Plaintiffs' Response to Defendants' and Defendant-Intervenors' First Set of Interrogatories to Plaintiffs

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

‘WESTERN DIVISION 

Civil Action No. 4-96-CV-104-BO(3) 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, et al., ) 

) 
Plaintiffs, ) 

) 
v. ) 

) 
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. in his official ) 

capacity as Governor of the State of North ) PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO 

Carolina, et al., ) DEFENDANTS’ AND DEFENDANT- 

) INTERVENORS’ FIRST SET 

Defendants, ) OF INTERROGATORIES 

) TO PLAINTIFFS 

and ) (Rule 33, F.R.Civ.P.) 

) 
ALFRED SMALLWOOD, et al, ) 

) 
Defendant-Intervenors. ) 

PLAINTIFFS MARTIN CROMARTIE, THOMAS CHANDLER MUSE, LOIS WEAVER, 

JOEL K. BOURNE, R. O. EVERETT, J. H. FROELICH, and JAMES RONALD LINVILLE 

respond as follows: 

INTERROGATORIES 

1. Identify and describe all congressional redistricting plans, regardless of whether they 

were presented to the General Assembly, developed by an outside organization, or are 

merely ones that you have thought of, that you contend the General Assembly could 

have lawfully enacted. 

 



  

Adjusted if necessary for equal population requirements, the plan of Charlotte Observer 

reporter Jim Morrill (Charlotte Observer, Section 1, Page 1, June 30, 1996) appears to not violate 

the principles of Shaw v. Reno and other similar cases. Except for certain county and city splits, the 

1991 plan proposed by the League of Women Voters and presented to the General Assembly would 

likely comply with Shaw v. Reno. In reality there are many other combinations of districts that might 

have been created and that would not be primarily race-based and would comply with the equal 

population Seine However, this could not be accomplished as long as the General Assembly 

sought to preserve the cores of districts in the 1992 plan and started from an unconstitutional 

baseline. Some illustrations of more appropriate districts in concept are listed in Response to Request 

for Production #4. 

2. For each plan identified in response to interrogatory 1, describe and explain whether you 

contend the plan 

(a) would have preserved the six to six Democratic/Republican balance in the 

congressional delegation; 

It 1s impossible to predict the outcome of elections with certainty. Indeed, the plan 

adopted did not preserve such a balance. (The Eighth Congressional District which shifted after the 

1998 election from a Democrat to Republican officeholder is identical in the 1997 plan under 

challenge and the actual plan used in the 1998 election.) However, the Charlotte Observer plan of Jim 

Morrill appears to respect the balance. 

 



(b) should have met preclearance requirements under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act; 

Yes, if those requirements were administered by the Civil Rights Division of 

the Department of Justice in accord with the law, rather than pursuant to a “maximization” policy not 

authorized by the Voting Rights Act. 

(c) would have complied with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act; and 

(d) would have protected the incumbents. 

It is impossible to predict the outcome of elections with certainty. All but two incumbents, 

who live on the same city block, would be able to seek re-election in separate districts under the 

Morrill plan, and District 10 would become an open seat. Plaintiffs understand the residence of 

former Congressman Rose to be within District 7 of the plan, but the residence of Mr. McIntyre to 

be outside this district containing much of the current District 7. The plan’s partisan data speak for 

themselves. 

3. If you contend that any of the districts in the 1997 Plan are bizarre or have grossly 

contorted shapes, 

(a) please define the standards, if any, you applied in determining whether a 

district is bizarre or has a grossly distorted shape;  



  

One element of whether a district is oddly shaped relates to compactness. The dispersion and 

perimeter measures of compactness are analyzed by Richard Pildes and Richard Niemi in their 1993 

Michigan Law Review article, which provides one group of standards by which districts can be 

measured. Also, the splitting of counties, cities and other political subdivisions is an indication of 

bizarreness and gross distortion of shape. Finally, the joining in a single district of different 

Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), television markets (DMA), and radio and newspaper markets 

is still another standard. 

