO YOU KNOW WHAT ANY OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WERE?

A NOT REALLY.

A DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHAT ANY OF THE OTHER

CONSIDERATIONS WERE?

MR. WALLACE: OBJECTION. GO AHEAD AND ANSWER

IT.

A WELL, ONE OF--MY OPINION IS THAT THEY--SENATOR ALFORD

DID NOT WANT DURHAM IN THE SECOND DISTRICT.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

A

151
MR. SULLIVAN DI RECT

A DID YOU EVER HEAR SENATOR ALFROD SAY THAT?

A I CANIT RECALL ANY SPECIFIC STATEMENT WHERE HE SAID

HE DID NOT WANT DURHAM IN THE SECOND DISTRICT.

A AND ON WHAT IS YOUR OPINION BASED THEN?

A GENERAL DISCUSSIONS OF OTHERS ON THIS MATTER.

MR. WALLACE: OBJECTION AND MOTION TO STRIKE.

A WITH WHOM DID YOU DISCUSS SENATOR ALFORDIS CONCERNS

OR WHO DID YOU EVER HEAR DISCUSSING SENATOR ALFORDIS

CONCERNS ?

MR. WALLACE: OBJECTION

THERE HAVE BEEN SO MANY DISCUSSIONS ON EACH OF THESE

MAPS, IT IS HARD TO SEPARATE WHO SAID WHAT, WHEN AND

WHERE. AND I CAN'T REMEMBER. ALFORD MAY HAVE COME

OUT IN A COMMITTEE MINUTE. THEN A COMMITTEE MEMBER

WHO SAID THAT--TRANSCRIPTS OF THE RECORD WILL INDICATE

THAT, IF YOU DID. I DON'T REMEMBER.

WITHOUT GiVING A SPECIFIC TIME OR DATE, COULD YOU

STATE THE NAMES OF PEOPLE THAT YOU OVERHEARD DISCUSSIN

SENATOR ALFORD'S CONCERNS?

AGAIN--AGAIN, THIS IS_-MAY HAVE BEEN JUST HEARSAY.

AND I IM GIVING YOU MY IMPRESSION.

WELL,YOU SAID THAT YOUR OPINION WAS BASED ON GENERAL

DISCUSSIONS. AND I WAS JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE WHO

WAS HAVING;.OR WHO WAS PARTICIPATING?

a

A

a



o o

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

l0

11

12

l3

14

15

16

17

l8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

152
MR. SULLIVAN DIRECT

A LEGISLATORS IN GENERAL, I THINK WOULD BE IT.

A WERE THESE PRIMARILY SENATORS OR REPRESENTATIVES?

A I DONIT THINK THERE'S PROBABLY EITHER ONE OR THE

OTHER. THIS WAS A BI-PARTISAI'{ EFFORT IN MY OPINION

TO KEEP MR. FOUNTAIN IN OFFICE. NOT BI-PARTISAN.

I IM SORRY. EXCUSE ME. BICAMERAL.

A WAS IT ALSO A BICAMERAL EFFORT TO KEEP DURHAM OUT

OF THE SECOND DISTRICT?

A MY MEMORY I S THAT SENATOR ALFORD I S THE ONLY ONE THAT--

SENATOR ALFORD IS THE ONLY ONE THAT-_OF WHICH I HAVE

A GENERAL FEELING OF HEARSAY, OR WHATEVER, THAT WANTED

DURHAM OUT OF THE SECOND.

A DO YOU KNOW WHY SENATOR ALFORD WANTED DURHAM OUT OF

THE SECOND DI STRICT?

A NO.

A DO YOU HAVE AN OPINION AS TO WHY HE WANTED DURHAM OUT

OF THE SECOND DISTRICT?

A NO.

A DID YOU HEAR ANYONE DISCUSS WITH EITHER YOU, OR IN

YOUR PRESENCE, WHY SENATOR ALFORD WANTED DURHAM OUT

OF THE SECOND DISTRICT?

