Motion For Leave to File Brief and Brief Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioners

    MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice 

ATTORNEY GENERAL P.O. BOX 629 REPLY TO: Frances S. Carraway, CLAS 

RALEIGH Special Litigation 
27602-0629 (919) 716-6900 

(919) 716-6763 

August 2, 2000 

Seth Neyhart By FAX and FED EX 

Robinson O. Everett 

Post Office Box 586 (Self-Help Building) 

Durham, NC 27702 

Douglas E. Markham By FAX ONLY 

333 Clay, Suite 4510 

Post Office Box 130923 

Houston, TX 77219-0923 

Martin B. McGee By FAX ONLY 

Wiliams, Boger, Grady, Davis & Tuttle, P.A. 

Post Office Box 2 

Kannapolis, NC 28082 

Re: Joint Appendix in Hunt v. Cromartie 

Dear Seth: 

Included in this, hopefully final, federal express package are the corrections you noted 

with the exception of those edits you made on the Shaw documents which are, unfortunately the 

way they were filed. With these documents as with all others, we are not making corrections 

to in the original or noting errors in it with [sic]. The following documents are for your initial 

review. 

DOCUMENTS SENT 8/2 

Weber’s Trial Testimony 

Whber’s Deposition excerpts 

Weber’s Report with Tables 

Gerry Cohen’s Shaw Trial Testimony  



  

Seth Neyhart 

August 1, 2000 

Page 2 

As indicated yesterday in my letter to you, I need any additional designations to the 

documents you received today via federal expressand to Weber’s deposition and trial testimony 

by noon tomorrow. We will need any additional designations from Weber’s report by noon, 

Friday, August 3". Any edits on these documents will need to be in our hands by noon on 

Monday, August 7%. 

Again | request that you fax to us any edits you think necessary as you discover them, 

especially if they might affect pagination. That will allow us to have a more accurate page 

count when we begin to label maps on Friday. Any adjustments to disputed designations will 

be made once those disputes are resolved. 

As always, call if you have any questions with which you feel I can help. 

Sincerely, 

Tons 
Frances S. Carraway, CLAS 

CC: Todd Cox (by fed ex) 

Adam Stein (by fax) 

 



  

lja 

TRIAL TESTIMONY EXCERPTS OF DR. RONALD E. WEBER 

%* % % 

[143] Mr. Markham: Our next witness is Dr. Ron Weber. 

Ronald E. Weber, being first duly sworn, testified as follows 

during Direct Examination: 

By Mr. Markham: 

[144] Q. Dr. Weber, state your full name for the record, 

please. 

A. Ronald E. Weber. 

Q. And can you identify for us Exhibit 48 in the deposition 

exhibits? 

A. Yes, that's Exhibit A to my declaration, which includes 

my curriculum vitae. 

Q. That's a reasonably current listing of your consulting 

and writings and other educational data with respect to your 

service in political science? 

Yes, sir. 

Where do you teach today? 

Teach at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee. 

What subject? 

Political science, particularly state politics, political S
R
 

behavior and methodology. 

Q. In the course of your -- over the last several years, have 

you had an opportunity to evaluate a number of redistricting 

plans in the context of Shaw lawsuits? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. And can you tell us in which cases you have offered 

opinions and done analysis with respect to issues regarding 

whether a significant number of persons were placed inside or 

outside of the district on the basis of race? 

 



  

2ja 

[145] A. Yes, sir. I was an expert in Hayes versus State 

of Louisiana in Louisiana, of course. In Vera versus Richards 

in Texas. Miller versus Johnson in Georgia. Expert by 

deposition here in North Carolina in Shaw versus Hunt. Expert 

in legislative case in Texas, Thomas versus Bush. Expert in 

Johnson versus Mortimer, District of Florida challenging the 

Third District. Moon versus Meadows in Virginia. Chen 

versus City of Houston, local city counsel case in Houston. I 

think that enumerates the cases. 

Q. In addition to those cases, have you also consulted and 

given advice as well as testimony regarding Section 2 and 

Section 5 issues for government's and groups? 

A. Government's and groups, yes. 

Q. Can you identify Exhibit 49 for us? 

A. Yes. Exhibit 49 is an exhibit that I prepared routinely 

to do with my reports or declarations in which I list all the 

cases in which I have been deposed or served as a trial expert. 

Q. And can you identify for us Exhibit 47? 

A. Exhibit 47 is my declaration of September 10, 1999, for 

this case. 

Q. I want to go through with you a number of the tables 

that are presented in that declaration. The First Table is located 

at page 13 and 14 with regard to split [¥146] counties. Can you 

tell us what value or assistance that table offers to the Court in 

evaluating issues that relate to this case? 

A. That simply enumerates for the challenged plan each of 

the counties by district that are split on the basis of population 

and so what this indicates, for example, is that there are on page 

13, there are a total of, I believe, ten counties in the First 

District that are split. Going all the way through on page 14 a 

 



  

3ja 

total of six out of six counties in District 12 are split. 

Q. Table Two appears at page 19 of that report. What 

information does that table provide to assist the Court with 

issues that relate to this case? 

A. This table, Table Two, includes the same information 

as in Table One, but this time it is arranged by counties. So an 

array can see for any particular county the racial differences 

between the portion assigned to one district and to another 

district. 

For example, if we look down the table at Forsyth 

County, the portion that is assigned to the 5th District is only 

11.1 percent African American whereas the apportion assigned 

to the 12th District is 72.9 percent African American. So 

clearly states the differences between the racial, the 

composition of the two districts as the county has been split 

and that goes throughout the [*147] table, whether it's a split 

involving the 1st or 12th District or the six counties that are 

neither involved in the First or 12th District. 

Q. I'd like to draw your attention to Defendant's Exhibit 

435. -- I'm sorry. I misspoke, 433. 

Can you tell us what information that exhibit presents? 

A. I understand that Exhibit 433 has been prepared by, I 

believe, Dr. Peterson for the defendants and it's an attempt to 

do --. 

Ms. Smiley: I object, Your Honor. This is defendant's 

exhibit and this witness is saying what he thinks it is and what 

it's attempting to show. 

Judge Thornburg: Sustained. I'll let him tell what it 

shows to him but not what he thinks about Dr. Peterson's work. 

Ms. Smiley: Thank you, Your Honor. 

 



  

4ja 

By Mr. Markham: 

Q. What does this show? 

A. This is an exhibit that shows the differences between 

the Democratic percentage assigned in the split counties based 

on the four criteria of partisanship offered by the defendants. 

And what it shows is that the difference between the 

Democratic proportion of each of the counties splitting, they 

are split within the 12th District, is [*148] less than the racial 

differences. If you look at the racial differences in my Table 

Two versus the partisan differences in this Exhibit 433, the 

racial differences are always greater than the partisan 

differences. 

Q. Now, returning to your report to Table Three on 

page 24. What information does this table provide? 

A. Table Three provides information as to each of the 

municipalities or census designated places that have been split 

in the drawing, again, of the 1997 Plan under challenge here. 

And in Table 3, again list by the jurisdictions within each of the 

districts. So you have, at the top of the table, you have all the 

jurisdictions that are split within District 1, numbers 13 total 

jurisdictions that are split and then it goes all the way through 

all the districts and concludes with the number of communities 

that are split in District 12, which numbers, I believe, 13 

separate jurisdictions that are split in Table 12 to create, again, 

not Table 12 but Table Three for District 12. The jurisdictions 

that are split between District 12 and another district. 

Q. Okay. Again, is Table Four at page 27 a different way 

of presenting these same data? 

A. Yes, itis. But it's a way in which you can very easily 

see the racial differences in the communities that are split to 

 



  

5ja 

draw the various proposals. For example, if [*149] you look at 

top of page 28 and in the Greensboro split, the portion that's in 

District 6 is 10.7 percent African American, but the portion 

assigned to District 12 is 55.6 percent African American, again, 

focusing on Forsyth County. Bottom of page 29 there you 

show 16.1 percent is the African American portion assigned to 

District Five, but 77.4 percent is the African American portion 

district assigned to District 12. Again, you can see the racial 

differences as the communities are being split between the 

districts. 

0. And is exhibit -- Defendant's Exhibit 434 analogous 

information with respect to the political division of cities? 

A. Yes, it is. 

Q. How do those two contrast, Table Four of your report 

and Exhibit 434 of the defendant's exhibits? 

A. Again, in looking at the communities in Table Four, I 

believe in all but one case the racial differences is greater than 

the political difference in Exhibit 434. 

Q. And have you prepared an exhibit which summarizes 

this information concerning the political data in the divisions 

of cities? 

A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Which exhibit number is that? Is it Exhibit 309? I 

believe that's the one my information shows. 

[150] A. Yes, it's Exhibit 309. 

Q. And can you explain for us what that information 

indicates? 

A. Well, the theory underlying the preparation of this 

exhibit would be if one were to assume that precincts were 

going to be randomly assigned within the six counties 

 



  

6ja 

involving District 12, you might have about 36 percent of all 

the precincts would be assigned to District 12 and what it 

shows is that almost all of the precincts that are over 40 percent 

African American, I think it's all but three are assigned to 

District 12, but on the political data nowhere is the number in 

the same range as is the case with the racial data. 

Q. Next I want to turn to your Table Five. I believe it 

appears after page 32 of the text? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. What does this data show regarding the assignment of 

precincts in Congressional District 12 in the 1997 Plan? 

A. This table has a page or more for each of the counties 

that are split between the congressional districts, and so it has 

counties from split with District 12, with District 1 and with six 

other counties as well. But, for example, if we look at one of 

the counties that is assigned to District 12 and perhaps say 

District 5, I'm going to page through to the Forsyth County 

table, this [*151] should be about, I believe it's the eighth page 

of the tables. 

The way I have organized the tables is to list every 

precinct in the county and to list for it the total population; the 

white population, the black population, the total VAP, the 

white VAP and black VAP and the percentage of each of those 

figures. 

Also, in the very far right-hand corner to indicate the 

district to which it was assigned in the challenged plan of 1997. 

What you would expect to see if there's a pattern of racial 

assignment because the districts -- excuse me, the precincts are 

ranked from the highest African American percentage in the 

precinct to the lowest in the precinct, you would find the 

 



  

Tia 

precincts assigned to District 12 would be at the top of the 

table. So as you can see in this particular table, every precinct 

that is majority African American beginning with the eastern 

elementary school precincts and working up the table has been 

assigned to District 12. And then you go down and you find a 

few other assigned to District 12. But you go to the second 

page of the table, which has the very light majority precincts in 

Forsyth County. You notice none of them are assigned to 

District 12 at all, they are assigned to District 5. 

So with this information you can very clearly see a 

[*¥152] pattern of assignment at the precinct level which, in my 

judgment, is a racial assignment that is being made or has been 

made by the state. 

Q. Okay. Let's continue. Your text table, Table Six, 

appears, I believe, after the text on page 55 at page 56? 

A. Yes, sir. Table 6 is a table constructed to examine the 

proposition proffered by the defendants that what really is 

involved here is assignment of precinct on the basis of 

partisanship rather than on the basis of race. So I have a series 

of tables labeled as Table 6 that array each of the six counties 

in District 12 as well as a table at the end in which I report all 

the data for six counties in District 12 in which I array the 

partisanship measure against the racial measure. 

For example, again, if we were to look at the Forsyth 

County table, which begins on table on page 58, Forsyth 

County table if you look in the far right-hand column and 

bottom of each table, of course the precincts that are 70 

percent African American and 70 percent Democratic are 

clearly assigned to the 12th District. So in this case, it's 13 of 

13 precincts that have that racial composition and also that 

 



  

8ja 

Democratic composition. 

Then you start reading up the table and you begin to see 

at what point there's no longer the assignment of precincts to 

District 12. And if, again, as I suggest in [*153] the text of my 

report, if the inference is it's party that is driving the assignment 

pattern rather than race, you would find that even in the 

precincts that are less than 30 percent African American, you 

would have assignment of Democratic precincts. 

For example, if we look at page 58, look at not the 

Democratic registration figures because the Democratic 

registration figures are somewhat inflated, if we look at the 

1990 Senate race between Harvey Gantt and Senator Helms, we 

begin to see at the level of less than 30 percent. There's not a 

single precinct that is less than 30 percent black, but yet 

supported Mr. Gantt in that Senate race that are assigned to 

District 12. So the inference here is that if we were following 

partisanship, some of those precincts would be assigned and 

you have much more random person pattern in the table of 

assignment. You see a clear pattern of assignment on the basis 

of race rather than party. 

If you look at the summary table, which begins on page 

68 and 69, which has the data for all the counties and, again, 

you look at the 30 percent line and, again, we look at the 

Harvey Gantt versus Helms race on page 68, there we see that 

there's a total of -- let me see if I can do my math correctly in 

my head -- 74 precincts less than 30 percent African American, 

but they all went for [*154] Mr. Gantt in the Senate race. But 

only 19 of those 74 are assigned to District 12. Remainder are 

assigned to other districts adjacent to District 12. I think that 

pretty well debunks the theory it's partisanship not race driving 

 



  

9ja 

the assignment pattern of these precincts. 

[*158] Q. What are the results of these analysis results 

reported? 

A. The analyses are reported in Table 7 on page 80 of my 

declaration. 

Q. What does that table provide in the way of 

[*159] information concerning the nature of participation rates 

in North Carolina? 

A. In the Democratic primary, in the First Congressional 

District and the 12th Congressional District as well, I believe 

in all but one occurrence African Americans participated higher 

rates than non-African Americans in the Democratic primary. 

That's in Table Seven. 

Q. What's Table Eight reflect? 

A. That reflects the participation rates in the general 

elections. Again, held within the boundaries of District 11 or 

held within the boundaries of District 12 under challenge in this 

case. In there the analysis indicate that white or non-African 

American voters generally vote at higher rates than African 

Americans in the general election. 

Q. What further analysis did you conduct concerning these 

election related issues? 

A. Well, finally -- not finally but the second step was to 

estimate the white cross-over rates in these congressional 

districts using in particular, as I report in Table Nine on page 

84, the general election returns because, again, as I've 

demonstrated in Table Eight, if African American voters are 

 



  

10ja 

slightly disadvantaged in participation rates in the general 

election, then in order for African American candidates of 

choice to win, they [¥160] have to get some degree of white 

cross-over vote in these general elections in order to prevail. 

What I show, and I think this has to do with the broader 

question about narrow tailoring, is that for the First 

Congressional District the worse case scenario was in 1990 

when Harvey Gantt got 18 percent of the white vote in the 

boundaries of the challenged 1997 First Congressional District 

and it ranges all the way up to 46.2 percent where Mr. 

Campbell, the State Auditor candidate, did that well in that 

particular contest. 

In the boundaries of the challenged 12th District, the 

ranges are much narrower, 35.1 percent at the low point for Mr. 

Gantt in 1996 running for the second time against Mr. Helms 

to a high of 41.8 percent that Mr. Edwards got in 1998. 

[*161]Q. I'd like to focus on the electoral safeness of 

Congressional District 12. Where's the data reflected that 

indicates the results of your analysis concerning the electoral 

safeness of that district as drawn in 1997 Plan? 

A. In the 1997 Plan recall, no elections were held within 

the boundaries of this particular congressional district. But, 

again, I reconstituted the state wide election returns within the 

precincts used in that particular plan and so those are, again, in 

Exhibit E, which is -- 

Q. Which is Exhibit 527? 

[162] A. Yes. Deposition Exhibit 52 and, here again, 

 



  

11ja 

focusing in on the general election returns 1990 for this 

challenged District 12 which, of course, has never been used. 

It's 66.4 percent for Gantt. For the 1992 general election for 

State Auditor, it's 66.8 percent for Campbell. 1996 election, 

Gantt for the U. S. Senate, Gantt gets 64.9 percent. General 

election for Auditor in ‘96, Campbell gets 65.5 percent and 

finally the 1998 general election for U. S. Senate, Mr. Edwards 

gets 69.3 percent. So all of these are results well over the 60 

percent threshold to be deemed as a safe district and clearly 

there are votes being wasted in that district as it's been as it was 

configured in 1997. 

Q. When you say “votes being wasted,” what do you 

mean? 

A. The sense is when you are doing districts and you have 

certain kinds of outcomes in mind and you have adjacent 

districts that are different in political composition, you might 

want to take some of the voters in the district that you are 

drawing that's overly safe and put them into adjacent district so 

as to make that district more competitive. 

Judge Boyle: Like handicapping a race. You want to 

get your horses to the finish line ahead of all the other horses. 

The Witness: Yes, constitutional but do it in a 

[163] way you have voters not wasted. 

Judge Boyle: So you are saying rather than 

handicapping it, they are making some sure things. 

The Witness: My sense is District 12 is a sure thing. 

Again, in the challenged plan. 

Judge Voorhees: If a legislator were being purely 

partisian, that legislator would want the optimum 60 percent in 

a particular district and save the overage to help his party in 

 



  

12ja 

another district? 

The Witness: Yes. The district that might have 

benefitted from that, with the hindsight from the ‘98 election, 

would have been District Eight, in which there was an open 

seat and there was a seat that initially was a Democratic seat, 

but it turned over to be Republican. 

Judge Boyle: If you add 20/20 hindsight, you wouldn't 

put so many voters that you were targeting in District 12. You 

might have thrown a few over to District Eight and won both 

elections rather than sacrificing District Eight and just winning 

District 12? 

The Witness: Yes, sir, that's exactly correct. 

[164] Q. Dr. Weber, what do the data reflect concerning 

the electoral safeness of Congressional District 12? 

A. Plaintiff's Exhibit 206. 

[165] Q. And this is the first page, the first portion? 

A. The third page, first portion reports various analysis for 

past elections held within the boundaries of the precincts 

assigned to District 12. And so, for example, the first column 

reports the number of persons in the district. The second 

reports the black African American percentage in the 

population. The third column reports the black African 

American percentage of the VAP. The fourth is a Democratic 

performance measure, and I don't know how they calculated the 

Democratic performance measure, but in occasions in which I 

have seen this in the past, it's simply a sum, an average -- 

Ms. Smiley: Objection, Your Honor. Where he has 

 



  

13ja 

seen it in the past has no relevance to this document. 

Judge Thornburg: Answer the question. 

Q. Will you continue with explaining the other columns? 

A. I have seen this before in Texas. Texas NCEC was also 

advised in Texas -- advising the Texas legislature how to draw 

districts. I saw the performance measured there. I know it was 

an average there. The average other columns are that are going 

to follow. 

The next column is the Democratic percent in 1990 of 

the U.S. Senate 66.6 percent. The next column is the 1996 

Senate race general election, again, 64.2 percent. The next 

column is the 1996 Presidential race, 64.4 [*166] percent. The 

next column is the Democratic percentage for President in 

1988, Michael Dukakis was the candidate, 66.5 percent. Next 

column is 1996 auditor in North Carolina, 65.2 percent. And 

we have 1996 House, which is a generic adding up of the 

election returns for all of the House raises [sic] within the 

precincts assigned to district, 1261.6 percent; 1994 House, 54.5 

percent, 1992 Senate, 62.6 percent; 1996 Democratic 

registration, 61.9 percent. So the Democratic registration in 

this district is 61.9 percent. Then we have the 1996 black 

registration, 43.5 percent; 1990 black registration, 44.2 percent 

and then finally we have the Native American percentage, 

which is 0.41 percent. 

Q. Let me ask you with respect to these data, did they 

change in any way your opinion concerning the electoral 

safeness of Congressional District 12? 

A. No. It reinforced it. It's more data than I have. It 

reinforces my opinion. 

 



  

14ja 

[167] Q. For the 1996 version of Congressional 

District 12, tell us what percentage of the district, as it's 

constructed, 1s African American for the Democratic 

[168] primary. 

A. My estimate, again, for 1996 is about 59 percent 

African American in the District 12 Democratic primary. 

Q. Does that information allow you to make a judgment of 

whether the district is constructed in a way that's likely to 

denominate a candidate of choice of African American voters? 

A. Yes, except for the possibility the African American 

community might be fractured or noncohesive. Assuming they 

are cohesive, the candidate of choice of African American 

voters will be nominated in both the 1st and 12th District. 

[181] Q. Similarly, have you reviewed the maps of the 

general region of Congressional District 12 with respect to 

black voting age population, which is, I believe, Joint Exhibit 

106, the map that we have been using here today on the easel? 

A. Yes, I have reviewed that. 

Q. Have you reviewed maps 107 through 109 which are 

the individual county maps for Guilford, Forsyth and 

Mecklenburg Counties reflecting population? 

A. And Democratic voter registration. 

Q. And Democratic voter registration. 

A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Have you contrasted those maps with the information 

 



  

15ja 

the maps that have been provided as exhibits -- Exhibits 253 

through 258 which are maps of the results of the 1988 Court of 

Appeals? 

A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Have you also contrasted the racial maps, which also 

appear as Exhibits 237 through 242 in another format with 

[*182] precinct names? 

A. Yes. Those show black voting age population. 

Q. As opposed to total population? 

A. Right, for the those six counties. 

Q. You reviewed all of those maps showing voting age 

population? 

A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Have you also contrasted the two groups of racial maps 

with the results for the Harvey Gantt election contest in 1990 

which are reflected as a general map at 263 and as individual 

county maps through 268? 

A. Yes, I have reviewed those also. 

Ms. Smiley: Did you say 263 through -- 

Mr. Markham: Through 268. 

Q. And as a result of those contrasts and comparisons, do 

you have an opinion concerning whether or not the assignment 

of precincts to the 1997 Congressional District 12 was 

predominately based on race? 

A. Yes, and it reinforces clearly the opinion I gave in my 

declaration on Table 6 for the six counties. 

[185] Q. Next there's a series of maps beginning with 

 



  

16ja 

number 272 and continuing to number 287. We'll just look at 

one map as the illustration, perhaps the map of Wayne 

County, 2807? 

A. Okay. My book ends at 274. 

Q. Map numbers were 272 to 287? 

Ms. Smiley: What example are you using? 

Mr. Markham: Let's use the first one, 272. 

Ms. Smiley: Thank you. 

Is that still in the exhibit book that you have? 

Yes, it 1s. 

And can you tell us what this map illustrates? 

> 
o
>
 AR

O 

It illustrates wherever the concentration of African 

American population would be in this county, and you would 

have red dots. And so there are really two places in the 

[¥186] county; one small concentration on the east side of the 

county on the bay and the other at the west side of the county. 

But these series of maps illustrate the relative concentration of 

African American populations in each of these counties. 

Q. And what other information would benefit the Court 

that those maps provide? 

A. Well, again, if I were to put all of these maps together 

and I were assessing this concentration compactness question 

that I assessed in my declaration, one would see basically that 

the -- that the areas of where African Americans live in 

northeastern North Carolina, they are all relatively distant from 

each other. There's not a sort of pattern of closeness exhibited 

in these series of maps and these dot matrix maps illustrate this 

very nicely. 

Q. Let me give you the next exhibit book, which begins at 

Exhibit 276. Let me ask you to make a similar evaluation of 

 



    

17ja 

the map for Mecklenburg County at number 286. Can you tell 

us what information of assistance to the Court that map 

provides? 

A. Okay. Map 2867? 

Q, Yes. 

A. This map has the dots plotted for every 20 African 

American persons and in the center of the map is 

[187] Charlotte, you know, the city of Charlotte is in the 

center of the map. And it shows basically that the African 

American population in Charlotte is on the north side, a little 

bit on the west side and a little to the east of the center of the 

city. But that's pretty much it. There's some small 

concentrations running up along the interstate as you are 

heading toward Iredell County, but other than that it's mostly 

in the city of Charlotte. 

Q. And you've reviewed this series of maps, 272 to 287. 

Have you contracted [sic] them with the boundaries of the 

congressional districts for Congressional Districts 1 and 12? 

A. Yes, I have. 

Q. And have you any information concerning whether or 

not the boundaries in a general sense conform to the location of 

African American population? 

A. Pretty consistently. For example, in the six counties in 

the 12th District, the African American populations on these 

maps are placed within the boundaries of the District 12. 

Q. And can you tell us what relevance the next map, two 

maps down, 288, which is the map of the 1980s Congressional 

Districts in North Carolina, what relevance that map has for the 

issues before this Court? 

A. Well, I think the maps of the previous plans, whether 

 



  

18ja 

[*188] it's a map of the 80's or the map of the 70's or even a 

map of the 60's, all of them show how the State in using 

traditional criteria, drew congressional districts and this 

particular map from the plan of the map of the 1970 adopted 

April 29, 1971, does not split a single county of the 100 in the 

State of North Carolina in drawing congressional districts. 

Q. Sorry. You are referring to the 1970 map? 

A. Yes. Maybe I pulled out the wrong exhibit. 

Q You were referring to 288 A? 

A. I got into the wrong exhibit, I'm sorry. My book does 

not have a 288, that's why or it's out of sequence. 288 A is the 

plan from 1980 -- after the 1980 Census, I should say, and it 

reflects that there were a total of four counties split in all of 

North Carolina. I can't read the one county up in -- 

Judge Boyle: Avery. 

A. Sorry, Avery, Yadkin, Moore and Johnston County 

were split. All the rest were composed of whole counties. 

Q. Next I would draw your attention to Exhibit 288 D, 

which is a data sheet that comes from a Section 5 submission. 

Can you tell us from that information what was the most 

heavily African American congressional district in the 1980's? 

[189] A. That would be District 2, which if you take the 

1980 Census was 41.1 percent African American where you 

take the calculation after the 1990 Census was available is 43.5 

percent. District 2 is the most African American district at that 

time. 

Q. Where generally is that district located? 

A. That district on the east was Edgecombe County and 

had all of Rocky Mount in it including Nash, Wilson, a portion 

of Johnston and Halifax, Warren, Vance, Granville, Person, 

 



    

19ja 

Caswell and Durham. Durham is in that district. 

Q. Next we go forward to Exhibit 289, which I believe 

you looked at earlier. What information does that map of the 

1970's congressional district provide that would assist the Court 

with regard to any issues in this case? 

Ms. Smiley: Objection to characterization as either of 

these maps, 288 or 289, providing assistance to the Court. I 

don't think that foundation has been laid. 

Judge Thornburg: I'll let the witness answer the 

question. 

A. These maps either now or in the plaintiffs' exhibit were 

originally in my declarationin 1998 because in that declaration 

I was trying to outline the way in which congressional district 

plans have developed over time in the State of North Carolina. 

And in the days right after the one-person, one-vote decision, 

the State was able to [*190] draw constitutional districts using 

whole counties. 

1980, the map we just looked at in the previous Exhibit, 

288 A and B, they then had to split four counties, but that's the 

extent to which the state had to in a sense ignore traditional 

redistricting principals. 

1970's, they didn't and certainly in the late 60's as they 

were sorting out the district sizes as a result of the one-person, 

one-vote decision, they didn't have to draw districts split across 

the counties. 

Q. What's the maximum number of counties necessary to 

split in North Carolina in order to achieve one-person, one-vote 

equality? 

A. As a principle, you take the number of congressional 

districts and you have one less district minus one, so it's 11. If 

 



  

20ja 

you start with the 1st District and you draw whole counties and 

you get to some place where you have to split a county, that's 

one county split. Now, the Second District you draw all the 

whole counties and you may have to split a county. It's always 

one less than it, so 11 is the maximum to be split in North 

Carolina. 

[195] Q. In determining how would you, as a political 

scientist, go about determining what constitutes traditional 

principal, specifically in a community of interest? 

A. One of them is community of interest. So there are a 

number of ways of defining traditional -- defining communities 

of interest and among them are metropolitan areas, people who 

live and work in the same region of the state are defined as 

having a community of interest. And this map in Plaintiff's 

Exhibit 303 clearly exhibits shows those communities of 

interest. 

Q. And the map is exhibit -- Joint Exhibit 102 illustrates 

that the 1997 Plan, in fact, cuts across those communities; is 

that correct? 

A. Yes. Well, Charlotte is in a different metropolitan area 

than Winston-Salem and Greensboro. 

Ms. Smiley: Your Honor, I object and move to strike 

this whole line of testimony. Once again, the fact a political 

scientist thinks of these are traditional principles, I don't think 

any court said any legislature is required to use these maps and 

there's no evidence that the legislature used these maps, so I 

don't see they're relevant to the intent of the legislature, what it 

 



  

21ja 

did or didn't do. 

Judge Voorhees: You think the legislature was 

[*196] unmindful of standard statistical metropolitan areas, is 

that not observed, on its face, contemplate they had no idea 

about SMSA? 

Ms. Smiley: Well, Your Honor, first of all the SMSA, 

these are from 1982. I'm not sure they are current, whether 

these are the ones that exist. They may be aware of it, you are 

exactly right, in the backs of their minds, but there's no 

evidence they are intending to use these in any way in 

developing their plan. So I still would say they are not 

relevant. 

Judge Thornburg: I overrule that and move on. 

Q. Did you finish your answer, Dr. Weber, with respect to 

that map? 

A. Well, one of the criteria that is involved in the 

community of interest is living in proximity to another person 

and SMSA’s are the best way the national government has 

come up with with defining metropolitan areas and 

metropolitan areas whether it's social science or something 

legislature does, we're all aware of as representing one area of 

community interest. 

[198] Q. We looked at Exhibit 309. Is this an exhibit that 

you had prepared? 

[199] A. Yes. That's the exhibit that was prepared out of 

Defendants’ Exhibit 435 to talk about the assignment of 

precincts to Congressional District 12 in the 1997 Plan. 

 



  

22ja 

Q. I'd like to go back to that Exhibit, 435. 

A. Okay. I gave that book back to you at the break. 

Q. Okay. Defendants' Exhibit 435. And I'd particularly 

like to draw your attention to the third page to the second table, 

which is labeled Table 6 B.2. And my question for you is: 

what does the information in that table indicate to you? 

A. Okay. If I'm with you, I'm at Forsyth County, right? 

Q. Forsyth County precincts, that's correct. 

A. And I'm looking at Table 6 B.2, which has percent 

black population rated against percent Democratic in the 1990 

Senate election. What it suggests first of all is that, of course, 

the African American majority precincts in Forsyth County are 

assigned to District 12. 13 of 13, over 70 percent and two of 

two over 50 percent to 60 percent, so there are 15 assigned. 

If you go to the line at the top of the table, which is less 

than 30 percent African American, but then reports the 

Democratic precincts in this particular context, there are a total 

of eight precincts in Forsyth County that are not assigned to 

District 12. And only precincts mostly African American 

population are assigned to District 12. 

[¥200] Q. I'd like to draw your attention to the first line of 

that column which shows those precincts which are less than 30 

percent African American in total population. Can you tell us 

how many of the precincts that voted more than 50 percent 

Democratic in the Senate election were included in the 12th 

District from that county? 

A. There are none. 

Q. How many were there available total? 

A. Would have been eight. 

Q. Are there precincts on the border of Congressional 

 



  

23ja 

District 12, as it's constructed in 1997 Plan which are 

Democratic, particular in their voting behavior? 

A. Yes. By comparing this data with the maps, I 

concluded that there are precincts in Guilford and also in 

precincts in Mecklenburg. 

Q. Can I draw your attention to map 265? Ask you to look 

at this book here. I'll trade out your other book. What does the 

information in the map at 265 tell you with regard to that 

question of whether there are precincts on the border of 

Congressional District 12 which were available to assign on the 

basis of party considerations to the 12th Congressional 

District? 

A. First of all, this map 265 displays the voter precincts by 

percent Democratic in 1990 Senate race between Gantt and 

HelMs. And the yellow line on the map [¥201] demarks the 

boundary of District 12, so the area in the center of the map 

heading northward on the map between the yellow lines is in 

District 12. Everything that is not in District 12 is then 

assigned to District 5 in Forsyth County. 

If I go to the top of the map where I see a precinct that's 

sticking up with a little bit of a nub toward the north that's red 

hatched, that's 50 to 59 percent, so that indicates Mr. Gantt 

carried that. If I start counting precincts, I go down. I have 

one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten precincts 

that according to the color coding on the map are indicated as 

having gone for Mr. Gantt in that election, all adjacent to 

District 12. But we're not assigned to District 12 and my 

theory or inference would be if this were an attempt to draw a 

Democratic district in Forsyth County, you would clearly wind 

up with those precincts, if they're to go with the other precincts 

 



  

24ja 

east of that line so you have all of them in the center of 

Winston-Salem in that particular district. 

Q. I would like to ask you about map 266. What 

information did that map provide regarding the question of 

whether there are precincts along the border of the 1998/1997 

verse of congressional district today which are a lined 

Democratic and could be assigned to the district on [*202] a 

partisian basis? 

A. This is a map of Guilford County. Again, like the 

previous map precincts by Democratic vote in the 1997 race, 

the yellow line starting in the lower left-hand corner, the county 

goes through High Point and then nearly makes it up to 

Greensboro and the east side of Greensboro. There are, again, 

precincts that, according to the color coding, are either 50 to 59 

percent African American -- or 60 not African American but 

Democratic, not been assigned. If I count I believe I have one, 

two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine perhaps adjacent to 

District 12 in Guilford County but not, again, Democratic 

precincts assigned to District 12 but were assigned to District 6. 

If one is inferring that partisanship was the underlying 

motivation for the drawing of this particular District 1, again, 

would have assigned those precincts based on the partisian 

information in the data base. 

Judge Voorhees: How many did you say? 

The Witness: I believe there were one, two, three, four, 

five, six, seven, eight, nine, I believe, maybe ten, if I read the 

map correctly. 

Q. Now, let me draw your attention to map 268 with 

respect to Mecklenburg County. What information does that 

map provide on the issue of whether there are precincts 

 



  

25ja 

available along the border with the 1997 version of 

[203] Congressional District 12 which if one were 

constructing a Democratic District 1 would have concluded? 

A. This, again, is the same map now for Mecklenburg 

County precincts by percent Democratic vote 1997 Senate 

race. This delineates -- the 12th from the 9th is a purple line, 

so it's easier to see than in the previous map. However, again, 

I have some 50 to 59.9 percent precincts and 60 percent 

Democratic precincts in this race. If 1 do this I've got one, two, 

three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 

16, 17, 18, 19, 20 precincts that I can see right adjacent to 

District 12 that might have been assigned for partisian [sic] 

motivation for. 

Judge Boyle: I'm not trying to make this too simple, 

but in the Order that this Court wrote in ‘98 Holding Summary 

Judgment for the plaintiffs, didn't this lay out a whole 

comparative exercise of those districts -- those precincts next 

to the 12th District that could have been included? You are just 

going over the same material now, aren't you? 

Mr. Markham: Your Honor, those with respect to 

registration primarily I was focusing on the 1990 political 

results from the voting behavior of the voters in the 1990 

Gantt\Helms contest for purposes of these questions. But 

certainly they are similar in their [*204] support for the 

position that there are Democratic precincts available. 

Judge Boyle: Wasn't the point of that part of the Order 

to show by comparison the fact that certain heavily 

Democratically registered precincts had been left out from 

those that had high African American population had been 

included? 

 



  

26ja 

Mr. Markham: Yes, Your Honor, those issues dealt 

with voter registration which was challenged as to its accuracy 

or predicted value so we focused here on the 1990 Helms\Gantt 

election results, which showed Democratic voter behavior 

rather than merely their registration, and hopefully fills a gap. 

By Mr. Markham: 

Q. How does this information, Dr. Weber, comport with 

your opinion as to the racial motivation for the construction of 

12th District? 

A. Overall in Exhibit 309, if one were to assume that 

precincts are randomly being assigned to District 12 and issue 

is not is it race or is it partisanship, you would have about 36 

percent of all precincts assigned to District 12 and the exhibit 

shows that 76 of 79 precincts that are black in population, 40 

percent are higher, are assigned to District 12, whereas in all of 

the partisan indicators they range from 56.5 percent down to 39 

percent [*205] on voter registration. So, again, this is evidence 

it seems to me that clearly confirms the racial assignment of the 

precincts to District 12 and rebuts the notion that this was an 

assignment on the basis of partisanship. 

Q. And does this exhibit reflect similar statistics 

concerning the other two contests or election contests the State 

purportedly looked at? 

A. It includes the Court of Appeals and the Lieutenant 

Governor, taken from Dr. Peterson's exhibit. 

Q. Is that generally consistent with the illustration that we 

just had with respect to Forsyth County? 

A. To Forsyth County and Guilford County and 

Mecklenburg County. 

Q. Do you have an opinion about whether it's necessary to 

 



  

27ja 

draw a 12th Congressional District so elongated a manner in 

order to have a safe Democratic district in that region in North 

Carolina? 

A. To have a safe Democratic district; you don't have to 

draw the ‘97 district to have a safe Democratic district. 

Q. And is it necessary to draw Congressional District 12 in 

some elongated manner in order to have a district likely to elect 

candidate of choice -- 

A. I have seen evidence that a district based on 

Mecklenburg County itself would, in fact, elect an African 

American to the House of Representatives. 

[¥206] Q. I want to turn now to the issue of compactness. 

In your report, Exhibit 47, there's discussion that begins at page 

47. Can you tell us in general terms? 

A. Excuse me for a minute. I need to shuffle some of this 

paper in front of me. 

Q. This is Exhibit 47. In general terms, where does the 

compactness -- the measure of the compactness of this 

Congressional District 12 rank among the districts of the 

United States Congress today? 

A. Well, to give you some foundation, there are reports 

done in the past by election data services in Washington, D.C. 

that report both perimeter and dispersion measures of 

geographical compactness. 

Professor Webster, employed by the defendants, 

updated the measures of compactness in I believe two different 

affidavits or reports for this particular case. So using all of this 

information, the data that I have about the old congressional 

districts as well as the data about the revised 1997 

congressional districts, I concluded that North Carolina 12 

 



  

28ja 

there being 435 congressional districts ranks either 432 or 433 

on the perimeter measure of exactness, so it's almost at the 

bottom and on the dispersion measure it's either 430 of 431, the 

reason I can't come down to whether it's 431, or 432 or 433 is 

because Professor Webster didn't report a [¥207] number for 

District Eight, which has been revised in the State of New 

York. So I don't know where Eight falls. North Carolina 12 

continues to be the least compact district in North Carolina and 

the worst in the nation, among the worst in the nation for 

compactness. 

