Fax to Everett RE: Defendant-Intervenors' Response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories and to First Request for Admissions

    . Regionai Office 

AJA .0 wr) @ NAACP LEGAL DESSNSE 1444 Eye NW 
AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 682-1300 Fax: (202) 682-1312 

FAX TRANSMISSION 

10: Robinson 0. Everett FAX: 7/9-652- S¥67 
    

    

    

FROM: Yoo! A. Cox 

    
DATE:_/ L275 

You will receive i323 pages (including cover sheet). If you do not, please call the number 
above to notify us. 

Message: Lense Sce cttrched. 

  

  

  

  

  

  

~ nfidentiality Not 

The information contained in this facsimile message 1s legally privileged and confidential information intended only for 
the use of the individual or enuty named above. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby 
notfied that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this telecopy is strictly prohibited. If you have received this 
telecopy in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original message to us at the above address 
via the United States Postal Service. 

Nationai Office Regionai Office 
Contmbunons are The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part Suite 1600 Suite 208 
deducnble for U.S. of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored Peopie 99 Hudson Street 31S West Ninth § 
income tax purposes. (NAACP) aithough LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its New York, NEW Los Angeles, CA 

commitrnent to equai rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate YORK 10013 (213) 624-2405 
Board. Program. staff. and budget. (212) 219-1900 Fax: (213) 624< 

Fax: (212) 226-7592  



  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

RALEIGH DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4:96-CV-104 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, ef al. 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR, et al., 

Defendants, 

and 

ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al., 

Defendant-Intervenors 

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

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ RESPONSE TO PLAIN TIFFS’ 
FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES TO DEFENDAN T-INTERVENORS 

Pursuant to Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant-intervenors Alfred 

Smallwood, David Moore, William M. Hodges, Robert L. Davis, Jr., Jan Valder, Barney 

Offerman, Virginia Newell, Charles Lambeth and George Simkins (“Smallwood Intervenors”) 

submit the following answers in response to Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant- 

Intervenors. 

Interrogatory No. 1 
  

If you claim that the First Congressional District in the 1992 Plan was not drawn in 

violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, please state the grounds 

for that claim, including whether race predominated in its creation, what compelling government 

interests led to its creation, and how it was narrowly tailored to serve these interests? [sic] 

 



  

Response to Interrogatory No. 1 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors object to this interrogatory because the interrogatory is 

irrelevant and not reasonably calculated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence. To the 

extent the Smallwood Intervenors are able to answer this interrogatory and without waiving their 

objections, supra, the Smallwood Intervenors respond as follows: 

This case is a challenge to the First and Twelfth Congressional Districts of North 

Carolina’s 1997 congressional reapportionment plan, 1997 N.C. Sess. Laws., Ch. 11 (“1997 

Plan”). The constitutionality of the First Congressional District in the 1992 North Carolina 

reapportionment plan, Chapter 7 (1991 Extra Session) (“1992 Plan”), is not at issue in this case. 

The Smallwood Intervenors make no claim with respect to the constitutionality of the 1992 Plan. 

Interrogatory No. 2 
  

If the court should find that race predominated in the creation of the 1st District in the 

1997 plan and that therefore the 1st District is subject to strict scrutiny, list all compelling state 

interests you contend that the state of North Carolina has which led to the configuration of the 1st 

District in the 1997 plan and explain how the 1st District of the 1997 plan is narrowly tailored to 

serve each such interest. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 2 
  

There were many factors, especially political concerns, that were considered by the 

General Assembly in conducting the 1997 redistricting. In addition to partisan and political 

concerns, the legislature also had before it a record containing a strong basis for the general 

assembly to believe that it was required by Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 

U.S.C. §§ 1973 and 1973c¢ (“Section 2” or “Section 5”) to create a majority-African-American 

 



  

Congressional district. The record included the historical exclusion of black voters, continuing 

racial appeals in North Carolina election contests, the socio-economic disparities affecting 

African-American voters’ opportunities to participate in the political process, the lack of success 

of African-American candidates, and the continuing prevalence of racially polarized voting. 

The General Assembly was aware of the following history. For nine decades, from 1901 

until 1992, no African-American candidate had been elected to Congress in North Carolina, even 

when they enjoyed the overwhelming support of African-American voters. Moreover, African- 

American voters had been disenfranchised as a result of conscious, deliberate and calculated state 

laws that both denied African-American voters access to the ballot box and effectively diluted 

their votes. The State utilized measures such as poll taxes, literacy tests, anti-single shot voting 

laws, and at-large and multi-member election districts to exclude African-Americans from the 

political process. Specifically, with regard to congressional districting, in its 1970 and 1980 

reapportionment plans, the General Assembly intentionally fragmented the African-American vote 

in the northeastern portion of the state to make sure African-American voters could not garner 

enough support to elect their preferred candidate to Congress. Also, racial appeals in campaigns 

were used by white candidates to dissuade white voters from supporting African-American 

candidates. 