A visual inspection, with or without a comparison between the shape of the districts and other 

districts of the same plan, and prior districts for the State of North Carolina, can also aid in 

determining if a district is bizarrely shaped. 

(b) please identify each such district and state in detail any and all facts upon 

which you base your contention that the district is bizarre or has a grossly 

distorted shape according to the standards in subparagraph (a) above. 

In rough order, Districts 12, 1, 3, 5, 9, and 6 are bizarrely shaped. The first two listed 

districts score low on the tests developed by Pildes and Niemi and fail the “eyeball test.” The bizarre 

shape of these two districts leads to the generally distorted shapes of districts 3, 5, 9, and 6. 

Furthermore, the splitting of political subdivisions along racial grounds in Districts 1 and 12 also 

causes the bizarre shape of the other districts. 

 



  

4. If you contend that either the First or Twelfth District is or embodies an 

unconstitutional racial gerrymander, explain why, as to each district, including any 

and all facts upon which you base your contention. 

Plaintiffs contend that both District 1 and District 12 are unconstitutional gerrymanders in 

which race predominates in their configurations. 

District 1 is bizarrely shaped and is not compact. It divides many political subdivisions, such 

as counties, cities and towns, by race. It was drawn, in part, in order to preserve the racial core and 

protect the incumbent of an unconstitutional district. Mr. Cohen has testified to a racial goal for the 

composition of the district. Rep. McMahan testified that he believed the Department of Justice would 

require the First District to be majority-minority in order to preclear the 1997 plan. No compelling 

interest exists under either Section 2 or 5 of the Voting Rights Act and even if such an interest could 

be imagined, the district does not match any imagined compelling interest. Rep. McMahan testified 

that a more compact First District could be drawn, but did not specifically identify such a district in 

his deposition. 

District 12 is also bizarrely shaped and is one of the very least compact congressional districts 

in the country. The circumstantial evidence of shape and demographics makes clear that race was 

the predominant motive in its configuration. It divides many political subdivisions, such as counties, 

cities and towns, by race. In fact, it contains no whole counties, unlike any other congressional 

district in the State. It splits six counties through which the district meanders to include nearly every 

precinct with an African American population which exceeds forty percent or more. The majority 

of the black citizens residing in the District are at the extremes of the district in Mecklenburg, Forsyth 

 



and Guilford counties, with a land bridge connecting these concentrations of African-Americans. 

The district is only one precinct wide in several locations because the General Assembly used these 

narrow corridors to connect the African-American populations at the extremes of the district. Except 

by reason of dividing Precinct 77 in Mecklenburg County, District 12 would have split District 9 into 

two parts. The District was also created, in part, to preserve the racial core of and protect an 

incumbent of an unconstitutional district. Mr. Cohen has testified to the addition of the “Greensboro 

black community” in the process of forming the district, and his e-mail to Senator Cooper reveals that 

he brought this action to his attention. 

In view of the circumstance that the legislative history taken as a whole-and including the 

history of the 1992 plan-and the extensive demographics and evidence obtained in the discovery 

process and otherwise support our contentions and that the facts related in the April, 1998 opinion 

of the district court also support the contention, Plaintiffs believe the foregoing recitals are adequate 

to answer the interrogatory. 

If you contend that alternative congressional district configurations that better protect 

the rights of citizens and voters in North Carolina were available to the General 

Assembly when it enacted the 1997 Plan, but were rejected, 

(a) please identify each redistricting plan which contains such alternative 

configurations; 

Plaintiffs submit that all plans which contained an equal number of citizens and which did not 

include districts that were predominately race-based would have better protected the rights of all  



  

citizens and voters in North Carolina. Plaintiffs do not have an interest in seeing that any particular 

constitutional plan be adopted. 