[¥207]Q. Let me return then to the joint exhibits. Now, 

let’s go to the map 126 of the joint exhibits. Dr. Weber, have 

you had an opportunity to review a number of plans included 

in the Section 5 materials for 1997 to 1998 from the State of 

North Carolina in connection with your research in this case? 

A. Yes, I’ve reviewed all of the plans that were made a part 

of this Section 5, exhibits going to the U.S.[*208] Department 

of Justice and this one, 126, is one of those plans. It is titled 

Winner/Cooperr 1.0, Winner/Cooper 1.0. 

Q. Have you ever drawn a redistricting plans? 

A. Yes, Sir, I have drawn many plans. 

Q. Have you ever used the plan ‘90 software in Louisiana, 

which is the same vendor that North Carolina used. 

Q. What information does Exhibit 126 provide to you 

concerning the process which led ultimately to the development 

of this 1997 district? 

A. Well, here there are three maps. There’s a map that 

 



  

29ja 

simply for the state as a whole in a very crude way represents 

the districts and then there are detailed maps. One of district 1 

which is 126 B, and one of District 12, which is 126 C. And 

then there’s finally a statistical listing and this statistical listing 

is very familiar to me. It’s the same kind of form at -- again, 

that the State of Louisiana produces with their redistricting 

software. 

Q. Now, there will be other evidence that will indicate the 

time during which this plan was sketched. What does the 

structure of that plan indicate to you? 

A. For a particular district or -- 

Q. For District 12. 

[209] A. Oh. for District 12. In Exhibit 126 C, it’s in 

Mecklenburg County and then it’s in Iredell and then in it’s in 

Rowan and it’s in Davison and Cccomes into Forsyth and 

winston-Salem and comes a little bit into Guilford into the 

High Point area, but it stops at High Point in that particular 

plan. And in that plan demographically is 39.64 percent 

African American in totla population for district 12. But it’s 

also a district that performs quite well politically. That’s the 

third page of the report. Shows that Senator Gantt in 1990 got 

62.7 percent of the vote. Rand got 57.04 in 88 and Lewis got 

55.89 in ‘88. So that’s a democratic performing district. 

[¥213] Q. Reviewing these maps as a group from 126 to 

130, what progression can you see in the construction of the 

Congressional District 127 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the terminology “progression.” 

 



  

30ja 

Judge Thornburg: Overruled, go ahead. 

A. When we finally get to Cooper 3.0, which is in 

Exhibit 130, you will see if we look at the map for the 12 

District, the map is now very similar to the map before you 

on the easel, which is to say all of the previous maps didn’t 

have Greensboro in this district and at this point now they’re 

adding Greensboro in and there’s an e-mail message that 

indicates that— 

Ms. Smiley: Objection to the hearsay. 

Judge Thornburg: Sustained. 

Q. So at what point in the progression of these maps is 

there a change from the absence of Greensboro to the 

[¥214] inclusion of Greensboro? 

A. From Cooper 2.0 to Cooper 3.0, Greensboro has been 

added to the district and the African American proportion 

now in District 12 is 47.9 percent. In the previous map, and 

plan -- 

let me just go back here to be sure I review the right data -- 

that is 40.1 percent. So basically the district has been 

increased by almost eight percent from Cooper 2.0 to Cooper 

3.0. That’s when the Greensboro blacks were added to the 

district. 

[¥220] Q. Dr. Weber, where do you look to determine 

what North Carolinian’s redistricting principles are, which are 

traditional? 

A. We would look at the history of congressional regarding 

to that, so you look at the maps and the practices of the state in 

 



  

31ja 

the past to do that. Particularly, what I guess I would 

characterize the post one-person, one-vote era, so we're talking 

about 1965 to the present. 

Q. What traditional redistricting principles does your 

analysis establish or subordinate to raise in the construction of 

the 1997 Plan? 

A. You have the splitting of political subdivisions, 

particularly counties and cities censuses in these places. The 

subordination to compactness. Compactness is not -- 

geographical compactness is not inherent and there's also 

[¥221] some disregard of communities of interest in this 

process. Those are, I think, the three major race neutral 

principles that are violated in the 1997 Plan. 

Q. If one were drawing a district based on partisanship in 

the central Piedmont as a Democratic precinct, would there be 

a need to split District 77 in Mecklenburg County? 

A. No. You can create very partisan districts simply by 

swapping Precinct 77 with, say, a precinct or two in Forsyth 

County and have the same partisan result for the purposes of 

drawing the district. 

Q. Are there any majority black precincts in the six 

counties, parts of which comprise the 1997 version of the 12th 

District, which conceivably could be assigned to Congressional 

District 12 that are not assigned to Congressional District 12? 

A. No. Every conceivable majority African American 

population perceived is assigned to District 12. There are none 

that could be assigned that were not assigned. 

Q. I would like to ask the same question with respect to 

Congressional District 1. Are there any black precincts in the 

district that the district could have been assigned to that district 

 



  

32ja 

but were not assigned? 

A. No, but I do need to explain that. In Craven County 

there's a precinct by the name of Harlow that is 70.78 

[*¥222] percent African American. But my examination of the 

map and the general boundaries of the district indicate that it is 

too far removed. There would be more white population in 

between that precinct and if you were to assign that precinct as 

well as the adjacent white precincts, you would have fewer 

African Americans as a percentage in the district. 

Q. Have you reviewed the facts and statistics regarding the 

Ist and 12th District, which are cited in the decision of the 

Court subsequent to the 1998 Summary Judgment? 

A. Yes, I have. 

Q. And are each of those facts and statisticsaccurate, based 

on your own research? 

A. Xcs. 

Q. Have you conducted -- have your additional analyses 

been consistent with these data? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Have you ever, in any of the redistricting voting rights 

or Shaw v. Reno cases in which you have been involved, 

encountered a boundary segment analysis offered to explain 

some part of legislative intent? 

A. No. This is the first case where I encountered that 

defense. 

0. Do you have any criticism to such analysis? 

A. Within my declaration, I suggest that the analysis of 

[¥223] Dr. Peterson to be, I guess what I call a complete 

analysis would have not only looked at the boundaries around 

the district, because that's really assignments at the margin, but 

 



  

33ja 

would have started from the core of the districts. So the core 

would be where one would start the analysis and understand the 

assignment pattern of the core then one would proceed to go to 

the outer parts of the district to understand the total picture. 

Also, in the process of ignoring the core, he ignored 

what we call the convergent precincts, about 80 percent of the 

precincts, as I understand his analysis, are suggested to be 

convergent. He then proceeds to count each of the segments 

equally and, of course, the segments are not of equal 

importance to the assignment patterns. 

Some precincts are larger than others and so, for 

example, if one were going to say let's exclude Precinct X and 

find another precinct to put in, you have to find one of equal 

size to put in or out of the district. So consequently, the 

counting that he does is counting on equal units and, in essence, 

he's creating what I call an unweighted average when he should 

have counted and weighted average for this purpose. 

Subsequent to the writing of my declaration, when we 

got the data and could subject it to, you know, rigorous 

analysis, we discovered there are 13 segments that border 

[¥224] on Davie County. And we looked at the data in 

particular because the maps we were getting for Davie County 

showed no precincts. And we noticed there are no precincts in 

Davie County, only townships that are the political 

subdivisions that are used in the data base of the state. 

And we noticed that all of the political data, with 

whether it's voter registration data or returns for the ‘97 race or 

the two races from 1988, all have the same percentages. So 

there's a common percentage attributed to every Davie segment 

so there are 13 segments that they are using the county average 

 



  

34ja 

as the segment number and really the segments are not varying 

in terms of their political makeup or their racial makeup in that 

particular analysis. 

So I would suggest that if I had encountered that, I 

would simply have excluded all of those segments because they 

are not -- they create erroneous information about the 

assignment patterns undertaken by the state in that particular 

analysis. In assisting you with the deposition of Dr. Peterson, 

we prepared some exhibits that were deposition exhibits. 

Q. Let me direct your attention then to Exhibit 23. From 

the deposition exhibits, which is the first of that series of 

exhibits, I'll ask if you can explain what information is 

conveyed in that exhibit? 

A. I don't have a copy of that in front of me. 

[225] The reason these were prepared is what we were 

provided by Dr. Peterson's company in the state was literally 

not intelligible to the -- one would have to understand the 

coding scheme of the analysis to do this, and it took awhile to 

understand it, so we prepared these exhibits to display for what 

in his report he calls type P divergent, partisan divergent 

segments. 

Here we're using Democratic registration and African 

American registration. So if you look at the top of the table, we 

have what's called observation 6 in the data base, which is 

segment 6, which has Mecklenburg Precinct 81 as the internal 

precinct and the external precinct is Mecklenburg Charlotte 80. 

We listed each of the segments that he described as type 

P divergent. And in particular what I found interesting by 

having done this particular exercise is that whenever he's got a 

type P divergent segment, that type P divergence are very 

 



  

35ja 

small. They're one or two or three percentage points at most. 

So what I guess, to use a cliche here, is in this exhibit for the -- 

I think there are 20 some, maybe 24 precincts characterized as 

type P divergence. He's making a mountain out of a mole hill, 

which is to say the differences that are a discrepancy to 

divergence are very small and they happen to be in the 

direction that he would like them to be. 

[¥226] So, for example, the Democratic -- excuse me, the black 

percentage for Charlotte 80 is .1521, the black percentage for 

Charlotte 819, internal segment is .1484. So if you go down 

and make all of the comparisons, you will see one, two, three 

percentage points relatively trivial and, technically, if you do 

the difference and means test would be statistically 

nonsignificant types of comparisons he has in this table. 

Q. Is that also true of the differences we see of those 

segments characterized of confirming the racial predominance 

here? 

A. Yes. That's the next exhibit, Exhibit 24, where there are 

fewer of those, but those are the type that's divergent. Type P-- 

other thing that sort of hit me when I first prepared this, is how 

many of these segments are Davie County segments external. 

As I suggested a few minutes ago, I would exclude those 

segments because, again, they are simply using the same data 

for all of the political comparisons with those particular 

segments. 

Q. In fact, does the analysis in any way take into account 

whether a precinct segment is in an area that's a land bridge 

connecting two areas or whether it's in one of the core counties 

or does it matter at all to that analysis? 

A. No. At one point, I think I counted the number of 

 



  

36ja 

[¥227] precincts in District 12, that there's no choice. It's a 

single precinct that connects one piece to another piece. 

You have to have the precinct in the district in order to 

make it contiguous, and there were in these divergent segments, 

there are a number of these precincts that turned out to be 

divergent. 

Again, you have no choice. You have to take that math, 

if that's the math that you are going to follow to draw a district. 

There are a number of those. I think I counted as many as ten 

or 11 of those precincts in which the state had no choice but to 

take that path to keep the state contiguous. 

Q. Exhibit 25. Can you tell us what it provides concerning 

this sort of analysis? 

A. 25 is an attempt to summarize for all of the six counties 

in the 12" District where exactly these divergent, type P 

divergent precincts are and where the type R divergent 

precincts are. As you can see from this exhibit, for example, on 

the type P, I believe 11 of 20 those -- no, let me start over 

again. 

15 of those are in the interior counties, the Davidson, 

Iredell and Rowan counties. If you are going to connect 

Forsyth and Guilford and Mecklenburg together, you have to 

go through those three counties and 15 of the 26 type P 

divergent precincts are in those counties. And for [*228] the 

type R segments, it's 8 out of 15 that are in that in those 

counties. 

The other thing that I asked to be done when this table 

was put together is to characterize what percentage of the 

African American population resides in these counties. If you 

take the third column over and you add that together, it adds up 

 



  

37ja 

to a 100 percent or the three lower counties; Forsyth, Guilford 

and Mecklenburg. 83 percent of the African American district 

is in the three peripheral counties, the counties in the 

boundaries, the counties in between only have 12 percent of 

African American population in them. 

Q. Exhibit 26, is that another exhibit that you prepared? 

A. Yes. Here we were concerned with putting in one 

exhibit, again, for the purposes of the deposition with Dr. 

Peterson. The performance of the ‘92 Plan, Districtl2 and 

District 1 and we had both here the black population and the 

percentage achieved in the general election by the congressmen 

and, of course, you can see in each case the performance of the 

district is greater than the percentage African American in the 

district. 

Q. Next looking at Exhibit 27. Is that another exhibit that 

you had prepared? 

A. Yes. This exhibit counts up the number of times in 

[¥229] effect that I believe that either the party or the race 

explanation predominates and it's interesting that, in Dr. 

Peterson's report, he focuses primarily on the Democratic 

registration explanation, which is the explanation that has the 

greatest degree of credence for the partisan explanation, the last 

two columns, 23 to 13 or 20 to 12 or 26 to 15. 

On the other hand, if you look at the political races and, 

again, using all of the segments, he has in his analysis not 

excluding any segments, that does not show a stark picture as 

the picture that Dr. Peterson conveys in his report. And, of 

course, we know through this deposition testimony or Section 5 

history the state admits that the party registration data. 

Ms. Smiley: Objection, your Honor. 

 



  

38ja 

Judge Thornburg: Sustained. 

Q. Let me ask you: is it possible to apply the segment 

analysis to a district with a large number of split precincts? 

A. No. Well -- technically, you could do it for the 

population data. Once you get to the political data, then you 

have to have some mechanism whereby you can, in fact, split 

the population -- excuse me -- split the partisan registration 

data or split the political data. And, typically, with these 

state-wide elections, the data are [*230] not split in the 

precincts that exist. So if the precinct is split, the state has to 

come up with some sort of rule or the analysis has to come up 

with some sort of rule as to how they will allocate the particular 

portions to each of the districts that you do the segment 

analysis. 

Judge Boyle: Go ahead and finish your question as to 

his criticism of Peterson's analysis, because I wanted to hear 

that answer. 

Judge Thornburg: Objection went to your statement to 

what the state was conceding, so simply answer the question 

without presuming to know what the state concedes or doesn't 

concede. 

The Witness: It is my opinion that the registration data 

is the least reliable data to use for purposes of talking about 

political performance. The best data that's in the state's data 

base is the 1990 Senate data, because those precincts were in 

existence when the data base was put together. 

For example, the 1988 precincts there were changes. So 

there are some cases in which I don't trust the 1988 data in the 

state data base because they didn't, in my judgment, properly 

allocate the changes in the precinct lines to create the data. 

 



  

39a 

There's a good example in Precinct 77 where the data in 1990 

makes sense given the racial composition of the precinct. And 

there's much [*231] greater support for Republican candidates 

for the heavy majority precinct in 1988 doesn't make sense. 

There's that kind of black cross-over in the two very partisan 

general elections. I see that in other places in the data base. 

I'm most likely to trust the 1990 political data and less likely to 

trust the political data as to the performance. 

Q. Use of the performance data rather than registration 

give greater support for racial rather than partisan segregation? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is it possible given the problems you will have with 

split precincts? 

Ms. Smiley: I object to his leading the witness. | 

believe this is an expert. 

Judge Thornburg: Let's move it along. That's fine. 

Q. Let me ask: is it possible to test this by applying it to 

other Congressional Districts which have been invalidated as 

predominantly race based under Shaw v Reno? 

A. I think the analysis that Dr. Peterson has offered us 

could be done for other districts. You know, assuming that you 

get the right maps and the right data and it's done properly, I'm 

not sure in this case I believe it's been done properly. 

[232] Q. Is Dr. Peterson's analysis and report reliable? 

A. No, it's unreliable. 

Q. In your view, is it relevant to the issues before the 

Court? 

A. Well, if we assume that the question is it party or race 

is an important question, it has some bearing on that question 

if it were appropriately done. And I suggest that it has not been 

 



  

40ja 

appropriately done. 

Q. Are there any other criticisms that you have of the 

analysis by Dr. Peterson? 

A. If you could put a map up for me. 

Q. Which map? 

A. It would be the map where Iredell County abuts Davie 

County. I think there's a map in our exhibits somewhere that 

does that. Maybe it's just the big map. 

Q. We have Iredell as part of the Exhibit 106 map; is that 

sufficient to show the point? 

A. This is not the best map to do it, but I can point out the 

area that's in question. What I did was knowing his segments. 

His data base tells me his segments. Okay, I then went along 

and I verified whether or not there were any segments in error. 

And I noted that there's a precinct in the northern part of 

District 12 in Iredell County that abuts Davie County, but yet 

there's no segment in his data base showing that any segment 

from Iredell [*233] County abuts Davie County segment, so 

that's an omitted segment from the analysis. 

Q, Why was it in your view -- or what is your view of the 

importance of the convergent precincts to an analysis? 

A. Well, again, if this is -- it's kind of a preponderance 

explanation. If 80 percent of your precincts are convergent and 

many, many, many of those precincts are at the core — 

Judge Boyle: What's "convergent" mean? Explain it. 

The Witness: It means, basically, that the racial 

percentage for the inside precinct is greater than the racial 

percentage for the outside precinct. Or for the party 

explanation, the Democratic percentage on the inside is greater 

than the Democratic percentage on the outside. That's 80 

 



  

41ja 

percent of the precincts. 

Judge Boyle: That didn't explain it. I'm too simple to 

understand that. You have to use more primitive language. 

The Witness: It's simply -- I'm trying to think about it. 

It's simply the question of what is the difference between the 

percentages. And if the percentage of one is greater than the 

other and it is consistent with either the racial explanation, that 

is races inside and not outside. 

[234] Judge Thornburg: Inside the district? 

The Witness: Yes, or outside the district, then that 

would be characterized as a convergent segment. 

By Mr. Markham: 

Q. And a divergent segment, in contrast, would be one 

where -- 

Ms. Smiley: Objection, your Honor. 

Judge Thornburg: Overruled. 

Q. It would be where party is greater outside in the outside 

precinct than inside. The Democratic percentage outside is 

greater than the Democratic percentage inside or it would be 

where the racial percentage outside is greater than the racial 

percentage inside. Those are the characteristics of the 

divergent precincts. 

As I suggested earlier in looking at Exhibit 25, most of 

these divergent segments are not in Forsyth, Guilford or 

Mecklenburg County, but they're in the three counties that 

connect the ends of the district and in a number of cases they're 

there because they are the only path that the state chose to take 

with -- 

Judge Boyle: So you are saying it's only as a product of 

necessity that there would be a divergent district; where 

 



  

42ja 

necessity is not a factor, they are all convergent? 

The Witness: Yes, that's the tendency; it's not 

[¥235] perfect. 

Judge Voorhees: And convergent depends on which 

theory you are trying to prove? 

The Witness: Yes, sir. 

Judge Voorhees: So if you are trying to prove a racial 

predominate theory, then -- 

The Witness: No, if the theory is -- if it's race that 

predominates rather than party, then you will have a high 

percentage of convergent precincts. If you have any precincts 

that are divergent, they will be divergent in the direction of 

putting the blacker percentage of the -- or the higher African 

American percentage outside the district than inside the district. 

Judge Boyle: But that never happens. 

The Witness: It happens occasionally. 

Judge Boyle: In District 12? 

The Witness: It happens out of necessity, the need to 

draw the district in a narrow way because you have large 

populations in Forsyth, Guilford and Mecklenburg that anchor 

the district. So the geography is dictating the lines that are 

going on in Iredell, Rowan and Davidson. 

Judge Boyle: But I thought there was no instance where 

you had a majority African American precinct left out of 

District 12. 

[236] The Witness: That's correct, not in a single one of those. 

Judge Boyle: There are instances where you have a 

majority Democratic precinct left out, but that's because of 

necessity? 

The Witness: No. Because, as I pointed out yesterday, 

 



  

43ja 

there are currents in Guilford, Mecklenburg and Forsyth where 

demographics bordering on District 12 were not future into the 

district. They all happened primarily to be less than 30 percent 

white -- or, excuse me, less than 30 percent African American. 

Judge Boyle: That's what I was just saying, the only 

times they are left out is where they don't have a minor 

population? 

The Witness: Yes, sir. 

By Mr. Markham: 

Q. If you analyze the segment analysis using the 1990 

Helms/Gantt election, what then do the results indicate? 

A. Using population as the racial comparison, it's by two 

for party, two greater for party than for race. For VAP, it's 

even 16, 16; and for registration, it's 16 per party and 13 for 

race. So, again, divergent segments. 

Judge Boyle: But if you read the opinion in the 

Summary Judgment Order, it laid all of this out in detail. That 

was one of the anchors of the opinion was that race [*237] was 

a more pure predictor of inclusion than party? 

The Witness: Yes, sir. 

Judge Boyle: And what is it that we're back here to do, 

to hear that from you or to somehow come up with voter 

participation as a substitute for party? You follow the 

question? 

The Witness: Yeah, I follow your question. I guess I 

don't quite know how to respond. I think the reason -- 

Judge Boyle: Well, that Opinion apparently relied on 

voter registration rather than voter participation. 

The Witness: Right. And basically here. 

Judge Boyle: But the two are synonymous, aren't they? 

 



  

44ja 

There's no great distinction in performance between voter 

registration and voter participation when analyzing 

non-precincts. 

The Witness: The way I analyzed participation, I'm 

looking at participationin the actual contest. So, for example, 

I analyzed participation in the Gantt/Helms race of 1990, and 

my theory is that that -- is the Gantt/Helms is the best available 

data that the state had in its possession and used at the time that 

it was doing the redistricting; that is, in fact, I think reliable and 

accurate such that it would give them an understanding of 

[*238] Democratic performance or Republican performance in 

each of the precincts. 

And, furthermore, it has the virtue of involving an 

African American candidate so you, in fact, could get a real 

test of perhaps white hostility to a Democratic candidate who 

happens to be African American. So I think it's a very 

appropriate political performance measure and a much better 

performance measure than the registration measure. 

Q. Are those political performance measures illustrated by 

the maps we reviewed yesterday concerning the Helms/Gantt 

election, for example, for each of the urban counties? 

A. Yes, they are. 

Q. And we did not look in detail at the Court of Appeals 

race maps, but you have reviewed those. Are they also an 

indication that in terms of Democratic performance that there's 

that same type of relationship? 

A. Yes, but I've already said earlier this morning that not 

in all cases do I trust the Court of Appeals data, because in 

some places the precincts changed between ‘88 and ‘90, and 

the state didn't, I believe, accurately translate those data. 

 



  

45ja 

Judge Boyle: So the state had from the ‘90 election 

data, the Bureau's most reliable basis upon which [*239] to use 

race and yet disguise it as party in imposing districts? 

The Witness: I'm going -- I think I'm going to say no, 

and the reason I'm going to say no is because, in my analysis of 

cross-over in the Gantt/Helms race in the area of District 1 and 

the area of District 12, I'd have to look back at the precise 

numbers. But my remembrance is that you've got pretty strong 

white cross-over, indicating that even though you had an 

African American candidate who had happened to be the 

Democratic nomination against Senator Helms in the context 

of Southern politics, Mr. Gantt did quite well among white 

voters. 

Judge Boyle: Among white voters? 

The Witness: Yes. Of course, he did very well among 

African American voters. 

Judge Boyle: I see. 

Judge Voorhees: When you say "participation" and 

"performance," are you using those terms interchangeably? 

The Witness: No, sir, I'm not. "Participation" is simply 

going to the poles and voting in the contest, voting either for a 

Republican or Democratic. In the Democratic primary voting 

for the one of the Democratic candidates. The other is what 

percent does a Democratic candidate achieve in the election. 

That's the definition [*240] of performance. 

Judge Boyle: But if you are trying to isolate those 

precincts that have a race-driven content rather than a party 

driven content, the Helms/Gantt race is going to give you the 

best indicator of that, isn't it, so that you can distinguish, say, 

in Mecklenburg, between a purely Democrat performing 

 



  

46ja 

precinct and a minority Democrat performing precinct and 

know which is which? 

The Witness: Yes. 

Judge Boyle: That was the point of the question that 

you had a hot house example there, which you never had 

before, if you were a legislator that allowed you to pick and 

choose among what might otherwise appear to be simply 

generic Democratic districts and now refine out of those the 

race-driven Democratic districts. 

The Witness: Well, and the districts that perhaps 

because it's got some African American in the precincts as well 

as whites willing to support an African American candidate. 

By Mr. Markham: 

Q. Do the voting performance analysis support the same 

analysis the district court reflected regarding registration? 

A. Yes, very consistent. 

x ik 

[¥242]Q. Is there any particular information from these 

documents which bears on your analysis? 

A. Yeah, if I could turn to Exhibit 211. One of the issues 

that this was raised perhaps as a — 

Judge Voorhees: I don't seem to have 211. 

The Witness: Should be the 12th District starts on 

page 1224. 

Judge Voorhees: I can look on here. 

A. I'm looking at the very last page, which is page 1227. 

I don't know quite how to characterize the [*243] assertion, but 

I think the concern was whether or not Congressman Watt, in 

 



  

47ja 

1998, under the circumstances of having a revised 

Congressional District and revised so that there was a primary 

in September and, of course, the general in November, whether 

or not the Republican challenger had the resources and the 

capability to make an effective race in that particular district. 

The best information that I have is from this report on 

page 1227, which shows that John Scott, is it Kadle, I guess, 

Kadle, who got 42 percent of the vote against Mr. Watt, spent 

$381,000. And, generally, a challenger that spends that kind of 

money would be regarded as a serious challenger. So the 

redrawing of the district didn't prevent the Republican 

candidate from making a serious challenge to Mr. Watt at that 

particular time. 

Q. I'd like to draw your attention next to Exhibit 217, 

which is the article of Pildes and Niemi. My question for you, 

Dr. Weber, have you relied on that article in the preparation of 

your analysis and report? 

A. Yes. I relied on this article for the data near the end of 

the article. In my report, I report some data for the 

geographical compactness on the 12 North Carolina 

Congressional Districts in the 1980's, and those data were taken 

from this report, page -- this article, page 572. 

Then also, as I put in my report, anything about the 

1992 [#244] plan that was ultimately found unconstitutional, 

those compactness scores come from this article, too. 

Q. Okay. Next, drawing your attention to Exhibit 221. 

Which is the Keech and Sistrom chapter? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you tell us, have you relied on this in the 

preparation of your analysis and report? 

 



  

48ja 

A. Does it -- first of all, this is a chapter from a book edited 

by Bernie Grofman and Chandler Davidson, and in the book 

they have a chapter on each of the southern states and so Bill 

Keech and Mr. Sistrom -- Mr. Keech used to be at the 

University of North Carolina Chapel Hill. He contributed to 

this chapter. 

For me, the most important thing is to understand the 

extent to which either threats of lawsuits or lawsuits in the 70's 

and 80's brought about changes at the local level in cities and 

counties of North Carolina and to understand that one of the 

outcomes of these lawsuits was to change the method of local 

districting in a way that produced greater racial segregation 

within the precincts; that is black precincts were created that 

were quite homogenously black and adjacent white areas were 

put in white precincts so as to afford the opportunity to have 

racial districts in these communities in North Carolina. And 

that confirms for me the point that I made in my declaration, 

that now [*245] in North Carolina many of the cities and 

counties are split very homogenously into black majority 

precincts and into white majority precincts, which can be used 

by the precinct processors in the State legislature to draw State 

legislator districts as well as Congressional districts. 

Q. Switch now to Exhibit 226, which is a map of the 

Congressional District comparing the ‘92 and ‘97 Plans. 

A. I don't have that. 

Q. At Joint Exhibit 139, I'd like to ask you what 

information can be gained from the review of this map and/or 

a comparison with Joint Exhibit 106? I'll step on this side. 

A. This map, it's number 226? 

Q. Map 226, yes. 

 



  

49ja 

A. This is very similar to the map that we looked at 

yesterday for the 1st District where the old Congressional 

District of 1992 is outlined in red. And so in this map you can 

see you go to Durham and then you come to the northern part 

of Orange and Alamance counties. Ultimately you get to 

Greensboro and you pose in yellow is the 12™ District that's 

under challenge in this particular case. 

And what I find rather interesting is that there's a 

substantial overlap in the African American neighborhoods of 

Greensboro and Winston-Salem and Charlotte between the two 

maps, suggesting that the core of the old 12" [*246] District 

that was primarily African American is, at least as it's known 

down to the six counties in the current challenged 1997 Plan, 

has retained in that particular district. 

[¥248] Q. And next turn to Exhibits 140 through 142, 

which are maps of Forsyth, Guilford and Mecklenburg 

counties. How do these maps differently illustrate party 

performance [*249] than the maps of the Court of Appeals in 

the Helms/Gantt maps that we have been looking at yesterday 

afternoon and this morning? 

A. Well, the difference in this map versus the maps that 

we're looking at yesterday and this morning, this simply says 

whether or not there were some Republican victories and the 

contest in question are the ‘90 Senate race, the ‘88 Lieutenant 

Governor race and the ‘88 Court of Appeals race. So if it's 

yellow here, it indicates there were no Republican victories in 

these adjacent precincts. 

 



  

50ja 

Yesterday I was looking at Forsyth. I also counted 

precincts that were not just abutting the boundaries of District 

12, but if there was a precinct like the ones in yellow on 

Exhibit 40 and there was a precinct next to it, that might have 

also, in this exhibit, in fact, indicated it was a Democratic 

performing precinct on the 1997 race. 

For example, I counted that as a precinct that could 

have been assigned as a Democratic precinct by taking both of 

the precincts and putting them in the 12" District. 

Q. So these maps, they don't show the voting performance 

of precincts beyond those that immediately touched the edge of 

the district. 

A. It does not show beyond nor does it tell you what the 

percentage is. We don't know whether the percentage in the 

yellow precincts was 60 percent Democratic or 65 

[¥250] percent Democratic. 

Q. Also, do these maps illustrate whether there may be 

precicnts inside the Congressional District, for example, in 

connectors that have more than one Republican victory? 

A. I don't believe there are any connectors here. 

Q. Do they show the voting performance or behavior of the 

precincts inside the district? 

A. No, it does not. 

Q. Is there any dispute, at least with respect to black North 

Carolinians, that race and party are linked in North Carolina? 

A. Well, there are two very important behavioral indicators 

that indicate that being African American precincts, one to be 

a Democrat. That is, we know the percentage of African 

American who happen to be registered as Democrats is very, 

very high. Over the series of studies I have conducted from ‘90 

 



  

51ja 

to ‘98, Democratic candidates get high percentage of African 

American support, typically over 90 percent from African 

American voters. 

Q. Can the effects of race and party be disentangled? 

A. Yes, I think they can. I think we have seen in this 

examination yesterday and today and through the stimulation 

of the partison [sic] analysis and report that it, in fact, can be 

disentangled. 

[#2511 OQ. When these are disentangled, which one is 

predominate as an explanation for the construction of 

Congressional District 1 in the 1997 Plan? 

A. Race is the predominate factor. 

Q. When disentangled, which is the predominate 

explanation for the construction of Congressional District 12? 

A. Race is the predominate factor. 

Mr. Markham: That concludes my questions, Your 

Honor. 

Q. You still have Exhibit 243 in front of you; it’s a map? 

Mr. Markham: I have it, Dr. Weber. 

A. Okay. 

Q. I just want to be clear. You indicate that this map 

shows some democratic precincts not assigned; is that correct? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Okay. Tell me, Dr. Weber, based on one-person, one- 

vote considerations, could the General Assembly have assigned 

all of those high-performingDemocratic precincts to District 1? 

[¥252] A. For every precinct that they chose to assign to 

 



  

52ja 

District 1, they would have had to have taken one or more other 

precincts out, so it’s always a calculation to take out one that 1s 

more or less Democratic than the one you put in. 

Q. So in other words, the other precincts that you were 

saying could have been assigned based on that map, in fact, you 

couldn't just assign any one or all of them or any one or more 

of them to the district without taking something else out? 

A.That's correct, yes. 

Q. So you didn't intend to leave the impression that all of 

those precincts should have been included in the district, did 

you? 

A. If I had been the architect of the plan, I would have 

tested those options and I, of course, can't tell you with any 

certainty whether or not anyone tested those options. 

Q. That was not my question. I asked you: you did not 

intend to, in any way, create the impression that the fact all of 

these precincts were not assigned to the district shows 

anything. I mean, it shows something? 

A. It shows there were Democratic precincts that were not 

assigned. 

Q. But that's all it shows, because they wouldn't have been 

based on population. If the district now is one-person, one-vote 

aligned, then you can't just assign those other precincts? 

A. No, but if I were doing it, I would have to test, by 

taking something else out and seeing what the result was. 

Q. But you didn't? 

A. I did not. 

Q. In fact, you have testified that the district is Democratic 

and strongly Democratic? 

A. It performs Democratic, yes. 

 



  

53ja 

Q. It's voting is Democratic in the various measures? 

A. Right. 

Q. And, in fact, if one was going to create a Democratic 

district, wouldn't one take the most strongly Democratic 

precincts first and put them in? 

A. I think you would start from the standpoint of race 

neutral principles. 

0). Well -- 

A. And then you would -- so, for example, as I suggested, 

that there are 12 counties in northeast North Carolina that could 

go into a district. After you have done that, you would test to 

see whether or not you have a Democratic or Republican 

district. 

Q. Well, you're talking about something else now. When 

we were talking about having a map and say Democratic 

precincts, you are concerned about all of these precincts [*254] 

were assigned to District 1 and 12. But isn't it true that if you 

are trying to create a Democratic district, you would assign the 

most Democratic performing precincts? 

A. But you can't -- and I'm not going to disagree with you. 

Yes, you would, but you can not subordinate traditional race 

neutral principlesin the process of doing that. So, for example, 

you can easily take all of Mecklenburg County and find a few 

additional thousand people and draw. And I've seen plans in 

the exhibits that suggest that's a marginally Democratic district. 

Q. What would happen to the other public incumbent if 

you took all of Mecklenburg County and essentially made it 

one congressional district? 

A. There are currently, at the present time, two 

 



  

54ja 

incumbents, one Democratic and one Republican, that lives in 

Mecklenburg County. 

Q. Your suggestion that you eliminate one incumbent and 

draw one district and see if you can draw one Democratic 

district in Mecklenburg County doesn't work for the 

Legislature, does it? 

A. I can't speak whether it would work in the Legislature 

or not. I'm speaking whether one follows race neutral precincts 

to do this. 

Q. As far as you are concerned, they do not include 

keeping districts for your two incumbents in the county? 

[¥255] A. That's not one of the list of things. It's in the list 

there. 

Q. Sir, your testimony to the Court that a legislature is 

acting unconstitutionally in violating and subordinating 

traditional race districting principles if it does consider 

incumbents and gives an incumbent a district? 

A. No, I'm not saying that. 

Q. Okay, thank you. And, in fact, in this instance you are 

aware that the Legislature was attempting to create a 6/6 

partisan split, essentially give six Democratic districts and six 

Republican districts? 

A. From reading the record, that's my understanding of 

their intent. 

Q. So, therefore, creating a Democratic district in the 12th 

and creating a Republican 9th in Mecklenburg is consistent 

with the legislators’ motive; is that right? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And if you are trying to create a Democratic district, six 

Democratic districts, doesn't it make sense you take your most 

 



  

55ja 

Democratic precincts and put them in those districts? 

A. No, because you have a Democratic district adjacent to 

District 12. And so, as I suggested yesterday, and I believe in 

answering one of the Court's questions, you [*256] would seek 

to balance. You would have fewer Democrats in the 12th and 

fewer Democrats in the 8th so that you would ensure that when 

you have an open seed contest in 1988, the 8th would rush to 

Democratic or be competitive to return a Democrat to that seat. 

Q. You don't know anything about political dynamics 

going on in the Legislature involving District 9 and 8 and 12, 

do you? 

A. I don't recall anything in the record that dealt with any 

detail about those issues, no. 

Q. So you don't know anything about the concerns of 

former Congressman Hefner in District 8 and where he might 

want the predominate boundary line? 

A. I don't know anything about what Congressman Hefner 

asked. 

Q. Those kinds of things may have resulted in lines that 

you don't like, but they are Democratic still performing 

districts, aren't they; District 12 is a Democratic performing 

district, 1sn't it? 

A. Yes, that's clear. 

Q. And, in fact, aren't there six Democratic performing 

districts in the '97 Plan? 

A. I'd have to look at the data again to be sure of that. 

Q. You only looked at 1 and 12? 

[257] A. No, I had access to the reports for all of the 

districts. It's just that they are not in front of me, so I can't 

verify that for you. 

 



  

56ja 

Q. Looking at as much time as you have spent looking at 

North Carolina politics, if you look in the 1997 Plan you can't 

tell the Court that District 5 is a Republican district? 

A. I know District Five is. 

Q. It's a heavily Republican district? 

A. Once upon a time it was a Democratic district. 

Q Is it now a very heavily Republican district? 

A It's a Republican district. 

Q. And District 6 is very Republican? 

A. Yes, it's Republican. 

Q Is District 9 and 10 a Republican district? 

A Yes, but 8 was not a Republican district. 

Q Eight was a Democratic district. That's one of the six 

Democratic districts, isn't it? 

A. It's now represented by Republican. 

Q. So the Legislature made a mistake? 

A. Perhaps they had something to do with the candidacy. 

Q. That may be true, but you don't know what the 

Legislature was thinking about when it drew the lines for the 

incumbent of District 8? 

A. No, I did not find anything in the record that |*258] 

indicated that. 

Q. So you didn't inquire about any real world political 

issues that might have been going on that might have 

determined why the Legislature drew the line where it did? 

A. No. I was aware that the Legislature was partisanly 

divided at the time that it was drawing the plan and so there are 

going to be some of those partisan issues involved, but analysis 

that I did and see is one in which race predominate district in 

 



  

57ja 

the construction of District 12 and District 1. After that was 

done, then these other issues were brought along to be 

revolved. 