The legislative record also showed present effects of this history. To this day, the ability 

of African-American voters to participate in congressional elections has continued to be hindered 

by the persistent effects of past official discrimination. For example, the legacy of literacy tests, in 

use until the mid-1970’s, and poll taxes continues to be reflected in the fact that African-American 

voters are registered to vote in lower percentages than white voters. African-American voters as 

 



  

a whole are less well-educated, lower-paid, more likely to be in poverty, and have less access to 

basic instruments of political participation such as telephones, cars, and money than do their white 

counterparts, which adversely affects their ability to participate effectively in the political process. 

The members of the General Assembly had evidence that elections in North Carolina in the 

1990’s are still marked by direct appeals to race designed to discourage white voters from voting 

for African-American candidates. In fact, in 1990, large numbers of qualified African-American 

voters were anonymously sent post cards which misrepresented state law and threatened them 

with criminal prosecution if they tried to vote after having recently moved. 

Information before the General Assembly showed that in North Carolina elections, white 

voters tend not to support the candidates of choice of African-American voters. In this century, 

no African-American candidate other than Ralph Campbell, State Auditor, has ever won a 

statewide election contest for a non-judicial office. No single-member majority-white state 

legislative district has ever elected an African-American candidate to the state legislature. A study 

of 50 recent elections in which voters have been presented with a choice between African- 

American and white candidates, including congressional elections, statewide elections and state 

legislative elections, found that 49 of the 50 were characterized by racially polarized voting. In 

every statewide election since 1988 where voters were presented with a biracial field of 

candidates, voting patterns indicated significant white-bloc voting. In all except two low-profile 

contests, racially polarized voting was sufficient to defeat the candidate chosen by African- 

American voters. 

The legislative record also showed that a pattern of racially polarized voting continued in 

the 1996 U.S. Senate campaign between Harvey Gantt and Jesse Helms. The regression and 

 



homogeneous precinct analyses show that statewide, Gantt received between 97.9 percent and 

100 percent of the African-American vote, but only 35.7 percent to 38.1 percent of the non- 

African-American vote. The Smallwood Intervenors contend that the 1998 elections corroborate 

these findings regarding a continuing pattern of racially polarized voting in North Carolina. 

The record before the General Assembly also showed that the African-American 

population in north eastern North Carolina was large and geographically compact enough to 

comprise a majority in a single-member district. See also Response to Interrogatories 5, 6, and 7. 

Given this record evidence of historic and current exclusion of African-Americans from 

the political process, the State of North Carolina had a compelling justification to comply with 

Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Such a compelling justification has been 

recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, as well as district courts. See, e.g., Shaw, 517 U.S. 899, 

914 (1996). 

Interrogatory No. 3 
  

If the court should find that race predominated in the creation of the 12th District in the 

1997 plan and that therefore the 12th District is subject to strict scrutiny, list all compelling state 

interests you contend that the state of North Carolina has which led to the configuration of the 

12th District in the 1997 plan and explain how the 12th District of the 1997 plan is narrowly 

tailored to serve each such interest? [sic] 

Response to Interrogatory No. 3 
  

There were many factors, especially political concerns, that were considered by the 

General Assembly in conducting the 1997 redistricting. In addition to partisan and political 

concerns, the legislature also had before it a record containing evidence of the historical exclusion  



of black voters, continuing racial appeals in North Carolina election contests, the socio-economic 

disparities affecting African-American voters’ opportunities to participate in the political process, 

the lack of success of African-American candidates, racial appeals, and the continuing prevalence 

of racially polarized voting. 

The General Assembly was aware of the following history. For nine decades, from 1901 

until 1992, no African-American candidate had been elected to Congress in North Carolina, even 

when they enjoyed the overwhelming support of African-American voters. Moreover, African- 

American voters had been disenfranchised as a result of conscious, deliberate and calculated state 

laws that both denied African-American voters access to the ballot box and effectively diluted 

their votes. The State utilized measures such as poll taxes, literacy tests, anti-single shot voting 

laws, and at-large and multi-member election districts to exclude African-Americans from the 

political process. Specifically, with regard to congressional districting, in its 1970 and 1980 

reapportionment plans, the General Assembly intentionally fragmented the African-American vote 

in the northeastern portion of the state to make sure African-American voters could not garner 

enough support to elect their preferred candidate to Congress. Also, racial appeals in campaigns 

were used by white candidates to dissuade white voters from supporting African-American 

candidates. 