A I DONIT REMEMBER ANY REASON GIVEN OTHER THAN HE DID

WANT DURHAM-_I THINK ONE OF THE REASONS MAY HAVE BEEN

THAT DURHAM WAS AN URBAN COUNTY. PREDOMINANTLY URBAN.



o

5

6

7

1

2

J

4

I

I

10

11

12

13

14

l5

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

153
MR. SULLIVAN D I RECT

URBAN COUNTY, AND THAT IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE IN WHAT

THEY PERCEIVED AS SUPPORTERS IN THE SECOND, AS A

PREDOMINANTLY RURAL AREA.

A WERE YOU EVER PRESENT WHEN THE RACIAL POPULATION OF

DURHAM WAS DISCUSSED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS SENATE

SUBSTITUTE NO. 2?

NO.

WERE YOU--WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION THAT YOU ARE AWARE

OF BETWEEN LEGISLATORS ABOUT THE RACIAL POPULATION

OF DURHAM?

I DONIT REMEMBER ANY DISCUSSIONS ALONG THOSE LINES.

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN SOME DISCUSSIONS THAT YOU DONIT

RECALL RIGHT NOW?

UH-HUH (YES).

WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT A VIABLE CANDIDATE IN

DURHAM WHO MIGHT CHALLENGE CONGRESSMAN FOUNTAIN?

THERE WERE DISCUSSIONS, I THINK, ON EACH OF THE

DISTRICTS. THE MAPS, AS THEY WERE BEING PRESENTED.

AND AMONG THE CHALLENGERS THAT I HEARD MENTIONED,

AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHO MENTIONED THEM, WERE SEVERAL

FROM DURHAM COUNTY. THAT WERE IDENTIFIED AS BEING

FROM DURHAM COUNTY. I DON I T REMEMBER I F THEY WERE

OR NOT.

A DO YOU RECALL THE NAMES OF THESE POTENTIAL CHALLENGERS

A

a

a

A

a

A



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

't0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

l8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

oo

A

r 54
MR. SULLIVAN D I RECT

REPRESENTATIVE__ONE MOMENT--MiCKEY MICHAUX. FORMER

REPRESENTATIVE MICKEY MICHAUX.

COULD YOU SPELL HIS LAST NAME?

M-I-C-H-A-U-X. WHO ELSE?

AND REPRESENTATIVE--FORMER REPRESENTATIVE MICKEY

MICHAUX WAS AT ONE TIME A U.S. ATTORNEY?

IN GREENSBORO, MIDDLE DISTRICT.

AND HE RESIDES, IN DURHAM? DURHAM COUNTY?

I ASSUME SO. I HAVENIT--HE RESIGNED HIS APPOINTMENT.

SO I ASSUME HEIS MOVED BACK TO DURHAM.

DO YOU RECALL WHO DISCUSSED THE POTENTIAL CANDIDACY

OF REPRESENTATIVE MICHAUX?

NO. AS I MENTIONED TO YOU BEFORE, THE--EVERY TIME A

DISTRICT WAS CHANGED SOMEONE WOULD TROT OUT THE NAMES

OF POTENTIAL CHALLENGERS. CHALLENGERS THAT WERE EITHER

STRENGTHENED OR WEAKENED BY THE CHANGE IN THE DISTRICT.

FOCUSING FOR THE MOMENT ON FOUNTAIN'S DISTRICT, WHICH

IS NO. 2, WERE THERE ANY OTHER POTENTIAL CHALLENGERS

WHO LIVED IN DURHAM AND WHOSE NAMES WERE MENTIONED

AS A REASON WHY, IN ORDER TO PROTECT MR. FOUNTAINIS

INCUMBENCY, THAT DURHAM SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED AS

a

A

a

A

a

A

a

A

PART OF THE SECOND DISTRICT?

A I KNOW THERE WERE OTHERS MENTIONED AND I'M JUST--I

CANIT REMEMBER WHO THEY WERE. I IM NOT REALLY FAMILIAR



.-

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

l8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

ao
I55

MR. SULLIVAN DI RECT

WITH THE DURHAM POLITICAL SITUATION, OR INDEED THAT

OF THE SECOND CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT.

A DO YOU KNOW WHETHER MR. MICHAUX IS BLACK OR WHITE?

A MR. MICHAUX IS BLACK.