Q. When you crunched the data on the '97 Plan and you 

concluded race was the predominate motive, you never 

considered any other hypothesis other than race, did you? 

A. I knew Dr. Peterson had an alternative theory at the 

time. 

Q. Let me interrupt you. Is the first time you crunched 

your numbers -- let me interrupt you. 

Judge Thornburg: Answer the question, then explainit, 

if you will. 

A. I need to hear the question again. 

Q. When you first started crunching your number tables 

two and four, which you supplied to the Court in a summary 

judgment proceeding, the only thing you considered when you 

determined that race was predominate was the [*259] 

hypothesis of race? 

A. Yes, that's true. And what I was unable to do at that 

time, because we were operating under very severe time 

constraints, I had just received Dr. Peterson's report. I knew 

that this was going to be an issue, but I knew that I did not have 

time at that time in order to explore the alternative hypothesis. 

Q. My point is you already had concluded that race 

predominate district and never considered the political 

alternative until it was suggested by Dr. Peterson? 

A. That's true, yes. 

Q. Okay. Now, isn't it true that one of the reasons that 

you never considered -- that you considered race was -- sorry, 

I'm not ready to start asking questions. Let me start over. 

 



  

58ja 

Isn't it true that you only considered race because you 

believed the North Carolina computer system only displayed 

racial breakdowns and did not display political breakdowns? 

A. At that time I had not seen the screens for North 

Carolina. I had seen the screens in Louisiana. And in 

Louisiana, they did not prominently display political 

information on the screen. 

Q. Do you have your declaration, Exhibit 47, in front of 

you; your declaration that was filed in this proceeding? 

[260] A. Yes. 

Q. Could you turn to page 52? 

A. Yes. 

Q. This declaration was filed in September -- well, it was 

served on the parties in September of this year? 

A. Xs. 

Q. Just before your deposition? 

A. Yes. 

Q. On page 52 of Exhibit 47, could you read -- no, I'm 

sorry. Let's not do that. Isn't it true at that point you indicate 

that the computer screen used by the North Carolina Legislative 

GIS system displays racial breakdown as the plan design is 

working and does not supply political breakdowns? 

A. That's my belief at the time based on the software used 

in Louisiana, which is the same software used in North 

Carolina. 

Q. As I asked you in your deposition if you were familiar 

with the North Carolina computer system, you said yes, it's the 

same as Louisiana? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Did you ever bother to learn about the North Carolina 

 



  

59ja 

system? 

A. Yes, I have. 

Q. Is that when we provided you exhibits showing [*261] 

photographs of the computer screen? 

A. No, I subsequently asked counsel to inquire on that 

matter. 

Q. When I deposed you, you still believed that the person 

drawing the districts could only see racial data? 

A. That's correct, yes. 

Q. That was one of the bases for your concluding that you 

only needed to look at race data, isn't it? 

A. Yes. I now looked at the screens. I can see it's very 

inconvenient to explain political data, much more convenient 

to display racial data. 

Q. But you were -- this was not correct and you based your 

whole -- you based your reasons -- excuse me. You were not 

correct about the computer screens in the data available to the 

General Assembly? 

A. That is correct, yes. 

Q. In Tables One to Four in your Exhibit 47, you found 

that race predominate district because the portions of split 

counties and towns were more heavily African American, 

which assigned to District 12 or district 1 and more white when 

assigned to an adjacent district? 

A. That's part of the inference, yes. 

Q. Haven't you also testified that African Americans are 

probably the most reliable Democrats? 

A. Yes. 

[¥262] Q. "And they register and vote heavily as 

Democrats? 

 



  

60ja 

A. Yes, that's true. 

Q. I think percentage you have been using is 95 to 97 

percent? 

A. As registered Democrats, yes. 

Q. Okay. Doesn't it follow then that the assignment of 

high African American -- if you find the assignment of African 

American precincts District 1 and 12 is not inconsistent with a 

political motivation, is it? 

A. It's inconsistent, as some of the white precincts are 

Democratic as well. 

Q. Are the white precincts as heavily Democratic? 

A. No. 

Q. In terms of saying the most Democratic heavily 

precincts, it's not inconsistent with political motivation, is it? 

A. If the goal, as I believe the goal to be, is to create a 

district with as large a percentage African American 

population, as large a Democratic percentage as African 

American, that's not an inconsistent conclusion. 

Q. I's also not inconsistent with a conclusion that politics 

predominate district, is it? 

A. It is inconsistent if you assign all of the majority 

African American precincts to either District 12 or District 1 

and then you don't assign certain Democratic [*263] precincts 

to it. The theory would be that if you are going to assign and 

create Democratic districts, then you would assign Democratic 

precincts. 

Q. But, Dr. Weber, your Tables One to Four do not pick 

and choose between precincts. You just said if you don't assign 

particular white precincts, your table does not distinguish 

whether a white Democratic precinct is right next to District 1 

 



  

61ja 

or is somewhere out there in the county somewhere; isn't that 

right? 

A. No. I know that because of the maps, but Table One, 

Two, Three and Four is about split counties and split cities. 

The precincts are dealt within table five. 

Q. That's right. But your split counties -- all right. let's talk 

about table five. There you are, you have after American 

precincts, you show where they are assigned to the different 

districts? 

A. Yes, ma'am. 

Q. Isn't it assignment of the heavily Democratic precincts. 

Wouldn't you get the same Table Ffive if you -- excuse me. 

Wouldn't you get the same Table Five with the racial 

breakdown if what the Legislature did was assign a heavily 

Democratic precinct? 

A. You might at the top have the same precincts. As you 

get down further to the middle of the table, you would have 

deviations from the pattern of racial assignment [*264] versus 

political assignment. 

Q. Are you talking about Table Six now? 

A. No, I'm saying if one were to have put the political data 

into Table Five as well as the racial data and then you sorted 

the table based upon, say, the 1990 Gantt/Helms race, there 

would be some precincts at the top that would be the same in 

both tables. But as you go down in there, you would have 

some Democratic precincts that would be higher in the 

Democratic table versus those that are in the racial table. 

Q. But you still would have created a Democratic 

performing district and you would have started with your 

heaviest Democrats or most loyal Democrats? 

 



  

62ja 

A. If you had chosen to do that, there are adjacent areas in 

Forsyth, Guilford and Mecklenburg County that are 

Democratic that are not assigned to District 12. 

[269] Q. Your tables one through five, where you are 

looking at the assignment of African American precincts and 

other precincts, it would be fair to say that's purely [¥270] 

circumstantial evidence, isn't it? 

A. I don't consider myself an expert on evidence, but 

Theard that term used to describe the kind of work that I'm 

doing, yes. 

Q. Well, it could be when you look at your data, you might 

see a racial split on the raw numbers. That's what some of your 

data is showing, right? 

A. Yes. 

Q. It could be there's a non-racial motive for a split county 

or split precinct that wouldn't be reflected in your data; isn't 

that correct? 

A. There are some counties in Table Two, for example, 

that I would assert are not racial, but they are not assigned to 

District 12 or 1. 

Q. If you don't add that extra piece of information that 

those are county lines that are dividing those towns, then you 

could just conclude that race predominate district? 

A. No. I did put an asterisk in Table Three and Table 

Four whenever the county lines split the community, and that's 

noted in that data base. For example, best example is Rocky 

Mount. 

 



63ja 

Q. And you did -- you took that information and you put 

those stars on your table. But that's not something you would 

know when you had just taken your tables and run the data? 

[¥271] A. No. All of this has to be done in conjunction 

with maps. You can't address this without the maps that you 

are using. 

Q. Well, if there was direct evidence and testimony that a 

particular town was split so that a military base could be put 

into a particular district, that wouldn't show up on your tables, 

would it? 

A. No, it wouldn't. I'd have to go to the record to know 

that took place. 

Q. But that would defeat a racial interpretationof your data 

for that town? 

A. No. My experience in terms of how military bases have 

been dealt with in congressional redistricting suggests that 

typically Democratic incumbents want military bases so that 

they can have nonvoters in their districts, and I speak of that as 

a Democrat. 

Q. What if I told you that military base was put into 

District Three, which is a Republican district, with the intent of 

the Legislature to keep a Republican? 

A. It's a marginal Republican district, but the overall 

pattern that I have seen around the country is Democratic 

incumbents want -- 

Q. That overall pattern does not fit the facts in North 

Carolina. 

A. In that particular one case, it does not fit that [*272] 

fact, no. 

Q. But then your data tables don't reflect any of the real life  



  

64ja 

decisions made by legislators such as that, do they? 

A. No. It reports the data as the decision was made and 

adopted and precleared by the Department of Justice. 

Q. Now, I think your data does not go quite that far, but it 

merely reports there are some racial divisions from which you 

concluded race predominate? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. But direct evidence could show that any number of 

those divisions had nothing to do with race? 

A. It's possible for that to happen, yes. 

Q. For purposes of your analysis, you don't need to know 

or care to know? 

A. No. I do -- again, I read the record and if the record 

speaks to it, I know it. If the record doesn't speak to it, [ wasn't 

personally present always here in Rleigh when the plan was 

adopted. I wasn't sitting by the computer watching the man 

move the mouse. 

Q. You don't know anything about North Carolina politics? 

A. I would submit that's not true. 

Q. Well -- 

A. You could probably stump me with some trivia, [¥273] 

certainly. 

Q. I certainly would not care to stump you with trivia, but 

you don't contend that you know the political issues that were 

before the legislature when it drew the 1997 particular ones 

relating to particular incumbents? 

A. I don't know the gambit of all the issues, no. 

Q. You don't know the House was controlled by the 

Republicans and Senate controlled by Democrats? 

A. That's true, and I know that. How would I say -- I know 

 



  

65ja 

there was concern with preserving the two African American 

majority districts. It's evident in the '97 Plan that that concern 

was met. 

Q. You didn't see any concern by the Legislature. The 

plan was to maintain a partisan 6/6 split? 

A. Did not result in a partisan 6/6 split. 

Q. Based on the performance data, the districts were 

supposed to be a 6/6 split, weren't they? 

A. That's my understanding, yes. 

Q. You looked at all the performance data? 

A. Yes. 

Q. You looked at the ncec data? 

A. Yes. 

Q : Wasn't there a democratic performance number for each 

of the 12 districts? 

A. Yes, there is. 

[¥274] Q. And isn't it also true that based on, say, the 

NCEC performance data that there would be at least six 

Democratic districts? 

A. I'd have to confirm that, again, because I don't have that 

in front of me. 

Q. So you only cared that two African American 

incumbents had safe Democratic districts and you didn't bother 

to look to see if what the Legislature was saying was true, 

whether or not, in fact, it preserved a 6/6 Democratic split for 

Democratic incumbents? 

A. I can look at it, but I don't have the data in front of me 

to confirm it. 

Q. Since that's the Legislature's -- since what the 

Legislature is saying, they were drawing districts based on 

 



  

66ja 

politics, wouldn't you have looked to see if, in fact, that was 

true? 

A. Yes. I can't confirm it for you because I don't have the 

data in front of me. 

Q. But you do remember the racial data. You do 

remember? 

A. That is so stark. It stands right out. 

Q. And the political data is not as stark? 

A. No. 

0), I thought you said these were very safe districts? 

A. There are probably seven or eight that are quite [*275] 

safe. 

Q. Seven or eight are quite safe? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Are a number of those Republican? 

A. Some of them are Republican, yes. 

Q. Do you think if the Legislature, if the members of the 

House thought it was not at least six Republican districts that 

they would have agreed to the plan? You are a political 

scientist? 

A. Right. 

Q. I mean, doesn't common sense say that somebody 

thought in the House of Representatives of North Carolina that 

Republicans were to get six districts? 

A. I suspect that was the goal, yes, to get six districts. 

Q. And as a political scientist, you would say that the 

Democrats felt they made their best efforts to create six 

Democratic districts? 

A. I doubt whether or not they would say they made the 

best effort. 

 



  

67ja 

Q. As a political scientist -- 

A. I can only assess it from hindsight now because of what 

happened in the '98 election. Again, several of those districts 

were not even drawn in '97, because the '97 12th District and 

adjacent districts had to be redrawn [*276] so the '98 election 

was conducted in somewhat different districts in the center 

Piedmont area of North Carolina. 

0. You keep wanting to talk about District 8. Isn't it true 

the incumbent did not run in 1998 in District 8? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. Did the Legislature, to your knowledge, know when 

they drew the 1997 Plan the incumbent in the 8th District did 

not intend to run or would not run? 

A. My understanding his announcement came in early 

January of 1998. I may be wrong by a month or so, but I 

believe that's when he formally announced he was not going to 

run. 

Q. And since he was running as an incumbent, as a 

political scientist, do you infer that the Legislature, the 

Democratic party of the legislature thought that District 8 

would remain in Democratic hands? 

A. Yes. But that district was not used in 1998. It would be 

reasonable for them to expect that the district that they drew, 

which was invalidated as a result of invalidating District 12, 

might have been a Democratic district. 

Q. So then you keep referencing the fact that a Democrat 

lost in the 8th District, then all of your references that you have 

been making to the 8th District and the Democrat losing are 

irrelevant since they don't relate to the 1997 [*277] plan? 

A. Well, there were counties of overlap, but there were 

 



  

68ja 

some counties that were -- 

Q. I wondered why you kept talking about the Democratic 

loss in each district, but it was under the 1998 Plan, so it 

doesn't matter anyway. 

You did a number of analyses about the District 1 and 

12 to determine that they were safe Democratic districts; is that 

correct? 

A. Yes, but I also looked at participationand took that into 

account. 

Q. I'm just talking about safe districts. 

A. Yes. 

Q, You did that? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And you did not look at the other ten districts yourself. 

You did not take the same political data and run the same 

numbers to determine anything about the safeness of the other 

ten districts; 1s that correct? 

A. That is correct, yes. 

Q. Is that because you were only concerned with whether 

or not the two districts that had African American incumbents 

were safe? 

A. No. It was really a resource issue. It was time and 

resources. 

[¥278] Q. Okay. Now, a few moments ago, am I correct 

in understanding, as a political scientist, I guess, or personally, 

and you can answer it either way, you disapprove of the general 

tendency of legislators to create noncompetitive districts? 

A. That is as a political scientist, yes. 

Q. As a political scientist? 

A. Yes. 

 



  

69ja 

Q. Is that because you don't believe the country or voters 

need a lot of safe congressional seats? 

A. No. The theory is different. It is to say if voters want 

to have an opportunity to go to the polls in general elections 

and technically throw the rascals out, if the rascals have drawn 

the districts in ways that it's virtually difficult to do that, why 

should a person vote? You might argue with a person, just 

don't bother to show up and vote because it won't matter, 

particularly if you are in the minority party. 

Q. In the real world, the Legislature, this interest in not 

having -- excuse me, I have my double negatives. 

In the real world of the Legislature, they are not 

interested in having all the seats competitive; isn't that correct? 

A. Well, my experience in studying this across the country 

and having been advising state legislators on [*¥279] occasion 

on these issues, I generally observe that politicians want to 

have safer districts rather than competitive districts. 

Q. And that's not anything based on race, is it? 

A. Well, race can be used to accomplish that. 

Q. But you said that's a general tendency? 

A. Whether you are talking to an African American 

member of the Legislature or white member of the Legislature, 

when they are talking about their own seats, they are very 

interested in that when doing congressional districts they take 

that into account as well. 

Q. I believe, consistent with this, when you gave your 

deposition, you didn't think much of the idea of a legislature 

maintaining a core of an incumbent's district? 

A. Well, if it means that maintaining the core means you 

are going to ignore race neutral principles, then you have to put 

 



70ja 

aside the notion of preserving the core. Seems to me 

preimminent is this notion of applying race principles in the 

area of redistricting. If you don't apply the race principles and 

you ignore them and they do things like preserve the core 

history, that's suspect. 

Q. For the Legislature, when it is preserving the core of a 

district, is it also looking at trying not to disrupt the election, 

the -- is the Legislature looking at not trying to disrupt the 

relationship of an incumbent and its [*280] voters? 

A. Generally incumbents do not want to disrupt this 

relationship. Whatever they end up -- whatever districts they 

end up with, they tend to, in the end, like and wish to preserve 

as long as they can. That's been an observation over decades 

and decades of the study of redistricting. 

Q. And there are benefits to the incumbent because he 

knows his voters? 

A. Yes, of course. 

Q. But they also know their incumbent? 

A. But if they happen to be in the minor pattern, they 

might be marginalized or submerged within a district drawn for 

partisan of the other party and, in effect, they don't have as 

much opportunity to throw the rascals out if they want to throw 

the rascals out. 

Q. So preserving the core of the district is something that 

legislators practice, and it's not necessarily racial at all; isn't 

that true? 

A. That's true. It's practiced every time this occurs. 

Q. And that's not only traditional, but probably historical 

traditional redistricting criteria? 

A. It 1s historical and traditional, but it is not race neutral. 

 



  

71ja 

Q. But it's not necessarily racially motivated either, [*281] 

is it? 

A. Not necessarily, no. 

Q. Dr. Weber, would it be fair to say that in the 

redistricting process, you don't really trust leaving redistricting 

to the legislators? 

A. I think that's a conclusion that I have reached and I have 

said it in my academic writing. 

Q. In fact, didn't you tell me that you thought that the best 

results, what happened in Louisiana and Georgia after their 

congressional districts were overturned, that they let the federal 

Judges draw the districts? 

A. Yes. The federal Judges in those two states happened 

to draw what I think are the fairest districts for the 90's. 

Q. Now, in your report, you've talked some about the 

1980's plan, the congressional redistricting plan? 

A. Yes. 

Q. I believe you went so far as to say that you felt that that 

should be the benchmark for looking at the '97 Plan; is that 

right? 

A. It should be the benchmark for all activities in the 

1990's until there's a constitutional plan adopted. That was the 

last constitutional plan. 

Q. But isn't it true using the 1980's plan as a benchmark is 

a little difficult because it only had 11 congressional districts? 

A. For the purposes of simply population, it would be a 

difficult benchmark to follow, but for purposes of assessing the 

race neutrality of that plan versus the race consciousness or the 

race predominance of the 90's, it's a very appropriate 

benchmark. 

 



  

72ja 

Q. And isn't it true that the legislator in the 90's -- and this 

includes in 1997 -- they had to put that 12th District 

somewhere; isn't that correct? 

A. Yes. There has to be a 12th District because population 

mandates it, yes. 

Q. And didn't you tell me previously that the greatest 

population growth between the 1980's and 90's in North 

Carolina was the Triad and Piedmont area from Charlotte to 

Durham? 

A. Y¢s. 

Q. So it makes sense, if you have to put another district in, 

put it there? 

A. Yes. That's exactly what the Legislature did in the 1981 

Plan, put a district in the counties between Charlotte and 

Winston-Salem. 

Q. As a matter of population, that's not unconstitutional to 

put the district there? 

A No. At that part of the state at the time, it was a race 

neutral plan. 

[¥283] Q. And in 1997, because of the population in that 

area, it would still make sense to put a district in that Piedmont 

area? 

A. But you do not need to put a district between Charlotte 

and Greensboro, Winston-Salem. 

Q. Well, in 1997, is it necessary to disrupt all the other 

districts even more? Why not put your Democratic district 

there? 

A. The disruption occurred in 1992 and continued for '94 

and '96. 

Q. Is there anything unconstitutional that you know of 

 



  

73ja 

about the desire to put a Democratic district, make a 

Democratic district the 12th District Democratic? 

A. To make it Democratic, no, there's nothing. 

Q. And, in fact, the legislature succeeded in keeping and 

making the 12th District Democratic? 

A. Yes, less Democratic than the 1992 Plan, but it is still 

Democratic. 

Q. Well, they had to cure the constitutional defects, didn't 

they? 

A. Yes. 

5 3 It's not over 50 percent African American district, is it? 

A. No. 

Q. By putting a Democratic district there, the [*284] 

legislature was able to meet its goal of maintaining a 6/6 

partisan balance in the congressional districts? 

A. Alternatively, it could have done as 1991 and put all of 

Mecklenburg County together as an adjacent area had a 

marginally -- 

Q. What would that have done to the Republicanin District 

9 and Democrat in District 8? 

A. You would have a very competitive race with one of 

them losing their seat. 

Q. Wouldn't you say that the incumbents who would be 

affected by such a plan might have had strong words and 

concerns with the Legislature? 

A. Again, the question is, is it constitutionally -- guess if 

it's not constitutional then the whole question of incumbent 

protection has to go away when constitutional questions arise. 

Q. Well, Dr. Weber, it's not unconstitutional for a state to 

draw a districting plan that's balanced 6/6, is it? 

 



  

74ja 

A. As long as they do it in a race neutral way and don't 

support a traditional race neutral principles. 

Q. And drawing a 6/6 partisan balanced district would not 

be a democratic gerrymander, would it? 

A. It would be a bipartisan gerrymandering in that sense. 

[¥285] Q. So -- but you think the Legislatureto obey some 

neutral redistricting principles had to disrupt the Republican in 

District 9 and the Democrat in District 8 and draw a different 

district there. They couldn't draw this district? 

A. That's correct, yes. 

Q. Now, turning to your Table 6, which is in your Exhibit 

47. 

A. Yes, ma'am, I'm there. 

Q. Did you do an Exhibit 309 that related to those tables or 

am I in error? 

A. I believe Exhibit 309 so related to Defendant's Exhibit 

434 or maybe 435 -- no, 435. 

Q. Let's look at Table 6, Exhibit 47 starting at page 68. 

I think when you testified about this table, you were 

talking about this shows some Democratic precincts that are not 

put into District 12; is that correct? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Okay. Now, this table does not take into account, does 

it, where any of these precincts are located? 

A. No, I have to have the maps to go with this to do that. 

Q. When you sat there on the witness stand and added up 

the number of precincts of Democratic precincts not put in 

[¥286] the district, you did not intend to imply that all of the 

ones that you listed here that are high-performing Democratic 

precincts could, in fact, geographically even go in the district? 

 



  

75ja 

A. No, I later did that with the maps. 

Q. Did you -- in fact, when you looked at the map, did you, 

in fact, correlate them with the numbers you added up here? 

Can you take the numbers -- when you added up here, you said 

there are eight precincts here that are highly Democratic that 

should have been in. Did you go to the map and find those 

eight precincts? 

A. I went to the map and found the precincts and came 

back to the tables and looked at the tables. 

Q. You found the eight exact precincts? 

A. For Forsyth Ccounty, I did. 

Q. Well, then you did determine that all of those precincts 

geographically couldn't go in the district, didn't you? If you 

went and looked at the map, isn't it true that whatever you 

added up here, you went and looked at the map, you would find 

all of those numbers you added up could not geographically go 

into the district? 

A. Not all of them, yes. 

Q. And you didn't do a chart for us to say how many could 

or couldn't? 

A. No, I didn't. 

[¥287] Q. You added up numbers, said look at all the 

Democratic precincts based on the chart that aren't in the 

district? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. But nothing to say geographically they could go in the 

district? 

A. No. 

That doesn't correlate necessarily with the numbers you were 

informing the Court about, does it? 

 



  

76ja 

A. No. Those were based on the map. 

Q. I'm talking about you sat there on the stand and added 

up, said you go here and add all of these Democratic 

performing districts. You have x number that are not in the 

district? 

A. That is correct, yes. 

Q. All right. Isn'tit also true when you look at these tables 

and you add them up, say these highly performing Democratic 

precincts were not put in the district. Isn't it true that you can't 

fit all of these Democratic performing districts in the district? 

They would bust one-person, one-vote? 

A. You would have to take other precincts out. If you 

focus on Table 6 on Mecklenburg County, you could put all of 

Mecklenburg County in one precinct. 

Q You don't know whether the Legislature would have to 

take out a higher Democratic performing precinct just to [*288] 

put in one of these that you thought should go on in? 

A. You would have to make a choice which one should go 

out and you have to do that every time you do this. 

Q. That choice could be based on Democratic 

performance? 

A. Could be based on Democratic performance, yes. 

€). Your chart here is showing some higher Democratic 

precincts were not put in, does not tell you that the decision 

was based on race, it may have been based on one-person, 

one-vote? 

A. If you look at the rest of the table, all the majority 

African American precincts are put in District 12, every one of 

them. 

Q. But you already testified those are the most Democratic 

 



  

77ja 

performing precincts in North Carolina? 

A. Yes, they are. 

Q. And doesn't it make political sense to put the most 

Democratic performing precincts into District 12 if you are 

trying to create a democratic district? 

A. You can draw Democratic districts without putting all 

of the African American majority precincts into the district. 

Q. Without disrupting all the Republican incumbents? 

A. Yes. 

Q. I'm sorry, I don't think I ever saw that plan. 

A. As I answered the questions on direct to Mr. Markham, 

[¥289] you can take Precinct 877 out and still have a 

Democratic performing districtin Mecklenburg and all the rest 

of the counties. You can take other African majority precincts 

out. That's what happened in the 1998 Plan. They took all of 

Guilford County out and it's still performing Democratic. 

Q. What if the direct evidence showed that the south 

eastern side of Mecklenburg that's in District 9 -- that's 

connected to District 9 by Precinct 77 -- what if the direct 

evidence were the incumbent in District 9 would want those 

precincts in the district? 

A. In this hypothetical, we would be taking 77 out of 12 

and putting it in 9, so you would have a broader corridor 

between the eastern part of Mecklenburg County and the 

western part of Mecklenburg County and you just substitute 

another Democratic precinct from somewhere else in the 

precinct to go in 77. 

Q. You, of course, have no constraints based on any 

incumbents or legislator's wishes about how you draw the 

district, do you? 

 



  

78ja 

A. Right. I know this, there's no incumbent who has a 

residence in Precinct 77. So that would not -- 

Q. There's not anybody who lives in Precinct 77? 

A. Yes. There is, there's a substantial population. 

Q. Not the part assigned to District 9, okay? 

[290] A. Yes. 

x x 

Q. Now, Dr. Weber, earlier in your testimony -- or 

yesterday in your testimony, you referred to Exhibits 265, 

266 and 268 I'm not asking you to pull them out, which were 

thematic maps of Forsyth, Mecklenburg and Guilford 

County. Do you recall these maps? 

A. Yes, ma'am, I do. 

Q. You were counting adjacent precincts that you 

contended should have been included in the 12th District, as 

I recall? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. Because they were high performing in that particular 

election? 

A. That one single election, yes. 

Q. Your counsel had you look at Joint Exhibit 140 

[¥291] earlier today. Excuse me, 140. You still have exhibit 

140, 141, 142 up there? 

A. No, I don't. 

Q. Okay. 

Ms. Smiley: May I approach the witness, Your 

Honor? 

Judge Thornburg: Yes. 

 



  

79ja 

By Ms. Smiley: 

Q. If you would look at Joint Exhibit 142. I'm sorry, 

there may be an index in the front. 

A. Yeah. I'm there now, okay. 

Q. All right. Now, I believe you testified that what this 

map shows is the elections in all three results that are on the 

North Carolina computer system are tabulated, and I believe 

the data is right behind as part of the exhibit, where that takes 

each precinct that goes around Mecklenburg County and it 

has the election results and the three elections that are on the 

North Carolina computer data base; is that right? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. It tallies the data -- tallies up the number of 

Republican victories; is that correct? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. And Exhibit 142 is the thematic map showing the 

Republican victories in the precincts that surround that 

[#292] portion of Mecklenburg County in District 12; is that 

correct? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. And correct me if I'm wrong, but in terms in 

immediately adjacent precincts it looks like there's only one 

Democratic performing precinct that immediately abuts 

District 12 in Mecklenburg County. Is that how you would 

read this map? 

A. Yes. I see one precinct in yellow. It's Charlotte 

Precinct 10. 

Q. And would you infer, because that one precinct is not 

in District 12, that there's a racial motive about that district 

line where they put that precinct in the District 12? 

 



  

80ja 

A. No. My inference is there were other precincts 

carried by Harvey Gantt in 1990 against Senator HelMs. I 

would put all of those precincts in there because that's the 

most recent and best indication of democratic performance 

for African American candidate in Charlotte Mecklenburg. 

Q. If you were trying to recreate a partisan Democratic 

precinct and not a precinct for African Americans, would you 

just use the Gantt election? 

A Yes, because I'm particularly concerned about the 

accuracy of the '88 data for those two races in [¥293] 

Charlotte/Mecklenburg. 

Q. But that's your concern about the accuracy for that? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. In your review of the record and depositions and 

other things, have you heard that, in fact, the Legislature, 

when it wanted to look at Democratic performance, tended to 

look at the Court of Appeals race and the Rand/Smith race 

because they were more truly indicative of Republican 

Democratic strength? 

A. I don't remember particularly where they said yes it 

was the '88 race or '90 race. All I know is I have concerns 

about the reliability of the '88 data. Perhaps those concerns 

were never expressed to the Legislature. 

Q. But do you have any information that the Legislature 

did not rely on political data in its computer data base 

because it had the kind of concerns that you had about the 

data? 

A. No, I do not believe they were told those concerns. 

Q. But you, in fact -- do you, in fact, know whether or 

not they used the data that's in the data base with or without 

 



81ja 

the concerns you have? 

A. I know it's in the data base and I believe Mr. Cohen, 

in his deposition, indicated that the data were sometimes 

used. Now, whether they used it in this part of drawing the 

district, I don't know. 

[¥294] Q. Well, you want to draw inferences based on 

the fact that you think the Legislature should have used that 

1990 election. But if that's not what they used, isn't it better 

to look at all the data that they used? 

A. The best data, in my opinion, is the 1990 Senate race. 

The 1988 races are less reliable. 

Q. And that might not comport with the reality over at 

the Legislature when it was trying to draw districts? 

A. I don't know what they did. 

Q. Okay. But based on this map it looks like the 

Mecklenburg County -- they did a pretty good job of finding 

-- of staying within a city of Republicans? 

A. If you accept the accuracy of the 1998 data. If this 

1998 data is wrong and these other precincts are Democratic 

in '88, if you could properly allocate them from the '88 

precincts to the '90 precincts, I would be more convinced. 

Q. That's the problem with experts and legislators, they 

use the data that's in the machine. 

All right. Now, turning to the other two maps, let's 

start with Guilford County, which is Exhibit 141. Once 

again, you do find that there is a strong wall of Republicans 

going around the vast majority of District 12 in Guilford 

County? 

A. There are four precincts, according to your data, did 

[*295] not go Republican in these three races.  



  

82ja 

Q. My question was the vast majority are -- 

A. Well, the vast majority were the three Republican 

victories, two Republican and one -- 

Q. -- there are four precincts that didn't get included? 

A. That's right, and there are additional ones adjacent to 

those. Again, in my map suggested they might have been 

added as well as even though they are not immediately next 

to District 12. 

Q. But the problem with your thematic maps is it doesn't 

take into consideration things like maybe physical 

boundaries, street boundaries? 

A. Neither does this map. 

Q. Well, you don't know in effect whether or not these 

precincts were excluded by a major thoroughfare in Guilford 

County, do you? 

A. No, I don't. 

Q. You also don't know if there were other 

considerations dealing with an incumbent in Guilford 

County? 

A. I can't imagine why a Republican incumbent would 

want a Democratic precinct; perhaps he did. 

Q. If the incumbent was from the city of Greensboro; 

might he want Greensboro precincts? 

A. Equally he would probably want marginally 

Republican [*¥296] precincts. 

0. Then there's the issue of one-person, one-vote, isn't 

there? 

A. Yes. That's why you take out precincts and put 

precincts in. 

Q. Exhibit 140, the thematic map of Forsyth County, 

 



  

83ja 

there is a Republican wall. Every one except on the 

left-hand side of District 12 in Forsyth County; is that 

correct? 

A. Yes. 

Mr. Markham: I object to the Republican wall. We 

said the internal precincts are not colored. I don't believe it's 

clear whether or not some of the ones in the connector may 

have voted Republican on all three occasions. 

Judge Thornburg: We have no problem with 

understanding what they are talking about. All right, go 

ahead. 

By Ms. Smiley: 

Q. I believe you pointed quite a bit to these Democratic 

precincts that were not included in the 12th District? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Now, do you know of any other reasons in the 

Legislature, that are not based on this kind of data, why those 

precincts might not have been put into the 12th [*297] 

District? 

A. I remember reading in the record Congressman Burr 

wanted as many Republicans in his district as possible, since 

that's his home area. 

Q. Do you remember anything about where he lives? 

A. No, I don't know precisely where he lives. I think 

somewhere in the record there's indication of the precincts, 

perhaps in the stipulations, but I don't know exactly where 

Congressman Burr lives. 

Q. So there might be some nonpolitical and nonracial 

reasons that explain that group of yellow precincts? 

A. He wanted Winston-Salem precincts and he was 

 



  

84ja 

willing to take Democratic Winston-Salem precincts, even 

though this was a Democratic plan. 

Q. So the Democrats, in order to come to a compromise 

with the Republicans in the Legislature, didn't get everything 

they wanted? 

A. I don't remember seeing any of the earlier plans that 

incorporated any of these precincts. I don't believe these 

precincts were involved in District 12 early in the process of 

'96 or '97. 

Q. One of the real world reality, when you say a 

Democratic precinct is not included, there may be factors 

such as the Democrats couldn't get every Democratic 

precinct for in dealing with the other? 

[¥298] A. I don't know that. 

Q. That's right. You just can't know that from the data 

you are looking at? 

A. But as a political scientist looking at the data, the 

best partisan explanation would be to take the partisan 

precincts. 

Q. You referenced the Pildes and Niemi article? 

A. Yes, ma'am. 

Q. About compactness? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Isn't it true that Pildes and Niemi, in terms they 

created these dispersions and compactness measures, and 

you have an article in here where they compared 

congressional districts nationwide; is that correct? 

A. Yes. They did not create these. These were created 

by persons at a company called Election Data SysteMs. 

They made these available to Pildes and Niemi and also, in 

 



  

85ja 

some of the discussions, in my report I reference a David 

Huckabee at the Congressional Research Service. He had the 

same scores made available to him. 

Q. Dr. webster, you read his report and he got numbers 

like Pildes and Niemi in North Carolina districts? 

A. For the old districts, similar numbers, yes. 

Q. It's fairly accepted in terms of if you are going to do 

the mathematical measures of compactness, these are [299] 

formulas experts share and people have the data and you 

share that data? 

A. It's generally accepted the two most commonly 

reported upon are the dispersion and compactness. 

Q. Isn't it true Pildes and Niemi established a benchmark 

for determining whether a district is compact or not under 

those measures? 

A. They suggest there's a score below, which you want 

to become concerned about the geographical compactness of 

the congressional districts. 

Q. Although they would not conclude just because it fell 

below that score it was necessarily not compact? 

A. No, they suggested it raises the flag. The 

investigator would want to go into other information and 

determine what was it that caused the district to be created. 

Q, Isn't it true that District 1 is above that benchmark on 

both perimeter and dispersions measures? 

A. Yes, it is. 

Q. So Pildes and Niemi would not raise any red flags? 

A. For District 1, that's correct. 

Q. Now, you talked -- you also showed us an article and 

looked at the financing of the Republican candidate in the 

 



  

86ja 

1998 general election who ran against incumbent Watt? 

A. Yes. That was in the Almanac of the American 

[*300] Politics letter. 

Q. You were satisfied he had sufficient finances? 

A. The challenger had 381,000 to spend against 687 for 

Congressman Watt. I think most political scientists would 

tell you that's a reasonable amount of money. So one could, 

in fact, spend the money on vote mobilizing and vote 

persuasion kind of techniques to make them a credible 

candidate in that race. 

Q. Well, you are aware that six Republicans ran in the 

primary? 

A. Yes, I am. 

Q. Okay. And you are aware that none of them came 

even close to 40 percent? 

A. Right. It was a very divided Republican Party 

electorate in the primary. 

Q. In fact, did anyone even obtain as much as 25 percent 

of the vote? 

A. I don't remember the precise numbers. 

Q. But it was pretty split; the percentages were far below 

40 percent? 

A. Very divided. 

Q. And there was no runoff? 

A. That's correct. 

* % %x 

[¥306] Q. All right. In your report, which is exhibit 47, 

at pages 74 and 75, 

 



  

87ja 

A. Yes, ma'am. 

0. You do a discussion about whether or not you can 

draw -- whether or not you can create an African American 

majority district in the area that it encompasses District [307] 

1; is that correct? 

A. Yes. Begins on page 75, paragraph 73. 

Q. But I notice your methodology, when you talk about, 

I believe it's on paragraph 75, and you said when you group 

whole counties, when you got those whole counties grouped 

together, the total population of the African Americans, the 

most you can make it was 42.91 percent; is that correct? 

That's on page 77, paragraph 75. 

A. Yes. 42.91 percent African American of the total 

population. 

Q. Dr. Weber, did you testify that you have given -- 

advised legislators about complying with voting rights act 

issues? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is it your testimony to the Court that you would 

advise a Legislature, in attempting to comply with voting 

rights act, that if it could not create a majority African 

American district using whole counties that, in fact, they 

could forget the voting rights act? 

A. I don't remember words to that effect. 

Q. You are not then -- then why in the world is your 

methodology here of using whole counties relevant to any 

issue of whether or not you can create a majority black 

precinct in the area encompassing District 1? 

A. It's relevant because it's applying race neutral [*308] 

principles and in drawing a constitutional plan to comply 

 



  

88ja 

with Section 2, one has got to incorporate the two elements. 

So you are not only talking about compliance with Section 2, 

but you have to draw a reasonably exacted language in 

Gingles of geographically concentrated and sufficiently 

numerous. 

Q. Then you are testifying that a state, if it cannot draw 

an African American precinct using whole counties, does not 

have to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? 

A In this particular case, my analysis suggests there's 

no reason to believe if you have been sued by Plaintiffs in 

1991, '92 because you failed to draw a majority\minor 

district that you would have lost that lawsuit. 