The legislative record also showed present effects of this history. To this day, the ability 

of African-American voters to participate in congressional elections has continued to be hindered 

by the persistent effects of past official discrimination. For example, the legacy of literacy tests, in 

use until the mid-1970’s, and poll taxes continues to be reflected in the fact that African-American 

voters are registered to vote in lower percentages than white voters. African-American voters as  



a whole are less well-educated, lower-paid, more likely to be in poverty, and have less access to 

basic instruments of political participation such as telephones, cars, and money than do their white 

counterparts, which adversely affects their ability to participate effectively in the political process. 

The members of the General Assembly had evidence that elections in North Carolina in the 

1990’s are still marked by direct appeals to race designed to discourage white voters from voting 

for African-American candidates. In fact, in 1990, large numbers of qualified African-American 

voters were anonymously sent post cards which misrepresented state law and threatened them 

with criminal prosecution if they tried to vote after having recently moved. 

Information before the General Assembly showed that in North Carolina elections, white 

voters tend not to support the candidates of choice of African-American voters. In this century, 

no African-American candidate other than Ralph Campbell, State Auditor, has ever won a 

statewide election contest for a non-judicial office. No single-member majority-white state 

legislative district has ever elected an African-American candidate to the state legislature. A study 

of 50 recent elections in which voters have been presented with a choice between African- 

American and white candidates, including congressional elections, statewide elections and state 

legislative elections, found that 49 of the 50 were characterized by racially polarized voting. In 

every statewide election since 1988 where voters were presented with a biracial field of 

candidates, voting patterns indicated significant white-bloc voting. In all except two low-profile 

contests, racially polarized voting was sufficient to defeat the candidate chosen by African- 

American voters. 

The legislative record also showed that a pattern of racially polarized voting continued in 

the 1996 U.S. Senate campaign between Harvey Gantt and Jesse Helms. The regression and  



  

homogeneous precinct analyses show that statewide, Gantt received between 97.9 percent and 

100 percent of the African-American vote, but only 35.7 percent to 38.1 percent of the non- 

African-American vote. The Smallwood Intervenors contend that the 1998 elections corroborate 

these findings regarding a continuing pattern of racially polarized voting in North Carolina. 

Given this record evidence of the historic and on-going exclusion of African-American 

voters from the political process, as well its awareness of the findings regarding racially polarized 

voting in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), the State of North Carolina had a 

responsibility to recognize and not split a cohesive African-American voting population in the 

Piedmont region when creating the 1997 plan. Although the General Assembly’s primary goals in 

enacting the 1997 Plan were to correct the prior constitutional violation found in Shaw v. Hunt 

and to preserve the congressional delegation’s partisan balance, the State was also under an 

obligation to fulfill these objectives without diluting minority voting strength. This serves as a 

compelling justification for the creation of District 12 in the area in which the General Assembly 

chose to create it in the 1997 Plan. 

Interrogatory No. 4 
  

Identify any and all witnesses, sources, and documents which you contend support the 

position that the African-American population in northeastern North Carolina is sufficiently large 

and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member North Carolina 

Congressional district? [sic] 

Response to Interrogatory No. 4 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors object to this interrogatory because it is duplicative and 

unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs have full access to the General Assembly's redistricting computer 

 



  

system, the 1991, 1992, and 1997 Section 5 submissions, as well as the evidentiary record in 

Shaw v. Reno and Shaw v. Hunt. The information requested is as accessible to plaintiffs as the 

Smallwood Intervenors. To the extent the Smallwood Intervenors are able to answer this 

interrogatory and without waiving their objection, supra, the Smallwood Intervenors respond as 

follows: 

From 1991 through 1997, several maps have been produced which support the position 

that the African-American population in northeastern North Carolina is sufficiently large and 

geographically compact to constitute a majority of the total population in a single-member 

congressional district, including the maps made exhibits in the depositions of Senator Roy 

Cooper, Representative Edwin McMahan, Gerry Cohen and Linwood Jones: Exhibits 5. 6 (and 

its predecessor plans), 7 (the enacted 1997 Plan), 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 (and 

its predecessor plans), as well as Everett’s Bane 1, 2 and 3 (and other contest maps). Senator 

Roy Cooper, Representative Edwin McMahan, Gerry Cohen and Linwood Jones have been 

designated by defendants and defendant-intervenors as the primary witnesses on this matter. 