A DO YOU R,ECALL ANY CONVERSATIONS BY ANY OF THE BLACK

REPRESENTATIVES, OR THE BLACK SENATOR, APROPOS OF

PUTTING DURHAM IN THE SECOND DISTRICT?

A CONVERSATIONS WERE OVERHEARD. CONVERSATIONS WITH

THE BLACK SENATORS AND REP--BLACK SENATORS AND

REPRESENTATiVES--BUT I CANIT REMEMBER THE SUBSTANCE

OF THE_-AS I REMEMBER, THEY WERE OPPOSED TO PLACING

DURHAM IN THE DISTRICT WITH WAKE COUNTY, AS MOST OF

THE SMALLER COUNTIES IN POPULATION ARE

BUT, I DONIT REMEMBER THEIR FEELINGS ONE WAY

OR THE OTHER TOWARD THE DISCUSSION--ONE WAY OR THE

OTHER TOWARD THE SECOND DISTRICT, AND THE INCLUSION

OF DURHAM IN THE SECOND.

A WAS THERE ANY EFFORT MADE TO ASCERTAIN THE FEELINGS

OF THE BLACK COMMUNITY IN DURHAM, AS TO WHERE THEY

WANTED TO BE PLACED, VIS-A-VIS THE CONGRESSIONAL

REDISTRICTING?

A I THINK THAT QUESTION IS ANSWERED BY THE PUBLIC

HEARING THAT WAS HELD ON--IN RALEIGH ON THE QUESTION

OF CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING.



2

3

4

5

6

7

8

I

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

oo
MR. SULLIVAN D I RECT I58
A AND THAT WAS HELD ON WHAT DATE?

A ON APRIL t6, 1981. THAT HEARING WAS FOR--WAS

STIPULATED AS BEING FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 2,

3,4 AND 6, WHICH ARE THOSE ADJACENT TO THE RALEIGH

AREA

a Do You KNow WHAT TrME THAT WAS HELD?

A 3 P.M. ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES OF THE TRANSCRIPT.

A AND DO YOU KNOW WHERE IT WAS HELD?

A IN THE STATE LEGISLATIVE BUILDING IN THE AUDITORIUM.

A WERE YOU PRESENT AT THAT MEETING?

A I DONIT BELIEVE I WAS. I CAME IN FOR A PERIOD OF

TIME, AND LEFT. I DON'T KNOW--

A YOU WERE PRESENT FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME?

A FOR A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

A DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE HOW MANY PEOPLE WERE

THERE ATTENDING THE--

A AS I REMEMBER THE MINUTES OF THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE

HEARING CONTAINS A VOTER REGISTRATION SHEET, HAVING

FOUR SHEETS FILLED WITH THE NAMES OF THOSE, AND

SIGNATURES OF THOSE, APPEARING ON THAT MEETING--AT

THAT MEET I NG.

A AND ABOUT HOW MANY SIGNATURES ARE ON THOSE SHEETS,

APPROXIMATELY?

A THEY WOULD NUN FROM_- I WOULD SAY SOMEWHERE BETWEEN



5

6

7

1

2

3

4

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. SULLIVAN DI RECT

12 AND 18 PER SHEET.

A SO THERE WERE ACCORDING TO THE NUMBER OF

SIGNED A LITTLE LESS THAN lOO PEOPLE WHO

157

PEOPLE WHO

ATTENDED

THE MEETING?

A I WOULD GUESS AT LEAST WHO HAD SIGNED' THE CHAIRMAN

HADASKEDALLVISIToRSToSIGN.IDoN'TKNoWHow

MANY MAY NOT HAVE SIGNED.

aDoYoURECALLFRoMTHESHoRTPERIoDTHATYoUWERE

THERE,ABoUTHoWMANYPEoPLEWEREPRESENTINTHE

AUDITORIUM?

AiWoULDESTIMATESoMEWHEREARoUNDI00.MAYBEA

LITTLEBITMoRE,|25.BECAUSETHEYALSoINCLUDED

LEGISLAToRS,WHoDIDNoTSIGNoNTHESHEETS.MR.