The Jim Morrill plan and the plan submitted by the League of Women Voters are among those 

that would have better protected the rights of voters and were not only available to the General 

Assembly, but also were specifically identified by the General Assembly at the hearings. However, 

if the General Assembly had not proceeded with a predominant racial motive an incalculable number 

of options would have been available for alternative congressional district configurations that better 

protect the constitutional rights of citizens and voters in North Carolina. 

(b) please identify the person or persons who requested that each such plan be 

drafted and all persons who participated in the development of each such plan. 

Plaintiffs did not submit a particular plan for review, other than to suggest that the 

Morrill plan was far superior to the 1997 plan. Plaintiffs are therefore not in a position to provide 

the information requested in this subsection other than to refer the Defendants to the public records 

in possession of the State concerning access to the General Assembly’s computer terminals. The 

Morrill plan for the Charlotte Observer was purportedly prepared by Mr. Morrill, a newspaper 

reporter, with assistance of members of the General Assembly staff and perhaps others from the 

newspaper. 

 



  

(©) please state in detail whether each such plan would have 

preserved the six to six Democratic/Republican balance in the 

congressional delegation, including any and all facts on which 

you base your statement; 

It is impossible to predict the outcome of elections with certainty. The 1998 plan’s 

District 8 did not preserve the 1996 partisan balance and was identical to the District 8 in the 1997 

plan, so the 1997 plan would not have preserved partisan balance in that sense. The political data and 

incumbent residence information is known better to the State than to Plaintiffs. Of course plaintiffs 

dispute any contention that racial gerrymanders may be justified if they happen to produce a particular 

partisan result. 

and (d) please state in detail whether each such plan would have protected the 

incumbents, including any and all facts on which you base your statement. 

It is impossible to predict the outcome of elections with certainty. Therefore, Plaintiffs are 

unable to answer this question. 

 



If you contend that the congressional districts in the 1997 Plan reflect an effort to 

segregate voters on the basis of race, please state in detail any and all facts upon 

which you base this contention and identify all persons who have knowledge about 

such facts. 

The answer given pursuant to Question 4 is incorporated herein by reference. 

If you contend that race conscious redistricting in North Carolina is not always 

unconstitutional, please state in detail any and all facts upon which you base this 

contention and under what circumstances the State of North Carolina may redistrict 

in a race conscious manner. 

Race conscious redistricting is not always unconstitutional. It is, however, 

unconstitutional if race was the predominant motive in the creation of a district which cannot survive 

strict scrutiny as provided in Shaw v. Reno and following cases. For example, the state could engage 

in race conscious redistricting in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act when and if that Act 

is properly interpreted, and if that goal actually corresponded to the legislative intent. Examples of 

permissible use of race in districting would include: 

1. To the extent possible using whole counties and cities, the State could choose to group 

a set of counties with a high percentage of African Americans in a compact area of the State. 

2. If a city or town with a racially identifiable character sits astraddle a county line, and a 

substantial number of African-Americans who reside in the city are on each side of the county line,  



the State could choose to elevate the city boundary in importance over the county boundary, and to 

keep in the same district the city-dwelling blacks and their urban neighbors on both sides of the 

county line. 

3. The third instance, in which in a single urban area a compact cluster of mostly black 

neighborhoods could be grouped to form a district does not apply to North Carolina’s congressional 

redistricting process, where no such large city exists. 

If you contend that any compelling interests exist in North Carolina to support the 

drawing of a majority-minority congressional district, please state in detail any and 

all facts upon which you base this contention. 

No compelling interests exist in North Carolina to support the drawing of a majority-minority 

congressional district. 

If you contend that African-American individuals in the First and Twelfth 

Congressional Districts of the 1997 Plan have nothing in common with one another 

but the color of their skin, please state in detail and all facts upon which you base this 

contention. 