Interrogatory No. 5 
  

Identify every redistricting map or plan you are aware of which illustrates the presence of 

an African-American population in northeastern North Carolina that is sufficiently large and 

geographically compact to constitute a majority of the total population in a single member 

Congressional District. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 5 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors object to this interrogatory because it is duplicative and 

unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs have full access to the General Assembly's redistricting computer 

 



  

system, the 1991, 1992, and 1997 Section 5 submissions, as well as the evidentiary record in 

Shaw v. Reno and Shaw v. Hunt. The information requested is as accessible to plaintiffs as the 

Smallwood Intervenors. To the extent the Smallwood Intervenors are able to answer this 

interrogatory and without waiving their objection, supra, the Smallwood Intervenors respond as 

follows: 

From 1991 through 1997, several maps have been produced which support the position 

that the African-American population in northeastern North Carolina is sufficiently large and 

geographically compact to constitute a majority of the total population in a single-member 

congressional district, including the maps made exhibits in the depositions of Senator Roy 

Cooper, Representative Edwin McMahan, Gerry Cohen and Linwood Jones: Exhibits 5, 6 (and 

its predecessor plans), 7 (the enacted 1997 Plan), 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 and 41 (and 

its predecessor plans), as well as Everett’s Bane 1, 2 and 3 (and other contest maps). Senator 

Roy Cooper, Representative Edwin McMahan, Gerry Cohen and Linwood Jones have been 

designated by defendants and defendant-intervenors as the primary witnesses on this matter. See 

also Response to Interrogatory No. 6. 

Interrogatory No. 6 
  

Identify every redistricting map or plan you are aware of which illustrates the presence of 

an African-American population in northeastern North Carolina that is sufficiently large and 

geographically compact to constitute a majority of the voting age population in a single member 

Congressional District. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 6 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors object to this interrogatory because it is duplicative and 

10 

 



  

unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs have full access to the General Assembly's redistricting computer 

system, the 1991, 1992, and 1997 Section 5 submissions, as well as the evidentiary record in 

Shaw v. Reno and Shaw v. Hunt. The information requested is as accessible to plaintiffs as the 

Smallwood Intervenors. To the extent the Smallwood Intervenors are able to answer this 

interrogatory and without waiving their objection, supra, the Smallwood Intervenors respond as 

follows: 

From 1991 through 1997, several maps have been produced that illustrate that there is an 

African-American population in northeastern North Carolina that is sufficiently large and 

geographically compact to constitute a majority of the voting age population in a single member 

congressional district, including the 1991 Plan (and its predecessor plans), 96 CONGRESS 

MARTIN 1.0, 2, and 4. 

Interrogatory No. 7 
  

Identify every redistricting map or plan you are aware of which supports or illustrates the 

presence elsewhere in North Carolina of an African-American population that is sufficiently large 

and geographically compact to constitute a majority of the voting age population in a single- 

member North Carolina Congressional district. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 7 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors object to this interrogatory because it is duplicative and 

unduly burdensome. Plaintiffs have full access to the General Assembly's redistricting computer 

system, the 1991, 1992, and 1997 Section 5 submissions, as well as the evidentiary record in 

Shaw v. Reno and Shaw v. Hunt. The information requested is as accessible to plaintiffs as the 

Smallwood Intervenors. To the extent the Smallwood Intervenors are able to answer this 

11 

 



interrogatory and without waiving their objection, supra, the Smallwood Intervenors respond as 

follows: 

The Smallwood Intervenors refer Plaintiffs to maps, data, and information contained in the 

1991, 1992, and 1997 Section 5 submissions. 

Interrogatory No. § - WITHDRAWN 
  

List the names of black elected officials in all twenty-six counties in the 1997 Plan 1st and 

12th Districts who were elected during the 1988 to 1996 elections, including elections to county, 

city, school board, or General Assembly positions, together with the black voting age population 

for the jurisdiction from which they were elected. 

Interrogatory No. 9 
  

What, if any, post-1990 census data do you intend to rely onto [sic] establish the existence 

of the Gingles preconditions as to Districts 1 and/or 127? 

Response to Interrogatory No. 9 
  

It 1s the understanding of the Smallwood Intervenors there is no post-1990 Census data 

upon which to rely except a post-1990 release of socio-economic data by the U.S. Census 

Bureau. The Smallwood Intervenors refer Plaintiffs to the 1997 Section 5 Submission, 97C-27N 

and Attachment 97C-28A, for population projections that were before the General Assembly 

during the 1997 redistricting. 

Interrogatory No. 10 - WITHDRAWN 
  

Describe the circumstances under which you decided to become a participant in this 

lawsuit as a Defendant-Intervenor. 

Interrogatory No. 11 
   



  

Do you contend that there are communities of interest among the black voters of the 

Twelfth District? If so, please describe each of those communities of interest and the facts which 

support your contention. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 11 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors contend that the residents of District 12, regardless of race, 

share a distinct community of interest. For example, District 12 is an urban district and the 

residents share common economic interests in areas, including manufacturing, research, banking 

and higher education. The residents are largely employed in blue collar, suburban, and urban 

employment, rather than in agricultural businesses. The interests of the residents of District 12 

are those of a largely urban populous, including urban crime problems, unemployment, the lack of 

educational opportunities for low-income residents, and housing and economic development 

concerns. 