SPAULDING WAS THE CHAIRMAN.

aANDISTHEREALSoALISToFTHEPEoPLEwHoSPoKEFoR
THE MEETING?

ATHEREISATRANSCRIPToFTHEREcoRDoFTHoSEWHo

a

SPOKE

ANDDoESTHETRANSCRIPTINDICATEHoWMANYPEoPLE

SPoKE?ISTHATTHETRANSCRIPTTHATYoU'RELooKING

AT NOW?

YES, AND THAT'S EXHIBIT NO.--WHATEVER IN YOUR BOOK'

THIS IS EXHIBIT NO. 10.

IN EXHIBIT NO. 1O--

A

a

A

i

i



1

2

3

4

8

I

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

tStl
MR. SULLIVAN DI RECT

(THEREUPON, THERE WAS A SHORT RECESS. )

A OKAY, SO THE SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE NO. 2 WAS

ADOPTED BY THE SENATE ON.JUNE lB, 1981 AND PLACED ON

THESENATECALENDARFoRTHE22ND.oNTHE22ND,A

BILL PASSED FOR SECOND AND THIRD READINGS, AND THE

SENATE WAS SENT To THE HoUSE, AND REFERRED To THE

HOUSE COMMITTEE FOR CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING'

YOU WILL REMEMBER THAT THE COMMITTEE--TWO

CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING COMMITTEES BROKE APART'

NEVER To MEET AGAIN,oN THE MAY 28TH MEETING. THE

HoUSEMETAGAIN_-THEHoUSECoMMITTEEBYITSELF,

MET AGAIN ON THE gTH.

a rHE 9TH?

A OF .JUNE. THERE ARE TWO TRACKS TO FOLLOW THE HOUSE

COMMITTEE AND THE SENATE COMMITTEE. AND THIS IS

INDICATEDINTHISMEMoRANDUMWHICHISGIVENAS

EXHIBIT NO. L2rI BELIEVE.

A COULD I JUST INTERRUPT FOR JUST ONE SECOND, AND

ASK YOU WHETHER THERE WAS ANY RACIAL ANALYSIS DONE

ON SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE NO. 2?

A SENATE COMMITTEE SUBSTITUTE NO. 2?

A OR OF THE UNDERLYING PLANS, THE ALFORD AND DANIELS

PLANS, WHICH--

AIBELIEVE_-MYMEMoRYIS,WITHTHEEXCEPTIoNoFTHE

ll
t,

i

I

I

I

I

5

6

7



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

I

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

l8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

l5{tMR. SULLIVAN D I RECT

RACIAL DATA PREPARED AT THE REQUEST OF REPRESENTATIVI.:

SPAULDING, AND OF WHICH I GAVE TO YOU A MOMENT AGo,

WERE SENATE CONGRESSIONAL PLAN AND TRIAL DISTRICT

PLAN C-2OON1, I BELIEVE, THAT THAT WAS THE ONLY

CONGRESS I ONAL_-THAT PLUS THE 197 O PLAN USED I Ig- THE

1971 PLAN USED IN THE 1980 CENSUS--

IT WAS THE ONLY RACIAL STATISTICS WHICH I

PRODUCED, THAT EITHER I PRODUCED OR WAS PRODUCED

UNDER MY SUPERVISION FOR CONGRESSIONAL REDISTRICTING

BEFORE THE SUBMISSION OF THE FINAL PLAN TO JUSTICE

IN WASHINGTON TN SEPTEMBER--LATE AUGUST OR SEPTEMBER,

I BELIEVE EARLY SEPTEMBER.

SO, IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, THERE WERE NO

OTHER RACIAL BREAKDOWNS.

COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THE RANGE OF DEVIATION WAS ON

THE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. 2 PLAN?

(THEREUPON, THERE WAS AN OFF-THE-RECORD

DISCUSSION, WHICH WAS NOT REPORTED

BY THE COURT REPORTER. )

(TNe RruRoI.I, THE DEPoS I T I oN wAS

ADJOURNED TO BE CONTINUED ON MONDAY,

NOVEMBER L6, 1991.)



IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
FOR TiIE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH

RALEIG DIVISION

NO. B1-BO]-CIV-5

RALPH G I NGLES, ET AL.,

PLAINTIFFS,

VS.