This interrogatory is ambiguous. Insofar as it asks whether African Americans in the 

First District have nothing in common with African-Americans in the Twelfth District, plaintiffs would 

so contend, but this contention would be irrelevant to the constitutionality of each district. If the 

10  



  

interrogatory asks whether African-Americans in the First have nothing in common but the color of 

their skin, plaintiffs respond that they have in common, among other things, their residence in the 

northeastern part of North Carolina and for many their recent exposure to the flooding following 

Hurricane Floyd. However they also have this and other things in common with persons living in the 

Third and other districts. If the interrogatory asks whether African-Americans in the Twelfth District 

have nothing in common but the color of their skin, plaintiffs respond that they have in common their 

residence in the Piedmont, but they also have this and other things in common with persons living in 

several surrounding districts. Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that in many instances the community of 

interest of African-Americans placed in the First and Twelfth Districts is greater with whites place 

in other districts than with other blacks unconstitutionally grouped with them in the First and Twelfth 

Districts. 

10. If you contend that there is no community of interests in the First or Twelfth 

Congressional Districts of the 1997 Plan, please state in detail all facts upon which 

you base this contention. 

Plaintiffs do not contend that there is no community of interests of those residing in the First 

or the Twelfth Districts. However, such communities of interest are minimal when compared with 

the communities of interest that exist between persons in each of these Districts and persons in 

Districts adjacent to those two districts or when compared with persons who might be joined with 

them in the same Districts if North Carolina’s Congressional Districts were constitutionally 

configured. Some rural residents of the narrow connector of Congressional District 12, for example, 

11 

 



  

share few common interests with inner city residents at the three extremes of the district. 

11. With respect to the following statement: “In enacting the 1997 Plan, the General 

Assembly intended to preserve the 6 Democrat/6 Republican split among North 

Carolina’s United States Representatives,” state in detail the reasons for your 

agreement or disagreement, including any and all facts on which you base that 

agreement or disagreement. 

Plaintiffs agree that the legislative record contains some statements to this effect. 

However, the decision to preserve the 6/6 split is in essence a decision to preserve the racial cores 

of the unconstitutional 1992 1* and 12" districts, and to protect incumbents who were elected under 

that unconstitutional plan. 

Plaintiffs contend that the legislative record when taken in context makes clear the 

predominant intent was to create two predominantly race-based districts which would elect African 

Americans to Congress in the First and Twelfth Districts, and it was further the intent that after 

preserving the “racial cores” of these districts, there would be created two districts that would always 

elect African-Americans to Congress. . In short the statement referred to in this interrogatory is 

simply a clever rationalization for preserving the “racial cores” of the unconstitutional First and 

Twelfth Districts of the 1992 plan and for protecting incumbents elected under that unconstitutional 

plan. 

12 

 



12. State in detail how plaintiffs contend the boundaries of the First and Twelfth Districts 

in the 1997 Plan would have been different if drawn without any alleged racial 

motivation, including any and all facts upon which you base that contention 

Plaintiffs contend that that but for the enactment of the prior unconstitutional 1992 plan, the 

districts would not have been shaped as they are under the 1997 plan. For example, as a result of the 

United States Department of Justice’s unconstitutional interpretation of the Voting Rights Act, the 

12" District in the 1992 plan was created, which grouped the counties of Mecklenburg, Forsyth and 

Guilford, even though from 1792 until then these counties had never been included in the same 

congressional district. 

In addition the State’s erroneous and unconstitutional interpretation of the Voting Rights Act 

in 1997 was a major reason why District 1 of the 1997 plan is configured as it is, and split almost half 

of its counties and most of its largest towns along racial lines. 

Absent such vestiges of the 1992 plan, districts would be grouped around major regional 

centers, and traditional economic and geographical communities of interest, as they had been in the 

congressional districts of the 1980s and in the districts of most prior redistricting plans. 

13. Describe any racially discriminatory intent which you contend affected the shapes of 

the First and Twelfth Districts, including any and all facts on which you base that 

contention.  