Interrogatory No. 12 
  

Do you contend that there are communities of interest among the black voters of the First 

District? If so, please describe each of those communities of interest and the facts which support 

your contentions. 

Response to Interrogatory No. 12 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors contend that the residents of District 1, regardless of race, 

share a distinct community of interest. For example, District 1 is a distinctly rural district whose 

residents are largely poor. The economy of the region in which the district is located is based 

primarily on agriculture and logging and districts residents are employed largely in agricultural 

businesses. The concerns of the residents of District 12 are those of a rural population, including, 

13 

 



  

unemployment and economic development in an environment in which fewer agriculture jobs are 

available due to increased mechanization. 

This 4th day of October, 1999. 

Elaine R. Jones 

President and Director-Counsel 

Mode r/ 
Todd A. Cox 

NAACP Legal wi 

& Educational ad Inc. 

1444 1 Street, N.W., 10th Floor 

Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 682-1300 

(by fi / 
Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein, a Adkins 

Gresham & Sumter, P A. 

312 West Franklin Street 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 

(919) 933-5300 

  

  

14 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of Defendant-Intervenors’ Response to 

Plaintiffs’ First Set of Interrogatories to Defendant-Intervenors have been served by first-class 

mail, postage prepaid to the following: 

Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 

Chief Deputy Attorney General 

Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

North Carolina Department of Justice 

Post Office Box 629 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629 

and have been served by telefacsimile and first-class mail, postage prepaid to the following; 

Robinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett 

Post Office Box 586 

Durham, North Carolina 27702 

NA 
Todd A. Cort 

This? 7 { doy of October, 1999. 

  

13 

 



  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

RALEIGH DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4:96-CV-104 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al. 

Plaintiffs, 

V. 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR, et al., 

Defendants, 

and 

ALFRED SMALLWOQOD, et al., 

Defendant-Intervenors 

N
a
 

N
w
 

N
w
 

N
w
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
a
 

N
w
 

N
w
 

N
u
 

N
w
 

N
w
 

a
 

a
 

a
w
 

  

DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS’ RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS TO DEFENDANT-INTERVENORS 

Pursuant to Rule 36, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Defendant-intervenors Alfred 

Smallwood, David Moore, William M. Hodges, Robert L. Davis, Jr., Jan Valder, Barney 

Offerman, Virginia Newell, Charles Lambeth and George Simkins (“Smallwood Intervenors”) 

submit the following answers in response to Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions to Defendant- 

Intervenors: 

Request No. 1 
  

With respect to the 1st District, the North Carolina General Assembly in drawing up the 

1997 Congressional redistricting plan adopted by the North Carolina Legislature as HB 586 

(hereafter referred to as the 1997 Plan) used as its starting point the basic core of the 1st District 

 



  

as created under the 1992 Congressional plan. 

Response to Request No. 1 
  

It is admitted that the “starting point” in creating the 1997 Plan was curing the 

constitutional defects found by the Supreme Court found in Shaw v. Hunt without disturbing the 

six-six partisan split of the state’s congressional delegation and that, consistent with this “starting 

point,” the General Assembly endeavored to maintain some of the general geographic, constituent 

and partisan core of District 1 as constituted under the 1992 Plan. Except as admitted this 

request is denied. 

Request No. 2 
  

With respect to the 12th District, the North Carolina General Assembly in drawing up the 

1997 Plan used as its starting point the basic core of the 12th District as created under the 1992 

Plan. 

Response to Request No. 2 
  

It is admitted that the “starting point” in creating the 1997 Plan was curing the 

constitutional defects found by the Supreme Court found in Shaw v. Hunt without disturbing the 

six-six partisan split of the state’s congressional delegation and that, consistent with this “starting 

point,” the General Assembly endeavored to maintain some of the general geographic, 

constituent, partisan and urban core of District 12 as constituted under the 1992 Plan. Except as 

admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 3 
  

The 1997 plan was an attempt by the North Carolina General Assembly to change the 

1992 Plan as little as possible, without violating the requirements of the Equal Protection Clause 

 



of the 14th Amendment. 

Response to Request No. 3 
  

It is admitted that curing the constitutional defects found by the Supreme Court in Shaw v. 

Hunt in the 1992 Plan without disturbing the existing six-six partisan split in the state’s 

congressional delegation was the primary goal in drawing the 1997 Plan, and that preserving some 

of the general geographic, constituent and partisan core of each incumbent’s district in the 1992 

Plan was a consideration in drawing the 1997 Plan. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 4 
  

While undertaking to draw the 1997 plan, the North Carolina General Assembly was 

informed by state officials that any district they drew that was not majority African American 

would not be subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection analysis of Shaw v. Reno and its 

SUCCESSOr cases. 