Q. But in your analysis on page 75, you are using whole 

counties and you say using whole counties you can only get 

it up to 42.91 percent? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. So your testimony and your belief is that the State is 

not -- this state, the State of North Carolina does not have to 

be concerned with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, if 

using whole counties it cannot create a majority African 

American district? 

A. That's because they are using in two principles. 

Q. What makes you say that counties are race neutral 

[*309] principle here in North Carolina? 

A. They are political subdivisions. Historical divisions 

in North Carolina is to keep the counties together. 

Q. Are you familiar with various litigation events in 

North Carolina where the use of whole counties have been 

struck down? I believe Gingles itself said you couldn't keep 

counties whole, you can split them? 

 



  

89ja 

A. Gingles is about State Senate, State House districts, 

about multimember districts and I don't dispute that there's a 

sufficiently large and geographically concentrated population 

in certain parts of North Carolina where you can, in fact, 

meet the first prong of Gingles for State Senate and House 

districts but you can't for congressional districts. 

Q. Isn't it true North Carolina created a number of maps 

with majority African American districts in the area 

generally encompassesing District 1 and they have done it by 

cutting some counties? 

A. They have cut some counties. My position is they are 

not constitutional plans following race and general 

principles. 

[*311] Q. Dr. Weber, it's not your testimony that it's 

impossible for North Carolina to have had partisan motivation 

to create District 12 but still not include every possible 

Democratic precinct in its borders, is it? 

A. No. Because as I responded to Ms. Smiley, there might 

be some Democratic precincts in say the six counties of the 

12th district you couldn't get in there because they are too far 

afield from the abutting line. 

Q. And, in fact, in your opinion, congressional Districts 1 

and 12 are already overly safe districts, even without those 

additional Democratic precincts? 

A Yes. Again, in the 1997 Plan, yes. 

Q. Dr. Weber, if you -- Dr. Weber, in examining Plan '97, 

the 1997 Plan, you had testified before, I believe, that there 

 



    

90ja 

were Democratic precincts in District 12 that you would or 

could perhaps move to District 8. Do you recall testifying to 

that? 

A. Yes, I do. 

Q. Let me ask you: in order to do that, if you look at the 

map there, in order to move precincts from Mecklenburg 

County, for example, or actually if you want to move it from 

Mecklenburg County to District 8, wouldn't you have to cross 

Mecklenburg County in order to do that from District 8 or 

actually -- 

A. No. If you are going to add a portion of Mecklenburg 

[#312]County to District 8, then you would have to swap some 

population from District 8 into, say, District 9 or District 12. 

Q. Actually, my question was: if you were going to move 

precincts that are currently in District 12 that are in 

Mecklenburg County and move those precincts into District 8, 

wouldn't you have to cut or actually move into or cross 

Mecklenburg County line? 

A. Yes, you would have to do that. 

Q. Wouldn't that result in a three way county split, as it is 

presently configured? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Looking on Table 7 in your report, which is Exhibit 47? 

A. Can you help me with the page number? 

Q. Page 80. 

A. Thank you. 

Q. Do you have it there? 

A. Yes, I do. 

Q. Now, in this table you are comparing white and African 

American participation; is that correct? 

 



  

91ja 

A. Yes, in the Democratic primary of the Democratic 

runoff primary. 

Q. All right. Now, in North Carolina you are aware that 

only Democrats and unaffiliated voters can participate in 

[*313] a Democratic primary? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. So Republicans are not eligible to participate in the 

Democratic primary? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. Looking on Table 7, the participation percentages you 

list there under the African American column, for example? 

A. Right. 

Q. Those African American percentages are registered 

voters, almost all of whom are eligible to vote in the 

Democratic primary? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And looking at the white percentages, those would be 

percentages of white registered voters but would include 

numbers -- voters -- include in those percentages voters that 

might be republicans and, therefore, ineligible to vote; is that 

correct? 

A. Yes, some. 

Q. So, for example, on page seven, the very bottom there, 

1998 Congressional District 12 U. S. Congress under white 

participation? 

A. Right. 

Q. The .025 number that would be a portion of all white 

nonproportion of all white voters eligible to participate in the 

primary? 

[*314] A. That is correct. 

 



  

92ja 

Q. So this analysis that you lay out in table 12 doesn't give 

you a comparison of participation between white Democrats 

and African American Democrats, does it? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. As a result, your conclusion regarding participation 

rates between African Americans and whites, by including 

Republicans, white Republicans who are not eligible to vote, 

your results are artificially deflated with regard to white voters 

and African American participation? 

A. If we could, in fact, separate out the white Republican 

voters from the white Democratic voters, each of the 

participation estimates would be higher for the white 

participation rates. They would be not much higher for the first 

congressional district because they have a high percentage of 

white Democrats in the First Congressional District who 

participated in the Democratic primary. You would have a 

more severe effect in the 12th District. 

Q. So these are artificially deflated vis-a-vis African 

American participation; is that correct? 

A. Particularly for District 12. 

Q. In your report, which is Exhibit 47 on page 89, 

paragraph five -- 

A. Yes. 

[315] Q. -- you mention that African American voters 

residing in District 1 and 12 in the 1997 Plan do not participate 

in lower rates than white voters in recent Democratic primary 

runoff elections, indicating any evidence that history or official 

discrimination has any lingering effects that would impact 

voter registration? 

A. That's correct. 

 



  

93ja 

Q. Looking at the results of your participation analysis, 

that does not tell us that the lingering effects of past official 

discrimination, in fact, no longer exist; is that correct? 

A. I believe that is the case. They no longer exist in the 

state of North Carolina. 

Q. But can you base that conclusion upon your analysis of 

the participation rates that we have outlined in Table Seven? 

A. Yes, they are not, if there are lingering effects of 

discrimination. They are not meaningful for participation. 

They might be meaningful for other aspects of life in North 

Carolina, but not meaningful for political participation. 

Q. I didn't ask you if they were politically significant or 

meaningful. Looking at your results from Table Seven. Based 

on your analysis of the Democratic primaries, you can infer, 

given your errors, you actually deflated the [*316] white 

participation? 

A. I don't believe that I have deflated those numbers 

significantly, so white participation in the Democratic primary 

would be higher than African American participation. 

Q. But you don't really know, do you? 

A. I have a pretty good idea of what percent of the whites 

in District 12, for example, are Republican and I could -- in 

fact, with a calculator, I could quickly do that. 

Q. Dr. Weber, given the information that you had when 

you calculated these participation rates, you had no way to 

factor out by race and by party the number of white 

Republicans who are stated in that race? 

A. No way I could. 

Q. You could not? 

A. No, analyst can do that. 

 



  

94ja 

Q. So I'm correct, you could not do that? 

A. Correct. 

Q. You could not infer from that information with certainty 

lingering effects of official discrimination have been removed 

using the Democratic primary participation analysis you laid 

out in Table Seven; is that correct? 

A. Yes, sir. I disagree with your premise. I believe [*317] 

that based upon any adjustment that I would make of these 

data, if I could, in fact, accurately estimate white participation 

rates in the Democratic primary, you would still see African 

American participation being higher on the average than white 

participation, whether or not whether we're talking about 

District 1 or 12. 

Q. My question was: you can not, using the analysis you 

laid on table seven, with certainty testify that the lingering 

effects of the official discrimination have been removed based 

upon the analysis you have done in Table Seven? 

A. Yes, I believe it is, with certainty. 

Q. So the answer to my question is yes, you can, with 

certainty, based on your analysis, tell this court the lingering 

effects have been removed? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Based on your analysis of general elections, you 

testified there are no party -- where there are no party 

restrictions and all the white voters are eligible to vote, you 

concluded that black participation was actually lower; is that 

correct? 

A. Yes, tends to be lower. 

Q. And your evidence in the primary is not consistent with 

that evidence; is that correct, given to errors or given the 

 



  

95ja 

deflation of white participation; isn't that [*318] correct? 

A. I didn't understand the question. 

Q. Given the deflation of the white participation in the 

primary election, given that you did not factor out white 

Republicans, the evidence -- your conclusions from that may 

not be inconsistent with your conclusions from the general 

elections; 1s that correct? 

A. I believe they are inconsistent. I believe that white 

participation is lower in the Democratic primary than African 

American participation. 

Q. But you can not verify that with certainty. You could 

not factor out white Republican participationin the Democratic 

primary; is that correct? 

A. I know approximately what percentage of District 12 is 

white Republican. I know what percentage of District 1 is 

white Republican, and if I do that, I do not believe that I take 

away the difference. It narrows the difference. It might in one 

or two elections make the white number slightly higher than the 

African Americannumber. As a general picture, I don't believe 

we will always be higher white than African American. 

A. In table 9 in your report, Dr. Weber, Exhibit 47, you 

have estimates of white cross-over rates in North Carolina? 

A. Ys 

[¥319] Q. And looking at that table, those rates range from 

a low of 17.9 percent to high of 46.2 percent? 

A. Yes. 

Q. In table ten you lay out the rates; you analyzed the 

congressional races? 

A. Yes, sir. These are the two elections held in the plan in 

District 1 and 12 in 1988. 

 



  

96ja 

Q. That, though, shows Representative Clayton received 

32.4 and Watt received 32.6 percent? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. As a social scientist, you are familiar with the levels of 

white cross-over, the Supreme Court analysis found in the 

gingles case; is that correct? You recall what the ranges are? 

A. I remember vaguely. You would have to show me the 

exhibit to remind me. I remember there was an exhibit in the 

opinion. 

Mr. Cox: May I approach, Your Honor? 

Judge Thornburg: Yes. 

By Mr. Cox: 

Q. Dr. Weber, I've handed you the Gingles opinion and the 

appendix to that opinion actually lays out the amount of voting 

support the candidates received in the districts that the Court 

analyzed in that case. See where I am? 

A. Yes. 

[320] Q. Of the Appendix A. Now, looking at that 

appendix, the levels of white cross-over in the districts which 

the Supreme Court find both dilution in gingles ranged from 20 

percent to a high of 46 percent? 

A. Say that again. 

Q. The range of white cross-over the Supreme Court found 

in the districts in which it found vote dilution ranged from a 

low of 28 percent to high of 46 percent? 

A. Are we looking at primary or general? 

Q. General elections. 

A. From District 36, District 36 there's a white cross-over 

in 1980 of 28 percent for someone named Maxwell. And I see 

a 46 percent -- well, I see a 49 percent in District 23 in 1980, 

 



  

97ja 

Mr. Spaulding. 

Q. In District 23, they didn't find dilution? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. Of the districts when they found dilution, I'm not 

talking of those districts. That would be Districts 22, 21, 36 

and 397? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And considering that range, those ranges are 

comparable to the ranges that you found in your analysis for 

this case in terms of white cross-over, isn't it? 

A. Yes. 

 



  

lja 

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS OF RONALD E. WEBER, 

PH.D 

[*34] Q So as a political scientist, you do believe that 

county lines override Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act? 

Mr. Markham: Objection to form; calls for legal 

conclusion. 

Q As a political scientist. 

A I think these are factors that the court would have to 

take into account, and the question about whether or not there 

is a violation of Section 2 would depend more upon the 

numerosity and concentration of the minority group, you know, 

the cohesiveness of the minority group, and of course the [*35] 

third element, the cohesion of the white voters. 

Q And if that exists, as a political scientist do you believe 

that a county line can be preserved and you could ignore a 

concentration of cohesive African Americans? 

A You could then cross the county line in order to create 

a district; yes. 

Q And in fact have you--in any of the cases where you 

have been involved in Section 2, have you ever had to give 

advice to a governmental entity that it needed to cut county 

lines or other political subdivisions in order to create a 

Section 2 district, or has that just never been part of what you 

have to do in a Section 2 case? 

A I have had to evaluate proposals that did that. 

Q Section 2? 

A Yeah; proposals by the plaintiffs typically to do that, 

and so that--I have had to take that into consideration. 

 



  

2ja 

Q And on occasion have you had to give your 

governmental client an opinion that in fact they might have to 

split some jurisdictional boundary or governmental boundary? 

Mr. Markham: Again, objection as it calls for a 

legal conclusion. 

Ms. Smiley: No, I am asking him a fact question. 

By Ms. Smiley: 

Q Have you on occasion so advised a governmental 

entity? 

[*36] A Yeah. I think back in--way back in the early 

Clark v. Edwards case where we had multiparish judicial 

districts and where, you know, the evidence suggested that 

there was a sufficiently large and geographically concentrated 

African American population and there was other elements to 

the proof, ultimately the districts that I drew crossed ‘some 

parish boundaries. 

* % % 

[¥36] Q And who did you--who were you retained by in 

those [*37] cases? 

A Plaintiffs in Hays, plaintiffs in Johnson, and plaintiffs 

in Shaw. 

Q And were the plaintiffs white plaintiffs in those three 

cases? 

A In Hays they were mixed, two white, one African 

American and one Asian American. Johnson, don't remember 

all of the plaintiffs. I do remember Davida Johnson, the first 

named plaintiff, is white. And as I recall, I believe the 

plaintiffs in Shaw were white--are white. 

 



  

3ja 

[¥69] Q And I believe in that declaration you addressed 

that question looking at county splits and town splits; is that 

correct? 

A County and municipality splits; yes. I did not have time 

to do the precinct splits at that point. There were only two 

precincts in that geography. There are more precincts in 

today's world that are split than those two. 

nx RN * 

[*70] Q Did you consider any other hypothesis aside 

from race as a predominant factor? 

A No. I have always found race to be the most powerful 

explanation for bizarre districts. 

[119] Q And what do you mean by electorally 

competitive? 

A Meaning to say that either party would, absent 

incumbency, have a reasonable opportunity of winning the 

district. 

Q And what do you consider a reasonable opportunity? 

A Meaning that when the candidates file and they raise 

their funds and they go to the voters that they are going to be 

sitting on pins and needles until the election returns are over. 

Q Have you put a number? 

 



  

4ja 

A Oh, yes, of course. 

Q And--- 

A (interposing) The criterion that I use in all of my work 

in political science is that a district that 1s 60 percent or more 

in favor of one party--60 percent Republican or 60 percent 

Democratic--is uncompetitive. A district that.is less then 60 

percent, 59.9 and lower, in the return is competitive. 

Q When you said fair you talked about leaving aside 

incumbency? 

A Well, yes. Incumbency can affect the relative 

competitiveness of a district. 

[¥120] Q So if you have a district that is over 60 percent 

and the elections reflect incumbent voting totals, then would 

you still--would you say a district is unfair based on election 

results that are--- 

A (interposing) No. 

Q ---based on incumbency or do you have to use a 

different number? 

A No, we don't have to use a different number. What we 

just know is that it is--it is highly unlikely that the challenger, 

whoever the challenger might be, will in fact make an effective 

challenge--that is, be able to in fact unseat the incumbent. 

There are a few occasions in the United States where 

districts in the previous election were greater than 60-40 in 

difference where in the next election an incumbent was 

unseated, but they are usually in the context of scandals or 

something like that. 

Q Well, do you put a number--I mean, if you put a--you 

say anything over 60 percent you say is noncompetitive. Do 

 



  

5ja 

you put a number in terms of what percent you give to an 

incumbent? 

A No, because it is going to vary from district to district. 

Q Well, do you have even a--well, do you analyze? Do 

you compare elections to determine whether or not you can put 

[121] a number? 

A You can go through and look at the elections and make 

some assessment of the effectiveness of a challenge. Typically 

incumbents do not fact effective challenges. There are only a 

few districts in the country that are ever effectively challenged. 

Q Well, I just--I am just trying to figure out--since some 

of the election data I think that you are relying on here does 

have incumbents, I am trying to figure out how you determine 

that a district is not competitive when you know the issue has 

to do with incumbency. 

A Well, that is where you have the data for all--as many 

elections as you possibly can so you can in fact have some that 

involve incumbency and don't involve incumbency. I mean, 

unfortunately in--I believe of the statewide elections that I am 

looking at I think only perhaps the '72 election with Mr. 

Campbell may not have been an incumbent election. I am not 

sure, but I don't believe he was an incumbent that year. But I 

think all of the others involving Mr. Helms or the one most 

recently with Mr. Faircloth, they were incumbents. 

Mr. Markham: So the record will be clear, I 

think you misspoke and said 1972 election. 

The Witness: Okay; 1992. I am sorry. 

By Ms. Smiley: 

 



  

6ja 

[¥122] Q So you recognize that incumbency isa 

difference, but you have not in any way tried to weight or put 

a number on the incumbency advantage--- 

A (interposing) No. 

* % % 

[31221 Q Well, do you have a particular measure or 

criteria for deciding whether a district is race predominant? 

A It has to do again with the assignment of the precincts. 

Remember, we talked about overwhelming--almost always 

assigning the black precincts to the black district. 

Q Well--all right; so it wouldn't matter, say, in District 12 

the fact that it is not majority minority. You would still 

consider that a race predominant district? 

A Yes, because again, statewide it is--you know, the 

statewide numbers are all in the neighborhood of 20 to 22 

percent African American. 

* % *% 

[131] Q And do you know where the majority of that 

population growth occurred? 

A I think I have seen something on that in Dr. Stuart's 

report, but I don't recall specifically. 

Q Well, do you know anything about North Carolina and 

its--- 

A (interposing) Well, I--- 

Mr. Markham: (interposing) Objection to form. 

 



  

7ja 

Q ---population? 

A I am not going to speculate, but I do remember the 

following. That is that generally the counties in the 

northeastern part of the state have been declining relative to the 

growth and the growth has primarily been in the piedmont. 

Q And the piedmont would be--do you know what towns 

or counties--- 

A (interposing) Yeah. Well, you are talking about the so- 

called Triad, the urban Triad, running from Charlotte to 

[133] basically Durham with stops in Greensboro and 

Winston-Salem. 

Q So that is where the population growth has occurred? 

A Yes, ma'am. 

[7135] Q But you have already agreed that that plan, the 

1980s plan, would not be constitutional under the 1990s 

population figures? 

That is correct. Yes. 

And this is not to be a legal benchmark of any kind? 

I can't assert legal benchmarks. 

Well--- 

(interposing) As an expert I can't do that. 

Well, I agree. You are not a lawyer, but you cite cases 

throughout this opinion--I mean, throughout this report, and I 

just wondered, are you using that term "legal benchmark" in a 

legal sense at all? 

A I think it could be construed that way. 

D
R
 

P
R
P
 

 



  

8ja 

Q Is the 1980s plan an appropriate social science 

benchmark for determining a racially fair 12 district plan? 

A The 1980s plan was determined to be racially fair by the 

Department of Justice. 

* % % 

[*138] Q Now, if you were going to address the role of 

partisan politics or party preference, what data would you 

need? 

A I believe there are sufficient data in the submission 

materials--that is, the three elections 1988 and 1990, albeit that 

I consider them somewhat stale, and you have the registration 

breakdown by both party and race. 

Q And that is what you would need to address the issue 

[¥139] of party, or the role of party? 

A That would be sufficient. 

Q Okay. 

A That would be sufficient. 

Q Now, what criteria would you use to determine the 

relative importance of the role of race and the role of party? 

A It would be the exact same criteria. If I were to be 

assessing the predominance of race, I would be looking at the 

racial characteristics of the precincts. If I were looking at the 

predominance of party, I would look at the party data by 

precinct. 

Q And would you give--and you had what, four measures 

of party data? 

(Witness peruses document.) 

A Ycs. 

 



  

91a 

[141] Q Well, I thought somewhere in your report you 

talked about how Democrats could have been put in District 8? 

A Yes, if you were going to cut a line between District 9 

and 8 over to 12 in Mecklenburg because you have a border 

there that is coterminous. But they chose not to do that. 

[142] Q And what is your inference on their choosing 

not to do that? 

A My inference is that they did not want to split 

Mecklenburg more than twice. 

Q Do you have any basis for that? 

A I remember, I think, Senator Cooper was proud that 

they hadn't done that anywhere in the state. 

pA 

[143] Q Now, you say in paragraph 15 at the bottom of 

page 12 that Districts 1 and 12 were created to elect an African 

American member of Congress? 

A Right. 

Q And what is the basis for that opinion? 

A Well, with some subsequent data that I received I 

determined that both District 1 and District 12 have a majority 

of black registered voters in the Democratic primary, so that 

means that black voters have the ability to control the 

Democratic nomination and having the ability then to control 

the Democratic nomination can nominate the Democratic 

candidate. Then the Democratic candidate can count on some 

crossover voting in the general election to win. 

 



  

10ja 

[144] Q Well, would you also conclude from this data 

that Districts 1 and 12 would allow the election of a Democrat? 

A Yes. Whoever was nominated by the Democratic 

electorate would be--would be elected by the electorate in the 

general election; yes. 

[145] Q So that might be white or black? 

A Yes, but the crucial point to me was that if you have a 

majority of the registered voters participating in the Democratic 

primary who happen to be African American that at least gives 

a very strong opportunity for that group to control the outcome 

of the nomination. 

And is there something wrong with that? 

No, there is nothing wrong with that. 

Okay. 

It is just a fact; yeah. 

Okay. That is right; it is just a fact. It is just a fact. 

No. There is nothing--nothing normatively wrong with 

that at all. 

P
o
 

P
L
O
 

PA
LO
 

[*156] Q So it doesn't matter to you whether a precinct is 

5 miles wide or 10 miles wide. If it is one precinct, then that is 

a narrow bridge? 

That is relatively narrow; yes. 

And it doesn't matter the number of miles? 

I guess the more miles, the less narrow it would be. 

But the problem is, though--- o
>
»
 

LO
 

> 

 



  

11ja 

A (interposing) The fewer--yeah, yeah. 

Q ---for your criteria it doesn't matter how many miles or 

how big that precinct is geographically. If it is precinct, you 

would describe it as a political scientist as a narrow corridor? 

[*157] A Yes. 

* % % 

[¥167] Q Well, as a drafter of a plan, if you were 

concerned with the partisan aspects and creating Democratic or 

Republican districts, how would you start? 

A You would start with the precincts that gave the largest 

degree of support to Democratic candidates. 

Q Precincts or counties? 

A Counties and then precincts. 

Q And then precincts? 

A Yeah. 

Q And then you would work along the margins? 

A Yeah. 

[169] Q You say at the bottom of that page 18, "When 

counties were split to achieve population equality, the racial 

composition of the components differ little." Which counties 

demonstrate that? 

A Chatham, for example; not much difference. 

Q Is that chart 2? 

A Yeah, Table 2. 

Q Well, 6,000 versus 2,000? 

 



  

12ja 

A Right; but then look at the percentages, 20.9 

versus 28.7. 

* % % 

[¥172] Q And you particularly pick out Mecklenburg 

County and Guilford County in terms of looking at the 

differences? 

A And Forsyth as well. 

Q Is Forsyth in there? 

A Yeah; at the top. 

Q At the top; that is why I can't see it. Okay. For those 

counties, were you using once again your 20 percent? 

A These are vastly greater than 20 percent. I mean, 

Forsyth is like 61 percent difference. Guilford is 41 percent. 

Mecklenburg is about 43 percent difference. These [*173] are 

vast differences. 

Q So what is--40 percent--what percentage criteria is vast 

as opposed to enough? 

A There are twice--there are twice as many as the--it 1s 

significant, a substantively significant number. It turns out 

they put 88 percent of the black populations in those three 

counties in District 12. 

[¥188] Q ---you apparently are not particularly impressed 

that the state did not split precincts particularly in the 1997 

[*189] plan? 

 



  

13ja 

A In comparison to what they used to do, yes, that is an 

improvement. But the point I think is very important is that 

they did not use the 1997 precincts. They used the 1990 

precincts. So there are places in the state where there were old 

precinct lines that now split new precinct lines and so you have 

got some difficulties in election administration with the 

districts as they were fashioned. 

Q But is that something the legislators would have 

necessarily been aware of? 

A If you had asked me my advice, given the Shaw 

litigation and all of that, I would have been prepared and have 

altered--and I know the system is alterable because Louisiana 

did it--put in and adjusted the population data to fit the political 

data after 1996 as you were going to start doing this work 

in-1997. 

Q Well, isn't the fact that there are only two districts (sic) 

split in the entire plan a positive, I mean, based on 1999 data, 

obviously. 

Mr. Markham: Objection to form. 

A It is an improvement over 1992, but again, I just don't 

think that that is terribly important. It is a question of is it an 

improvement over 1980s in terms of, again, what was the 

electoral geography in the '80s and what could one do in that 

particular plan. 

[190] Louisiana did everything in Hays using precinct lines 

and the court ultimately found that they were not protected by 

using precinct lines. Precinct lines are now defined racially in 

the south, and so precinct lines are not a protection. 

*. %% 

 



  

14ja 

[¥192] program in 1990. My larger point was it would have 

been better to have used the current precinct structure so you 

don't have election administration problems where a piece of 

the precinct is in one district and another piece of the precinct 

is in another district. 

Q And do you know how many places that occurs in 

North Carolina? 

A No. I have been asking hoping to find that out. 

Q And apparently it must be a manageable problem? 

A I don't know. 

Q You don't know? 

A I don't know. 

Q So that is speculation? You have no data to support 

A No. That is correct. 

[247] Q Well, if the General Assembly did not consider 

the Gantt-Helms the best political bellwether, would that be a 

[¥248] reason why fewer of the districts that show over 50 

percent Gantt support in this particular election are not included 

in the district? 

A I guess. All I can say is that as a political scientist that 

doesn't make any sense. I would use the best and most recent 

race. And furthermore, if I am trying to construct a district that 

would be a realistic opportunity district for an African 

American candidate, I would use the Gantt versus Helms race. 

 



  

15ja 

Q But what if the legislature was trying to build a 

Democratic district? 

A That is the theory. That is the theory. They are trying 

to build a Democratic district. 

Q And if they were trying--okay; that is the theory. And 

if they were trying to build a Democratic district--- 

A (interposing) Then--- 

Q ---wouldn't they look at the races that were more 

bellwethers for Democratic-Republican strength and that did 

not also have incumbency factors--or, I'm sorry, not 

incumbency but home court advantage? 

A Yeah. I understand what you are saying. It just seems 

to me for District 6--or excuse me, District 12, I would have 

used the Gantt-Helms race of 1990. 

Q Do you have any information--you said you have read 

depositions and you got this other information about [*249] 

legislative intent and you have read all these other things. Do 

you have any information to support your--to support a theory 

that the legislature in fact relied most importantly on this Gantt 

race? 

A No. I believe Senator Cooper said they didn't. 

Q So the fact that you might and this chart gives you your 

best results--I mean, if the legislature--- 

A (interposing) But you see, I am not--- 

Q ---didn't use it--- 

A (interposing) I am not asserting a defense that this was 

partisanship. 

Q Exactly; you are asserting it is racial? 

A Yes. The State is asserting that it is partisan, so--- 

Q (interposing) And your are--- 

 



  

16ja 

A ---it seems to me that the best partisan--the best way to 

get at the partisan data would have been to use the Gantt-Helms 

race in 1990. 

Q But that is only because you consider that a good 

partisan measure? 

A Yes. 

Q And the politicians in North Carolina--the Democratic 

politicians in North Carolina you understand do not believe that 

that is the best race to use? 

A They are entitled--we are entitled to our differences 

[¥250] in opinion, yes. 

[¥250] Q And based on what you have read, and 

apparently you have looked at other materials besides data and 

maps, what your understanding of the importance of 

registration data to the North Carolina legislators? 

[*251] A Not very important. 

Q Not very important? 

A No. 

Q Okay. 

A Senator Cooper says that and I would have been 

surprised if he had said anything but that. 

Q Are you inferring that he is lying? 

A No, no, no, no. You misunderstood me. I would--- 

Q (interposing) I would hope so. 

A Yeah; I would be surprised--you know, all I am saying 

is that partisan registration data are notoriously imprecise in 

 



  

17ja 

terms of determining whether one is going to vote Democratic 

or vote Republican. 

* %'% 

[*348] Q You had mentioned earlier in your testimony, I 

thought, that you found that maintaining the core was a 

traditional--maintaining the core was something they were 

trying to achieve--in these districts was something they were 

trying to achieve in redistricting '97. 

A Well, that is--according to Mr. Cohen, that was a goal, 

yes. 

Q And my question for you is as a social scientist or in 

your assessment of the redistricting cases that have come out 

since Shaw that you have assessed and talked about, would that 

also be a traditional redistricting criteria? 

A No, I don't consider it a traditional districting [*349] 

principle. It is a principle that legislatures invariably use, 

because they were having to deal with people that literally 

believe they own their seats that they have. And they would 

like to have minimal disruption to the electoral connection 

between them and the voters that they are representing. So 

consequently it comes up over and over again. 

And so legislatures are in a way you can understand-- 

you may not excuse but you can understand why legislatures 

are reluctant to make major changes to districts. And it is only 

in the context of unconstitutional districts that sometimes 

legislatures are forced to do this. And this goes back to the '60s 

when, you know, I began to look at one person one vote cases. 

 



  

18ja 

So the point is that yes, reality suggests that legislatures 

and legislators pay a lot of attention. And this is in a way why 

sometimes when these things all come to fruition in courts 

perhaps the best possible outcome is what happened in 

Louisiana and what happened in Georgia, was that the judges 

ordered interim plans rather than leaving it to the legislature to 

continue to sort of constantly modify plans based on the 

unconstitutional plans. 

 



  

1ja 

EXCERPTS OF DR. RONALD E. WEBER’S REPORT, 

EXHIBIT 47 

[Caption Omitted in Printing] 

DECLARATION OF DR. RONALD E. WEBER 
  

I, Ronald E. Weber, Ph.D., declare pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. 1746 as follows: 
1. I am currently the Wilder Crane Professor of 

Government in the Department of Political Science at the 
University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; President of 

Campaign and Opinion Research Analysts, Inc.; former co- 

editor of The Journal of Politics and Chairman of the 

Department of Political Science at the University of Wisconsin, 

Milwaukee; former Fulbright Commission John Marshall 

Professor of Political Science at the Budapest University of 
Economic Sciences and the Central European University, 

Budapest, Hungary (1996-97); and former President of the 

Southern Political Science Association (1997-98). I received 

my B.A. in Political Science and History from Macalester 

College, St. Paul, MN, in 1964 and a Ph.D. in Political Science 

from Syracuse University in 1969, with specialties in American 

state [*2] politics, voting behavior, and quantitative analyses of 
political data. A copy of my curriculum vitae is attached as 

Exhibit A. 

  

3. I have been retained as a consultant and expert 

witness in a number of redistricting and voting rights cases and 

 



  

2ja 

have been qualified as an expert by the U.S. District Courts in 

[22 instances]. 

[*3] I have testified in a number of Congressional and state 

legislative redistricting cases, . . . I also have extensive 

experience developing redistricting plans for local and state 

government clients and assisting them with preclearance of 

those plans under Section 5 of the U.S. Voting Rights Act of 

1965, as amended in 1982. 

* * %x 

[4] 5. 1 address the following questions in analyzing 

whether the 1997 U.S. Congressional redistricting in North 

Carolina results in a violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth 

Amendments of the U.S. Constitution in accord with factors set 
forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in Shaw v. Reno, Miller v. 

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

(1) whether race was the predominant factor 

used by the state of North Carolina to draw the 

boundaries of the 1997 U.S. Congressional 

districts; 

(2) whether the state of North Carolina in 

creating the U.S. Congressional districting plan 

of 1997 subordinated traditional race-neutral 

districting principles, such as compactness, 

contiguity, respect for political subdivisions or 

  

  

 



  

3ja 

communities defined by actual shared interests, 

to racial considerations; 

(3) whether the political explanation for the 

Plan A Congressional districts adopted in 1997 

offered by state defendants and their expert 

Professor Peterson has credibility or can be 

characterized as a post-hoc rationalization for 

the districting plan; 

[*S] (4) whether the African-American voting 

age population anywhere in North Carolina is 

sufficiently large and geographically 

concentrated enough to constitute a potential 

voter majority using traditional districting 

principles to draw a single-member 

Congressional district; 

(5) whether African-American voters residing 

in Districts 1 and 12 in the Act 586 plan of 
1997 participate at lower rates than white voters 

in recent state-wide elections, indicating some 

evidence that a history of official discrimination 

has led to politically significant differences in 
political participation in the districts as drawn 

in 1997; 

(6) whether sufficient levels of white crossover 

voting exists in the northeast and Piedmont 

regions of North Carolina such that fair U.S. 

Congressional districts can be drawn that do not 

need to be majority African-American in voting 

age population or voter registration in order to 

allow African-American voters a reasonable 

 



  

4ja 

opportunity to elect candidates of choice in U.S. 

Congressional elections; and 

(7) whether race-predominant U.S. 

Congressional Districts 1 and 12 in the 1997 

North Carolina plan are overly safe from the 

standpoint of giving a candidate of choice of 

African-American voters an opportunity to be 

elected, thus questioning whether the plan was 

[*6] narrowly tailored to satisfy a compelling 

state interest. 

6. The results of my analysis to date will be presented 

in this declaration in the following form: in Section I, I will 

outline briefly the history of Congressional districting in North 

Carolina since 1960; in section II, I will describe the analyses 

conducted to answer the first two questions and set forth my 

conclusions on those questions; in section III, I will describe 

the analyses conducted to answer the third question relating to 

the political explanation offered by Professor Peterson; in 

section IV, I will describe the analyses conducted to answer the 

fourth question relating to size and concentration of African- 

American voters in North Carolina; and in section V, I will 

discuss participation rates of African-American and white 

voters as well as white crossover rates in recent statewide 

elections within two regions of North Carolina and the electoral 

safeness of North Carolina Congressional districts 1 and 12. 

Tables, charts, and exhibits relevant to my analyses will be 

included within the body of the declaration or as attachments 

to this declaration. 

 



  

5ja 

[*7]FINDINGS 
  

I. HISTORY OF RECENT CONGRESSIONAL 

REDISTRICTINGS IN NORTH CAROLINA 
  

  

[*8] 10. As was true following the 1970 Census of 

Population, the 1980 Census of Population revealed that the 11 

districts of the 1970s were out of population balance. Thus, the 

North Carolina General Assembly had to adjust the populations 

of the 11 districts before the 1982 elections. The first plan 

adopted in July, 1981 did not receive pre-clearance under 

Section 5 by the U.S. Department of Justice. The General 

Assembly followed-up with a revised plan that satisfied the 

Department of Justice’s [*9] objections in a special session of 

February, 1982. For the first time in the modern history of 

North Carolina, it was necessary to split four counties in order 

to balance the populations across the districts. Avery, 

Johnston, Moore, and Yadkin counties were each split across 

two districts. The town of Chapel Hill as well as the city of 

High Point were each split across two districts owing to the fact 

that those two places cross county lines and the General 

Assembly decided to draw the Congressional districts using 

county lines between Orange and Durham counties and 

between Guilford and Randolph counties. These 11 districts 

were used in the elections of 1982-1990. 

11. The population of the state of North Carolina grew 

more rapidly than the U.S. as a whole between 1980 and 1990, 

 



  

6ja 

and thus the Congressional apportionment following the 1990 

Census of Population allocated an additional seat to North 

Carolina, bringing the size of the Congressional delegation 

back to 12 seats as it had been in the 1950s. 

* % % 

[10] 12. * I conclude this section by making several 

observations. First, the sub-dividing of counties to achieve 

equally populated Congressional districts in North Carolina is 

a relatively recent occurrence, taking place for the first time 

‘with the splitting of just four counties in the early 1980s. 

Second, no county in North Carolina is large enough that it 

must of necessity be sub-divided to comply with the principle 

of "one-person, one-vote". Mecklenburg County, the largest 

county in population in North Carolina, is slightly smaller than 

a current Congressional district. Third, . .. at the maximum a 

total of eleven North Carolina counties might need to be split 

to create an equally populous twelve district plan, by using 

whole counties to create Congressional districts and then 

splitting just one county to balance the population between 

each of two districts. Fourth, despite the fact that the number 

of persons needed to populate an equitably populous plan 

increases each decade (after the 1980 Census the ideal district 

size was 534,706; after 1990 it was 552,386; and after 2000 it 

could be as high as 648,104 based on recent state population 

projections),the percentage of African-American persons in the 

[*11] North Carolina population declined between 1980 and 

1990. As Professor Alfred W. Stuart’s report for this case 

reveals, it is likely that the African-American percentage of the 

 



  

Tja 

total state population will be less in 2000 that it was in 1990. 

Thus, as the average size of a Congressional district increases, 

the number of African-American persons of voting age 

available to constitute a majority of voters in a Congressional 

district does not increase as rapidly (I will return to this point 

more specifically later). Finally, as I will consistently point out 

below, the appropriate social science benchmark for 
comparison of the challenged plan is the plan of the 1980s 

(with 11 districts) and not the constitutionally invalidated 12 

district plan of the 1990s. 

II. ANALYSIS OF DISTRICTING CRITERIA 

EMPLOYED BY STATE 
  

  

[¥12] 14. The question of whether race was the predominant 

factor used by the state of North Carolina to draw the 

boundaries of the U.S. Congressional districts in 1997 can be 

addressed by an examination of both tabular data prepared by 

the North Carolina Information Systems Division from data 

compiled by the U.S. Bureau of the Census and maps created 

on the computer facilities of the North Carolina General 

Assembly Legislative Services Office Redistricting System. 

Data from both sources are reported in tabular form and on 
maps to display the use of race as a redistricting criterion. 

 



  

8ja 

15... . Table 1 reports for each 1997 North Carolina 

Congressional district the racial composition of the total 

- population of the counties that were sub-divided in the creation 

of the plan using data from the County Split Assignments 

Report of March 26, 1997 of the North Carolina Information 

Systems Division. For both Districts 1 and 12 that were 

created to elect an African-American member of Congress, the 

county splits show a [TABLE 1 Originally here, see ja - 

__Jja] [*15] typical pattern of African-American total 

population majorities in the largest jurisdictions of each 

district. A total of 22 counties are split across the 12 districts 

and just one district (District 11) is composed of whole 

counties. Ten of the split counties are accounted for by the 

construction of District 1, while another six are accounted for 

by District 12. Six other counties are split in the plan. Half of 

the counties in District 1 are split, while 100 percent of the 

counties (all six) are split in the creation of District 12. 