  

The 1% and 12" Districts were intentionally drawn to ensure that black and not white 

politicians would win their respective Democratic Primaries and General Elections. This is shown 

by the statements in the legislative record as well as the statistics found in the VRA Section 5 

Submission for Preclearance to the U.S. Justice Department. Those statistics as to the manner of 

splitting all of the District Twelve’s six counties and half of District One’s counties ensure the racially 

discriminatory intent; but the facts related in the prior answers point unerringly to the same 

conclusion. 

14. Describe any and all facts upon which you base any contention that the General 

Assembly enacted the 1997 Plan with the intent of assuring the election of two 

African-American Representatives. 

Many of the leaders of the General Assembly asserted that the 1997 plan was an attempt to 

preserve the cores of the 1992 plan. They also made many assertions that the 1* and 12 districts 

were specifically drawn to ensure racial fairness and the protection of all the incumbents, two of 

whom were African-American Representatives elected from unconstitutional racially gerrymandered 

districts. The pool of voters who may participate in primaries in each of Congressional Districts One 

and Twelve is more than 50% African-American. To the same effect are Dr. Weber's report and 

testimony regarding the electoral safety of the two districts, and the preclearance submission, when 

it 1s taken in context. 

14 

 



  

15. If you contend that any and all congressional redistricting plans that used the 1992 

Plan as a starting point would have been unconstitutional, regardless of what plan was 

ultimately adopted, state in detail the basis for that contention, including any and all 

facts which support it. 

It does not matter so much where you start, as it matters the degree to which the State of 

North Carolina returns to traditional redistricting principles in the final configuration of the plan. The 

answers in the prior interrogatories have already made clear that if the Twelfth and First Districts in 

the 1992 plan are used as starting points, so that concentrations of African-Americans in Mecklenburg 

are grouped with similar concentrations in Guilford and Forsyth, and so that concentrations of blacks 

in the States’s northeastern counties are grouped to produce a majority of African-Americans in the 

total population, then the inevitable result is an unconstitutional gerrymander. 

16. If you contend that any and all congressional redistricting plans that used any part of 

the cores of the districts in the 1992 Plan as a starting point would have been 

unconstitutional, regardless of what plan was ultimately adopted, state in detail the 

basis for that contention, including any and all facts which support it. 

The answer given to question 15 is incorporated herein by reference. 

15 

 



  

17. State in detail the basis of your claim that the 1997 Plan deprives you of your right to equal 

protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment, including any and all facts on which 

you base your claim. 

The First and Twelfth Districts are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders. Race predominates 

over traditional principles of keeping intact political subdivisions such as cities and counties, grouping 

districts within traditional regions, splitting 1997 precincts, and respecting compactness and true 

contiguity. See Dr. Weber's report and testimony, and see also the facts related in the April, 1998 

opinion of the district court. 

18. State in detail the basis of your claim that the 1997 Plan abridges your rights as 

registered voters under the Fifteenth Amendment, including any and all facts on which 

you base your claim. 

The shapes of the First and Twelfth Districts abridge plaintiffs’ right to vote because they limit 

the right of persons of all races to vote for candidates who are supported by multiracial coalitions of 

voters, and they discourage the formation of such coalitions. Moreover, by preventing the candidacy 

of persons who would predictably become candidates if congressional candidates were elected in the 

elections not targeted by the General Assembly to elect persons of a particular race, whether black, 

white or “other.” The General Assembly abridged plaintiffs’ right to vote. The guarantee of the 15% 

Amendment includes a guarantee of a voter’s right to make choices in an electoral process not 

dominated by racial considerations. The facts stated in the earlier responses establish this abridgment 

16 

 



  

and are incorporated herein. 

19. State in detail the basis of your claim that the 1997 Plan deprives you of your rights 

under Article I, Section 2 of the United States Constitution, including any and all facts 

on which you base your claim. 

Plaintiffs’ claim is that race based districts violate Article I, Section 2 which called for election 

of Representatives by the “people” in each state. Race-based districts divide the “people” of each 

state involved and they present great harm to each voter in a district that artificially, with 

predominantly racial motives, divides the “people” of that district along racial lines. This division has 

taken place along racial lines in several North Carolina districts, especially the First and Twelfth, and 

this is established by facts cited in the earlier responses. 