Response to Request No. 4 
  

Denied, except for an argument made by Senator Roy Cooper to persuade the Senate to 

support the 1997 Plan in which he stated that it made eminent sense that because District 12 was 

not majority-minority, the shape of the district would not trigger the test outlined in Shaw v. 

Reno; this argument was repeated by Representative Edwin McMahan in the House. 

Request No. 5 
  

When it drew the 1997 plan, the North Carolina General Assembly believed that any 

district they drew that was not majority African-American would not be subject to strict scrutiny 

under the Equal Protection analysis of Shaw v. Reno and its successor cases.  



  

Response to Request No. 5 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable them to admit or 

deny this request, and this request is therefore denied. See also Response to Request No. 4. 

Request No. 6 
  

The 1st District of the 1992 Congressional Redistricting Plan violated the Equal 

Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by Shaw v. Reno, Miller v. 

Johnson, Bush v. Vera, and Shaw v. Hunt. 

Response to Request No. 6 
  

No court has held the 1st District in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment as interpreted by Shaw v. Reno, Miller v. Johnson, Bush v. Vera, and 

Shaw v. Hunt. Therefore, the Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable 

them to admit or deny this request, and this request is therefore denied. 

Request No. 7 
  

The North Carolina General Assembly drew up the 1st District of the 1997 plan with the 

purpose that it be a majority black district. 

Response to Request No. 7 
  

It is admitted that one of several purposes influencing the configuration of District 1 in the 

1997 Plan was the creation of a majority African-American district in order to address the State’s 

strong basis in evidence that the plan otherwise would be vulnerable to an attack under Section 2 

and/or Section 5S of the Voting Rights Act. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 8 
  

In determining the existence of the first Gingles threshold factor, i.e., whether the minority 

 



  

group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single member 

district, the correct method is to determine whether African-Americans of voting age constitute a 

majority of citizens of voting age in that district, rather than to determine whether African - 

Americans constitutes a majority of the total population or a majority of the registered voters. 

Response to Request No. 8 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 9 
  

In North Carolina, almost all inhabitants are citizens and so the voting age population of 

the African-American [sic] very closely approximates the citizen voting age population of African 

Americans. 

Response to Request No. 9 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable the defendants to 

admit or deny this request, and this request therefore is denied. 

Request No. 10 
  

Between 1792 and 1992. Mecklenburg County was not in the same congressional district 

with either Forsyth or Guilford counties. 

Response to Request No. 10 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 11 
  

The African-American minority in North Carolina consists of 22% of the total population 

of the state and 20% of the voting age population. 

 



  

Response to Request No. 11 
  

It is admitted that, according to the 1990 Census, African-Americans in North Carolina 

constitute 21.97% of the total population and 20.07% of the voting age population. 

Request No. 12 
  

At least 95% of the registered voters who are African-Americans in North Carolina are 

registered as Democrats. 

Response to Request No. 12 
  

Based on rough estimates or approximations made by the State of North Carolina, it is 

admitted that the figure 95% in the urban counties (and a slightly higher percentage in rural 

counties) of African-Americans are registered as Democrats. This estimation is based on 

calculations done in 1991 or 1992 in about 35 counties by cross-tabulating race and party 

affiliation data. Except as admitted, this request is denied. 

Request No. 13 
  

At least 95% of the registered African American voters in North Carolina regularly vote 

for Democratic candidates rather than for candidates of other parties. 

Response to Request No. 13 
  

It is admitted that African-American voters in North Carolina are politically cohesive. 

Except as admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 14 
  

Mecklenburg County is principally served by the Charlotte Observer, Forsyth County by 

the Winston-Salem Journal, and Guilford County by the Greensboro News. 

 



Response to Request No. 14 
  

Admitted, except that the Greensboro newspaper is the Greensboro News & Record. 

Request No. 15 
  

Only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Mecklenburg County subscribe to or 

regularly read a newspaper published in Guilford or Forsyth counties. 

Response to Request No. 15 
  

It is admitted that only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Mecklenburg County 

subscribe to a newspaper published in Guilford or Forsyth counties. The information known or 

readily obtainable by the Smallwood Intervenors upon reasonable inquiry is insufficient to enable 

them to admit or deny the percentage of Mecklenburg County inhabitants that regularly read any 

newspapers, including those published in Guilford or Forsyth counties. 

Request No. 16 
  

Only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Guilford or Forsyth counties subscribe to or 

regularly read a newspaper published in Mecklenburg County. 