16. Turning first to District 1, six of the ten counties 

wholly within the district have African-American population 

majorities and the other four counties have African-American 

population percentages of at least 42 percent. The racial make- 

up of the parts of the ten sub-divided counties assigned to 
District 1 include four. with parts over 50 percent African- 
American, four others with parts of over 40 percent African- 
American, and two with parts of over 30 percent African- 
American. The African-American percentage of the total 
population in the counties split across District 1 and another 

district is above the district-wide African-American percentage 

in four counties. The African-American percentage of the total 

 



  

ja 

population is above 60 percent in Lenoir County and above 50 

percent in Pitt, Wayne, and Wilson Counties. Conversely, 

Table 1 reports that the African-American percentage of the 

total population in the parts of most of those split counties 

assigned to another district than [*16] District 1 is consistently 

lower. For example, the part of Lenoir County assigned to 
District 3 is 13.6 percent African-American in total population, 

while the part of Pitt County allocated to District 3 is 18.1 

‘percent African-American in total population. The county 

splits as they impact the white majority districts in eastern 

North Carolina can be divided into two categories: 1) those 

county splits for the districts where the intent usually was to - 

provide African-American votersto shore up the electoral bases 
of candidates who might be characterized as candidates of 

choice of African-American voters (e.g. Districts 2 and 4), and 
2) those county splits for the district where the intent usually 

was to carve out African-American voters so as not to endanger 

the electoral bases of the candidates who might not be 

characterized as candidates of choice of minority voters (e.g. 

District 3). Almost every time there was an opportunity to use 
race as the basis for dividing political subdivisions up 
politically, the North Carolina Congressional districting plan 

does it in the eastern part of the state. 

17. Turning next to District 12, the racial make-up of 
the parts of the six sub-divided counties assigned to District 12 

include three with parts over 50 percent African-American and 
three in which the African-American percentage is under 50 
percent. Almost 75 percent of the total population in District 
12 comes from the three county parts which are maj ority 

 



  

10ja 

African-American in population. Mecklenburg, Forsyth, and 

Guilford [*17] counties which contribute almost 75 percent of 

the district’s total population are located at the extremes of the 

district. The other three county parts (Davidson, Iredell, and 

Rowan) have narrow corridors which were designed to pick up 

as many African-American persons from each of those counties 

to fill out the district to an ideal sized district. A precinctlevel 

map of District 12 shows that all African-American majority 
precincts but one in those three counties have been assigned to 

the district. Conversely, Table 1 reports that the African- 

American percentage of the total population in the parts of 
those split counties assigned to another district than District 12 

is consistently lower. For example, the part of Mecklenburg 

County assigned to District 9 is 7.2 percent African-American 

in total population, while the part of Forsyth County allocated 

to District 5 is 11.1 percent African-American in total 
population and the part of Guilford County assigned to 

District 6 is 10.2 percent African-American. The county splits 
as they impact the white majority districts adjacent to 

District 12 in the Piedmont are those county splits for the 

districts where the intent usually was to carve out African- 

American voters so as not to endanger the electoral bases of the 

candidates who might not be characterized as candidates of 

choice of minority voters (e.g. Districts 5, 6, and 9). Almost 

every time there was an opportunity to use race as the basis for 

dividing political subdivisions up politically, the North 

Carolina Congressional districting plan does it in the Piedmont 

part of the state as [*18] well. 

 



  

11ja 

18. Table 2 provides further confirmation that race was 

the predominant factor in the drawing of the lines for the North 

Carolina Congressional districts in 1997. This table reports the 

exact same data as in Table 1 except that in Table 2 the data are 

organized by county rather than Congressional district. For 

example, the pattern shown in each of the ten counties that are 

split between District 1 and an adjacent district is one in which 

most of the time the sub-division was along racial lines. All 

ten counties were split along racial lines. The most dramatic 

examples from Table 2 include Lenoir County where 61.1 

percent of the total population allocated to District 1 is African- 

American while only 13.6 percent of the total population 

assigned to District 3 is African-American, and Wilson County 

where 51.0 percent of the total population allocated to District 

1 1s African-American while only 12.0 percent of the total 

population assigned to District 2 is African-American. A 

similar pattern holds in the other eight counties of District 1. 

In each of those counties, the population on the District 1 side 

of the Congressional district line is more strongly African- 

American while being more strongly white on the other side of 

the line in an adjacent district. When counties were split to 

achieve population equality, the racial composition of the 

components differ little. When the splits are for racial 

purposes, the differences are large. 

[TABLE 2 Originally here,see _ ja- ja] 
  

[¥21] 19. The pattern shown in each of the six counties that 

are split between District 12 and an adjacent district is one in 

which most of the time the sub-division was along racial lines. 

 



  

12ja 

All six counties were split along racial lines. The most 

dramatic examples from Table 2 include Forsyth County where 

72.9 percent of the total population allocated to District 12 is 

African-American while only 11.1 percent of the total 

population assigned to District 5 is African-American, and 

Mecklenburg County where 51.9 percent of the total population 

allocated to District 12 is African-American while only 7.2 

percent of the total population assigned to District 9 is African- 

American. Similarly, I find Guilford County where 51.5 

percent of the total population allocated to District 12 is 

African-American while only 10.2 percent of the total 

population assigned to District 9 is African-American. A 

similar pattern holds in the other three counties of District 12. 

In each of those counties, the population on the District 12 side 

of the Congressional district line is more strongly African- 

American while being more strongly white on the other side of 

the line in an adjacent district. When counties were split to 

achieve population equality, the racial composition of the 

components differ little. When the splits are for racial 

purposes, the differences are large. I can infer from these data 

that race was a predominant factor in the line drawing for 

Districts 1 and 12 and the adjacent districts in the 1997 North 

Carolina Congressional district plan. 

kh Fk 

[¥22] 21. I have also examined data related to city and town 

splits in 1997 North Carolina Congressional district plan. 

These [*23] data will be used to determine whether I should 

alter my opinion that race was a predominant factor in the 

 



  

13ja 

construction of the districts. Using a report titled Places Split 

by 97 North Carolina Congressional Districts prepared by Dan 

Frey, GIS Analyst, with the North Carolina General Assembly 

Information Systems Division, I created Tables 3 and 4. These 

tables are directly comparable to Tables 1 and 2. Note that 

these tables include every city or town in North Carolina that 

- 1s split across two or more districts by geography in the 1997 

plan. Thus, there are four places where the geographical split 

does not involve people on both sides of the line. Furthermore, 

there are several others where a small number of people are 

split away from a larger number of people by the use of the 

precincts in the 1997 Congressional districting plan. 

22. According to Table 3, 11 of 13 cities or towns were 

split along racial lines to create Congressional district 1. Nine 

of the cities or towns split between district 1 and another 

district involve placing a majority of the African-American 

population into District 1 as displayed in Table 3. When cities 

or towns were split to achieve population equality, the racial 

composition of the components differ little. When the splits are 

for racial purposes, the differences are large. 

23. A similar pattern of splitting cities or towns is 

shown for District 12. Nine of 13 cities or towns were split 

along [TABLE 3 Originally here,see _ja- ja; TABLE 4 

Originally here, see _ ja - ja] [*30] racial lines to create 

Congressional district 12. Five of the cities or towns split 

between district 12 and another district involve placing a 

majority of the African-American population into District 12 as 

 



  

14ja 

displayed in Table 3. Also the four largest cities assigned to 

District 12 are split along racial lines. 

24. The above analysis is further confirmed by the 

listing of split cities and towns in Table 4. Here one can see 

how most of the cities and towns assigned to District 1 are split 

along racial lines. Particularly striking are the figures for 

Goldsboro, Greenville, Kinston, Rocky Mount, and Wilson. 

Table 4 also highlights the racial splits of the cities or towns 

assigned to District 12. Again the difference in the figures for 

Charlotte, Greensboro, High Point, Statesville, and Winston- 

Salem are large. On the other hand, many of the cities and 

towns split between other districts do not display large racial 

differences (exceptions are Fayetteville and Raleigh). 

25. Defendants’ experts point out that the 1997 North 

Carolina Congressional districting plan relies almost without 

exception to the 1990 Voting Tabulation Districts (VTDs) or 

precincts as the building blocks for constructing districts. They 

note that only two precincts were split in constructing the 12 

districts. One of these two precincts is in Mecklenburg County 

and was'split to provide a geographical land bridge to connect 

two parts of District 9 to each other. The precinct in 

[*31] discussion is Charlotte Precinct 77 and extends to the 

southern county boundary and the state line with South 

Carolina. The precinct is a predominantly African-American 

majority precinct and the bulk of the people was needed to 

create a race-based District 12. Thus, the state split the precinct 

placing one non-African-American person in the part of the 

~ precinct in District 9. If that one person is a registered voter 

 



  

15ja 

and does vote in a Congressional election, there will be a ballot 

secrecy issue for that one voter. The other split precinct is in 

Craven County where 23 persons are put in District 3 rather 

than District 1 with remainder of the precinct’s residents. 

26. The discussion of not splitting precincts by 

defendants’ expertsmisunderstandshow racially homogeneous 

precincts are today in North Carolina and other parts of the 

nation. For example, both Georgia and South Carolina, split 

only a small number of precincts in creating their 

Congressional Districting plans of the 1990s but this fact did 

not prevent plaintiff challenges from invalidating Districts 2 

and 11 in Georgia and from attacking District 6 in South 

Carolina. Louisiana did not split a single precinct in the 

creation of the two plans invalidated by the Hays court in the 

Western District of Louisiana. Thus, given the homogeneous 

racial character of precincts in North Carolina, it is quite 

possible to draw districts in which race predominates using 

whole precincts. 

[*32] 27. NextI present Table 5 which details at the precinct 

level by county the assignment of precincts to Congressional 

districts for the 22 counties that were split in creating the 1997 

Plan (HB 586). For the counties which were split 

predominantly on the basis of race I expect that the precincts 

with the highest percentage of African-American persons will 

be placed in either District 1 or 12 and the precincts with the 

highest percentage of non-African-American persons will be 

placed in an adjacent district. For the counties which were not 

split predominantly on the basis of race, I expect to find a less 

 



  

16a 

systematic assignment of precincts to the two districts into 

which the population is divided. To assist the reader in 

following the tables, I have ranked the precincts from high to 

low by the percentage of African-American population in each 

precinct (see Table 5). The table also reports a breakdown of 

the voting age population by race as well as the total population 

by race. Finally, the district to which the precinct is assigned 

in the 1997 Plan is noted in the final column of the table. 

[*38] 39. . . . The patterns revealed in Tables 1-4 are 

reinforced by the precinct level data in Table 5 for the six split 

counties of District 12. Two groupings of counties are most 

apparent: those where the difference between African- 

American percentage of the total population assigned to 

District 12 is greater than 20 percentage points higher than the 

African-American percentage assigned to the adjacent district 

and [*39] those where the difference in the African-American 

percentages less than 20 percentage points. Forsyth, Guilford, 

Mecklenburg, and Rowan counties fall into the former 

category, while Davidson, and Iredell counties are in the latter 

category. 

40. I first examine the precinct assignment pattern for 

Forsyth County which includes the city of Winston-Salem and 

where the most severe of racial disparities exist between 

Districts 5 and 12. All 15 African-American majority precincts 

in the county are assigned to District 12, while all but four of 

the white majority precincts in Forsyth County are assigned to 

 



  

17ja 

District 5. No precinct in which more than 20.39 percent of the 

total population is African-American is allocated to District 5. 

The assignment of Forsyth County precincts between Districts 

5 and 12 is the clearest pattern of the predominant use of race 

in the creation of District 12 in the 1997 Plan in the Piedmont 

region of North Carolina. 

41. I next look at the precinct assignment pattern for 

Mecklenburg County which includes the city of Charlotte and 

where very severe racial disparities exist between Districts 9 

and 12. All 28 African-American majority precincts in the 

county are assigned to District 12, while all the precincts where 

around 85 percent or more of the population is white in 

Mecklenburg County are assigned to District 9. Some white 

majority precincts are allocated to District 12, but for the most 

part these assignments [*40] are made to provide contiguous 

paths from the African-American majority precincts north to 

Iredell County so as to connect African-American populations 

in Charlotte with those in Winston-Salem, High Point, and 

Greensboro. The assignment of Mecklenburg County precincts 

between Districts 9 and 12 shows a very clear pattern of the 

predominant use of race in the creation of District 12 in the 

1997 Plan in the Piedmont region of North Carolina. 

42. I next examine the precinct assignment pattern for 

Guilford County which includes the cities of Greensboro and 

High Point and where severe racial disparities exist between 

Districts 6 and 12. All 17 African-American majority precincts 

in the county (all of which are in either Greensboro or High 

Point) are assigned to District 12, while almost all of the 

 



  

18ja 

precincts where around 80 percent or more of the population is 

white in Guilford County are assigned to District 6. Some 

white majority precincts are allocated to District 12, but for the 

most part these assignments are made to provide contiguous 

paths from the African-American majority precincts in 

Greensboro and High Point southwest to Davidson County so 

as to connect African-American populations in Greensboro and 

High Point with those in Winston-Salem and Charlotte. The 

assignment of Guilford County precincts between Districts 6 

and 12 is another clear pattern of the predominant use of race 

in the creation of District 12 in the 1997 Plan in the Piedmont 

region of North Carolina. 

[*41] 43. I next examine the precinct assignment pattern for 

Rowan County including the city of Salisbury which is split 

between Districts 6 and 12. Three of the four African- 

American majority precincts in the county (the one African- 

American majority precinct assigned to District 6 is a small 

non-contiguous part of large white majority precinct)are 

assigned to District 12, while almost all of the precincts where 

around 80 percent or more of the population is white in Rowan 

County are assigned to District 6. Some white majority 

precincts are allocated to District 12 to provide contiguous 

paths from Iredell County to Davidson County so as to connect 

African-American population concentrations in Charlotte with 

those in Winston-Salem, High Point, and Greensboro. The 

assignment of Rowan County precincts between Districts 6 and 

12 is another clear pattern of the predominant use of race in the 

creation of District 12 in the 1997 Plan in the Piedmont region 

of North Carolina. 

 



  

19ja 

44. Turning next to the two counties split between 

Congressional District 12 and an adjacent district where the 

difference in the African-American percentage of the total 

population is less than 20 percentage points, I examine first 

Iredell County. Only nine precincts in this county are assigned 

to Congressional District 12, including two African-American 

majority precincts in the city of Statesville. The white majority 

precincts allocated to District 12 are there to provide 

[*42] contiguous paths from Mecklenburg County to Rowan 

County so as to connect African-American population 

concentrations in Charlotte with those in Winston-Salem, High 

Point, and Greensboro. The assignment of Iredell County 

precincts between Districts 10 and 12 provides further evidence 

of a pattern of the predominant use of race in the creation of 

District 12 in the 1997 Plan in the Piedmont region of North 

Carolina. 

45. I next examine the assignment of precincts between 

Congressional Districts 6 and 12 in Davidson County. A total 

of 20 precincts in this county are assigned to Congressional 

District 12, including two African-American majority precincts 

in the city of Lexington and one in the city of Thomasville. 

The white majority precincts allocated to District 12 are there 

to provide contiguous paths from Rowan County to Forsyth 

and Guilford counties so as to connect African-American 

population concentrations in Charlotte with those in Winston- 

Salem, High Point, and Greensboro. The assignment of 

Davidson County precincts between Districts 6 and 12 provides 

further evidence of a pattern of the predominant use of race in 

 



  

20ja 

the creation of District 12 in the 1997 Plan in the Piedmont 

region of North Carolina. 

[*43] 47. 1 began to answer the question of whether the 

districts in the 1997 North Carolina Congressional districting 

plan subordinate race-neutral traditional redistricting principles 

when I discussed above the tabular data on the splitting of 

counties, cities, towns, and precincts. The state of North 

Carolina subordinated the splitting of county, city, and town 

boundaries to a desire to allocate persons by race to a greater 

[*44] extent than necessary to comply with the one-person, 

one-vote standard of population equality. This was particularly 

true in the drawing of Districts 1 and 12 as well as adjacent 

districts. A total of 22 counties and 41 cities and towns were 

split in the drawing of the 1997 North Carolina Congressional 

districting plan, for a total of 63 split political subdivisions. 

Only six counties and 15 cities and towns were split to create 

the other districts (several of the cities and towns were split 

because they are on a county boundary and different counties 

were assigned to different districts). In the recent past no 

counties had been split to create the 11 districts of the 1960s 

and 1970s, while just four had been split to construct the 11 

districts of the 1980s. The maximum number of counties 

needed to be split to fashion a 12 district plan is 11, allowing 

for one county to be split between each two districts. 

48. A report by David C. Huckabee, "Congressional 

Districts: Objectively Evaluating Shapes," CRS Report for 
  

 



  

21ja 

Congress (Washington: Congressional Research Service, The 

Library of Congress), May 24, 1994, also contains information 

from other states to compare with the experience of North 

Carolina in Congressional districting: 

* % % 

[45] 49. Huckabee also provides information on the 

percentage of split counties allocated to the Congressional 

districts of the 1990s. There are a large number of 

Congressional districts from around the nation which have 100 

percent of the counties split which are allocated to a district. 

Most of these are plans involving splits of large counties in the 

metropolitan areas of the country and these plans are not 

comparable to the North Carolina setting. No single district in 

the country is like North Carolina 12 in splitting as many as six 

counties and sub-dividing 100 percent of them. 

50. Huckabee also provides information on the number 

of places having populations of 10,000 or more and indicates 

how [*46] many of these are split by district lines. In the 1997 

plan, North Carolina district 1 has nine such places (either 

cities or towns, and six of them are divided between district 1 

“and another district. District 12 has eight cities or towns 

10,000 or more in population, and all eight of them are split 

between districts. 

51. Another race-neutral traditional redistricting 

criterion involves the issue of geographical contiguity. I have 

examined the maps of the 1997 Congressional districting plan 

 



  

22ja 

to determine whether the state adhered to geographical 

contiguity in the construction of the plans. I find that the plans 

are technically contiguous in that parts of geographical 

territories are joined together through water areas or narrow 

land bridges. A person wishing to traverse Congressional 

district 3 by automobile, for example, would have to leave the 

district, then go through another district, before returning to 

district 3. The best examples of technical contiguity occur in 

Beaufort and Pamlico counties where two parts of district 3 are 

joined across the Pamlico Sound, in the city of Charlotte where 

two parts of district 9 are connected through a split precinct at 

the southern edge of Mecklenburg County, and in Guilford 

County and the city of High Point where a narrow land bridge 

is used to connect Davidson County with the city of 

Greensboro in Guilford County. Although the Congressional 

districts are technically contiguous, the district lines do not 

promote functional contiguity. Anyone serving districts 3, 9, 

and 12 in the U.S. Congress will need to [*47] travel usually 

outside each district in order to traverse the district each is 

serving in the most efficient manner. 

52. Another race-neutral traditional redistricting 

principle involves the issue of geographical compactness. The 

issue of geographical compactness can be addressed first by 

examining maps of the 1997 Congressional districts. A 

statewide map of the 1997 districts and detailed maps of 

Districts 1 and 12 demonstrate clearly that Districts 1 and 12 as 

well as adjacent districts are oddly shaped and not compact. 

 



  

23ja 

53. A second way to assess the compactness of a 

Congressional district is to use a variety of compactness 

measures now standard in political science. These measures 

are reported upon in two works--1) Richard H. Pildes and 

Richard G. Niemi, "Expressive Harms, 'Bizarre Districts,’ and 

Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District Appearances after 

Shaw," Michigan Law Review, Vol. 92 (December 1993), pp. 

101-205, and 2) David C. Huckabee, "Congressional Districts: 

Objectively Evaluating Shapes," CRS Report for Congress 

(Washington: Congressional Research Service, The Library of 

Congress), May 24, 1994. The actual computations of the 

compactness scores reported in these two works were 

conducted by Kimball Brace and Douglas Chapin of Election 

Data Services, Inc., Washington, D.C. 

  

  

54. Three measures of compactness are reported in the 

~ [*48] Huckabee report for all 435 Congressional districts in the 

U.S. adopted following the release of the 1990 Census of 

Population. Huckabee adopts two geographic measures--a 

dispersion measure and a perimeter measure--and one 

population measure. Pildes and Niemi rely on the same two 

geographic compactness measures reported by Huckabee. 

Gerald Webster in his report for the defendants in this case use 

the same two geographic compactness measures as Pildes and 

Niemi as well as Huckabee. 

55. Combining information about the two measures of 

geographical compactness in the Huckabee report with those in 

the Webster report I can see that North Carolina's 

Congressional District 12 is still the least compact district in 

 



  

24ja 

North Carolina on both indicators of geographic compactness 

and that District 1 is the second least compact district on the 

perimeter measure and the fourth least compact district on the 

dispersion measure. In Appendix E of the Huckabee report, he 

reports a table containing the two geographic compactness 

scores for the bottom ten percent of Congressional districts in 

the nation. Using the criterion of having at least one 

compactness score in the bottom ten percent, North Carolina 12 

would clearly continue in that compilation while North 

Carolina 1 would probably not make the list of the worst ten 

percent of the districts even though many of the lowest districts 

in Huckabee’s table have moved up to higher scores will 

revised districts. . . . [¥49] I have also taken the perimeter and 

dispersion compactness scores from the Huckabee report and 

revised the ranking order for the worst districts on each 

measure (this process has used the best information on the two 

compactness scores for the current Congressional districts, 

some of which is contained in the Webster report). North 

Carolina 12 ranks either 430 or 431 out of 435 in compactness 

using the dispersion measure (I am unable to determine 

whether the state of New York increased the compactness of 

District 8 when it recently reworked is plan to remedy the 

unconstitutionality of District 12). North Carolina 12 ranks 

either 432 or 433 of 435 in compactness using the perimeter 

measure. Thus, North Carolina 12 continues to be the least 

compact district in North Carolina and among the worst in the 

nation in terms of geographical compactness. 

56. Pildes and Niemi report geographic compactness 

scores for the Congressional districts of the 1980s using the 

 



  

25ja 

dispersion and perimeter measures. These scores for the old 11 

districts in North Carolina are used to compare to the scores for 

the current [*50] 12 districts in the 1997 plan.! The range on 

the dispersion measure in North Carolina runs from a low of 

.26 to a high of .57 and averages .36 across the 11 districts in 

the 1980s. In the 1997 plan, the range on the dispersion 

measure runs from a low of .11 to a high of .62 and averages 

.35 across the current 12 districts. The range on the perimeter 

measure in North Carolina runs from a low of .22 to a high of 

.46 and averages .30 across the 11 districts in the 1980s. In the 

1997 plan, the range on the perimeter measure runs from a low 

of .04 to a high of .33 and averages .19 across the current 12 

districts. This comparison reveals that the 1997 12 district plan 

is less compact overall than the 11 district plan of the 1980s, 

using the two standard measures of geographic compactness. 

[#52] III. EVALUATION OF THE POLITICAL DEFENSE 

OF DISTRICT 12 
  

  

59. I conclude that the political defense of 

Congressional District 12 offered by state defendants and their 

expert Professor David W. Peterson is nothing more than a 

post-hoc rationalization in an attempt to mask a true aim of 

including as many African-American persons as possible in 

  

! Richard H. Pildes and Richard G. Niemi, "Expressive Harms, 

'Bizarre Districts,’ and Voting Rights: Evaluating Election-District 

Appearances after Shaw,” Michigan Law Review, Vol. 92 (December 
  

1993), Table 6, pp. 189-91. 

 



  

26ja 

District 12 given a decision to make the district up of persons 

from six counties. To permit a political explanation to trump 

the racial explanation, Professor Peterson would need to know 

that the state actually displayed political data on the computer 

screen as the plan’s designer was doing his/her work. The 

computer screen used by the North Carolina Legislative GIS 

system displays racial breakdowns as the plan designer is 

working and does not display political breakdowns. Only after 

the plan is completed can a designer assess the political 

character of the district created. Assessment of the political 

character of a district is post-hoc and cannot be done while 

precincts are being allocated to a district. Other problems exist 

with the analyses of Professor Peterson which I will outline 

below. 

60. Professor Peterson concentrates on the margins of 

Congressional District 12; he ignores the core. His measure 

focuses on the precincts just inside or just outside the district. 

These precincts -- even the ones just inside District 12 -- are 

less heavily black than the ones in the center of the [#53] urban 

areas included in the district. He should be focusing on the 

core of the district rather than focusing on the periphery, where 

decisions probably came late in the process, i.e., is precinct X 

to be included or excluded. 

61. Professor Peterson’s segment analysis is flawed. 

Unless adjacent precincts inside and outside of Congressional 

District 12 have equal populations, then it would not be 

possible to substitute one for the other. In other words, an 

outside precinct may have been rejected because its inclusion -- 

 



  

27)a 

or more likely the substitution of the precincts needed to 

eliminate the Type R divergences -- would have violated the 

equal population requirement. Professor Peterson needs to 

demonstrate that when comparing inside and outside precincts 

they have nearly equal populations. Unless the population 

differences are trivial, it would be necessary for him to make 

comparisons on groups of precincts inside and outside 

Congressional District 12 that have nearly equal populations. 

* % *% 

[#54] 64. To examine the proposition outlined above, I have 

examined the assignment of precincts within the six counties of 

Congressional District 12, looking alternatively at assignment 

by race and by political preferences. I have constructed a set of 

[#55] tables which cross-tabulate the racial makeup of the 

population of each precinct by county with the Democratic 

registration percentage, the percentage of support for Democrat 

Harvey Gantt in- the 1990 U.S. Senate contest, and the 

percentages of support for the Democratic candidates for 

Lieutenant Governor and Court of Appeals Judge in the 1988 

general election. This cross-tabulation will reveal that all 

African-American majority population precincts are assigned 

to District 12 from the six counties and that many of the 

precincts carried by Democratic candidates in the two contests 

of 1988 and the one contest of 1990 were not necessarily 

assigned to District 12. 

65. These results are displayed in Table 6 for each of 

the six counties and for Congressional District 12 as a whole. 

 



  

28ja 

All four Davidson County precincts more than 30 percent 

African-American are in Congressional District 12. The 

weakest support for a racial explanation comes from the 1990 

Gantt table as four of the five precincts in which he polled a 

majority were placed in Congressional District 12. Charlotte’s 

former mayor ran poorly in Davidson County, being held 

below 30% of the vote in 23 of the 41 precincts. Table 6 for 

Davidson County also demonstrates that most of the precincts 

less than 30 percent African-American in population but in 

which most voters are registered Democrats were excluded 

from Congressional District 12. Analyses of the contests for 

lieutenant governor and Court of Appeals show that no precinct 

in which the population was less [ TABLE 6, Forsyth County, 

Originally here, see ja - ja; TABLE 6, Summary 

Figures For All Six Counties in Congressional District 12, 

Originally here, see ja - ja] [*70] than 30 percent 

African-American but which cast more than 60 percent of their 

ballots for the Democratic candidate are in Congressional 

District 12. 

66. I next turn to the Table 6 portion for Forsyth 

County. Table 6 for Forsyth County shows that all precincts at 

least 50 percent African-American in total population are 

included in Congressional District 12 for each of the measures 

of Democratic strength considered. Once the African- 

American population percentage drops below 50 percent, then 

regardless of the Democratic strength registered in the precinct, 

there 1s no guarantee that the precinct will be assigned to 

Congressional District 12. As further evidence that race is 

more important than party when sorting precincts between 

 



  

29ja 

Congressional District’s 5 and 12 in Forsyth County, if the 

population is less than 40 percent African-American, then 

regardless of how concentrated Democratic strength may be, it 

is highly unlikely that the precinct will be included in 

Congressional District 12. 

67. 1 next turn to the Table 6 portion for Guilford 

County. All 17 majority African-American Guilford County 

precincts are in Congressional District 12. However a number 

of precincts that are majority Democratic on the various 

measures are outside Congressional District 12. The contrast 

is pronounced in terms [*71] of party registration where three- 

fourths of the precincts 50 - 59.99 percent Democratic by 

registration are in Congressional District 6 rather than 

Congressional District 12. Even in the 60 - 69.99 percent 

registration range, most precincts are excluded from 

Congressional District 12. Similarly with the Gantt vote in 

1990, 18 of 22 precincts in which Gantt got 50 - 69.99 percent 

of the vote are outside Congressional District 12. The pattern 

repeats with the other two sets of election data. All of the 

heavily black population precinctsare in Congressional District 

12 while only some of the heavily Democratic precincts are 

included. 

68. 1 next turn to the Table 6 portion for Iredell 

County. All three Iredell County precincts more than 30 

percent African-American in population are in Congressional 

District 12 while 15 of 21 precincts less than 30 percent 

African-American are in Congressional District 10. The 

strongest evidence of a racial explanation comes from the party 

 



  

30ja 

registration analysis where 13 of the 19 precincts less than 30 

percent African-American black but majority Democratic in 

registration are excluded from Congressional District 12. The 

party explanation is best supported by the 1990 Gantt analysis 

in which the only four precincts carried by the African-. 

American candidate are in Congressional District 12. Despite 

all but two precincts having [*72] Democratic registration 

majorities, no more than four precincts ever cast a majority of 

their votes for Democrats. If I lower the threshold to 40 

percent support for a Democrat, results for the Gantt and the 

Court of Appeals contests would support a racial explanation. 

69. I next turn to the Table 6 portion for Mecklenburg 

County. All 34 Mecklenburg County precincts more than 30 

percent African-American are in Congressional District 12! In 

contrast, of the 99 precincts less than 30 percent African- 

American, 82 are in Congressional District 9. This alone 

suggests that race played an very important role in selecting 

precincts for Congressional Districts 9 and 12. The tables for 

Democratic registration and support for Gantt in 1990 fit best 

with an interpretation that race was more important than party 

since in both of these presentations, the bulk of the 30 - 39.9% 

black precincts in which Democratic strength is in the 50 - 59.9 

percent range are excluded from Congressional District 12. 

Focusing on the Gantt vote in 1990, the bulk of the 30 - 39.9 

percent African-American precincts in which he polled 60 - 

69.9 percent of the vote are outside Congressional District 12. 

The 1988 Court of Appeals vote provides the strongest support 

for a party explanation for districting. If, however, I include 

precincts in which Democratic strength is 40 - 49.9 percent, 

 



31ja 

then [#73] most of the precincts are in Congressional District 9, 

for all four measures of partisanship. 

70. 1 next turn to the Table 6 portion for Rowan 

County. Rowan County has only three majority African- 

American population precincts (all more than 70 African- 

American) and these are assigned to Congressional District 12. 

The majority-white precincts in Congressional District 12 tend 

to be the ones with the strongest support for Democrats. Every 

precinct that gave Gantt in 1990 a majority is in Congressional 

District 12 and all but one precinct that voted Democratic for 

lieutenant governor or court of appeals in 1988 is in 

Congressional District 12. The strongest evidence for the racial 

explanation comes from the registration data where most of the 

precincts 50 - 69.9 percent Democratic in registration are not in 

Congressional District 12. IfI drop the threshold down to 40 

percent Democratic on each measure, then in the 40 - 49.9 

percent Democratic category, most precincts are excluded from 

Congressional District 12 on each of the four measures. 

71. Finally, I turn to the Table 6 portion for all six 

counties combined in Congressional District 12. District-wide 

all African-American population majority precincts are 

assigned to District 12. On the other hand, a large number of 

precincts [*74] which demonstrated their willingnessto support 

Democratic candidates in the 1988 and 1990 general elections 

irrespective of the race of the Democratic candidate are 

assigned to adjacent districts and not Congressional District 12. 

For example, 60 of the 98 white majority precincts won by 

Harvey Gannt in 1990 were assigned to another district. If the  



  

32ja 

motivation was to create a Democratic majority Congressional 

District 12 which was hospitable to an African-American 

Democratic candidate in the 1990 U.S. Senate contest, a large 

proportion of favorable turf is not included in the district. A 

partisan district would have attempted to include a majority of 

those precincts and paid less attention to race in the 

construction of the district. 

72. Of course, no Congressional election was 

conducted within the boundaries of Congressional District 12 

in the 1997 plan under challenge as this court invalidated that 

plan. However, assuming that the challenged district is similar 

to the 1998 plan used in the 1998 elections, then if the objective 

behind the 1997 plan was to maintain a partisan balance in the 

congressional delegation with six Democrats and six 

Republicans, the effort failed. In 1998, the election of Robin 

Hayes in Congressional District 8 gave Republicans a 7 - 5 

edge in the delegation. The election of a Republican upon the 

retirement of Bill Hefner in district 8 had been widely expected 

so the only [*75] surprise was the smallness of the Hayes’ 

margin. Congressional District 8 israted highly competitive by 

The Almanac of American Politics and a close race is expected 

if the 1998 plan is used for that district. Congressional District 

12 in the 1997 plan shares part of its boundary with 

Congressional District 8 so that potentially Congressional 

District 8 could have been made more Democratic and 

Congressional District 12 less Democratic as a step toward 

insuring that Congressional District 8 not go Republican after 

Hefner's departure. Information included by Professor 

Peterson at paragraph # 21 of his affidavit indicates that 

  

 



  

33ja 

Congressional District 12 was at least 62 percent Democratic 

in the 1997 plan. A plan motivated by a desire to maintain six 

Democratic districts would have taken steps to shore up 

Congressional District 8 and the opportunity for doing so 

existed if Congressional District 12 were made less 

Democratic, i.e. fewer Democratic votes would be wasted. 

[#78] V. VOTER PARTICIPATION RATES WITHIN THE 

GEOGRAPHY OF CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS 1 

AND 12 

  

  

76. In orderto address the question of whether African- 

American persons within the boundaries of Congressional 

Districts 1 and 12 of 1997 have less opportunity than white 

persons to participate in the political process, I have estimated 

participation rates for selected Democratic primary, Democratic 

runoff, and general elections between 1990 and 1998 to 

determine the patterns of participation among the two. 

a 3 

[¥79] 77. 1 present a summarization of these results in 

Table 7 for Democratic primary and runoff elections of the 

1990s (see Exhibits C and D for summaries of the regression 

and extreme case analyses for the elections examined). In all 

five contested Democratic primary and runoff elections held 

within the geographical areas of 1997 Congressional Districts 

1 and 12, African-American persons who were registered to 

 



  

34ja 

vote had a participation advantage over white registered voters, 

based on weighted regression analyses (see Table 7). So onten 

separate occasions African-American voters participated at 

higher rates than white voters. 

78. 1 present a summarization of these results in 

Table 8 for general elections of the 1990s. In all six contested 

general elections held within the geographical areas of 1997 

Congressional Districts 1 and 12, the African-American 

participation rate was lower for persons who were registered to 

vote compared to white registered voters, based on weighted 

[TABLE 7 Originally here, see _ ja - __ ja; TABLE 8 

Originally here, see __ja-__ ja; TABLE 9 Originally here, 

see __ja-__ ja] [*82] regression analyses (see Table 8). Thus, 

on the 12 separate occasions I have analyzed African-American 

voters participated at lower rates than white voters. This means 

that in general elections African-American voters must make 

electoral coalitions with white voters in order to elect 

Democratic candidates to congressional office using 1997 Plan 

A. In the next section, I will assess the degree of white cross- 

over voting in the same elections where I have estimated 

participation rates of the two groups. 

V. WHITE CROSS-OVER VOTING IN 

NORTH CAROLINA 
  

  

79. 1 examine whether white voters in the northeast and 

Piedmont regions of the state of North Carolina in particular 

cross-over and give support to candidates of choice of African- 

American voters in recent general elections. If white cross- 

 



  

35a 

over voting is common in the parts of the state where 

Congressional Districts 1 and 12 were created in the 1997 plan, 

this information might have been taken into account by the 

architects of the North Carolina congressional districting plan 

under challenge. In order to address this question, I will first 

report upon estimated white crossover rates using bivariate 

ecological regressionand extreme case (homogeneous precinct) 

analysis for the selected statewide general election contests of 

1990, 1992, 1996, and 1998 held within the boundaries of 

challenged Congressional Districts 1 and 12 adopted in 1997. 

[#83] Second, I will report upon estimated white cross-over 

rates for the 1998 Congressional elections held within the 

boundaries of the districts ordered by the courts in 1998. 

80. In Table 9, I report my estimates of white cross- 

over voting in the 1990 contest for U.S. Senate involving the 

candidacy of African-American Douglas Wilder, in the 1990 

contest for State Auditor involving the candidacy of African- 

American Bill Campbell, in the 1996 U.S. Senate and State 

Auditor contests involving candidates Gantt and Campbell, and 

in the 1998 contest for the U.S. Senate where John Edwards 

was the candidate of choice of African-American voters. I 

conducted bivariate ecological regression and extreme case 

analyses of these elections. In both Congressional Districts of 

the 1997 plan, African-American candidates obtained 

appreciable levels of white cross-over support. The levels are 

white cross-over support are the highest in District 12 and 

somewhat lower in District 1 for at least the two elections 

involving Harvey Gantt. Gantt is estimated to have received a 

low of 17.9 percent of the white vote in 1990 in District 1 and 

 



  

36ja 

a high of 37.7 percent of the white vote in district 12 based 

upon the weighted regression analyses. White cross-over was 

the highest in the two general election contests of 1992 and 

1996 in District 1 for State Auditor. And John Edwards 

obtained between 35 and 40 percent of the white vote in his 

successful challenge to former Senator Faircloth in the 

Districts 1 and 12 in the 1998 general election. 