20. State in detail the basis of your allegation in paragraph 28 of your amended complaint 

that under the 1997 Plan the Twelfth District has boundaries which were drawn 

pursuant to a predominantly racial motivation, including any and all facts on which 

you base your allegations or claim. 

See the answer to question #4, as well as these factors: 

1. Shape of the district follows “racial cores” 

2. Statements in the legislative oust 

3. Gerry Cohen e-mail memorandum to Sen. Cooper and Sen. Leslie Winner about 

moving “Greensboro black community” | 

4. Splitting of towns and counties along racial lines 

17 

 



  

5. Lack of geographic compactness, accompanied by spurious claims of “functional 

compactness”, a concept designed to conceal racial gerrymanders. 

21. State in detail the basis of your allegation in paragraph 28 of your amended complaint 

that under the 1997 Plan the First District has boundaries which were drawn pursuant 

to a predominantly racial motivation, including any and all facts on which you base 

your allegations or claim. 

See the answer to Question #4, and these factors: 

1. Statements in the legislative record. 

2. Splitting cities and counties along racial lines. 

3. E-mail memoranda of Gerry Cohen 

4. Testimony of Gerry Cohen that he followed the “Old Black Second” 

5. Lack of geographic compactness 

6. Retaining of racial core of unconstitutional 1992 district. 

7. Rejection of a more compact alternative 

22. State in detail the basis of your allegation in paragraph 26 of your amended complaint 

that under the 1997 Plan each of the six counties of the Twelfth District was divided 

along racial lines and for a predominantly racial motivation, including any and all facts 

on which you base your allegations or claim. 

18 

 



See Dr. Weber’s report and testimony, which in great detail outlines the facts on which 

these allegations are based. See also the facts recited in the April, 1998 opinion of the district court. 

23. State in detail the basis of your allegation that under the 1997 Plan the Twelfth 

District did not conform to traditional districting principles, including any and all facts 

on which you base your allegations or claim. 

See Dr. Weber’s report and analysis for the specific facts which show that such 

principles as geographic compactness, communities of interest, and avoiding splitting of political 

subdivisions were undermined. See also facts recited in the April 1998 opinion of the district court. 

24. State in detail the basis of your allegation in paragraph 25 of your amended complaint 

that under the 1997 Plan the First District did not conform to traditional districting 

principles, including any and all facts on which you base your allegations or claim. 

See Dr. Weber’s report and analysis. 

State in detail how the 1997 Plan has injured and impaired the rights of plaintiffs as 

citizens, residents, and registered voters of the State of North Carolina, including any 

and all facts on which you base your statement. 

By unjustified racial classifications the State defendants have created racial 

19  



gerrymanders which injure plaintiffs and other registered voters by subjecting them to a racially 

divisive electoral process and to the making of choices dictated by race. The same facts cited in 

previous responses also apply here. 

26. State in detail how the 1997 Plan has diluted the votes of white citizens in the State 

of North Carolina in violation of the constitution or the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 

as amended, including any and all facts on which you base your statement. 

The claims of Plaintiffs are unrelated to the race or ethnic heritage of any registered voter. 

Instead the claims of plaintiffs are shared with all other voters in the district and are based on use of 

race in shaping the electoral process and thereby dictating the race of any successful candidates. The 

same facts cited in previous responses also apply here. 

27. State in detail how the creation of congressional districts by the 1997 Plan had a 

racially discriminatory effect on the plaintiffs, including any and all facts on which you 

base your statement. 

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the answers to the preceding questions. 

28. State in detail each and every fact showing that the creation of congressional districts 

by the 1997 Plan was the result of intentional racial discrimination directed at white 

citizens or voters in the State of North Carolina. 

