Gingles v. Edmisten Answer

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 .

Matter
- Gingles
Case
- Thornburg v. Gingles
U.S. state
- North Carolina
Collection
- Case Files
Taxonomy
Identifier
- 96b54004-e292-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873

Cite this item

Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Working Files - Guinier. Gingles v. Edmisten Answer, 1981. 96b54004-e292-ee11-be37-6045bdeb8873. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/31c6596e-a764-41c3-bece-240f0489b12c/gingles-v-edmisten-answer. Accessed November 29, 2025.

Copied!

    (ta.
I

rN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
POR TTIE EASTERN DISTRIET OF NORT}I CAROLINA

RALETGH DTVISIO}I

crvrl AcrroN No. 81-803-crv-5

RALPH GINGLES, €t a1., )
)

i *' t ',s a ')
\/. ) ANSI{ER

)
RTFUS EDMISTEN, etc., et aI., ) toEC - g'l5ul

)Defendants. 1 JJ:3.-r'fil[+?3,5FT-

E" DIST. NO. CAR.

FIRST DEFENSE

The Complaint fails to state a claim upon rrhich relief can

be granted.

SECOND DEF'ENSE

The Defendants in the above-captioned action ansvrer the

allegations contained in the Complaintr BS follows:
1. Defendants admit that Plaiitiffs seek d,eclaratory and

injunctive relief . Defendants are without sufficient kno'.rledge

to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation reqardinq

identity of the Plaintiffs. Defendants deny aI1 the remaining

allegations of Paragraph 1.

2. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraphs 2, 3, 4.

3. Def endants are without suf f icient knor'rledge to form a

-belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraphs 5, 6,7,8.
4. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraphs 9, 10, 1I,

L2, 13.

5. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraphs 14, 15.

Defendants admit that Robert $I. Spearman is nov, a member of the

Board of Elections and its Chairman. Defen<tants admit that Elloree
M. Enrin, Ruth T. Semashko, William A. Iarsh, Jr. and John A.. Walker

are now members of the Board of Elections.
6. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph lG.

7. Defendants are raithout sufficient knovrledge to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraphs !7 , Ig, L9,

20, 21, 22, 23.



(
c _2_

(

8. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraphs ?-4, 25, 26,

27 , 28, 29 , 30.

9. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 31.

10. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraphs 32, 33.

11. Defendants are without sufficient knovrledge to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 34.

L2. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 35, 36.

13. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragrdphs 37, 38.

14. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to form a

belief as to the truth of Paragraph 39.

15. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 40.

16. Def endants are without suf ficj.ent k-nowledge to form a

belief as to the truth of Paragraph 4L.

L7. Defendants are rrithout sufficient knovrledge to form a

helief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 42.

18. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 43, except

that they admit that the 1981 Apportionment obeys the North Carolina

Constitution.

19. Defendants are without sufficient knowledge to form a belief
as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 44.

19a. Defendants a<l.mit the allegations of Paragraph 45.

20. Defendants deny the alleqations of Paragraph 46.

21. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 47.

22. Defendants deny the allegations of Paraqranh 48, 49.

23. Defendants admit the allegations of Paraoraph 50.

24. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraphs 51, 52.

25. Defendants a<i.mit the allegations of Paragraphs 53, 54, 55,

except Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 54, insofar as

Chapter 800 of the Session Larss of 1981 has heen rendered void

by enactment of Chapier 1130.

26. Defendants deny the allegations of Paraqraph 56.

27. Defendants admit the allegations of Panagraph 57.



(

28. Defendants deny

insofar as the plan has

of Chapter 1130.

29. Defendants deny

30. Defendants admit

63.

-3-

the allegations of

been rendered void

Paragraph 58, 59

by the enactment

the allegations of Paragraph 60.

the allegations of Paragraphs 61, 62,

31. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraphs 64.

32. Defendants are vrithout sufficient knowledge to form

a belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 55.

33. Defendants admit the allegati-ons of Paragraph 66.

34. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 67, 68.

35. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 69.

36. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragra.ph 70.

37. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 71.

38. Defendants deny the allegations gf Faragraph 72.

39. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 73, '74.

40. Defendants are without sufficient knovrledge to form a

belief as to the truth of Paragraph 75.

41. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 76.

42. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 77.

43. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 78.

44. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 79.

45. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 80.

46. Defendants admj-t the allegations of Paragraph 81, 82, 83,

except insofar as Chapter 800, is superseded by Chapter 1130.

47. Defendants are without suf ficient knovrle<lge to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Paragraph 84.

48. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 85.

49. Defendants denv the allegations of Paragraph 86, except

that Defendants admit that subsequent to Julv 1981, the legislature

repealed the July 1981 apportionment.



( -4-
(

50. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraphs 87, 88,

89, 90, 91.

51. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 92.

52. Defendnats admit the allegations of Paragraph 93, 94, 95"

53. Defenclants are vrithout suf f icient knoryledge to form a

belief as to the truth of the allegations of Faragraph 96, 97.

54. Defendants admit the allegations of paragraph 98.

55. Defendants deny the allegations of Paragraph 99.

56. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 100"

57. Defendants admit that Chapter 1130 of the Session Laws

of 1981 tvas enacted in accordance with Article II, Sectiorr 5(3).
Defendants deny all other allegatj-ons of Paraqraph 101.

58. Defendants deny the allegations of paragraph 102.

59. Defendants admit the allegations of Paragraph 103 "

60. Defendants i"rry the allegations of Paraoraph 104.

THIRD DEFENSE

only forty (40).of North carolinars one hundred (100) counties

arc subject to the preclearance requirements of Section 5 of the

Voting Rights Act.

TOURTH DEFENSE

The legislature engaged in a good faith effort to achieve a

precise mathematj-ca1 apportionment. The deviations in the 1981

Apportionment of the General Assembly were unavoidable and are

justified by rational state policies.

FIFTH DEFEIVSE

The Constitutional Amendments, Article If, Section 3(3) and-

Section 5(3.), have heen submitted to the Department of Justice

for preclearance. The Attorney General has interposed objection
to these am"endments. The State of North Carolina has the option
to sue in Federal District Court in the District of Columbia for



(
-5-

a final determj-nation of the validity of these amendments. Thus,

the validity and enforceability of the amendments has not been

finally d6termined.

WHEREFORE, Defendants having fu1ly answered each and every

allegation contained in the Plaintiff's Complaint and Plaintiff's
Supplemental Complaint, and having set forth their defensesr pray

that this Court deny the relief requested and dismiss the Complaint

with prejudice.

C

Respectfully submitted this f U^, of December, 198I.

RUFUS L. ED},!ISTE]!'!
ATTORNEY GENERAT,

of Justice
Post Office Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602
Telephone: (919) 733-3377

Attorne./ for Defendants

I.Iorma Harretl
Tiare Smil-ey
Assistant Attorneys General

John Lassiter
Associate Attorney General

Of Counsel:

Jerris Leonard &

900 17th Street,
Suite 1020
Washington, D. C.
Telephone: (2OZ'l

Associates, P.C.
N.W.

20006
872-L09s

Wallade, .Trl
Attorney Gen

Legal Affairs
Atfilrney General r s Office
llorth Carolina Department



t
C',f Ci-6-

CERTTFTCATE OF SERVTCE

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing

Answer upon Plaintiffs' attorneys by placing a copy of eaid Pleading

Ln the United States Post Office, postage prepaid, addressed to:
,J. Levonne Chambers
Leslie Winner
Chambers, Fergusohr' tlatt, Irrallas,' Adkins & Fu1ler, P.A.
951 South Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carolina 28202

ilack Greenberg
James M. Nabrit, IfI
Napeoleon B" I{i1lianns, Jr"
10 CoLurnbus Circle
New York, New York I00L9

This *" ? day of December , 19 8I .

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.

Gingles v. Edmisten Answer

Matter

Case

U.S. state

Collection

Taxonomy

Identifier

Cite this item

Copyright notice

Additional info

You may also be interested in