Response to Request No. 16 
  

It is admitted that only a small percentage of the inhabitants of Guilford or Forsyth 

Counties subscribe to a newspaper published in Mecklenburg county. The information known or 

readily obtainable by the Smallwood Intervenors upon reasonable inquiry is insufficient to enable 

them to admit or deny the percentage of Guilford or Forsyth Counties inhabitants that regularly 

read any newspapers, including those published in Mecklenburg County. 

Request No. 17 
  

Mecklenburg County is in the Charlotte television market (DMA) while Forsyth and  



Guilford counties are in the Piedmont Triad market (DMA). 

Response to Request No. 17 
  

Admitted, except that the DMA which includes Forsyth and Guilford counties is the 

Greensboro-Winston-Salem-High Point. N.C. DMA. 

Request No. 18 
  

Mecklenburg County is in the Charlotte Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, and 

Forsyth and Guilford are in the Greensboro-High Point-Winston-Salem Standard Metropolitan 

Statistical Area. 

Response to Request No. 18 
  

It is admitted that Mecklenburg County is in the Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 

Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) and Forsyth and Guilford Counties are in the Greensboro- 

Winston-Salem-High Point MSA. 

Request No. 19 
  

Only a small percentage of inhabitants in Mecklenburg County listen to radio stations 

licensed to communities in Guilford and Forsyth Counties. 

Response to Request No. 19 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable the defendants to 

admit or deny this request, and this request therefore is denied. 

Request No. 20 
  

Only a small percentage of inhabitants in Mecklenburg County listen to radio stations 

licensed to communities in Guilford and Forsyth Counties.  



Response to Request No. 20 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable the defendants to 

admit or deny this request, and this request therefore is denied. 

Request No. 21 
  

In the 1997 plan, Representative Susan Myrick’s residence was included in the 12th 

District. 

Response to Request No. 21 
  

It is admitted that the General Assembly redistricting data base shows Representative 

Myrick’s residence to be in District 12, but her current residence is, in fact, in District 9 in the 

1997 Plan. 

Request No. 22 
  

When drawing the First District in the 1997 plan, the General Assembly believed that the 

Civil Rights Division would not grant Section 5 preclearance if the newly drawn district did not 

have a sufficiently high percentage of African American voting strength. 

Response to Request No. 22 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors lack information or knowledge to enable them to admit or 

deny what each member of the General Assembly believed individually or collectively with regard 

to the conditions under which the Civil Rights Division would or would not grant Section 5 

preclearance. It is admitted that when developing the 1997 Plan, the State of North Carolina was 

concerned that if it failed to create a majority-minority district, the Civil Rights Division might 

deny preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act if the Division’s analysis showed a 

clear violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or demonstrated that the 1997 Plan was  



tainted by discriminatory intent, Except as admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 23 
  

When drawing the 12th District in the 1997 plan, the General Assembly believed that the 

Civil Rights Division would not grant Section 5 preclearance if the newly drawn district did not 

have a sufficiently high percentage of African American voting strength. 

Response to Request No. 23 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 24 
  

The 12th District of the 1998 plan is more geographically compact than the 12th District 

of the 1997 plan. 

Response to Request No. 24 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 25 
  

The 12th District of the 1997 plan is not geographically compact. 

Response to Request No. 25 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 26 
  

The 1st District of the 1997 plan is not geographically compact. 

Response to Request No. 26 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 27 
  

The 12th District of the 1992 plan was not geographically compact. 

10  



  

Response to Request No. 27 
  

The Smallwood Intervenors admit that the US. Supreme Court in Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 

899 (1996) determined that District 12 of the 1992 Plan was not geographically compact. 

Request No. 28 
  

The 1st District of the 1992 plan was not geographically compact. 

Response to Request No. 28 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 29 
  

When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split 

Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Rowan, Iredell, Davidson, and Guilford counties. 

Response to Request No. 29 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 30 
  

When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split 

Mecklenburg, Forsyth, Rowan, Iredell, Davidson, and Guilford counties in a manner that 

conforms to racial lines. 

Response to Request No. 30 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 31 
  

When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split Pitt, Craven, 

Wayne, Lenoir, Jones, Washington, Person, Granville, Wilson, and Beaufort counties. 

11 

 



  

Response to Request No. 31 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 32 
  

When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split Pitt, Craven, 

Wayne, Lenoir, Jones, Washington, Person, Granville, Wilson and Beaufort counties in a manner 

which conforms to racial lines. 

Response to Request No. 32 
  

It is admitted that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was one factor 

among others contributing to the splitting of some counties when drawing District 1 in the 1997 

Plan, but it is specifically denied that Wayne, Jones, Washington, Person, Granville or Beaufort 

were split for reasons related to race. Except as admitted this request is denied. 

Request No. 33 
  

When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the cities of 

Ayden, Battleboro, Fremont, Goldsboro. Greenville, Kinston, New Bern, Rocky Mount, 

Sharpsburg, Trent Woods, Washington, Whitakers, and Wilson. 