20  



  

The claims of Plaintiffs are unrelated to the race or ethnic heritage of each. Moreover, the 

question assumes that the discrimination is directed at voters of a particular race, but the 

discrimination really is against all voters in any of the districts that are racially gerrymandered. Thus, 

the question reflects Defendants’ misinterpretation of plaintiffs’ “analytically distinct claim;” and 

therefore it cannot be answered more fully by plaintiffs. 

29. State in detail each and every fact showing that the creation of congressional districts 

by the 1997 Plan was the result of racial animus directed at white citizens or voters 

in the State of North Carolina. 

The claims of Plaintiffs are unrelated to the race or ethnic heritage of each. The “racial 

animus” referred to in the question is directed against all voters in a racially gerrymandered district. 

See also, the answer to Question #28 above. 

30. If plaintiffs claim that the current Representative from the 12th Congressional District 

does not adequately represent the interests of white citizens residing in that district, 

state in detail any and all facts on which you base your claim. 

The claims of Plaintiffs are unrelated to the race or ethnic heritage of each of them, or to the 

race of Representative Watt of the Twelfth District. The claim relates to the process by which he was 

elected. No matter how skillful a legislator he may be, Mr. Watt benefits from a racial preference or 

21 

 



  

racial quota which was intended to, and did, put him into office because of his race. 

31.  Ifplaintiffs claim that the current Representative from the 1st Congressional District 

does not adequately represent the interests of white citizens residing in that district, 

state in detail any and all facts on which you base your claim. 

The claims of Plaintiffs are unrelated to the race or ethnic heritage of each of them, or to the 

race of Representative Clayton of the First District. The claim relates to the process by which she 

was elected. No matter how skillful a legislator she may be, Ms. Clayton benefits from a racial 

preference or racial quota which was intended to, and did, put her into office because of her race. 

32. Ifyou contend that the First District in the 1997 Plan is not “narrowly tailored” in a 

manner that satisfies “strict scrutiny” standards under the Equal Protection Clause, 

state in detail the basis for that contention, including any and all facts that support it. 

The district is not narrowly tailored as to shape, and thereby affects the rights of 

voters by splitting counties and cities unnecessarily. The district also contains a racial 

composition which artificially makes the district overly safe and uncompetitive electorally. 

22 

 



  

This the 4th day of October, 1999. Rar 

p= 
Robinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett 

N.C. State Bar No.: 1385 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 
P.O. Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

Telephone: (919)-682-5691 

  

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

Yi 
Martin B. McGee 

State Bar No.: 22198 

Attorneys for the Plaintiffs 
P.O. Box 2 

Kannapolis, NC 28081 

Telephone: (704) 932-3157 

  

  

Douglas £. Markham 

Texas State Bar No. 12986975 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

333 Clay Suite 4510 

Post Office Box 130923 

Houston, TX 77219-0923 

Telephone: (713) 655-8700 

Facsimile: (713) 655-8701 

  

23 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that I have this day served the foregoing Response to Defendants and Defendant - 
Intervenors’ Interrogatories by hand delivery to the following addresses: 

Ms. Tiare B. Smiley, Esq. 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

North Carolina Department of Justice 

114 W. Edenton St., Rm 337 

P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Phone # (919) 716-6900 

Mr. Adam Stein 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham, Sumter, PA. 

312 W. Franklin St. 

Chapel Hill, NC 27516 

Phone # (919) 933-5300 

In addition, I also certify that I have served the above by mail to the following address: 

Mr. Todd A. Cox 

NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. 

1444 Eye Street, NW 10" Floor 
Washington, DC 20005 

This the 4™ day of October, 1999 

Pelli” 
Robinson O. Everett 

Attorney for the Plaintiffs 

  

24 

 



  

DECLARATION 

I declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 that I have read the foregoing Interrogatories 

and Requests for Admissions and the responses to each and know the contents thereof: that 

the responses were prepared with the advice and assistance of counsel; that the responses 

are limited to records and information still in existence, presently collected and thus far 

discovered; that such response separately and fully answers each question not objected to. 