[*85] 81. In Table 10, I report my estimates of white cross- 

over voting in the 1998 Congressional elections contests in 

Districts 1 and 12. In the 1998 contest in District 1 Eva 

Clayton was the African-American Democratic candidate, 

while in District 12 Mel Watt was the African-American 

candidate. I conducted bivariate ecological regression and 

extreme case analyses of these elections. Inboth Congressional 

Districts of the 1998 plan, African-American candidates 

obtained appreciable levels of white cross-over support. The 

levels of white cross-over support are slightly higher in District 

12 than in District 1, but both estimates exceed 30 percent 

white cross-over support. These levels of white cross-over 

support along with African-American voter support translated 

into strong margins of victory for the Democratic candidates in 

the two districts. 

VII. ELECTORAL SAFENESS OF CONGRESSIONAL 

DISTRICTS 1 AND 12 
  

  

82. To assess the electoral safety of Congressional 

Districts 1 and 12 in the North Carolina Congressional 

districting plan of 1997, I use electoral history included in the 

 



  

37ja 

1998 reports of plaintiffs’ expert Lee Mortimer and defendants’ 

expert David W. Peterson as well as reconstituted election 

results for a number of recent statewide elections. In my 

scholarly work on state legislative elections, I consider any 

election in which one candidate gets 60 percent or more of the 

total vote among two candidates as being a non-competitive 

[TABLE 10 Originally here, see __ja-__ ja] [#87] election. 

Elections won by less than 60 percent are considered 

competitive. Students of congressional elections generally 

adopt the same threshold for distinguishing non-competitive 

from competitive elections. 

83. Using electoral history data from the Peterson 

report for Congressional district 12, 1 find that within the 

boundaries of the district that Peterson estimates that 

Democratic candidates won over 60 percent of the vote in two 

1988 elections and the 1990 U.S. Senate election between Jesse 

Helms and Harvey Gantt. All of these percentages exceed the 

level needed to have a competitive Congressional district. 

These three percentages all confirm that district 12 1s overly 

safe for both white and African-American candidates of the 

Democratic party in general elections. 

85. I have also reconstituted the precinct election 

returns [*88] from nine recent statewide elections: the 1990 

U.S. Senate Democratic primary, runoff, and general elections; 

the 1992 State Auditor Democratic primary and general 

elections; the 1996 U.S. Senate and State Auditor general 

 



  

38ja 

elections; and the 1998 U.S. Senate Democratic primary and 

general elections. By allocating the precincts within Districts 

1 and 12 to both the 1997 and 1998 plans, I can determine how 

the various statewide candidates would have performed within 

the two sets of districts. These results are summarized in 

Exhibit E. Candidates of choice of African-American voters 

are winning the Democratic primaries or runoffs within both 

districts of both plans. And candidates of choice of African- 

American voters are usually winning more than 60 percent of 

the vote in the general elections within both districts under both 

plans. These analyses suggest that neither the 1997 nor the 

1998 plan is narrowly tailored. 

CONCLUSION 
  

86. On the basis of my above analysis, I conclude: 

1) that race was the predominant factor used by 

the state of North Carolina to draw the 

boundaries of the 1997 U.S. Congressional 

districts; 

(2) that the state of North Carolina in creating 

the 1997 U.S. Congressional districting plan 

subordinated traditional race-neutral districting 

principles, such as compactness, contiguity, 

respect for political [*89] subdivisions or 

communities defined by actual shared interests, 

to racial considerations; 

(3) that the political explanation for the Plan A 

Congressional districts adopted in 1997 offered 

by state defendants and their expert Professor 

 



  

39a 

Peterson is flawed and can be characterized as 

a post-hoc rationalization for the districting 

plans... 

(5) that African-American voters residing in 

Districts 1 and 12 in the Act 586 plan of 1997 

do not participate at lower rates than white 

voters in recent state-wide Democratic primary 

and runoff elections, indicating any evidence 

that a history of official discrimination has not 

led to politically significant differences in 

political participation in Democratic primary 

elections in the districts as drawn in 1997 (there 

are participation differerices between African- 

American and white voters in general elections 

held within the two districts of the 1997 plan, 

indicating that candidates of choice of African- 

American voters will need some white cross- 

over support to win within the two 

[#90] districts; 

(6) that more than sufficient levels of white 

crossover voting exists in the northeast and 

Piedmont regions of North Carolina such that 

fair U.S. Congressional districts can be drawn 

that do not need to be majority African- 

American in voting age population or voter 

registration in order to allow African-American 

voters a reasonable opportunity to elect 

candidates of choice in U.S. Congressional 

elections; and 

 



  

40ja 

(7) that U.S. Congressional Districts 1 and 12 

in the 1997 North Carolina plan are overly safe 

from the standpoint of giving a candidate of 

choice of African-American voters an 

opportunity to be elected, thus questioning 

whether the plan was narrowly tailored to 

satisfy a compelling state interest. 

I declare under the penalty of perjury that the foregoing 

Declaration is true and correct. 

Executed on this tenth day of September, 1999. 

/s/ Ronald E. Weber, Ph.D. 

 



  

41ja 

TABLE 1 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties 

by Congressional District for 1997 Plan (HB 586--Plan A) 

African- 

County/City CD Total = White % Amer. % 

Beaufort 1" 23,714 14659 61.8 8,948 37.7 

Craven } 025.279 14207 562 10920 432 

1'..20,717 10,480 50.6 10,106 48.8 

1 8553 5045." 300 3461 40.5 

1 °31,016 11.837 . 38.3 :18,959 - 61.1 

Person 1 21,001 13436 640 7307 34.8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

  

Granville 

Jones 

Lenoir 

Pitt 40584 23676 . 4711 25373 81.2 

Washington 10,750 5499 . 51.2 5207 -484 

Wayne 36,323 17,110 47.1". 13,781 51.7 

Wilson 43.517 © 21008 482::22,181 31.0 

Granville 2. 11,628 12,589 714 4303 27.2 

Sampson 2% 22,745 14,114 62.1 7.985 -. 35.1 

Wake 2 185.642 118648 + 63.9 62,515 33.7 

Wilson 2 22,544 19,615 87.0 2.715 12.0 

Beaufort 3 18,569 14290 76.9 4246. 22.9 

Craven 3 56334 44453: 739 10,196 - 18.] 

Jones 3 861 642 74.6 216. 25.1 

Lenoir 3.26258 22.435 + 854 3,580: 13.6 

Pitt 3 58340 46,967 80.5 10,548 18.1 

Washington 3 3,247 2,057 634 1,159. 35.7 

Wayne 3 68,343 52062: 762 15012 220 

 



  

42ja 

TABLE 1 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties by Congressional 

District for 1997 Plan (HB 586 - - Plan A) 

African- 

County/City CD Total White % Amer. % 
  

Chatham 4. 29,239 22.800 78.0 6,112 209 

Person 4 9,179 7,304 79.6 1,799 "10.6 

Wake 4 237,738 205363 86.4 25548 10.7 

Alamance 5 179,976 60,647 75.8 18544 23.2 

Forsyth $206,766 181,331". 8717 22997: . 11.1] 

Alamance 6 28237 25,726. 914 2,278 8.1 

Chatham 6 9,520 6,623 69.6 2733 28.7 

Davidson 6 59,993 57,135 95.2 2,468 4.1 

Guilford 6 211363 136331 832 21541 10.2 

Rowan 6 77,499 70,819 91.4 5,979 7.7 

Cumberland 7 127,913 04 213. °-73.7 521.363. 214 

Robeson 7 81,548 29364 36.0 17,204 21.1 

Sampson 7 :-24552 16,159 65.8 7,701 31.4 

Cumberland 8 146,653 75.8356 51:7 60,133 41.0 

Robeson $8 23,631 3,022: .36.5 8981 38.0 

Mecklenburg 9 292,808 264,604 90.4 21,026 12 

Iredell 10:.54472 43438 88.9: 5526 10.1 

 



  

43ja 

TABLE 1 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties by Congressional 

District for 1997 Plan (HB 586 - - Plan A) 

African- 

County/City CD Total White % Amer. % 

Davidson 12 66,684 56,161 84.2 0.846 14.8 
  

Forsyth 12.:59,112 #15537. *263 43,105 729 

Guilford 12.136,057 « 63253 465 70,114 351.5 

Iredell 1238459 28769 74.8 29343 243 

Mecklenburg 12 218,625 100,047 45.9 113,442 519 

Rowan 12.33,106  - 21,032 63.5. 11,794 ' 35.6 

 



  

44ja 

TABLE 2 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties 

by County for 1997 Congressional Districting Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

  
  

African- 

County/City CD Total White % Amer. % 

Alamance 5 9,976 60,647 75.8 18,544 23.2 

Alamance 6 28.237 25,726 81.1. 2278. ‘8.1 

Beaufort 1 23,714 14,659 61.8 8948 37.7 

Beaufort 3 18,569 14290 769 4,246 22.9 

Chatham 4 29.239 22300 730 6,112 209 

Chatham 6 9,520 6,623 696.2733: 287 

Craven 1 25,279.::14,207 36.2 10,920 : 43.2 

Craven 3 56,334 44,453 7389 10,196 18.1 

Cumberland 75 127913 94213 73.7 27,363 214 

Cumberland 8 "146,653: :75,856 51.7 60,133 41.0 

Davidson 6 59.993 57,135 952 2,468 4.1 

Davidson 12 66,684 56,161 842 9,846 14.8 

Forsyth 5 206,766. 181,381 87.7:22997 11. 

Forsyth 12 50.112 15,537. 26.3 43,105 +729 

Granville 1 20,717 10,480 50.6 10,106 48.8 

Granville 2 17,628 12,589 714 4,803 27.2 

 



  

45ja 

TABLE 2 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties 

by County for 1997 Congressional Districting Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

  
  

African- 

County/City CD Total White % Amer. % 

Guilford 6 "211363 186331 882 21,541 "10.2 

Guilford 12...°136.057 . 63,253: 46.5-.70,114 31.5 

Iredell 10 54.472 48,438 889 5,526 10.1 

Iredell 12 38459 28,769 7483: 9343 243 

Jones 1 8,553 5,045 59.0 3,461 40.5 

Jones 3 861 642 74.6 216 25.1 

Lenoir 1 31,016 11,887. 333 18959 461.1 

Lenoir 3 26258 22435 354 3.580 .13.6 

Mecklenburg 9 292,808 264,604 90.4 21,026 1.2 

Mecklenburg 12 218,625 100,047 45.9 113,442 51.9 

Person 1 21,001 13,436 640 7,307 34.8 

Person 4 9,179 7304 796 - 1,799 19.6 

Pitt 1 49534 23,676 41.7 25373 512 

Pitt 3 58,340 46,967 80.5 10,548 18.1 

Robeson 7 81,548 29,364 36.0 17,204 21.] 

Robeson 8 23,631 83622 36.35 8931 33.0 

 



  

46ja 

TABLE 2 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Counties 

by County for 1997 Congressional Districting Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

  
  

African- 

County/City CD Total White % Amer. % 

Rowan 6 77,499... 70,819-.914. 5979 © 1.7 

Rowan 12 33,106 21,032 63.5 11,794 35.6 

Sampson 2 02.745 14,114 62.1 7935. :33.] 

Sampson 7 24552 16,159 638° .7,701 :31.4 

Wake 2 185.642 113,648 63.9 62,515 33.7 

Wake 4 = 237.738 205363 -86.4 25,543 10.7 

Washington 1 10,750 5,499 512 5207 484 

Washington 3 3,247 2.057634 1,159" 35.7 

Wayne 1 36323 17,110 247.1 183,731. 51.7 

Wayne 3 63.343 52062 . 76.2: 15,012...22.0 

Wilson 1 43.517 21,008 48.2 22.13] 51.0 

Wilson v 22.5443 "190615 3710 2,715 .:120 

 



  

47ja 

TABLE 3 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by Congressional District for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

Non-Af. African- 

City/Town D Total Amer. % Amer. % 
  

Ayden 1 4,590 2.186" © 41.6 2,404 52.4 

Battleboro* 1 280 99 354 181 64.6 

Fremont 1 1,638 784 47.9 854° 52.1 

Goldsboro 1 25,734 0833: 3832-15901 61.8 

Greenville 1 19,249 6,052 314 13,197 63.6 

Kinston 1 16,328 2968 182 13360 81.8 

New Bern 1 13,921 7201 “517 6,720 48.3 

Rocky Mount* 1 17,057 2.584 115.1 ‘14,473 843 

Sharpsburg* 1 432 91 189 391 81.1 

Trent Woods 1 299 299 100.0 000 

Washington 1 9,073 4915 54.2 4,158 45.8 

Whitakers* 1 464 183 394 281 60.6 

Wilson 1 26,127 9355 358 16,772 64.2 

Battleboro* 2 167 156 934 11 6.6 

Clinton 2 7,313 4.024. 550 3,280 45.0 

Garner 2 3,008 2232: 742 776 25.8 

Raleigh 2 107,979 60,848 56.4 47,131 43.6 

Rocky Mount* 2 31,940 22.116 69.2 9,824 30.8 

Sharpsburg* 2 1,054 861 81.7 193" 18.3 

Whitakers* 2 396 233 58.3 163 41.2 

Wilson 2 10,803 10,249 94.9 554. 5.1 

 



  

48ja 

TABLE 3 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by Congressional District for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

Non-Af. African- 

City/Town CD Total Amer. % Amer. % 

Ayden 150 150 100.0 0.0.0 

RR 10. 13.9 62 86.1 

14,975 11,562 531.2 "3413 223 

95973 + 23.583 917 2,140 83 

3 

Fremont 3 

3 

3 

Kinston 3 8,967 7.712: 860 1255" 14.0 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

Goldsboro 

Greenville 

Mount Olive* 4,581 2177. 471.5 22,404 52.5 

New Bern 3,442 2,599 755 843 24.5 

Surf City* 317 314 .. 99.1 3 +00 

Trent Woods 2,067 2,067 100.0 0 0.0 

Washington 2 2 100.0 0 0.0 

Garner 4 "511,959 10.102. 34.5. 1.857 13.5 

Mebane* 4 485 420 86.6 65 134 

Raleigh 4 99973 89,744 89.8 10,229 10.2 

Burlington $'°36:330" 27,580 :735.9 3,759 24.1 

Elkin* 5 3,720 3373.:90.7 347 93 

Gibsonville* 5 1,480 1.332 90.0 148 10.0 

Graham 5 7,234 5857 310 1377 1990 

High Point 3 6 6 100.0 0.00 

Kernersville 5 10,836 10,230 94.4 606. 5.6 

Mebane* S ..014,269 3382. 79.2 887 20.8 

74,885 83.9 14,330 16.1 Winston-Salem W
n
 

o
o
 

0
 No
 

N
E
 

(9
) 

 



  

49ja 

TABLE 3 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by Congressional District for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

Non-Af. African- 

City/Town CD Total Amer. % Amer. % 

Burlington 6- 3,139 3,009 953 150 4.7 

Gibsonville* || 6 1961 7 Ta83.0.756. 47%-:244 

Graham 6 3,192 2.396 90.7 206 9.3 

Greensboro 68844) “75031: 89.3 9,460 . 10.7 

High Point 6 "37200°%:32,333 - 883 4367 117 

Kannapolis 6 8,476 7.149 = 84.3 ©. 1.3279:13.7 

Kernersville 6 0 0 0.0 0 0.0 

Lexington 6 2,885 2,522 874 363." 12.6 

Salisbury 6 5,250 4442 84.6 808 15.4 

Spencer 6 8 6. 750 2:.250 

Thomasville 6 6,909 6,249 90.4 660 9.6 

Clinton 7 891 720 80.8 171. 719.2 

Fayetteville - ~7 44,9838 34,279 76.2 10,709 23.3 

Mount Olive* 7 1 0 0.0 1 100.0 

Red Springs 7 58 58 100.0 0.00 

Surf City* 7 653 652 99.3 1-02 

Fayetteville 8 30,707 12437" 40.5 18270 "59.5 

Kannapolis 3F 21,220 17,205 311 4015 189 

Red Springs 8 3,736 1.771% 414 +1965 .532.6 

Weddington* 8 3,803 3695 972 108 2.8 

 



  

50ja 

TABLE 3 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by Congressional District for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

Non-Af. African- 

City/Town CD Total" = Amer 9% Amer. '% 

Charlotte 9 213515 195,172+¢91.9 17343 8.) 

Cornelius 9 308 304 93.7 4.13 

Weddington* 9 0 0 0.0 02-00 

Davidson* 10 0 0 0.0 0 00 

Elkin* 10 70 62 88.6 3 HH 4 

Mooresville 10 0 0 0.0 0. 00 

Statesville 10 12,324 9007 “31.1 2327 139 

Troutman 10 1,419 1,024 72.2 395 27.8 

Charlotte 12 182,419 73,935 40.5 108,434 59.5 

Cornelius 12 2233 +. 1752+ 77.) 521 229 

Davidson* 12 4,046 3,407 84.2 639 15.8 

Greensboro 12 95,080 42236 444 52,844 55.6 

High Point 12 32.200." 15,677 436 16613 514 

Lexington 12. 13,696 0.143 66.8: 4,553 332 

Mooresville 12: 3,818 6637 75.8 2.131 242 

Salisbury 12 717,837 10,521 59.0 7,316 41.0 

Spencer 12... 3.211 2488 715 723..:22.5 

Statesville 12 5,243 1200 24.6 ©3953 734 

Thomasville 12 9,006 5.246 #583 3,760 41.7 

Troutman 12 74 74 100.0 0-00 

Winston-Salem 12 54270 12,272 22.6 41,998 774 

 



  

51ja 

TABLE 3 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by Congressional District for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

*City or town is split across a county boundary. 

Source: North Carolina General Assembly, Information Systems 

Division. All information is based on that in the General 

Assembly’s apportionment system. Provided by Dan Frey, GIS 

Analyst. 

 



  

52ja 

TABLE 4 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated places by City or Town for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

  

African- 

City/Town CD Total White % Amer. % 

Ayden 1 4,590 2,186 47.6 2,404 52.4 

Ayden 3 150 150 100.0 0 0.0 

Battleboro* 1 280 99 354 181 64.6 

Battleboro* 2 167 156 934 11 6.6 

Burlington 5 36,339 27,580 75.9 8,759 24.1 

Burlington 6 3,159 3,009 953 150: 4.7 

Charlotte 9.213515 196,172 91.9. 17,343 8.1 

Charlotte 12 182,419 73,935 40.5 108,484 59.5 

Clinton 2 7.313 4.024 550 3,289 45.0 

Clinton 7 891 720 80.8 171.192 

Cormelius 9 308 304 98.7 4 13 

Cornelius 12 2273 1,752 71.1 521 1229 

Davidson* 10 0 0 0.0 9 0.0 

Davidson* 12 4,046 3,407 84.2 639 15.8 

 



53ja 

  

TABLE 4 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by City or Town for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

African- 

City/Town CD Total . White % Amer. % 

Elkin* 5 3,720 3.373 90.7 347. 93 

Elkin* 10 70 62 88.6 8 114 

Fayetteville 7: 44988 34,279 - 76.2 10,709 23.8 

Fayetteville 8 130,707 12,437 40.5 718270 59.3 

Fremont 1 1,638 784 47.9 854 52.1 

Fremont 3 72 16 :13.9 62 86.1 

Garner 2 3,008 2.232" 742 776. - 25.8 

Garner 4 11,959 10,102 84.5 1.857 15.5 

Giosonville* 5. 1AS0 1332 90.0 148 10.0 

Gibsonville* © 6 1.961 1,483 75.6 478 24.4 

Goldsboro 1+..25,734 9833 “382 15901 61.8 

Goldsboro 3 14,975 11,562... 712 3413 22.8 

Graham 5 7,234 5,857 81.0 1,377 19.0 

Graham 6 3.192 2,896 90.7 296 9.3 

Greensboro 6 83,441 78,981 89.3 9,460 10.7 

Greensboro 12 95080 42,236 444 52,844 55.6 

Greenville 1 19,249 6052-314. '13,197 + 68.6 

Greenville 3" "3573 B35 97 2,140. 83 

High Point 5 6 6 100.0 0 0.0 

High Point 6 37200 - 32,333 383 4367 11.7 

High Point 12....32,290 15,677 436... 16,613. 514 

 



54ja 

  

TABLE 4 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by City or Town for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

African- : 

City/Town CD Total White % Amer. % 

Kannapolis 6 8,476 7,149 84.3 1.327. . 18.7 

Kannapolis 8 "21,220 17,205 31.1 4015 18.9 

Kernersville 5 10.836 10,230 94.4 606: 5.6 

Kemersville 6 0 0° 00 0.00 

Kinston 1 16328 2068.18.72 " 13.360 381.8 

Kinston 3 8,967 7,712 86.0 1,255 14.0 

Lexington 6 2,885 2.522 . 814 363. 12.6 

Lexington 12...:13,606 0143 "66.8 = 4,553 332 

Mebane* 4 485 420 86.6 65 13.4 

Mebane* 5 4.269 3,382 79.2 887 20.8 

Mooresville 10 0 0 0.0 0" 0.0 

Mooresville 12 8,818 6,687 75.8 2.131 24.2 

Mount Olive* 3 4,581 2,177 47.5 2,404 52.5 

Mount Olive* 7 1 g-. 00 1 100.0 

New Bern 1 13,921 7.201 51.7 6,720 48.3 

New Bern 3 3,442 2.599. .:73.5 843 24.5 

Raleigh 2 107,979 60,848 56.4 47,131 43.6 

Raleigh 4 990973 80744 89.3 10,229 10.2 

Red Springs 7 58 58 100.0 0; 00 

Red Springs 8 3,736 1,771 474 1,965..52.6 

Rocky Mount* 1 17,057 2,584 15.1 13473 84.9 

Rocky Mount* 2 31,940 22,116 69.2 9,824 30.8 

 



55ja 

  

TABLE 4 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by City or Town for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

  

African- 

City/Town CD Total White % Amer. % 

Salisbury 6 5,250 4,442 - 84.6 808 154 

Salisbury 12+ 17,837 10,521 "590." . 7,316 419 

Sharpsburg* 1 482 91 18.9 391. 31.1 

Sharpsburg* 2 1,054 861 81.7 193 133 

Spencer 6 8 6,773.0 2 328.0 

Spencer 12 3.211 2,488 77.5 723 22.5 

Statesville 10° 12324 9,997 81.1 2.327. -13.9 

Statesville 12 5,243 1,200°:246. 3953 734A 

W
)
 

Ww
W 

f
—
 

~~
] 

Ww
) 

p
—
 

~
~
 

Surf City* | 99.1 P00 

Surf City* 7 653 652 99.8 1% 02 

Thomasville 6 6,909 6,249 90.4 660 9.6 

Thomasville 12 9,006 5,246 58.3 3,760 41.7 

Trent Woods 1 299 299 100.0 0 0.0 

Trent Woods 3 2,067 2,067 100.0. 0 2:00 

Troutman 12 74 74 100.0 0 2.00 

Troutman 10 1,419 1,024 72.2 395 27.8 

Washington 1 9,073 4015 542 4,158 43.8 

Washington 3 2 2 100.0 0: 00 

Weddington* 8 3,803 3,695 97.2 108 2.8 

Weddington* 9 0 0 00 0:00 

Whitakers* 1 464 183 39.4 281 60.6 

Whitakers* 2 396 233 58.8 163 41.2 

 



56ja 

  

TABLE 4 (Ctd.) 

Proportion of Total Population in Split Municipalities and Census 

Designated Places by City or Town for 1997 Plan 

(HB 586--Plan A) 

African- 

City/Town CD Total White % Amer. % 

Wilson 1 426,127 9.355 35.8 16,772 64.2 

Wilson 2. 10,303 10,249 94.9 554 5.1 

~ Winston-Salem 5 89,215 748%5°°839 14330 16.1 

Winston-Salem 12 54,270 12.272 22.6 41,998 774 

*City or town is split across a county boundary. 

Source: North Carolina General Assembly, Information Systems 

Division. All information is based on that in the General 

Assembly’s apportionment system. Provided by Dan Frey, GIS 

Analyst. 

 



  

TABLE 5 

SB NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 

of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

  

3 COUNTY/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 
PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

DAVIDSON 

Thomasville No. 3 * 2910 852 29.28 2039 70.07 2100 683 32.52 1409 67.710. 12 
Ward No. 1 * 2777 805 28.99 1942 69.93 2055 649 21.58. 1389 67.59 "12 
Ward No. 5 * 2448 807 32.97 1610 = 65.77 1678 620 36.95 1040 61.98 12 
Thomasville No. 2 * 2709 1830 67.59 843 31.12 2025 1426 70.42 50706 28.44 12 
Thomasville No. 1 * 3417 2506 73.34 878 25.70 2685 2036 75.83 627 25.35 12 
Ward No. 4 * 2403 1906 79.32 426 = 17.73 1910 1567 82.04 299 15.65 12 

Cotton * 4475 3807 85.07 628 14.03 3251 2779 85.48 451 13.87 6 

Ward No. 2 * 3114 2612 83.88 425 13.65 2405 2100 87.32 262 10.89 12 

Ward No. 6 * 2896 2502 86.40 363 12.53 2300 2031 88.30 247 10.74 6 

Thomasville No. 5 * 3523 3149 89.38 353 10.02 2780 2517 90.54 246 8.85 6 

Thomasville No. 4 * 3377 3034 89.84 307 9.09 2539 2308 90.90 212 8.35 6 

% Midway * 9897 9116 92.1 751 7.59 7497 6901 92.05 570 7.60 12 

Southmont * 3278 3053 93.14 202 6.16 2486 23513 93.04 158 6.36 6 

Yadkin College * 619 568 91.76 37 5.98 454 418 92.07 27 5.95 12 

Ward No. 3 * 2954 2684 90.86 150 5.08 2358 2188 92.79 7 4.11 12 

Lexington No. 1 * 2122 2000 94.25 100 4.71 1664 1582 95.07 65 3.91 6 

Holly Grove * 3586 3425 95.51 139 5.88 2763 2606 94.32 137 4.96 6 

Tyro * 4023 3865 96.07 144 3.58 3035 2906 95:75 120 3:35 12 

Boone * 3383 3236 95.65 121 3.58 2514 2404 95.62 93 3.7012 

Arcadia * 6400 6148 96.06 184 2.88 4762 4594 96.47 124 2.60 12 

Reeds * 2353 2282 96.98 65 2.76 1848 1792 96.97 51 2.76" 12 

Thomasville No. 7 * 2703 2617 96.82 74 2.74 2092 2032 97.13 51 2.44 6 

Welcome * 4723 4576 96.89 124 2.63 3596 3501 97.36 78 2-7 6 

Abbotts Creek * 6285 6117 97.33 145 2.31 4802 4683 97.52 99 2.06 12 

Hampton * 614 596 97.07 14 2.28 454 438 96.48 12 2.64 12 

Central * 1381 1347 97.54 28 2.03 1122 1106 97.96 19 1.68 6 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

3 NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

DAVIDSON (cont'd) 

Lexington No. 4 * 2054 2007 97.71 34 1.66 1563 1531 97.95 21 1.34 12 

Lexington No. 2 * 2278 2202 96.66 34 1.49 1707 1664 97.48 19 1.11 6 

Thomasville No. 10 * 3511 3446 98.15 47 1.34 2710 2657 98.04 39 1.44 6 

Reedy Creek * 3563 3531 99.10 25 .70 2658 2636 99.17 16 60 12 

Silver Hill * 4658 4607 98.91 29 .62 3500 3465 99.00 20 «37 6 

Thomasville No. 9 * 4841 4784 98.82 0 41 3810 3767 98.87 16 42 6 

Thomasville No. 8 * 3811 3753 98.48 . .34 2982 2942 98.66 7 25 12 

Liberty * 3363 3345 99.46 10 .30 2451 2437 99.43 6 24 6 

Emmons * 2467 2450 99.31 5 .20 1885 1871 99.26 5 or 6 

Silver Valley * 2579 2562 99.34 5 .19 1892 1882 99.47 3 .16 6 

Alleghany * 506 506 100.00 0 0.00 400 400 100.00 0 0.00 6 

Denton * 1292 1292 00.00 0 0.00 989 989 100.00 0 0.00 6 

Healing Springs * 1644 1642 99.88 0 0.00 1289 1287 99.84 0 0.00 6 

Jackson Hill * 790 789 99.87 0 0.00 599 598 99.83 0 0.00 6 

Lexington No. 3 * 950 940 98.95 0 0.00 740 735 99.32 0 0.00, 12 

w Total 126677 113296 89.44 12314 9.72 96357 87041 90.33 8611 8.94 

FORSYTH 

M. L. King Recreatio 3134 19 .61 3113 99.33 1972 15 J6 1955 99.14.12 

14th Street Recreati 2344 12 .51 2328 - 99.32 1804 1 .61 1789. 99.17 12 

Mt. Sinai Church * 1711 20 1.37 1679 . 98.13 1160 16 1.38 1137 <--93.02.. 12 

Ashley Middle School 2045 14 .68 2002 97.90 1460 12 B82: 1429 97.88 12 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

» NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

FORSYTH (cont'd) 

Happy Hill Recreatio 3386 67 1.98 3310 97.76 2411 49 2.03 2357 97.76 12 

Carver High School * 4317 104 2.41 4209 97.50 3313 92 2.78 3217 97.10 12 

Kennedy Middle Schoo 3165 189 5.97 2970 93.84 2319 173 7.46 2141 92.32 12 

East Winston Library 2895 197 6.80 2686 92.78 2184 185 8.47 1990 91.12 12 

Lowrance Middle Scho 3102 318 10.25 2781 89.65 2222 258 11.61 1962 88.30 12 

Memorial Coliseum * 2746 583 21.23 2133 77.68 2123 525 24.73 1576 74.23 12 

Winston Lake Family 3662 816 22.28 2803 76.54 2619 658 25.12 1936 73.92 12 

Forest Pk. Elementar 2968 745 25.10 2200 74.12 2144 619 28.87 1509 70.38 12 

Forest Hill Fire Sta 3022 804 26.60 2192" 72.5% 2246 679 30.23 1551 69.06" -12 

St. Andrews United M 4101 1610 39.26 2451 59.77 2975 1335 44.87 1616 54.32 12 

Easton Elementary Sc 2606 1094 41.98 1496 57.41 1885 871 46.21 1003 53.21 12 

Brown/Douglas Recrea 5643 2896 51.32 2658 47.10 L647 2653 57.08 : 1930 : 41.53 5 

Mineral Springs F. § 3743 2030 54.23 1653 44.16 2667 1599 50.96 1028 "38.55 12 

Hill Middle School * 2621 1457 55.59 1134 43.27 2000 1214 60.70 77] 33.55 ' 12 

Bishop McGuinness * 2775 1571 56.61 1104 39.78 2131 1291 60.58 766 35.95 5 

New Hope United Meth 4398 2758 62.71 1584 36.02 3403 2293 67.38 1073 - 31.53 5 

Hanes Community Cent 6044 4029 66.66 1938 32.06 5473 3825 69.89 1576 28.80 5 

w Trinity Moravian Chu 2702 1787 66.14 858 31.75 2156 1527 70.83 588 327.27 12 

Old Town Presbyteria 2860 1966 68.74 856 29.93 2247 1609 71.61 610 27.15 5 

Middlefork #2 * 3449 2426 70.34 1006 29.11 2688 1961 72.95 714 26.56 5 

Brunson Elementary S 2303 1630 70.78 641 27.83 1986 1448 72.921 514 25.88 5 

Broadbay #2 * 4842 3671 75.82 1107. 22.86 3721 2954 79.39 725 19.48. 12 

Middlefork #3 * 5497 4344 79.02 1121 20.39 4202 3373 80.27 805 19.16 5 

Latham Elementary Sc 2855 2249 78.77 566 19.82 2332 1895 81.26 406 17.41 5 

Broadbay #1 * 3128 2497 79.83 618 19.76 2494 2023 81.11 462 18.52 5 

South Fork Elem Scho 3995 3254 81.45 682 17.07 3108 2615 84.14 452 14.54 5 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont'd 

= NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

FORSYTH (cont'd) 

Parkland High School 2761 2218 80.33 465 16.84 2191 1802 82.25 335 15.29 5 

Christ Moravian Chur 2600 2131 81.96 404 15.54 2215 1866 84.24 302 13.63 5 

Bethania #3 * 3833 3285 85.70 505 13.18 3001 2624 87.44 346 11.5% 5 

old Town #3 * 2062 1785 86.57 27] 13.14 1611 1418 88.02 187 11.61 5 

Greek Orthodox Churc 2130 1827 85.77 278 13.05 1739 1532 88.10 188 10.81 5 

Salem Chapel #2 * 2958 2540 85.87 384 12.98 2301 1984 86.22 294 12.78 5 

Country Club Fire St 3451 2871 83.19 442 12.81 2753 2324 84.42 331 12.02 5 

Covenant Presbyteria 2160 1856 85.93 273 12.64 1670 1489 89.16 163 9.76 5 

Bethabara Moravian C 2444 2137 87.44 275 11.25 2152 1921 89.27 203 9.43 5 

Bethania #2 * 3580 3173 88.63 383 10.70 2670 2392 89.59 261 9.78 5 

Bethania #1 * 5274 4717 89.44 538 10.20 4098 3720 90.78 362 8.83 5 

Forsyth Tech W. Camp 3122 2765 88.57 310 9.93 2597 2346 90.34 213 8.20 5 

Parkway United Churc 2359 2095 88.81 228 9.67 1873 1690 90.23 157 8.38 5 

First Christian Chur 1897 1683 88.72 171 9.01 1669 1469 88.02 165 9.89 5 

Calvary Baptist Chur 4318 3883 89.93 386 8.94 3578 3241 90.58 296 8.27 5 

Philo Middle School 2172 1976 90.98 169 7.78 1759 1622 92.21 115 6.54 5 

Bible Wesleyan Churc 2619 2390 91.26 198 7.56 2136 1976 92.51 140 6.55 5 

Mt. Tabor High Schoo 2242 2050 91.44 165 7-36 1783 1652 92.65 192 6.28 5 

old Town #2 * 2990 2749 91.94 215 7.19 2271 2111 92.95 144 6.34 5 

Vienna #1 * 3026 2770 91.54 211 6.97 2246 2077 92.48 144 6.41 5 

old Richmond * 4694 4364 92.97 316 6.75 3556 3322 93.42 227 6.38 5 

St. Anne's Episcopal 2371 2169 91.48 159 6.7] 1876 1737 92.59 109 5.81 5 

Belews Creek * 4357 4050 92.95 287 6.59 3227 2998 92.90 215 6.66 5 

Kernersville #1 * 5482 5013 91.44 359 6.55 4234 3901 92.14 267 6.31 5 

South Fork #2 * 3534 3302 93.44 191 5.40 2766 2587 93.53 145 5.24 5 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

A E NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

FORSYTH (cont'd) 

South Fork #3 * 4543 4255 93.66 235 5.17 3585 3395 94.70 153 4.27 5 
Kernersville #3 * 5530 5196 93.96 279 5.05 3999 3772 94.32 188 4.70 5 
Vienna #2 * 3019 2861 94.77 145 4.80 2289 2186 95.50 94 4.11 5 
Kernersville #4 * 5342 5046 94.46 247 4.62 4125 3925 95.15 165 4.00 5 
Salem Chapel #1 * 3140 2987 25.13 138 4.39 2399 2296 95.7 91 ay 0, 5 
Clemmonsville #3 * 3066 2892 94.32 127 4.14 2178 2058 94.49 90 4.13 5 
Vienna #3 * 3405 3259 95.71 128 3.76 2525 2421 95.88 90 3.56 5 
Lewisville #3 * 2694 2570 95.40 98 3.64 1993 1907 95.68 69 3.46 5 
Ardmore Baptist Chur 1673 1572 93.96 59 3.53 1400 1316 94.00 51 3.64 5 
Lewisville #2 * 4079 3913 95.93 134 3.29 3032 2917 96.21 92 3.03 5 
Abbotts Creek #2 * 4037 3873 95.94 132 3.27 3065 2932 95.66 108 3.52 5 
Bolton Swimming Cent 2889 2748 25.12 93 3.22 2390 2295 96.03 62 2.59 5 

i Abbotts Creek #3 * 3690 3569 96.72 108 2.93 2846 2766 97.19 72 2.53 5 

Lewisville #1 * 5005 4830 96.50 140 2.80 3740 3605 96.39 109 2.91 5 

Clemmonsville #2 * 3404 3286 96.53 92 2.70 2595 2514 96.88 64 2.47 5 

Reynolds High School 2095 2030 96.90 56 2.67 1688 1639 97.10 43 2.55 5 

Kernersville #2 * 5693 5520 96.96 122 2.14 4153 4039 97.25 82 1.97 5 

® Miller Park Recreati 2091 2019 96.56 Ka 2.10 1812 1756 96.91 36 1.99 5 

Abbotts Creek #1 * 4655 4526 97.23 96 2.06 3547 3463 97.63 63 1.78 5 

Trinity United Metho 2547 2479 97.33 47 1.85 2129 2075 97.46 34 1.60 5 

Clemmonsville #1 * 2359 2296 97.33 43 1.82 1928 1880 97.5 31 1.61 5 

Polo Park Recreation 1689 1643 97.28 30 1.78 1391 1360 97.77 21 1.51 5 

Jefferson Elementary 2434 2351 96.59 36 1.48 1712 1661 97.02 26 1.52 5 

Sherwood Forest Elem 972 958 98.56 6 .62 766 755 98.56 6 .78 5 

Messiah Moravian Chu 1536 1506 98.05 6 «39 1195 1175 98.33 5 42 5 

Summit School * 775 1767 99.55 1 .06 1383 1377 $9.57 1 .07 5 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont'd 

® NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

FORSYTH (cont'd) 

