Letter to Lavender from Wentz RE: Billing of parties for Litigation Expense

    State of North Carolina 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY Department of Justice 

ATTORNEY GENERAL : P. O. BOX 629 REPLY TO: Tiare B. Smiley 

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

FAX: (919) 716-6763 

December 6, 1999 

BY FACSIMILE AND U. S. MAIL 

Mr. Robert N. Hunter, Jr. 

Hunter, Johnston, Elam & Benjamin, PLLC 

822 North Elm Street, Suite 200 

Greensboro, North Carolina 27401 

Re: Proposed Brief of Amicus Curiae 

Dear Bob: 

We received a draft of your proposed amicus curiae brief in Cromartie by facsimile today. 

Although some of the briefs illegible and we have been seeking a retransmission of the document, 

it is clear that the import of the brief is not consistent with our understanding of the Republican 

congresspersons’ position in this case. Defendants did not oppose the amicus motion based on your 

representation that the congresspersons wished to appear in support of the constitutionality of the 

1997 Plan. By contrast, your proposed brief at best implies a concession of the unconstitutionality 

of one or both of the challenged congressional districts. The brief needs to take a clear position on 

the merits supporting the constitutionality of the 1997 Plan before addressing the issue of remedy. 

Furthermore, to the extent you previously represented an interest in presenting the 

congresspersons’ views on remedy, it was never the State defendants’ understanding when consent 

to proceed as amicus was given that the Republican delegation would take the position that in the 

event a constitutional defect is found that redistricting should not be returned to the General 

Assembly. Nor is it accurate to say that this representative of the Attorney General’s Office was 

expressing reluctance on the part of the General Assembly to fulfill its duty to enact a redistricting 

plan if called upon to do so. Finally, the defendants know of no support anywhere in the law for your 

suggestion that the court should retain jurisdictionto pass judgment on the General Assembly’s2001 

redistricting. 

 



  

Mr. Robert N. Hunter, Jr. 

December 6, 1999 

Page 2 

The State defendants and this office strongly urge you to reconsider the content and 

implications of the amicus curiae brief as now written to make clear that the Republican 

congresspersons support the constitutionality of the 1997 Plan on the merits and also to refrain from 

asking the court to usurp the legislature’s redistricting authority. 

Sincerel ly. 

  

lare £4 dee 15 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

TBS/fa 

CC: Adam Stein 

Todd Cox