Consequently, the Plaintiffs reserve the right to make any changes in the responses if it 

appears that errors have been made or more accurate information is available. Subject to 

the limitations set forth, the responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 

information, and belief. 

70a 
This the day of October, 1999. 

  

  

  
PLA 

{ 
% 

 



  

DECLARATION 

I declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 that I have read the foregoing Interrogatories 

and Requests for Admissions and the responses to each and know the contents thereof: that 

the responses were prepared with the advice and assistance of counsel; that the responses 

are limited to records and information still in existence, presently collected and thus far 

discovered; that such response separately and fully answers each question not objected to. 

Consequently, the Plaintiffs reserve the right to make any changes in the responses if it 

appears that errors have been made or more accurate information is available. Subject to 

the limitations set forth, the responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 

information, and belief. 

This the J day of October, 1999. 

RD E unt 
  

PLAINTIFF 

 



  

DECLABATION 

I declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 that I have read the foregoing Interrogatories 

and Requests for Admissions and the responses to each and know the contents thereof: that 

the responses were prepared with the advice and assistance of counsel; that the responses 

are limited to records and information still in existence, presently collected and thus far 

discovered: that such response separately and fully answers each question not objected to. 

Consequently, the Plaintiffs reserve the right to make any changes in the responses if it 

appears that errors have been made or more accurate information is available. Suhjeet to 

the limitations set forth, the responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 

information, and helief. 

This e327 tay of October, 1999, 

/ 
F 4 

  

PLAINTIFF 

 



DECLARATION 

I declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 that I have read the foregoing Interrogatories 

and Requests for Admissions and the responses to each and know the contents thereof; that 

the responses were prepared with the advice and assistance of counsel; that the responses 

are limited to records and information still in existence, presently collected and thus far 

discovered; that such response separately and fully answers each question not objected to. 

Consequently, the Plaintiffs reserve the right to make any changes in the responses if it 

appears that errors have been made or more accurate information is available. Subject to 

the limitations set forth, the responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 

information, and belief. 

This the ef re ——— ay of October, 1999. 

   



    

DECLARATION 

I declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 that I have read the foregoing Interrogatories 

and Requests for Admissions and the responses to each and know the contents thereof; that 

the responses were prepared with the advice and assistance of counsel; that the responses 

are limited to records and information still in existence, presently collected and thus far 

discovered; that such response separately and fully answers each question not objected to. 

Consequently, the Plaintiffs reserve the right to make any changes in the responses if it 

appears that errors have been made or more accurate information is available. Subject to 

the limitations set forth, the responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 

information, and belief. 

: ™ 
This the ‘tT day of October, 1999. 

  

 



    

DECLARATION 

I declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 that I have read the foregoing Interrogatories 

and Requests for Admissions and the responses to each and know the contents thereof; that 

the responses were prepared with the advice and assistance of counsel; that the responses 

are limited to records and information still in existence, presently collected and thus far 

discovered; that such response separately and fully answers each question not objected to. 

Consequently, the Plaintiffs reserve the right to make any changes in the responses if it 

appears that errors have been made or more accurate information is available. Subject to 

the limitations set forth, the responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 

information, and belief. 

This the 4 day of October, 1999. 

nt AE IN 

PLAINTIFF 

 



    

DECLARATION 

I declare pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746 that I have read the foregoing Interrogatories 

and Requests for Admissions and the responses to each and know the contents thereof; that 

the responses were prepared with the advice and assistance of counsel; that the responses 

are limited to records and information still in existence, presently collected and thus far 

discovered; that such response separately and fully answers each question not objected to. 

Consequently, the Plaintiffs reserve the right to make any changes in the responses if it 

appears that errors have been made or more accurate information is available. Subject to 

the limitations set forth, the responses are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, 

information, and belief. 

This the 4 Piay of October, 1999. 

  

PLAINTIFF