Whitaker Elementary 2021 2010 99.46 0 0.00 1541 1532 99.42 0 0.00 5 

Total 265878 196918 74.06 66102 24.86 205470 156596 76.21 46855 22.80 

GUILFORD 

GB-29 * 3067 10 Ri. 3056 99.64 2393 8 335 2384 99.62 12 

GB-07 * 2755 27 .98 2726 98.95 2060 26 1.26 = 2034 + 98.74 12 

GB-05 * 4503 35 .78 4436 98.51 4134 33 .80 4076 98.60 12 

HP-06 * 2423 34 1.40 2369 97.77 1681 22 1.31 1644 97.80 12 

GB-06 * 4363 108 2.48 4228 96.91 2977 94 3.16 2863 96.17. 12 

GB-19 * 4006 178 4.644 3806 95.01 2744 144 5.25 2587 94.28 12 

GB-30 * 2940 121 4.12 2755 93.71 2374 101 4.25 2227 93.8} 12 

GB-09 * 4971 271 5.45 4638 93.30 3121 217 6.95 :- 2868 91.89 + 12 

GB-08 * 5186 368 7-10 4799 92.54 4026 321 7.97. 3692 91.70 12 

HP-12 * 5416 935 17.26 4424 81.68 3697 778 21.04 = 2884 78.01 12 

. Hp-07: * 2740 593 21.64 21100 77.01 1891 505 26.71 1357. 71.76. "12 

Hp-11.* 1638 351 21.43 1256, 76.68 1167 308 26.39 833 71.38 12 

HP-22 * 2837 835 29.43 1986 70.00 2046 662 32.36 1374: 67.16 12 

GB-44 * 4225 1306 30.91 2877 68.09 3087 1090 35.31 1968 63.75 12 

GB-45 * 1571 487 31.00 1055. 67.15 1150 381 33.13 47’. 64.96" 12 

GB-03 * 3905 1458 37.34 23635 60.51 2953 1219 41.28 1683 56.99 12 

HP-05 * 4102 1710 41.69 2333 56.87 3353 1535 45.78 1776 52.97 12 

GB-25 * 4292 2054 47.86 2058 47.95 3292 1712 52.00 1459 44.32 "192 

GB-42 * 5946 3051 51.3] 2791 46.94 4494 2431 54.09 1983 44.13 12 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

5 NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

GUILFORD (cont'd) 

GB-35C * 2421 1234 50.97 1050 43.37 1710 955 55.85 681 39.82 6 

GB-04 * 2580 1446 56.05 1063 41.20 2182 1271 58.25 849 38.91 12 

North Mad. * 2016 1252 62.10 734 36.41 1501 954 63.56 525 34.98 6 

GB-33 * 5732 3832 66.85 1796... 51.35 4426 3010 68.01 1347 30.43 12 

GB-24A * 3192 2081 65.19 995" 31.17 2528 1732 68.51 711 28.13" 12 

GB-26A * 3448 2371 68.76 992 - 28.77 2645 1885 71.27 699 26.43 12 

GB-26B * 2668 1835 68.78 756 28.34 2013 1462 72.63 508 25.24 12 

HP-17 * 4471 3167 70.83 1260. 28.18 3426 2578 75.25 822 235.99 6 

GB-01 * 4715 3281 69.59 1326 ~~ 28.12 3724 2669 71.67 981 26.34 12 

Hp-03 * 1699 1194 70.28 474 27.90 1400 1025 73.21 351 25.07 12 

GIB-G * 1961 1472 75.06 478 24.38 1454 1144 78.68 301 20.70 6 

HP-15 * 2174 1612 74.15 516 23.74 1630 1300 13.75 294 18.04 12 

GB-36'* 5607 4172 74.41 1303 23.24 3915 3026 17.29 797: 20.36 = 12 

GB-15 * 3811 2687 70.51 858 ..22.%1 2951 2210 74.89 579 39.62 12 

GB-23 * 5084 3672 72.23 11247 22.11 4047 3023 74.70 836 20.66 6 

GB-24B * 4654 3444 74.00 1020. 21.92 3754 2874 76.56 739. 19.69 12 

HP-18 * 4395 3337 75.93 957. 21.77 3111 2573 82.71 475 15.20 6 

® Gibsonville * 1810 1420 78.45 384. 21.22 1441 1135 78.76 300 20.82 6 

GB-43 * 2666 2089 78.36 550 20.83 2162 1770 81.87 374 17.30 6 

GB-02 * 3667 2817 76.82 756 20.62 3096 2440 78.81 596 19.25 12 

HP-13 * 2565 1940 75.63 522 20.35 2036 1591 78.14 358 17.58 ' 12 

North Sumner * 2552 2018 79.08 498 19.51 2008 1602 79.78 381 18.97 12 

HP-09 * 3103 2447 78.86 593 19.11 2434 2034 83.57 365 15.00 6 

North Monroe * 2915 2338 80.21 544 18.66 2126 1697 79.82 406 19.10 6 

GB-38 * 3040 2421 79.64 564 18.55 2638 2100 79.61 497 18.84 6 

Hp-21 * 4197 3329 73.32 765 18.23 2943 2402 81.62 474 16.11 6 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

® NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

GUILFORD (cont'd) 

South Jeff. * 3618 2949 81.51 639 17.66 2877 2356 81.89 496 17.24 6 
GB-11 * 2015 1625 80.65 354 17.57 1828 1466 80.20 327 17.89 6 
GB-22 * 4212 3425 81.32 692 16.43 3414 2809 82.28 535 15.67 6 
GB-37B * 3299 2702 81.90 542 16.43 2810 2340 83.27 424 15.09 6 
GB-32 * 2214 1765 79.72 363 16.40 1746 1391 79.67 291 16.67 6 
North Jeff. * 5098 4285 84.05 775 15.20 3954 3316 83.86 608 15.38 6 
GB-14 * 5417 4478 82.67 823 15.19 5307 4385 82.63 809 15.24 6 

HP-10 * 2125 1711 80.52 320 15.06 1647 1393 84.58 195 11.84. 12 

HP-20 * 3199 2685 83.93 469 14.66 2355 1966 83.48 360 15.29 6 
GB-40A * 3604 3008 83.46 517 14.35 3107 2631 84.68 414 13.32 6 

GB-40B * 3120 2584 82.82 446 14.29 2346 1951 83.16 333 14.19 6 

South Madison * 1742 1500 86.11 230 13.20 1303 1123 86.19 171 13.12 6 

. South Washington * 852 739 86.74 109 12.79 669 585 87.44 80 11.96 6 

GB-10 * 2163 1836 84.88 266 12.30 1749 1499 85.71 203 11.61 6 

Hp-02 * 1065 921 86.48 128 12.02 939 820 87.33 107. 31.40 12 

GB-18 * 3276 2784 84.98 391 11.94 2537 2229 87.86 242 9.54 12 
South Monroe * 5140 4489 87.33 609 11.85 3887 3449 88.73 A 10.39 6 

a GB-35B * 2402 2100 87.43 274 11.41 1797 1599 88.98 181 10.07 6 

Whitsett * 1721 1512 87.86 192 11.16 1323 1154 87.23 159 12.02 6 

Fentress-1 * 5276 4689 88.87 545 10.33 3996 3587 89.76 384 9.61 6 

South Center Grove * 2407 2128 88.41 222 9.22 1802 1597 88.62 163 9.05 6 

GB-17 * 3552 3021 85.05 323 9.09 3077 2673 86.87 266 8.64 6 

GB-37A * 2524 2258 89.46 216 8.56 2039 1838 90.14 165 8.09 6 

Stokesdale * 2134 1932 90.53 169 7:92 1640 1487 90.67 131 7.99 6 

Jamestown-1 * 2606 2333 89.52 205 7.87 1971 1771 89.85 153 7.76. 12 

GB-27C * 2095 1906 90.98 150 7.16 1608 1486 92.41 94 5.85 6 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

3 NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

GUILFORD (cont'd) 

GB-41B * 2316 2111 91.15 158 6.82 1731 1568 90.58 131 7-57 6 

HP-08 * 4156 3808 91.63 272 6.54 3342 3098 92.70 190 5.69 6 

Friendship-1 * 6459 5898 91.31 418 6-47 5191 4739 91.29 340 6.55 6 

Oak Ridge * 2976 2751 92.44 188 6.32 2122 1960 92.37 143 6.74 6 

GB-28 * 2645 2461 93.04 166 6.28 2055 1925 93.67 115 5.60 6 

GB-24C * 2133 1911 89.59 132 6.19 1526 1379 90.37 95 6.23 6 

GB-35A * 2056 1913 93.04 117 5.69 1503 1398 93.01 92 65.12 6 

Friendship-2 * 2436 2271 93.23 128 Bld 1974 1849 93.67 98 4.96 6 

North Washington * 1195 1123 93.97 56 4.69 915 867 94.75 39 4.26 6 

GB-41A * : 1896 1773 93.51 86 4.54 1492 1405 94.17 62 4.16 6 

HP-16 * 4111 3876 94.28 185 4.50 3322 3148 94.76 140 4.21 6 

GB-34A * 1567 1471 93.87 61 3.89 1159 1092 94.22 43 3.71 6 

w GB-34B * 2006 1894 94.42 76 3.79 1504 1425 94.75 52 3.46 6 

HP-19 * 1485 1420 95.62 53 5.57 1269 1228 96.77 332 2.60 12 

Bruce * 6491 6209 95.66 231 3.56 4917 4710 95.79. 6177 3.60 

North Center Grove * 1569 1511 96.30 53 3.38 1200 1154 96.17 43 3-58 6 

HP-24 * 3363 3221 95.78 106 3.15 2525 2418 95.76 80 3.17 6 

s Fentress-2 * 4472 4296 96.06 138 3.09 3599 3481 96.72 89 2.47 6 

HP-23 * 2692 2568 95.39 80 2.97 2210 2126 96.20 57 2.58 6 

GB-27B * 1921 1831 95.31 57 2.97 1434 1373 95.75 40 2.79 6 

HP-14 * 1323 1232 93.12 39 2.95 997 934 93.68 30 3.01 6 

Greene * 2420 2338 96.61 64 2.64 1837 1773 96.52 49 2.67 6 

South Sumner * 5950 5747 96.59 152 2.55 4618 4458 96.54 118 2.56 6 

GB-39 * 3279 3157 96.28 82 2.50 2654 2566 96.68 56 2.11 6 

Deep River * 4680 4531 96.82 116 2.48 3559 3433 96.46 106 2.98 6 

GB-13 * 2533 2452 96.80 58 2.29 2163 2097 96.95 47 2.97 6 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

» NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

GUILFORD (cont'd) 

Clay * 6017 5835 96.98 124 2.06 4568 4442 97.24 84 1.84 6 
GB-12 * 2897 2835 97.86 50 1.73 2287 2229 97.46 46 2.01 6 
GB-16 * 3163 3075 97.22 53 1.68 2622 2555 97.44 44 1.68 6 
Jamestown-2 * 4000 3901 97.53 61 1.53 3142 3073 97.80 Kas 1.40 12 
GB-20 * 2847 2781 97.68 43 1.5] 2279 2232 97.94 29 1.27 6 
GB-27A * 2015 1967 97.62 21 1.04 1534 1502 97.91 16 1.04 6 
HP-04 * 2759 2722 98.66 27 .98 2128 2104 98.87 17 .80 6 
HP-01 * 1550 1521 98.13 15 97 1253 1233 98.40 13 1.04 12 
GB-371"* 2352 2309 98.17 21 -89 1983 1949 98.29 19 .96 6 
GB-21.* 3059 3017 98.63 25 .82 2443 2412 98.73 19 .78 6 
Jamestown-3 * 3726 3642 97.75 30 .81 2978 2920 98.05 20 67 6 

& Total 347420 249584 71.84 91655 26.38 269704 199205 73.86 66194 24.54 

IREDELL 

% Statesville #3 * 4220 1814 42.99 23753 56.23 2979 1405 47.16. 1550: 52.03." 12 

Statesville #6 * 4354 1909 43.84 2418 55.54 3079 1514 43.17 = 1547 50.24 ‘12 

Coddle Creek #2 * 3997 2477 61.97 1468 36.73 2943 1938 65.85 066 32.82 12 

Cool Springs * 1823 1393 76.41 419 22.98 1343 1056 78.63 28% 21.07; 12 

Turnersburg * 2392 1853 77.47 522. 21.82 1817 1429 78.65 377; 20.75 10 

Statesville #2 * 3972 3116 78.45 758 19.08 3154 2605 82.59 486 15.41 10 

Statesville #5 * 3755 3052 81.28 674 17.95 3000 2521 84.03 462 15.40 _ 10 

Statesville #4 * 3643 2999 82.32 593 16.28 2924 2486 85.02 404 15.82 ":10 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

3 NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

IREDELL (cont'd) 

Fallstown * 5386 4499 83.53 862 16.00 4056 3471 85.58 567 13.98 10 

Chambersburg * 8121 6858 84.45 1168 14.38 5943 5114 86.05 766 12.89 12 

Coddle Creek #1 * 3400 2884 84.82 464 13.65 2593 2219 85.58 338 13.04. 12 

Statesville #1 * 3859 3269 84.71 503 13.03 3063 2671 87.20 345 11.26 10 

Coddle Creek #3 * 4246 3750 88.32 458 10.79 3275 2944 89.89 306 2.34% 12 

Barringer * 4070 3620 88.94 435 10.69 3007 2700 89.79 297 9.88 12 

Eagle Mills * 1621 1438 88.71 167 10.30 1257 1106 89.41 121 2.78 10 

Concord * 4288 3981 92.84 299 6.97 3282 3050 92.93 225 6.86 10 

Bethany * 5151 4759 92.39 358 6.95 3856 3551 92.09 278 7.2] 10 

Shiloh * 6042 5612 92.88 408 6.75 4589 4265 92.94 303 6.60 10 

Sharpesburg * 2073 1971 95.08 77 3.71 1583 1506 95.14 60 3.79 10 

Coddle Creek #4 * 4228 4064 96.12 140 3.31 3187 3066 96.20 100 3.4 12 

» Davidson * 8071 7814 96.82 214 2.65 6397 6217 97:19 154 2.41 10 

Union Grove * 1672 1612 96.41 A 2.63 1246 1195 95.91 357 2.97. 10 

olin * 1372 1308 95.34 33 2.41 1031 987 95.73 23 2.23 10 

New Hope * 1175 1155 98.30 14 1:19 912 899 98.57 1" 1.21 10 

» Total 92931 77207 83.08 14869 16.00 70496 59915 84.99 10006 14.19 

MECKLENBURG 

Charlotte Pct. 54 * 2049 8 «39 2037 99.41 1529 3 .20 1523 99.61 12 

Charlotte Pct. 55 * 2674 9 .34 2657 99.36 2073 7 .34 2061 99.42 12 

Charlotte Pct. 25 * 3416 15 bb 3393. 99.3% 2595 12 46 12577: 99.3] 12 

Charlotte Pct. 56 * 5848 54 .92 5772 ~ 98.70 3888 46 1.18 - 3831 28.53 12 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

= NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

pL COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

Charlotte Pct. 16 * 2522 32 1.27 2485. 98.53 1873 24 1.28 1846. 98.56 12 

Charlotte Pct. 16 * (Pt)1009 5 .50 993 98.41 719 2 .28 gt% 98.89 12 

Charlotte Pct. 12 * 5123 89 1.74 5023 98.05 3828 74 1.93. 3745 97.85. 12 

Charlotte Pct. 31 * 4789 129 2.69 4633 96.74 3112 115 3-70 2981 95.79" 12 

Charlotte Pct. 22 * 4443 174 3.92 4255 95.77 3057 167 5.46 2882 94.28 12 

Charlotte Pct. 52 * 4296 166 5.86 4109 95.65 3212 135 4.20 308% 95.36 12 

Charlotte Pct. 42 * 4732 349 7.38 4355 92.03 3358 305 9.08 3035. 90.38 12 

Charlotte Pct. 13 * 3511 235 6.69 3169 90.26 2213 223 10,08 1932 .. 87.30. 12 

Charlotte Pct. 14 * 4648 321 6.91 4061 87.37 3194 268 8.39. 2773 86.82 12 

Charlotte Pct. 77 * (Pt)3460 439 12.69 2987 86.33 2308 350 15.16 1928 83.54 « 12 

Charlotte Pct. 39 * 5468 786 14.37 4496 82.22 3431 564 16.44 2753 80.24 12 

Charlotte Pct. 27 * 5261 932 17.72 4231 80.42 3708 761 20.52 2874 17.5] 12 

Charlotte Pct. 60 3226 712 22.07 2446 75.82 2266 595 26.26. 1624 71.67 12 

Charlotte Pct. 17 * 3801 970 25.52 2763 72.6% 2667 830 31.12 1797. 67.38" 12 

Charlotte Pct. 82 * 6053 1647 27.21 4263 70.43 4568 1440 31.52 3013 65.96 12 

Charlotte Pct. 41 * 3875 1239 31.97 2517.64.95 2672 915 34.24 1681 62.91 12 

LC2 3357 1252 37.30 2098 62.50 2522 983 38.98 153; 60.82 12 

w Charlotte Pct. 104 * L877 1666 34.16 3042 62.37 3433 1387 40.40 1932 56.28 12 

Charlotte Pct. 11 * 3999 1502 37.56 2443 61.09 3363 1436 42.70 +1890 "56.200 12 

Charlotte Pct. 24 * 3854 1544 40.06 2272 © 58.95 2811 1234 43.90 1552 55.21 12 

Charlotte Pct. 23 * 3705 1659 44.78 1980 53.44 2606 1326 50.88 1237 47.47. 12 

Charlotte Pct. 3 4613 2018 43.75 2395 51.88 3284 1596 48.60 1555 47.35.32 

Charlotte Pct. 26 4281 2047 47.82 2177. . 50.85 3010 1623 53.92. 1352. 44.92 12 

Charlotte Pct. 78 5335 2534 47.50 2682 . - 50.27 3731 1976 52.956. 1680 45.03 12 

Charlotte Pct. 98 51.19 2421 44.97 4094 2287 55.86 "31669 40.77 12 

L679 2579 55.12 2010 42.96 3346 2022 60.43 1259 37.65 12 * 
* 

* 
* 

19
, 

W
 

[02
] 

io
 

nN
 

~
 

ul
 

on
 

Charlotte Pct. 40 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

» NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

| bs COUNTY/ TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

Charlotte Pct. 28 * 3848 2262 58.78 1431 37.19 2956 1859 62.89 089 33.46 12 

Charlotte Pct. 30 * 2453 1460 50.52 869 35.43 1881 1195 63.53 613 32.59 12 

XMC1 924 599 64.83 324 35.06 684 453 66.23 230 33.65 12 

Charlotte Pct. 46 4666 2850 61.08 1608 34.46 3674 2383 64.86 - 1135 30.89 12 

Charlotte Pct. 43 4062 2680 65.98 1228 30.23 3054 2140 70.07 802. 26.26 . 12 

Charlotte Pct. 53 4582 3036 66.26 1358 29.64 3568 2507 70.26 929 26.04 12 

Charlotte Pct. 97 4066 68.72 1664 28.12 4651 3436 73.38 © 1080.23.22 12 

Charlotte Pct. 35 1901 1461 76.85 424 22.30 1511 1212 80.21 287 18.99 9 

Charlotte Pct. 29 3615 2675 74.00 781 21.60 2825 2173 76.92 538 19.04 12 * 
* 

%* 
* 

* 
* 

19
] 
0
 

—
n
 

~
J
 

Charlotte Pct. 2 * 5898 4520 76.64 1213 20.57 5118 4062 79.37 934 18.25 12 

Charlotte Pct. 15 * 3816 2947 77.23 743 19.47 3085 2489 80.68 506° 16.40 12 

Charlotte Pct. 84 * 7719 5938 76.93 1487 19.26 6071 4839 73.7 1024 16.87 9 

Charlotte Pct. 81 * 4372 3478 73.55 831 19.01 3329 2756 32.79 526 15.80 7 12 

Charlotte Pct. 95 * 7442 5837 78.43 1400 18.81 5576 4506 80.81 027 16.62 9 

Charlotte Pct. 62 * 4277 3266 76.36 799 18.68 3264 2566 78.62 550 16.85 9 

Charlotte Pct. 5 * 2645 2070 78.26 488 18.45 2294 1823 79.47 404 17.61 9 

Charlotte Pct. 9 * 3241 2558 73.95 559 17.25 2878 2244 77.97 521 18.10". 12 

Charlotte Pct. 6 * 4522 3560 78.73 775 17.14 3609 2923 80.99 549 15.21 9 

COR * 706 3041 82.06 626 16.89 2743 2279 83.08 441 16.08.12 

Charlotte Pct. 7 * 2460 1991 80.93 414 16.83 2088 1729 82.81 318 15.23 9 

Charlotte Pct. 63 * 5113 4100 80.19 843 16.49 3933 3240 82.38 575 14.62 9 

Charlotte Pct. 45 * 3673 2871 78.16 589 16.04 2922 2346 80.29 432 14.78 9 

DAV * 4280 3529 82.45 669 15.63 3675 3099 84.33 510 13.88 12 

Charlotte Pct. 64 * 7206 5880 81.60 1076 14.93 5978 4995 83.56 790 13.22 9 

HUN * 5069 4305 84.93 725 14.30 3872 3316 85.64 524 13.53 12 

Charlotte Pct. 80 * 4007 3350 83.60 568 14.18 2958 2512 84.92 384 12.98 9 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

» NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

pS COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

MC2 4702 3902 82.99 664 14.12 3576 3006 84.06 475 13.28 12 
Charlotte Pct. 61 * 4067 3386 83.26 573 14.09 3227 2759 85.50 98 12.33 12 
MC1 6429 5344 83.12 905 14.08 4805 4055 84.39 626 13.03 12 
co2 * 10599 8831 83.32 1463 15.80 8896 7481 84.09 1176" 315.22 "12 

Charlotte Pct. 105 * 5093 4146 81.41 672 13.19 3913 3271 83.59 447 © 11.42 12 

Charlotte Pct. 4 4056 3438 84.76 533 13.14 3129 2704 86.42 366 11.70 9 
CCK. * 2241 1906 85.05 286 12.76 1675 1442 86.09 199 11.88 9 

Charlotte Pct. 44 * 2155 1832 85.01 270 12.53 1707 1502 87.99 164 9.61 12 

LC1 - South 843 732 86.83 103 12.22 682 591 86.66 86 12:61 12 

Charlotte Pct. 79 * 2836 2449 86.35 339 11.95 2188 1931 88.25 228 10.42 9 
BER * 2299 2017 87.73 271 13579 1803 1584 87.85 211 11.70 9 

Charlotte Pct. 59 * 2606 2153 82.62 307 11.78 1969 1677 85.17 196 9.95 9 

Charlotte Pct. 102 * 3572 3031 84.85 412 11.53 2562 2202 85.95 268 10.46 9 

PC2 * 2546 2230 87.59 293 11.51 1936 1706 88.12 214 11.05 9 

Charlotte Pct. 50 * 3373 2759 81.80 388 11.50 2747 2304 83.87 272 9.90 9 

Charlotte Pct. 38 * 3457 2936 84.93 397 11.48 2974 2576 86.62 299 10.05 9 

Charlotte Pct. 33 * 3931 3320 84.46 439 11.37 3234 2767 85.56 335 10.36 9 

® sC1 5405 4645 85.94 592 10.95 3925 3462 88.20 362 9.22 9 

Charlotte Pct. 34 * 3662 3163 86.37 401 10.95 3068 2725 88.82 270 8.80 9 

Charlotte Pct. 21 * 3139 2683 85.47 330 10.51 2577 2282 88.55 202 7.84 9 

coy * 1054 940 89.18 104 9.87 805 720 89.44 77 9.57 9 

Charlotte Pct. 94 * 5124 4471 87.26 504 9.84 3655 3231 88.40 330 9.03 9 

Charlotte Pct. 51 * 3420 2936 85.85 319 9.33 2894 2554 88.25 223 7.7 9 

Charlotte Pct. 58 * 2032 1723 84.79 188 9.25 1515 1334 88.05 93 6.14 9 

Charlotte Pct. 83 * 4282 3821 89.23 373 8.71 3298 2969 90.02 260 7.88 9 

LC1 - North 4219 3803 90.14 337 7.99 3135 2830 90.27 256 3.17 9 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont'd 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

Charlotte Pct. 87 * 4862 4400 90.50 349 7.18 3510 3206 91.34 227 6.47 9 
Charlotte Pct. 10 * 2248 2006 89.23 155 6.90 1808 1647 91.10 98 5.42 9 
Charlotte Pct. 85 * 3555 3209 90.27 244 6.86 2513 2291 91.17 154 6.13 9 
PR1 400 370 92.50 27 6.75 289 265 91.70 23 7.96 9 
MA1 * 3784 3520 93.02 201 5.3] 2521 2331 92.46 151 5.99 9 
MH2 * 5699 5360 94.05 277 4.86 4190 3965 94.63 174 4.15 9 
PL * 6006 5655 94.16 280 4.66 4887 4612 94.37 218 4.46 9 
Charlotte Pct. 70 * 3933 3699 94.05 183 4.65 2977 2847 95.63 95 3.19 9 

Charlotte Pct. 100 * 4732 4429 93.60 215 4.54 3220 3051 94.75 116 3.60 9 

Charlotte Pct. 96 * 3190 2943 92.26 142 4.45 2338 2166 92.64 100 4.28 9 
Charlotte Pct. 88 * 3363 3085 91.73 145 4.31 2381 2183 91.68 103 4.33 9 

Charlotte Pct. 49 * 2463 2335 94.80 102 4.14 2172 2061 94.89 89 4.10 9 

Charlotte Pct. 73 * L673 4397 94.09 188 4.02 3754 3586 95.52 103 2.74 9 

Charlotte Pct. 68 * 5823 5357 92.00 227 3.90 4279 3975 92.90 155 3.62 9 

Charlotte Pct. 92 * 5894 5532 93.86 220 3.73 4380 4120 94.06 160 3.65 9 

PR3 2865 2688 93.82 103 3.60 2049 1942 94.78 61 2.98 9 

SC2 3664 3502 95.58 130 3.55 2881 2762 95.87 98 3.40 9 

Charlotte Pct. 93 * 3470 3186 91.82 117 3.37 2507 2332 93.02 66 2.63 9 

MA2 * 2563 2453 5.73 79 3.08 1875 1812 96.64 43 2.29 9 

OAK 2537 2444 96.33 75 2.96 1984 1915 96.52 58 2.92 9 

PC1 * 2417 2319 95.95 70 2.90 1851 1781 96.22 55 2.97 9 

Charlotte Pct. 66 * 1899 1808 95.21 53 2.79 1540 1474 95.7] 37 2.40 9 

LEM * 5597 5383 96.18 152 2.72 4449 4286 96.34 123 2.76 9 

PR2 3571 3415 95.63 96 2.69 2359 2249 95.34 70 2.97 9 

MA3 * 5550 5301 95.51 147 2.65 4019 3862 96.09 97 2.41 9 

Charlotte Pct. 65 * 4574 4294 93.88 121 2.65 3347 3164 94.53 78 2.33 9 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont'd 

NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

Charlotte Pct. 69 * 2439 2321 95.16 62 2.54 1814 1739 95.87 42 2.32 9 
MH1 * 6374 6092 95.58 159 2.49 4685 4485 95.73 118 2.52 9 
Charlotte Pct. 8 * 2940 2841 96.63 72 2.45 2512 2437 97.01 51 2.03 9 
Charlotte Pct. 36 * 3207 3051 95.14 Fg. 2.34 2650 2538 95.77 62 2.34 9 
Charlotte Pct. 90 * 5819 5581 95.91 130 2.23 4357 4201 96.42 82 1.88 9 
Charlotte Pct. 1 * 1758 1716 97.61 39 2.22 1526 1488 97.51 35 2.29 9 
MAS * 2817 2734 97.05 59 2.09 2008 1952 97.21 37 1.84 9 
Charlotte Pct. 37 * 2620 2479 94.62 52 1.98 2134 2035 95.36 32 1.50 9 
Charlotte Pct. 91 3982 3841 96.46 13 1.98 2653 2571 96.91 49 1.85 9 
Charlotte Pct. 76 * 4379 4199 95.89 86 1.96 3441 3329 96.75 47 1.37 9 
Charlotte Pct. 57 * 2286 2224 97.29 A 1.92 1894 1845 97.41 36 1.90 9 
Charlotte Pct. 67 * 1879 1828 97.29 36 1.92 1543 1508 97.73 26 1.6% 9 

i Charlotte Pct. 47 * 2039 2000 98.09 31 1.52 1698 1665 98.06 28 1.65 9 

XPR1 801 785 98.00 12 1.50 656 643 98.02 10 1.52 9 
Charlotte Pct. 71 * 2318 2232 96.29 33 1.42 1753 1697 96.81 24 1.37 9 

Charlotte Pct. 72 * 3896 3746 96.15 48 1.23 3027 2925 96.63 39 1.29 9 

Charlotte Pct. 74 * 2720 2666 98.01 31 1.14 2231 2187 98.03 26 3:17 9 

% Charlotte Pct. 86 * 3452 3311 95.92 37 1.07 2444 2357 96.44 23 .94 9 

Charlotte Pct. 89 * 3773 3691 97.83 38 1.01 3044 2990 98.23 27 .89 9 

Charlotte Pct. 75 * 3356 3247 96.75 33 .98 2692 2618 97.25 24 .89 9 

Charlotte Pct. 48 * 2092 2050 97.99 18 .86 1657 1628 98.25 1" .66 9 

MH3 * 6148 6047 98.36 50 .81 4442 4363 98.22 40 .90 ) 

Charlotte Pct. 20 * 2124 2096 98.68 1 52 1752 1732 98.86 9 «31 9 

Charlotte Pct. 32 * 2249 2234 99.33 9 .40 1722 1710 99.30 9 22 9 

Charlotte Pct. 18 * 1851 1843 99.57 b «22 1435 1430 99.65 3 2) 9 

Charlotte Pct. 19 * 1937 1910 98.61 4 2] 1567 1547 98.72 4 2b 9 

 



  

TABLE 5 cont’d 

3 NORTH CAROLINA HB 586--PLAN A CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS OF 1997 

Racial Composition of Total Population and Voting Age Population based on 1990 Census Data 
of Precincts in Split Counties by Congressional District 

COUNTY / TOTAL WHITE WHTPPCT BLACK BLKPPCT TOTAL WHITE WHTVPCT BLACK BLKVPCT DIST 

PRECINCT NAME POP POP POP VAP VAP VAP 

  

MECKLENBURG (cont'd) 

Charlotte Pct. 77 * (Pf) . 1 1 100.00 0 0.00 1 1 100.00 0 0.00 9 

XMC2 Noncontiguous 0 0 . 0 . 0 0 . 0 . 12 

Sum 511433 364651 71.30 134468 26.29 387981 286959 73.96 92487 23.84 

 



  

57ja 

TABLE 6 (Ctd.) 

FORSYTH COUNTY 

Precincts included in Congressional District 12 when classified by 

measures of Democratic strength and African-American Population 

% Democratic Registration 

% Black Population 50-599 60-699 >70% 

<30% 1/32 0/5 0 

30-399 0/1 V2 0/1 

40-499 0 0/1 2/2 

50-599 0 0 2/2 

60 - 69.9 0 0 0 

> 70% 0 0 13/13 

% Support for Harvey Gantt, 1990 

% Black Population 50-599 60-699 >70% 

<30% 0/7 0 0/1 

30-399 0/2 1/1 0/1 

40 -49.9 2/2 0 0/1 

50-59.9 0 2/2 

60 - 69.9 0 0 0 

> 70% 0 0 13/13 

 



  

58ja 

% Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 

<30% 

30-399 

40 -49.9 

50-599 

60 - 69.9 

> 70% 

60 - 69.9 

0/1 

1/1 

2/3 

2/2 

0 

0 

> 70% 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 

<30% 

30-399 

40-499 

50-599 

60 - 69.9 

> 70% 

50-599 

0/6 

0/2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

60 - 69.9 > 70% 

 



  

59ja 

TABLE 6 (Ctd.) 

SUMMARY FIGURES FOR ALL SIX COUNTIES IN 

CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT 12 

Precincts included in Congressional District 12 when classified by 

measures of Democratic strength and African-American Population 

% Democratic Registration 

% Black Population 50-599 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 30/139 18/45 1/1 

30-399 1/2 8/9 4/6 

40-499 0 3/6 5/5 

50-59.9 0 22 8/8 

60 - 69.9 0 0 9/9 

> 170 0 0 48/48 

% Support for Harvey Gantt, 1990 

% Black Population 50 -59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 13/56 3/12 3/6 

30-399 6/8 5/5 0/1 

40-499 4/4 0/1 4/5 

50-599 1/1 4/4 5/5 

60 - 69.9 0 0 9/9 

> 70 0 0 48/48 

 



  

60ja 

% Support for Democratic Lt. Governor Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 50-59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 18/45 212 0 

30-399 7/9 4/5 0/1 

40-49.9 2/3 4/5 2/2 

50-59.9 3/3 6/6 1/1 

60 - 69.9 0 1/1 8/8 

> 170 0 1/1 47/47 

% Support for Democratic Court of Appeals Candidate, 1988 

% Black Population 50-59.9 60 - 69.9 > 70% 

<30% 13/32 2/6 0 

30-39.9 7/9 3/5 0 

40-499 2/2 6/6 0 

50-59.9 4/4 3/3 3/3 

60 - 69.9 0 1/1 8/8 

> 170 0... 2/2 46/46 

 



61ja 

TABLE 7 

Participation Rates by Race in Selected North Carolina 

Congressional Districts of the 1997 and 1998 Plans in Democratic 

Primary and Runoff Elections of the 1990s 

(Participation as % of Registration) 

White Afr. Am. 

Year Office Partic. Partic. 

1990 U.S. Senate (P) 350 385 

1990 U.S. Senate (R) 212 276 

1992 State Aud. (P) 212 248 

1998 U.S. Senate (P) 219 .198 

1998 U.S. Cong. (P) 128 276 

1990 U.S. Senate (P) 133 255 

1990 U.S. Senate (R) .097 301 

1992 State Aud. (P) .098 176 

1998 U.S. Senate (P) .089 132 

1998 U.S. Cong. (P) 025 065 

Note: Participation rates are based on the number of voters voting 

for candidates for the office in question and are estimated using 

weighted bivariate ecological regression analysis. Voter registration 

figures are used to measure the racial composition of the electorate 

at each election. Similar estimates were found for each group using 

extreme case (homogeneous precinct) analysis techniques and are 

reported in Exhibits C and D. 

 



  

62ja 

TABLE 8 

Participation Rates by Race in Selected North Carolina 

Congressional Districts of the 1997 and 1998 Plans in General 

Elections of the 1990s 

(Participation as % of Registration) 

Year CD Office Partic. Partic. 

1990 1 U.S. Senate .620 544 

1992 1 State Aud. 584 493 

1996 1 U.S. Senate .606 472 

1996 1 State Aud. 563 423 

1998 1 U.S. Senate 447 357 

1998 1 U.S. Cong. A405 383 

1990 12 U.S. Senate .607 572 

1992 12 State Aud. .653 625 

1996 12 U.S. Senate S547 473 

1996 12 State Aud. 503 A453 

1998 2 U.S. Senate 411 345 

1998 12 U.S. Cong. 408 346 

Note: Participation rates are based on the number of voters voting 

for candidates for the office in question and are estimated using 

weighted bivariate ecological regression analysis. Voter registration 

figures are used to measure the racial composition of the electorate 

at each election. Similar estimates were found for each group using 

extreme case (homogeneous precinct) analysis techniques and are 

reported in Exhibits C and D. 

 



  

63ja 

TABLE 9 

Estimated White Cross-Over Rates in North Carolina 

Congressional Districts of 1997 Plan A in Statewide General 

Elections for 1990, 1992, 1996, and 1998 

(% of Group Crossing-Over) 

Candidate Weighted Regression Extreme Case 

Year CD of Choice White % White % 

1990 1 Gantt (B) 17.9 23.0 

1992 1 Campbell(B) 46.2 49.2 

1996 1 Gantt (B) 23 259 

1996 1 Campbell (B) 44.2 47.8 

1998 1 Edwards 35.6 37.6 

1990 12 Gantt (B) 37.7 32.6 

1992 12 Campbell (B) 40.7 39.8 

1996 12 Gantt (B) 351 32.1 

1996 12 Campbell (B) 35.8 35.6 

1998 12 Edwards 41.8 40.3 

Note: The cross-over rate of white voters is estimated through the 

use of weighted bivariate ecological regression and extreme case 

(homogenous) analysis for each of the elections. 

 



  

64ja 

TABLE 10 

Estimated White Cross-Over Rates in North Carolina 

Congressional Districts of 1998 Plan A in 

Congressional General Elections for 1998 

(% of Group Crossing-Over) 

Candidate Weighted Regression Extreme Case 

  

Year CD of Choice White % White % 

1998 1 Clayton (B) 30.4 33.3 

1998 12 Watt (B) 32.6 31.0 

Note: The cross-over rate of white voters is estimated through the 

use of weighted bivariate ecological regression and extreme case 

(homogenous) analysis for each of the elections. 

 



  

lja 

TRIAL TESTIMONY EXCERPTS OF GERRY COHEN, SHAW V. 

HUNT, 92-202-CIV-5BR 

[*341] Q. Mr. Cohen, you testified yesterday about the 

genesis of the Peeler Plan put on the legislative computer 

system. Are maps 418 and 422 maps of the Peeler Plan? 

A. Yes, those two maps are maps of the Peeler Plan. 

Q. All right. And does the Peeler Plan contain two 

majority minority districts? 

A. Yes, it does. 

Q. Where are they located, generally? 

A. One of them is located, beginning in Charlotte, up 

[*342] through Statesville, east through Salisbury, and on 

through Greensboro to Durham, and then several counties north 

of Durham along the Virginia border. 

The second starts in Warren County, runs through much 

of the eastern part of the state, down to New Bern, Wilmington 

and Fayetteville. 

Q. All right. Without repeating too much of yesterday's 

testimony, could you indicate, briefly, what were the first major 

changes you made to the Peeler Plan? 