RUFUS EDi',lISTEN, IN HIS
CAPACITY AS THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA,
ET AL. ,

_?:::r?iYt_

AT RALEIGIl, NORTH CAROLINA
9:lo A.M.
NOVE|,ltsER I6, igBI

REPORTED BY : JUD I TH A. I'1oRAI{SK I

COUR T

CARO L I NA

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

DEPOSITION
OF

TERRENCE D. SULL I VAN
VOL. I I

ffiffi$
Court
Reporting
Services

P.O. Box 1729
Raleieh, N.C. 27602
(91 9) 8 32-41 14

P.O. 8ox 4592
Charlotie, N.C. 28207
(7O41 37 s-51 33

P.O. Box llO
Laurel Sprin9s. N.C. 2864.1
(919) 3s9-2289

NCNB Blds.
Durham. N.C. 27702
(9r 9) 683-86s6



aa

t

i
i

I
I

I

i

'I

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

I

i0

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

a

5B
MR. SULL IVAN FURTHER D I RECT

A TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE, DID ANYONE EVER REFER TO THAT

DURING ANY OF THE COMMITTEE MEETINGS?

NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE. AND I SAY THAT REPRESENTATIVE

SPAULDING_-I BELIEVE IT WAS REPRESENTATIVE SPAULDING-.

BUT IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO GET--TO LOOK AT THE

TRANSCRIPTS IF THEY EXIST--AND I CAN'T REMEMBER

WHETHER THEY EXIST FOR THAT PARTICULAR MEETING OR

NOT--OF THE TAPES TO FIND OUT WHO MAY HAVE ASKED FOR

THAT INFORMATION. I BELIEVE IT WAS SPAULDING, THOUGH.

DO YOU RECALL ANY DISCUSSIONS OF THE EFFECT ON RACIAL

VOTING STRENGTH OF, INCLUDING OR OMITTING DURHAM

COUNTY FROM DISTRICT TWO?

NO.

DO YOU RECALL ANY DISCUSSIONS OF THE EFFECT OF

INCLUDING DURHAM COUNTY IN DISTRICT TWO WITH REGARD

TO THE RACE OF CANDIDATES WHO MIGHT RUN TO BE THE

CONGRESSMAN FOR THAT DISTRICT?

AS I RECOUNTED IN THE DISCUSSION WITH THE PREVIOUS

ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFFS A WEEK AGO, ONE OF THE

INDIVIDUALS THAT, IN OVERALL DISCUSSIONS, WAS MENTIONE

AS A POSSIBLE CHALLENGER TO MR. FOUNTAIN WAS MR.

MICHAUX OF DURHAM COUNTY, AND HE IS BLACK. AND

THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHERS, BUT THAT IS THE ONE THAT

I REMEMBER.

a

A
i!

I

I



--

2

3

4

5

b

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

59
MR. SULLIVAN FURTHER D I RECT

A WHO MENTIONED THAT?

A AS I HAD TOLD THE PREVIOUS ATTORNEY/ THERE WERE

GENERAL DISCUSSIONS. I CANIT REMEMBER WHO

SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IT. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN

SOMEONE BOUND UP EITHER WITH THE PRESENT--WITH THE

FOURTH DISTRICT OR THE--EITHER THE INCLUSION OF

DURHAM COUNTY IN THE WAKE COUNTY TRIANGLE DISTRICT-_

WHAT TURNED OUT TO BE THE WAKE COUNTRY TRIANGLE

DISTRICT OR THE SECOND DISTRICT--EITHER OPPOSING OR

SUPPORTING ONE OR THE OTHER OF THOSE TWO

CONF I GURAT I ONS .

A DID YOU EVER HEAR ANYONE SAYING THAT THE FACT THAT MR.

MICHAUX MIGHT RUN FOR CONGRESSMAN IN THE SECOND

DISTRICT WAS A REASON NOT TO INCLUDE DURHAM COUNTY

I N THE SECOND D I STR I CT ?