Response to Request No. 33 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 34 
  

When drawing the 1st District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the cities of 

Ayden, Battleboro, Fremont, Goldsboro, Greenville, Kinston, New Bern, Rocky Mount, 

Sharpsburg, Trent Woods, Washington, Whitakers, and Wilson in a manner which conforms to 

racial lines. 

12 

 



  

Response to Request No. 34 
  

It is admitted that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was one factor 

contributing to the splitting of some cities when drawing District 1 in the 1997 Plan, but it is 

specifically denied that Battleboro, Fremont, Rocky Mount, Sharpsburg, Trent Woods, 

Washington or Whitakers were split for reasons related to race. Except as admitted this request is 

denied. 

Request No. 35 
  

When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the cities of 

Charlotte, Statesville, Thomasville, Salisbury, Winston-Salem, High Point, Greensboro, Cornelius, 

Davidson, Mooresville, Troutman, Lexington, and Spencer. 

Response to Request No. 35 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 36 
  

When drawing the 12th District of the 1997 plan, the General Assembly split the cities of 

Charlotte, Statesville, Thomasville, Salisbury, Winston-Salem, High Point, Greensboro, Cornelius, 

Davidson, Mooresville, Troutman, Lexington, and Spencer in a manner which conforms to racial 

lines. 

Response to Request No. 36 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 37 
  

It is not possible to draw up a geographically compact Congressional District in 

Northeastern North Carolina where the African-American population is greater than 50% of the 

13 

 



  

total population. 

Response to Request No. 37 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 38 
  

It is not possible to draw up a geographically compact Congressional District in 

northeastern North Carolina where the African-American voting age population greater than 50% 

of the voting age population in that district. 

Response to Request No. 38 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 39 
  

The Republican Party first allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in its primary in the May, 

1988 primary election. 

Response to Request No. 39 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 40 
  

The Democratic Party first allowed unaffiliated voters to vote in its primary in the May, 

1996 election. 

Response to Request No. 40 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 41 
  

The five largest entire cities or towns in Congressional District 1 are Roanoke Rapids, 

pop. 15,722, Henderson, pop. 15,361, Tarboro, pop. 10,991, Oxford, pop. 7,750 and Roxboro, 

14 

 



pop. 7,219. 

Response to Request No. 41 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 42 
  

The five largest entire cities or towns in Congressional District 3 are Jacksonville, pop. 

29,196, Elizabeth City, pop. 14,237, Havelock, pop. 12,359, Morehead City, pop. 6,046, and 

Edenton, pop. 5,164. 

Response to Request No. 42 
  

Admitted. 

Request No. 43 
  

In the ten counties District 1 shares with other districts, every single precinct in which 

African-American residents constitute a majority of the total population is included within the 

boundaries of the Ist District. 

Response to Request No. 43 
  

Denied. 

Request No. 44 
  

In the ten counties District 1 shares with other districts, 22 of the 26 precincts in which 

black residents comprise between 40% and 50% of the total population are included within the 1st 

District. 

 



  

Response to Request No. 44 
  

Admitted. 

This 4th day of October, 1999. 

Elaine R. Jones 

  

  

Todd A. Cox L 
NAACP Legal Defense 

& Educational Fund, Inc. 
1444 I Street, N.W._, 10th Floor 
Washington, D.C. 20005 

(202) 682-1300 

wm b= /% : Fr 

Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins 

Gresham & Sumter, P.A. 

312 West Franklin Street 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 
(919) 933-5300 

16 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that true and correct copies of Defendant-Intervenors’ Response to 

Plaintiffs’ First Request for Admissions to Defendant-Intervenors have been served by first-class 

mail, postage prepaid to the following: 

Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 

Chief Deputy Attorney General 
Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 
North Carolina Department of Justice 
Post Office Box 629 

Raleigh, North Carolina 27602-0629 

and have been served by telefacsimile and first-class mail, postage prepaid to the following: 

Robinson O. Everett 
Everett & Everett 

Post Office Box 586 

Durham, North Carolina 27702 

This#h day of October, 1999. i 

re 
Z& A. Coy/ 

  

17 

 



XXXOOOOOCOOOOOOCKOOOCOOCKOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOKOOCKCOOOOOCKOOOOOKOCOOOOOOOOOIOOOCRRK 

% Qo REPORT ® E P. 01 

OCT-04-99 ION 18:12   

  

0CT-04 17:53 19196825469-704 19°05" 33 SEND 

09009009009 0090090090090009009009 0009000000000 0 0000000000000 0009000000000000000000000000 0000900900 

X X 
X X 
X X 
X X 
X DATE START RECEIVER TK TIME PAGES TYPE M# DP X 
X X 
X X 

X X 
X X