A. The first two major changes that I made in the Peeler 

Plan was adding a large portion of Winston-Salem, as I 

mentioned yesterday, along the goal of adding another urban 

area as requested by Mr. Robert Hunter, and also making the 

district more urban. 

At the same time, portions of four counties along the 

Virginia border were removed; Caswell, Person, Granville and 

Vance. 

Q. You explained yesterday using Exhibits 406 and 407, 

your reference to population? 

 



  

2ja 

A. Yes. At that point, we ran a report looking at the 

population of which cities were in that district, and looked at 

those tables I was referring to, just before adjournment of the 

Court yesterday, as to which cities were sized to be considered 

urban in North Carolina context, the largest 25 incorporated 

places. [*343] And I noticed that approximately 80 percent of 

thel2th District was in communities, incorporated places of 

20,000 or over; whereas, about 80 percent of the population of 

the 1st District was in places of 20,000 or under. Seemed to be 

co-existent of a suggestion of public hearing the 12th District 

be urban in nature. 

Q. When you used the population statistics in Exhibits 406 

and 407, were you just looking at the black population 

statistics? 

A. No, I wasn't looking at them at all. I was looking at the 

report of the total population of the 12th and 1st District -- that 

were in the 1st and 12th Districts, not at the racial classification 

of any of the populations. 

Q. All right. Did this urban/rural concept guide your 

efforts, your later efforts on the plan? 

Mr. Farr: Objection. 

Judge Phillips: Overruled. 

A. Yes, it was a central part of the plans for finishing the 

Redistricting Plan from that point forward. 

Q. And did you discuss this urban/rural concept with the 

leadership? 

A. Yes. After noticing it myself, I did report that finding in 

discussion with the leadership. 

Q. In your own view, are there similarities or 

commonalities of interest in the urban areas of the 12th? 

 



  

3ja 

[¥344] Mr. Farr: Objection. 

Judge Phillips: Overruled. 

A. Yes. From my knowledge and experience, both from 

being Director of Bill Drafting, and also from studies that I 

worked on in 1982 and 1983. I have been Staff Counsel to a 

legislative study commission on the North Carolina railroad, 

where I was required, and did, spend, several weeks traveling 

along the railroad corridor from Charlotte on through Durham, 

and then onto Goldsboro and Morehead City. And made a lot 

of observations at that point about the nature of a lot of these 

counties in this area, especially the urban counties. And I felt 

then, as I do now, that there are major similarities between the 

communities, the urban communities and Piedmont Urban 

Crescent, all of which are from Durham west are in the 12th 

District. 

* % % 

[*347] Q. All right. Gerry -- Mr. Cohen, as you worked on 

Redistricting in the '90's, were you familiar with the existing 

districts in the 1980's of the Congressional Districts? 

A. Yes, I was familiar with them. 

Q. Did you know where the incumbents lived? 

A. Yes, I do. And did. 

Q. And did you give any consideration to where the 

incumbents lived or what might be called the core of their 

districts? 

A. Yes. One of the factors used in my drawing of the Plan 

was to have each incumbent member of congress be in a 

separate district from each other, no pairing. In the second 

 



  

4ja 

ones, to the extent possible, while creating two [*348] minority 

districts and keeping them urban and rural, also to preserve the 

core of existing districts. 

Q. And did you use the same district numbers for 

incumbents? 

A. Yes. The district numbers in Chapter 7 are the same 

district numbers that each incumbent congressman had in the 

prior decade, with the exception, of course, of the 12th District, 

which was an open seat. 

wo kik 

[402] Q. In the enacted plan, you drew two majority 

black districts? 

A. Yes, I did. 

Q. Was race a factor in drawing those districts? 

A. Yes, it was. 

Q. Was race the sole factor? 

A. No, it was not. 

Mr. Farr: Objection. 

Judge Phillips: Overruled. 

A. No, it was not. There were a number of other factors 

that I discussed, chords of existing districts, presuming the 

opportunities of incumbent congressmen to be reelected, 

accommodating concerns of individual legislators, members of 

Congress, committee chairs, other things that I covered in my 

testimony already. 

Q. Does that include the urban/rural analysis? 

A. Yes, and including the keeping the 1st and 12th District, 

one very urban in nature and the other very rural in nature. 

 



  

5ja 

hid *x 

[420] Q. Q. Mr. Cohen, I think you testified yesterday 

that when drafting what became Chapter 7, that one of your 

jobs was not to screw Republicans? 

A. Yes. 

[*421] Q. Isn't it true, Mr. Cohen, one of your other jobs 

was to make sure you protected the incumbent Democratic 

congressmen? 

A. Yes. 

Q. And Mr. Cohen, if the Republicans ended up getting 

screwed a little along the way, you wouldn't lose your job; is 

that correct? 

Ms. Smiley: Objection to the form of the question. 

Judge Phillips: Overruled. 

A. My objective in protecting incumbent Democratic 

congressmen was to try to preserve — my understanding was to 

preserve the general partisan balance of the delegation as it 

existed in the 1980's, not shift it dramatically one way or the 

other, as various different alternatives might have done. 

* % % 

[¥466] Q. And in your view, Mr. Cohen, in the enacted 

plan, would you describe District 1 and District 12 as being 

geographically compact? 

A. Well, my definition of geographical includes political, 

economic geography. Geography, in my view, is not just maps; 

it includes the entire totality of the political process. 

Geography isn't just county names. 

 



  

6ja | 

From the context of — you asked me about the 1st and 

12th in the enacted plan or just the first- 

Q. Ist and 12th? 

A. I believe, from the context of political geography, 

communities of interest, commonalities of interest, that those 

districts are, in fact, compact because they put together persons 

with commonalities of interest with common history, common 

factors, tying different parts of the districts together. 

% % % 

[*468] Q. You prepared a statement in that submission; 

Gingles requires a district be geographically compact in order 

to satisfy one of the prongs of the initial test? 

A. Yes. 

Q. When you made that statement, Mr. Cohen, were you 

using compactness to mean geographically compact or the 

definition of compactness that you just gave us a few minutes 

ago? 

A. I was dealing with my definition of compactness as I 

knew from alternative plans that I had seen at that point in time, 

which included through the Balmer 8.1 Plan, but didn't include 

the enacted plans. 

I believe at that point, in commenting there, I was 

commenting on geographical compactness more in the lines of 

the map making sense. 

[*469] Q. Okay. And, Mr. Cohen, would you agree that 

there are situations where minority districts cannot be drawn 

because the majority population is geographically dispersed? 

 



  

7ja 

A I don't think that it's geographical dispersion. My view 

at this point about compactness is that geographical dispersion 

does not have an absolute, at least insofar as it's been crossed 

by Chapter 7. 

Q. Could you please turn to page twenty-nine of Exhibit 

425? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is it fair to say on page twenty-nine you were 

responding to a comment that the ACLU made about 

Legislative Districts? 

A. Yes. 

0. Did you not say that another district couldn't be drawn 

because black population was geographically dispersed? 

A. I think there's a difference between standard of 

compactness that I would apply in the state Legislative Districts 

and Congressional Districts because of the, you know, part time 

nature of legislators, the absence of any staff, as opposed to 

Congressional Districts where members of Congress have far 

different resources at their behest and abilities to 

communication through different parts of [*470] their district. 

* % % 

[*470] Q. Mr. Cohen, I think when we broke up I asked 

you a question; I think you gave the explanation. I would 

like to-ask you again. 

A. All right. 

Q. Do you not agree there were circumstances where the 

geographic — the dispersion of the population concentrations 

preclude — exclude the creation of majority minority district? 

 



  

8ja 

A. Yes. There are situations where geography could be a 

deciding factor in that. 

Q. Okay. And don't you also agree, as you understand 

the voting rights act, that act did not require the state to stitch 

together geographically dispersed black population centers? 

A. I agree with that; although, as I have said, my 

definition of geographical compactness includes the 

communities as compact if they share commonalities of 

interest. So, yes, I still agree with that statement. 

*%® 

[488] Q. We have Exhibit 302 up here, Mr. Cohen. 

This is a map of the enacted plan? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Would you agree that District 1 and District 12 are 

materially stranger in appearance than at least some of the 

other districts in Chapter 7? 

A. From the context of compactness that I have used, 

including commonalities of interest and communities of 

interest. I think those two districts and the 4th District are 

the most compact in the state in terms of political 

communities. 

Q. That wasn't the question I asked you. 

A. I answered the opposite way. No, it's not the least 

compact. 

Q. Let me ask it again. I'm not sure what your answer 

was. My question was, do you agree that the 1st and 12" 

Districts are materially stranger in appearance on that map 

 



  

9ja 

than at least some of the other districts as reflected on the 

map? 

A. Materially stranger in appearance, yes. I agree that 

[*489] it is materially stranger in appearance, yes. 

[497] Q. All right. Mr. Cohen, I now want to ask you 

about the chronology of events related to the objection letter 

that was received related to Chapter 601? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Is it not true that you attended a meeting with the 

Justice Department officials on December 17, 1991, in 

Washington, D.C.? 

A. Yes, it 1s true. 

[498] Q. And Senator Winner, Speaker Blue, 

Representative Fitch were present at that meeting with you? 

A. Yes. 

Q. John Dunne, at that point in time, hope I get his title 

right. Was he the Assistant Attorney General for Civil 

Rights? 

A. I'm not sure of his title. 

Q. Did you get the impression he was in charge of the 

Voting Rights Section for the Justice Department? 

A. I got the impression he was making the decision. On 

the title, whatever title you have to have to do that. 

Q. Since the general population of North Carolina was 

23 to 24 percent black, it would be fair to have two majority 

minority districts? 

 



  

10ja 

A. He posed it as a question to us. I recall his words 

were, North Carolina is about 23 or 24 percent black and the 

plan you submit to us, only one out of the 12 districts or 

eight percent are black. Don't you think it would be more 

fair to have two. That it would more roughly reflect the 

state's population. I recall him asking that as a question, 

which is more or less of the same as to what you said. 

[*543] Q. Mr. Cohen, you spoke of creating a rural 

district and an urban district? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. You meant a rural black and urban black; is that 

correct? 

[544] A. Yes. 

 



  

From: "Internet Help@smb.com" <Internet_Help@smb.com> 

To: <dblack@mail jus.state.nc.us> 
Date: 8/2/00 2:38pm 

Subject: Salomon Smith Barney Access 

Dear Salomon Smith Barney Access(sm) Guest, 

Thank you for visiting Salomon Smith Barney Access and for registering on our site. We hope you are enjoying 

the variety of interactive features and timely investment information that is now available to you as our Guest. For 

your convenience, we've included your Username, Password and confirmation key below. 

User Name: DavidRoyBlackwe 

Password: bonanza 

Confirmation Key: 11126 

To confirm your registration, simply click on the "Enter Confirmation Key" button on the Registration page, 

www.smithbarney.com/cust_srv/reg , then enter your User Name and Password, and type in your Confirmation 
Key. If you still have not entered your Confirmation Key at the end of seven days, you will be prompted to enter it 

the next time you log on. 

At Salomon Smith Barney we know that investor satisfaction begins with superior client service. That's why we 
will continue to use the latest technologies to develop new services for our clients. We invite you to take our site 
tour, located at www.smithbarney.com/abt_sb/tour/homepage/tour.html and discover some of these features for 

yourself. 

We believe that our online service enhances the collaborative and personal relationship that our clients have with 
their Financial Consultants. As a Salomon Smith Barney client you will be able to monitor and track your 

investment portfolio and activities, follow the latest news stories and selected Salomon Smith Barney research, as 

well as e-mail your Financial Consultant - all from one convenient location: www.smithbarney.com. 

If you would like further information, or to contact a Salomon Smith Barney Branch Manager, please use the 
Branch Locator at www.smithbarney.com/abt_sb/brnchloc.html to find our office nearest you. 

We welcome your comments and inquiries and look forward to your next visit to www.smithbarney.com. 

Sincerely, 

Stephen A. Clifford 

Senior Vice President 

Salomon Smith Barney 

Salomon Smith Barney and Salomon Smith Barney Access are service marks of Smith Barney Inc. The services 

and products referenced in the "About Salomon Smith Barney" site are provided by Smith Barney Inc. and 

Salomon Brothers Inc. 

 



  

From: Denise Mazza 

To: AJERN 

Date: 8/2/00 3:08pm 
Subject: Giampa - Order allowing intervention 

[8/2/00] | checked with the clerk and the judge's office. The order has not been signed. | will follow up on 

Friday. 

CC: TMOFFITT 

 



  

4ja 

Q. And did you become familiar with the political 

registration and political performance of different precincts in 

Guilford County? 

A. Yes, in a general sense, as far as specific statistics per 

precinct and that sort of thing. I could not recite those, but in 

terms of general knowledge and performance, voter 

registration, yes, Sir. 

* & % 

[255] Q. Mr. Wood, from looking at the map and your 

general knowledge in High Point there, there's a concentration 

of African Americans and in Greensboro there'sa concentration 

and otherwise the population of Guilford [*56] County is 

mostly white? 

A. Yes. In general terms, I think that's correct. Those two 

areas on the map though represent the heavy concentration of 

the African American voters in Guilford County, that's correct. 

Q. Now, for the map and your personal observations and 

knowledge of the precincts and the population there in Guilford 

County, could you state whether you formed an opinion as to 

the predominate voters of the General Assembly for drawing 

the boundaries that were drawn in the 12th District? 

Ms. Harrell: Objection. 

A. Repeat the question. 

0. Absolutely. I asked whether from the map from your 

personal observation and your knowledge of the precincts there 

in Guilford County, could you state whether you formed an 

opinion as to the predominant motive of the General Assembly 

   



  

5ja 

for drawing the boundaries of the 12th District in Guilford 

County as they were drawn? 

A. In Guilford County, yes, I have. 

Q. What is that opinion? 

A. Well, my opinion is that -- 

Judge Voorhees: Wait just a minute. 

Mr. Everett: Your Honor, my colleague says on your 

maps there is a red line over on that side. 

[*57] Judge Voorhees: Repose that question. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q. Okay. From the map, from your personal observations 

and your knowledge of the precincts there in Guilford County, 

could you state whether you have formed an opinion as to the 

predominant motive of the General Assembly for drawing the 

boundaries of the 12th District in Guilford County as they were 

drawn? 

Ms. Harrell: Renew our objection for the record. 

Judge Thornburg: Overruled. 

A. Yes, I have formed an opinion. 

Q. What is that opinion? 

A. My opinion is that they were included in the 12th 

District to encompass certain of those clusters; those two 

clusters of votes in the High Point area and the Greensboroarea 

to include those in the 12th District. 

Q. Was it your opinion then the predominate motive was 

racial? 

A. Yes, it is. 

Q. In the 1997 Plan, there were five other counties in 

addition to Guilford County, and I ask you whether you are 

 



  

6ja 

familiar with those other counties and the way they were 

divided in the 1997 Plan? 

A. I'm familiar with them, obviously not as familiar as 

[*58] I am with Guilford County, but somewhat familiar with 

those other counties. 

Q. Were those -- did you at some point run for the 

Congress? 

A. I did. 

Q. And in what district did you run and when? 

A. I ran in the 12th District in the Republican primary in 

the 12th District in 1998. 

Q. And did the 12th District, as that's constituted, consist 

of the five other counties besides Guilford County that were 

included in the 1997 Plan? 

A. Yes, as I recall that's correct. 

Q. So Forsyth, Davidson, Rowan, Mecklenburg -- and 

Mecklenburg, Iredell, Rowan, Davidson, Forsyth, they were 

included? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. Now, with respect to the 1997 Plan, and the dispersion 

or the allocation of the precincts, could you state whether you 

formed an opinion, from your observations of the precincts and 

these other five counties from the map and from the discussions 

that preceded the drawing of the enactment of the 1997 Plan, 

did you form an opinion as to the predominate motive for the 

division of the other five counties as they were drawn in the 

1997 Plan? 

[*59] A. Yes, I did form an opinion. 

Ms. Harrell: Objection. Could we have a standing 

objection to the testimony about opinions as to the predominate 

 



Tia 

motive and grounds? It is opinion without adequate 

foundation. 

Judge Thornburg: I'm not offended by your making it. 

You just go ahead. That's no problem. 

Ms. Harrell: Whichever way the Court prefers. 

Judge Thornburg: Just go right ahead. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q. What was that opinion? 

A. My opinion is that it was drawn to maximize to the 

fullest extent possible and include as many of those African 

American votes in those counties as possible. 

Q. [s it your opinion that was a predominate move? 

A. YY: 

Ms. Harrell: Objection. 

Judge Thornburg: Overruled. 

Q. Now, why did you run for Congress in the 12th District 

when you are no longer a resident of that district? 

A. Well, in the original -- I say the original 12th District, 

as constituted in the '98 Plan, prior to that time it included some 

portions of my House District so it gave me a basis upon which 

to consider running for that [60] House -- that congressional 

seat at that time. 

Q. Did you have occasion while you were serving there 

Pro Tem in 1997 to hear discussions about the First District in 

the northeastern part of the State? 

Ms. Harrell: Objection, hearsay, unless there's some 

particular identification as to what kind of discussion and its 

relevance. 

Mr. Everett: Let me rephrase that then. 

By Mr. Everett:  



  

8ja 

Q. Do you recall whether in connection with the drawing 

of the First District there was discussion in the General 

Assembly concerning preclearance and approval by the 

Department of Justice? 

Ms. Harrell: Objection, hearsay, no foundation, 

relevance. 

Judge Thornburg: Go ahead. Overruled. 

A. Well, yes, I do recall that in general that the feeling was 

that -- 

Judge Thornburg: Well, sustained. Sustained. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q. From your campaigning and your participation in the 

electoral process, have you formed an opinion to the extent to 

which African American voters in Guilford County voted for 

Democratic candidates versus Republican candidates? 

[*61] A. Yes, I have formed an opinion. 

Q, What is that opinion? 

A. My opinion is that overwhelming, predominately the 

votes are for Democratic candidates as opposed to Republican 

candidates. 

Q. Have you formed an opinion as to the extent to which 

the percentage of registered African American voters who vote 

for Democratic candidate increases if the candidate is an 

African American? 

A. I have an opinion and it is yes, that's true. 

Q. What is your opinion? 

A. It is my opinion that they vote predominately for 

Democratic candidates. 

Q. Now, from your campaigning and your participation in 

the electoral process, have you formed an opinion to the extent 

 



  

9ja 

to which, in North Carolina State, African Americans who are 

voting vote for Democratic candidates against Republican 

candidates? 

A. I have. 

Q. What is that opinion? 

A. Is that they vote overwhelmingly in favor of 

Democratic candidates based upon my observation of the 

voting performance. 

Q. Could you state whether you have an opinion as to 

whether the percentage of registered African Americans who 

[62] vote for Democratic candidate increases if the 

Democratic candidate is African American? 

A. It is my opinion, from my own research and 

observation, the trend is they vote, the turn-out is heavier and 

stronger. 

[¥62] Q. Representative Wood, have a few questions for 

you. I believe you said you were Speaker Pro Tem in 1997; is 

that right? 

A. In the ‘97, ‘98 session, that's correct. 

Q. Okay. And you are a Republican yourself; is that right? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. And do you recall what the division between 

Republicans and Democrats in the House was in 1997? 

A. Are you referring to the North Carolina House itself, of 

121 members in the North Carolina House? 

Q. Right. 

A. Yes, 1 do. 

 



  

10ja 

Q. What was that division? 

A. There were 61 Republicans and 59 Democrats, as I 

recall. 

Q. Okay. And isn't it true that you were elected Pro 

[¥63] Tem with a vote of 58 Democrats and only 3 

Republicans? 

A. That is true. 

Q. And isn't it also true that after that you were excluded 

from the Republican caucus? 

A. That is not true relative to the 1997, ‘98 session, no. 

Q. It is not true? 

A. No. 

Q. And isn't it true that as Speaker Pro Tem you were not 

assigned to preside over the House and rule the gavel, so forth, 

by the Speaker at any time that session? 

A. That is true. 

Q. And when you ran for Congress in 1998, do you recall 

how many Republican candidates there were in the primary? 

A. There were a whole lot, it seems to me, five or six. I 

think, more specifically, I think five or six at least. 

Q. And is it consistent with your memory out of six 

Republican candidates you came in fifth? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. And that is it also true that you received 800 votes out 

of more than 12,000? 

A. I think that's correct, around 7 percent. I didn't do well 

as I hoped to. 

Q. So there were other candidates in the primary who were 

selected by most of the voters that voted in the [*64] primary 

and you were not one of them; is that right? 

 



  

11ja 

A. Well, I finished fifth in the primary elections, that's 

correct. 

Q. Now, as Speaker Pro Tem, officially you were an 

exficio member of all House committees at that time; is that 

right? 

A. That's right. 

Q. And if the minutes that are in the record as stipulated 

exhibits show that there were four House committee meetings 

in 1997 involving redistricting and that you only attended one 

of them, would that be true? Do you deny that? 

A. I don't recall if I attended all of the meetings. That may 

be correct. 

Q. Okay. And you didn't speak at that meeting either, did 

you or do you recall? 

A. I don't recall if I spoke at the specific meeting to which 

you refer about. 

Q. You wouldn't dispute the minutes on that basis, would 

you? 

A. Not from what I recall at this moment, no. 

Xx 

[*64] Q. Well, then 58 out of what, 59 Democrats voted 

for you [*65] to be the Speaker Pro Tem? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. So you had a good relationship with the Democrats? 

A. I would like to think so, yes, sir. 

Q. You knew pretty well why they were doing things such 

as redistricting, didn't you? 

A. Yes, sir, I did. 

 



  

12ja 

Q. And is your testimony, as to the predominate motive, 

take that into account what you picked up from Republicans 

and Democrats? 

Ms. Harrell: Objection. 

Judge Thornburg: Overruled. 

A. Yes. 

Q. When you ran, you ran under the '98 Plan? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. And that was one for which your home county had been 

cut out? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. By the way, if you saw a document that refers to the 

Greensboro black community, would you be able to identify 

what that Greensboro black community is? 

A. You say if | saw a document if -- 

Q. Let's see an e-mail which refers to the Greensboro black 

community being placed in the 12th District or removed from 

the 12th District? 

[¥66] A. If you mean in a geographic and demographic 

context, yes, I think -- yes, I believe I could. 

Q. Do you think you could go to Greensboro and find and 

identify where that Greensboro black community was located? 

A. Yes. 

 



DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS OF GERALD R. 

WEBSTER, PHD 

[*49] In your report did you compare the compactness of the 

North Carolina districts in the ‘97 plan to the compactness of 

the North Carolina districts in the plan that resulted after the 

1980s round of redistricting? 

A No, sir. 

Q Why not? 

A One, I am not sure it Is as relevant as comparing them 

to the “92 distncts, and — 

Q (interposing) Relevant in a legal sense? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

[*30] Q Well, in what sense do you mean relevant? 

A In this particular circumstance, one, there was an 

increase of one district. That changes the system. Two, in 

terms of the continuity of representation, I think it should be 

based on the last plan. Three, the 1990s plan had a population 

disparity of 1.76 and therefore would have been found 

unconstitutional in 1992 in any case. 

Q The 1980s plan? 

A Yes, sir. And therefore, is the 1980s plan the most 

relevant given that it was unconstitutional, given its population 

disparities. 

[*79] Q You are not prepared to say that there is even 

one possible African American majority district? 

A In the “97 plan, if 1 recall, but again, I don’t have my 

report in front of me, I believe the 1% District was less than 51 

percent African American but still slightly majority in terms of  



  

| lja 

DEPOSITION TRANSCRIPT EXCERPTS OF GERALD R. 

WEBSTER, PHD 

[*44] Q All right. Well, regardless of what you said, I 

am still curious as to whether you think Shaw as originally 

decided was wrongly decided. And not to be difficult, but I do 

believe this partakes of a yes or no answer. 

A I am an academic, and rarely is anything yes or no. 

Q I am a lawyer, and everything is yes or no. 

Ms. Smiley: The witness has answered the question 

and you are entitled to explain the answer. 

Mr. Popper: 1 apologize for arguing; I apologize. 

Ms. Smiley: You may have distracted the witness, 

‘Mr. Popper. 

A I believe the patterns of interaction are a wonderful 

basis on which to delineate a district, and therefore a 

[*45] freeway system is a wonderful basis on which to 

delineate a district. Whether or not the 12th was a racial 

gerrymander I don’t know. But I don’t take exception as a 

political geographer to the delineation of the district focusing 

on transportation routes. 

Q You have read that decision all the way through, 

haven’t you? 

A In 1993 I believe so, quite some time ago. 

Q If you were a Supreme Court justice would you have 

sided with the majority or minority? 

A I likely would have sided with the minority because I do 

believe that the state legislature of each state has an overriding 

right to delineate districts in the way that they see fit. 

 



  

2ja 

[*46] Q Would you have sided with the majority or 

minority in Miller v. Johnson? 

A I do not specifically recall the levels of compactness of 

the 11th District, but I likely would have sided with the 

minority. 

Q Would the same probably be true for Shaw v. Hunt and 

Bush v. Vera? 

A I hate to use the word “probably”, but I believe 

probably if I went back and looked at the evidence that I likely 

would have sided with the minority. 

* %% 

[¥49] In your report did you compare the compactness of the 

North Carolina districts in the ‘97 plan to the compactness of 

the North Carolina districts in the plan that resulted after the 

1980s round of redistricting? 

A No, sir. 

Q Why not? 

A One, I am not sure it is as relevant as comparing them 

to the ‘92 districts, and — 

Q (interposing) Relevant in a legal sense? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the form of the question. 

[¥50] Q Well, in what sense do you mean relevant? 

A In this particular circumstance, one, there was an 

increase of one district. That changes the system. Two, in 

terms of the continuity of representation, I think it should be 

based on the last plan. Three, the 1990s plan had a population 

 



  

3ja 

disparity of 1.76 and therefore would have been found 

unconstitutional in 1992 in any case. 

Q The 1980s plan? 

A Yes, sir. And therefore, is the 1980s plan the most 

relevant given that it was unconstitutional, given its population 

disparities. 

* x *% 

[791 Q You are not prepared to say that there is even 

one possible African American majority district? 

A In the ‘97 plan, if I recall, but again, I don’t have my 

report in front of me, I believe the 1st District was less than 

51 percent African American but still slightly majority in terms 

of its African American total population. Both of [*80] its 

compactness indices were above benchmark minimal levels. I 

suspect I could based on those two elements conclude that in 

general, yes, there is in the area of the 1st. 

Q There may be numerically sufficient numbers to 

constitute a majority, but my question is do you have an 

opinion about whether a reasonably geographically compact 

district could be drawn in North Carolina that encompasses 

such a majority? 

Ms. Smiley: Object to the question; asked and 

answered. You can go ahead and repeat your answer. 

A I did compactness indices, of course, for ‘92 and the “97 

plans’ district--districts. I don’t have my report in front of me, 

so I can’t look at those coefficients to confirm how far about 

the benchmarks for low compactness. 

 



  

4ja 

But given the fact that a district was delineated, given 

the fact that it is slightly majority African American, and given 

the fact that its compactness indices are above the minimum 

levels, I think I could conclude that there is a sufficiently 

geographically compact African American population in that 

part of the state that could be the core of a district. 

Q Do you believe that the measuring unit in constructing 

what I shall call a Gingles district is voting age population or 

total population or registered voting population? 

A This is, of course, an issue that political scientists [*81] 

debate actively. Political geographers, on the other hand, we 

have not debated it to any great degree. 

Though many would argue that voting age population 

is critical, and I understand that logic implicitly, it does seem 

to me that regardless of whether one is 6 months old or 

80 years old, one is still entitled to representation even though 

one can’t vote. Hence, I think in terms of my reading, the first 

place one ought to look is total population. 

 



® &-: 5460; aua-1-offlp:a2; S PAGE 7 

    

   

  

lia 

EXCERPTS OF TRIAL TESTIMONY OF DAN FREY 

    

     

    

   

  

      

£121] By Mr. McGee: 

ou stated there are 26 minor -- 26 pre€incts in 

ican Americans make up the i 

A. Right, 
0. Of those 26, haw many/are in District 127 . y 

e' No further questions. Judge \ 

5 ( back at 2:10. JK Js 

< (Lunch recess taken ) 

J homburg: All right. Plaintiffs may Mii gs : 

J eee 

4 & ¥ Mr. Markham: The plaintiffs call Dan Frey. 

4 Dan Frey, being first duly sworn, testified as follows Wd er 

~ During direct examination: V4 ; 

Q By Mr. Markham: > J 

Mr. Frey, state your name, please. 

Dan Frey. 

And can you tell us who's your employer? 

My employer is the north carolina general assembly. 

What's your position? 

|*122]A. 1 work in the information systems division. 1 work 

specifically with the computer systems for redistricting and 

geographic information systems in general. 

How long have you held that position? 

Since August of 1993. 

Are you here today pursuant to a subpoena’ 

Yes. 

And did you know before that you were going to be 

  

    

  

  

L
P
R
»
 

o
i
r
 

Na
s 

 



   

  

4 

SENT BY: ; RS @- 5460; we yo:ao; @ PAGE 10/14 

1 

TRIAL TESTIMONY EXCERPTS OF MR. STEIN 

[*595] Let me just say one thing about this and that's all I will 

say about the 12th, unless anybody has any question about the 

First. Ms. Smiley covered our position. T wanted to make clear 

that when my clients, some of my clients go back to the Gingles 

case, in fact Ralph Gingles |*596] was an Intervenor in the 

Hunt case -- in the Shaw case, and then when this case started 

he didn't intervene because Gastonia was out. Gaston County 
was out of th€12th District but some of the other people did 

intervene. Their position all along is, and once we understood 

the law after haw versus Hunt, that there couldn't be -- there 

was not a bagis for majority\minority district in the 12th. 

    

 



  

   SENT BY: ; ® @- 5460; wo. -ofye:s3; @) PAGE 12/14 

    

g 

the Senate? 

A. [ don't recall. 1 very well may have, but I can't tell you 

yes or no. 

xi % : 

[*45] Q. Isn't it true in Forsythe ty there are so) 

precincts where the voting day resu higher in some 

elections, higher votes for Republicans than the Repubhcans 

     

  

registration? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But there are precincts with majority of Democratic 

registration where Republicans sometimes prevail? 

A I think that's true all over the state. 

 



  

8ja 

Q. Did you speak at any public hearings about the plan? 

A. No, I did not. 

Q. Speak on the floor of the Senate about the plans before 

the Senate? 

A. I don't recall. I very well may have, but I can't tell you 

yes or no. 

% % % 

* % % 

[*45] Q. Isn't it true in Forsythe County there are 

precincts where the voting day results show higher in some 

elections, higher votes for Republicans than the Republicans 

registration? 

A. Yes, sir. 

Q. But there are precincts with majority of Democratic 

registration where Republicans sometimes prevail? 

A. I think that's true all over the State. 

 



; i [I 5460; wo -ofp:aa; @ PAGE 14/14 

  

enhance the preclearance process if we had one minority 

Ns majority district. 

®* eR 

[#46] Q Let's say, for example, in the floor debate on 

March 26 you speak of trying to agree upon a plan based on 

geographic compactness, racial fairness. What is racial fairness 

to you in that context? What do you mean?ask you 

SM : 

another question. In some of your statements you 

have referred to racial fairness. What do you mean by racial 

fairness? 

Ms. Harrell: I am going to object unless you 

want to put it in context, 

Mr. Everett: Okay; sure. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q Let's say, for example, in the floor debate on March 26 

you speak of trying to agree upon a plan based on geo-graphic 

compactness, racial fairness. What is racial fairness to you in 

that context? What do you mean? 

[*47] A Well, again, that the members of the minority 

race would be adequately represented. 

Q And in construing what is adequate representation, does 

that involve the race of the persons who are doing the--who are 

the representatives? 

Ms. Harrell: Object to the form of the question. If 

you can understand and answer that question, go ahead. 

A Certainly District 12, you know, was represented by a 

minority and he was an incumbent. And you know, that 

 



  

Tja 

compact. And then looking at the other district, of course, then 

it was to my judgment that it not necessarily [*41] did not need 

to be majority minority, and that was not in any way the 

primary factor for 12. 

Q So then was it your belief that if you had a plan that did 

not have a majority minority or majority black district in the 

northeastern part of the state, it would not receive preclearance 

and all effort would be wasted? : 

A We certainly--we understood we needed to get 

preclearance, and that was a factor certainly in getting that. 

Whether it would be totally denied, I did not know for sure 

until the Justice Department acted, but certainly felt that it 

would enhance the preclearance process if we had one minority 

majority district. 

* % % 

[*46] Q Now, there came a time when you-- well, let me 

first ask you another question. In some of your statements you 

have referred to racial fairness. What do you mean by racial 

fairness? 

Ms. Harrell: Iam going to object unless you want to 

put it in context. 

Mr. Everett: Okay; sure. 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q Let's say, for example, in the floor debate on March 26 

you speak of trying to agree upon a plan based on geographic 

compactness, racial fairness. What is racial fairness to you in 

that context? What do you mean? 

 



  

jis! SARIS oi Pood 

1 

TRIAL TESTIMONY EXCERPTS OF STEVEN RAY WOOD 

[*62] Q. Representative Wood, I have a few Gsetions for 

you. 1 believe you said you were Speaker Pro Tem m 1997, IS 

that right? 

A Inthe “97, ‘98 session, that's correct. 

Q. Okay. And you are a Republican yourself; is that right? 

A. That's correct. 

Q. And do you recall what the division between 

Republicans and Democrats in the House was in 19977 

A. Are you referring to the North Carolina House itself, of 

121 members in the North Carolina House? 

Q. Right. 

A. Yes, 1 do. 

Q. What was that division? 

A There were 61 Republicans and 59 Democrats, as 1 

recall. 

Q. Okay. And isnt it true that you were elected Pro 

[#63] Tem with a vote of 58 Democrats and only 3 

Republicans? 

A That is true. 

Q. And isn't it also true that after that you were excluded 

from the Republican caucus? 

A. That is not true relative to the 1997, ‘98 §¢Ss10n, NO. 

Q. It is not true? 

A, No. 

Q.  Andisn't it true that as Speaker Pro Tem you were not 

assigned to preside over the House and rule the gavel, so forth, 

by the speaker at any time that session? 

A That is true. 

Q. And when you ran for Congress in 1998, do you recall 

how many Republican candidates there were in the primary? 

 



  

lja 

TRIAL TESTIMONY EXCERPTS OF STEVEN RAY WOOD 

[48] Mr. Everett: We call -- Your Honor, the plaintiff calls 

Steve Wood. 

Steven Ray Wood, being first affirmed, testified as follows 

during Direct Examination: 

By Mr. Everett: 

Q. Please state your name and residence. 

A. Steven Ray Wood, 1221 North Main Street in High 

Point 

Q. How long have you resided in High Point? 

A. Since 1978. 

Q. That's in Guilford County? 

A. Yes, sir, that's correct. 

Q. What business or occupation are you in? 

A. I'm a minister and educator and also a singer and song 

writer. 

Q. What sort of education do you have for your particular 

business? 

A. I'm a college graduate. Graduated from John Wesley 

College there in High Point. Also graduate of Edgeburg 

College, Masters Degree in History at the University of North 

Carolina Greensboro. Masters of Divinity Degree of Houston, 

Graduate School of Theology, Houston, Texas, and Doctorate 

at Lutheran Center. 

Q, Have you ever served in the General Assembly of North 

[*49] Carolina and, if so, at what time? 

A. Yes, sir. I served one term in the 1985 session, was 

involuntarily -- did not serve that next term, but came back in 

1988 and served in the House since that time. And then my 

seventh term now. 

 



2ja 

Q. During your service in the General Assembly from what 

district were you elected, what county or cities are in that 

district? 

A. Initially I was elected from House District 28, which 

was comprised exclusively of some two member district 

precincts in Guilford County. Since 1992, I served in House 

District 27, which includes parts of Guilford and parts of 

Davidson County. | 

Q. What's your political party? 

A. Republican. 

Q. Now, in the 1997 House of Representatives for the 

General Assembly, state whether you held any office or 

position and, if so, what that was? 

A. In 1997 session? 

Q. Right. 

A. Yes. I was a member of the House and also served as 

Speaker Pro Tem of the House that session. 

Q. State whether or not you had any committee 

memberships. 

A. As Speaker Pro Tem under the House rules I served as 

[*50] a member of each committee of the House. 

Q. While serving the General Assembly in 1997 and '98, 

please state whether or not you followed closely the 

development of one or more of the congressional redistricting 

plans. 

A. Well, I followed it as closely as I could. As you know, 

the general public and most folks who followed that, became a 

little confusing after awhile with all the plans, but I did try to 

follow it closely. Yes.  



  

3ja 

Q. Did you have any individual reasons somewhat unique 

to you for following the development of the congressional 

redistricting plan? 

A. Well, I did. I had interest in possibly running for 

Congress in one of those, depending on how the redistricting 

took place, so I had some interest from that standpoint 

certainly. 

0 And did you, in fact, at a later time run for Congress? 

A. Yes, I did. 

Q. Now, before the General Assembly enacted a 

redistricting plan at the end of March 1997 to replace the 1992 

Plan that the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional, did you 

hear a debate and discussion about the plan on the floor of the 

House of Representatives and among the members of the 

General [*51] Assembly? 

A. Yes, I did. 

Q. And did you participate in the discussions in that regard 

before the 1997 Plan? You talked to others as to the plan? 

A. Yes. 

Q. Now, let me ask you this: in the course of your service 

in the General Assembly, and in campaigning for election to 

the General Assembly, have you become familiar with the 

precincts in Guilford County? 

A. Yes, I have a good general knowledge of the nature of 

precincts in Guilford County. 

Q. As part of the process of becoming familiar with 

different precincts in Guilford County, did you become familiar 

with their racial composition? 

A. Yes.