A I'M SURE I DID. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VOICED. IF I

CAN ELABORATE--IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VOICED IN TERMS

OF THAT THE SUPPORTERS OF WHAT IIM GOING TO REFER TO

AS THE SECOND--THE PRESENT SECOND_-WERE VERY STRONGLY

IN FAVOR OF THE PRESENT INCUMBENT, AND THEY WOULD

HAVE, IN MY OPINION/ OR THEY SAID TtlEY WOULD OPPOSE

ANYBODY WHO MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE OF OVERTURNING THE

PRESENT I NCUMBENT.

A DID ANYONE__DID YOU EVER HEAR MR. BARBEE EXPRESSING A



1

)

3

4

tr

o

7

o

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

't7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

ac

A

MR.

a

A

a

6USULLIVAN FURTHER DI RECT

CONCERN ABOUT MR. MICHAUX RUNNING AGAINST

CONGRESSMAN FOUNTAI N?

THERE HAVE BEEN--MR. BARBEE--I CAN'T REMEMBER WHO

ALL MIGHT HAVE MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, MIGHT HAVE

RAISED THAT FLAG OF MR. MICHAUX. GENERALLY, THESE

DISCUSSIONS WERE ALONG THE LINES OF BEING VERY MUCH

IN FAVOR OF MR. FOUNTAIN. OCCASIONALLY, THEY WOULD

TALK ABOUT HE MIGHT OPPOSE MR. FOUNTAIN OR OTHER

INCUMBENT, AND WHEN THAT OCCURRED, ONE OF THE NAMES

MENTIONED WAS MR. MICHAUX. THERE MAY HAVE BEEN OTHERS.

I DONIT REMEMBER.

DO YOU RECALL ANY OTHER NAMES THAT WERE MENTIONED?

NO.

DO YOU RECALL WHETHER SENATOR ALFORD EXPRESSED A

CONCERN ABOUT MR. MICHAUX RUNNING AGAINST CONGRESSMAN

FOUNTA I N ?

I DONIT REMEMBER WHETHER SENATOR ALFORD SPECIFICALLY

MENTIONED MR. MICHAUX, BUT OBVIOUSLY, THE INDIVIDUALS

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT ANY CHALLENGER

TO MR. FOUNTAIN WOULD HAVE INCLUDED BOTH ALFORD AND

BARBEE, AMONG OTHERS.

A DID ANYONE THAT_-DID ANY MEMBER OF THE LEGISLATURE

THAT YOU OVERHEARD DISCUSS MR. MICHAUXIS ELECTABILITY

IN LIGHT OF THE HIGH BLACK POPULATION--THE HIGH BLACK

-L



5

6

7

6l
MR. SULLIVAN FURTHER DIRECT

PERCENTAGE OF POPULATION OF THE SECOND DISTRICT?

(THEREUPON, THE TESTIMONY CONTINUES ON

THE FOLLOW I NG ,PAGE . )

8

I

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

t8

19

20

21

22

23

24

25



7

9Z

NZ

t,Z

.Z

IZ

OZ

6r

8r

LL

9r

9t

vl

tI

ZI

lI

0t

6

8

I

,

L

I

I

v

c

Z

slNrwSvui Jo Notll3lloflu uno^ lnoEv eNI>lvI no^ rdv
. 
UfSWfWfU 1 I NOC I

--)sv tt,.J 131

'9NIri3J 'ss3ng t 'ttvulno tvdiNf, AW nol oN IAIS wr I

'c3lIoA svM rt JI--JU3M AlHt JI N3A3 'Auvitrt=wovuJ

N338 3AVFI OlNOM SNO I IVSd]ANOf ]H1_-SNO I SSN]S I C fSfHl

aSVM 1l N3HM dO I I C IVS OHM U38W3l"l3U 1r NOC nOA J I

N3A3 ,NOIT-VSU3ANOf V H]NS CdVfH gNIAVH IIV]f U NOA OC

-_NIV]NNOJ 'UhI lSNIV9V NNU

OJ- ]SOHf 3HS UO 3H J I CNV 'A]NNOf WVHUNC IO ]1OA

)]V'IB 3H1 U3NdV9 CINOM--NOIIISOd 9NOU1S V NI ]8 CINOM

--3AVH CINOM ]1VC I CNV] )f VIB ]WOS ,XNVH] I t4 'UW lON J I

--3lVCICNV] )]V-I8 ]WOS IVHl--lfIU1SIC )]VIB AIIAV]H

V SI WVHUNC lVHI SNOII.VSU]ANOf 3U3M 3U]H1 3UNS WI I

aNOIIVSU3ANOf V Hf nS SVI'1 lU3H1 lVHI dfgt'Jlt"J3U nOl OC

'NoIrvsdlnNol cIJIflds v u3gylftl3d lrNoc nol JI NlAl
. 
CSAIOA] SNO I SSNSS I O 3S]H1 SV N]A I 9 SVM

SIS IVNV JO ONI) IVHI- I.VHl--SIlI IVHI )NIHl f rNOC

I ']9C3IMON) NOhJWOf, JO IUVd SVM SIHl )NIHI I.TNOC

I '3]VU AIIdONIW CNV S3II.UVd AIIdONII,'J JO SNIVUlS

IV]I1I]Od 3HI. JO fUVMV 3UV SSSfodd 9NI1fId1SIC3U

xU

V

b

3H1 N I C3AIOAN I CNV 9N I1] I U1S I O]U 3'IdO]d 3H1

]S]HI- 'S I SAIVNV JO CN I ) lVH1 HlUOJ 9N I 1I3S

SNOIIVSdSANOf llllf3dS ANV UlStl131,'J3U 1'NOC I V

lffu I C UfHIUNJ NVA I ]]NS 'dW

V

b

V

b

--su:l11vti

01 SV

z9

Ut,



7

9Z

VZ

tz

ZZ

LZ

0z

6t

8t

LL

9r

9I

NL

tt

ZL

tI

0r

6

8

n

t

Z

t

L

I

E

io SwvN 3Hl df BWl!{Sd I r NVI I --)lv-]8 io su I VJJV 3Hl-

NO 3311I WWOS I^IVHUNC f H1 JO H19N3U1S -IV3 I1I IOd 3Hl

SSN]S I C UOIVIS I9]I AI.IV 9N I UV]H U3A3 IIV]3d NOA OC

'oN

aoml lltulstc NI sltJ.Nnol u3H10 3Hl- iO l10A

)fVIB fHl d3NdVI 01 ]IVCICNVf )]VI8 V JO AlIIISV
3H1 1NO8V 9NI)IV1 ]NOANV dV]HU3AO OSIV NO  CIC

3IVC I ONV] AI.I UON I W U3HI-ONV UO--3NO]WOS dO

--1no8v >tvt- ostv Stdold c I c

'Al-Nnol hlvHunc io 310A )fvt8 3H1 d3NUV3 CtnOM XnVHIIW
.UW IVHl 1H9NOH] ]IdO3d 1VH1 SVM CIVS 1SNN NOA ]VHM

.SNOIIVSd]ANO] ]SOHl NI

9NIlvdlllldvd suolv-lsI93l 3u3M SulHJ- AVS cr I 'slA

ASNOIlVSUSANO] JO SlN3WgVUJ 3S3H1 NI gNIlvdIfII.UVd

SUOIVISI9fI ANV CUVSH U3A3 NOA 1VHI. AVS NOA CINOM

.SU3HIO CNV

N3WSS3U9NO3 fIJ If3dS 9NI1N3S3Ud]d 3IdO]d CNV 'SUSJJVI-S

'N3t^t dJdvdsMiN 'suol_vts I glt iHl- .cdvlHUJAo IAVH

I IVHJ- SNO I IVSUf ANOf JO SlN3I43VdJ--CUV3HU3AO f AVH

I Hf I HM SNO I lVSU3ANOf, JO SNO I 1]3IIOf3U S .1 I 'ON

ACIVS ]AVH lSNW ACOBfWOS

IVHM JO NO I I.I SOddNS UNOA 1NO8V 9N I )'IVI NO  3UV UO

ACUV]HU3AO NOA lVH.L

1]3U I C dfHlUNJ

'llluuof, s r 1vH1

SNOI lVSUSANO] JO

NVAIttnS 'dt4

89

b

V

b

V

b

V

b

UU