Goldsboro Christian Schools, Inc. v. United States Brief of Amicus Curiae in Support of the Judgements Below

    . 

® 
PEE Fr + ¢ 190 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

WESTERN DIVISION 

  

NO. 5:97-CV-750-BO (3) 

JACK DALY, DAVID FAIRCLOTH, 
DANIEL WHITFIELD CONGLETON. 
LAURA CLAY CONGLETON, 
ROSALIE LARAMIE McDONALD. 
CHARLTON L. ALLEN. PHILLIP A. 
MULLIS, FRANK L. WILLIAMS. 
BETTY J. PENDLEY, SHERWOOD 
FOUNTAIN, PATTY R. LEWIS, and H. 
MELVIN POPE, 

AFFIDAVIT OF 
W. EDWIN MCMAHAN 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. 

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

LARRY LEAKE (as Chairman of the ) 
State Board of Elections). DOROTHY ) 
PRESSER (as a member of the State ) 
Board of Elections), FAIGER M. ) 
BLACKWELL (as a member of the State ) 
Board of Elections), JUNE K. ) 
YOUNGBLOOD (as a member of the ) 
State Board of Elections). S. ) 
KATHERINE BURNETTE (as Secretary ) 
of the State Board of Elections), and ) 
JAMES B. HUNT, Jr. (as Governor of the ) 
State of North Carolina). ) 

) 
) 
) Defendants. 

W. Edwin McMahan. being first duly sworn, deposes and says: 

1. I am a native of Buncombe County, North Carolina and have resided in Charlotte, 

North Carolina since 1974. A copy of my resume is attached as Exhibit A. 

 



  

2. In 1994 and 1996 I was elected to the North Carolina House of Representatives 

During the 1997 Session of the General Assembly, Harold J. Brubaker. Speaker of the House, 

appointed me to serve as Chairman of the House Congressional Redistricting Committee. 

3 My responsibility as Chairman of the House Redistricting Committee was to attempt 

to develop a new congressional plan that would cure the constitutional defects in the prior plan, and 

that would have the support of a majority of the members of the Senate, which was controlled by the 

Democrats, and the support of a majority of the members of the House, which was controlled by the 

Republicans. Under an order entered by the three-judge court in Shaw v. Hunt that task had to be 

completed by March 31, 1997, to avoid the federal court imposing a plan on the State. 

4. Senator Roy A. Cooper, III was appointed Chairman of the Senate Redistricting 

Committee by President Pro Tem Basnight. His responsibilities were essentially identical to mine. 

5. Many people doubted that the General Assembly would be able to achieve a 

compromise between the Democratic controlled Senate and Republican controlled House on the 

most partisan legislative task, redistricting. Working with the leadership of the Senate and the 

House, however, Senator Cooper and I early on identified a sil path by which a compromise 

might be reached and a new plan adopted. This path was to craft a plan which would cure the 

defects in the old plan and at the same time preserve the existing partisan balance (6 Republicans 

and 6 Democrats) in the State’s congressional delegation. 

6. To cure the constitutional defects in the prior plan, we had to be sure that traditional 

redistricting criteria were not subordinated to race. To achieve this goal, the leadership of the House 

and I wanted to avoid splitting any precincts, to avoid splitting counties when reasonably possible, 

to eliminate all of the “cross-overs,” “double cross-overs” and “points of contiguity” from the prior 

2 

 



plans, to facilitate communication among voters in a district and their representatives in Congress, 

and to place citizens with similar needs and interests in the same districts to the extent reasonably 

possible. 

7. To protect the existing partisan balance, the leadership of the House and I recognized 

that we would need to protect incumbents and to preserve the cores of the prior districts to the extent 

consistent with our goal of curing the defects in the prior plans. The means I used to check on the 

partisan nature of proposed new districts was the election results in the General Assembly’s 

computer data base (the 1990 Helms-Gantt election and the 1988 elections for Lieutenant Governor 

and one of the Court of Appeals seats). I also used more recent election results to evaluate the 

proposed Districts 2 and 4 -- the districts that we felt were the most competitive from a partisan 

viewpoint. 

On February 20. 1997. Senator Cooper presented Congressional Plan A to the Senate 

Redistricting Committee and on February 25, 1997, I presented Congressional Plan A.1, to the 

House Redistricting Committee. Congressional Plan A and A.1 were similar. 

9. Over the next several weeks Senator Cooper and I were able to resolve the few 

differences between the two plans. The compromise we finally reached is reflected in a plan entitled 

“97 House/Senate Plan A.” This is the plan that was enacted by the General Assembly on March 

31, 1997. It achieves the goals the leadership of the House and I had. It cures the constitutional 

defects in the prior plan and it protects the existing partisan balance in the State’s Congressional 

delegation. The plan also meets one-person one-vote requirements and, with regard to District 1, 

meets Voting Act requirements.  



  

® » 
10. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that the “97 House/Senate Plan A” is an 

unconstitutional racial gerrymander. They are wrong. “97 House/Senate Plan A” is a negotiated 

bipartisan plan which contains districts located and shaped in a manner to avoid constitutional 

problems wp to protect the existing odin balance in the State’s Congressional delegation. Racial 

fairness was, of course, considered in the development of the plan. Our obligations to represent all 

of our constituents of all races and to comply with the Voting Rights Act demanded that racial 

fairness be considered. The plan enacted is racially fair, but race for the sake of race was not the 

dominate or controlling factor in the development or enactment of the plan. The dominate and 

controlling factors in developing the plan were (1) curing the constitutional defects in the prior plan 

and (2) protecting the existing partisan balance. Two indications that race was not dominate in 

drawing the plan are the fact that 12 of the 17 members of the House who are black voted against 

97 House/Senate Plan A and the fact that two black members of the House, Representatives Fitch 

and Michaux, have claimed that the plan we enacted is not racially fair to blacks. 

11. In paragraphs 61-67 of their second amended complaint, the plaintiffs have accurately 

quoted bits and pieces of statements I made in Committee discussions and in floor debates. They 

then go on, however, to take my statements out of context and to twist them to serve their own 

interests. Perhaps the best refutation of plaintiffs’ allegationsis the entire transcript of each meeting 

of the House Redistricting Committee and of the debate on the floor of the House, a copy of which 

is attached as Exhibit A. 

12. In paragraph 70 and 71 of the second amended complaint, plaintiffs allege that Mr. 

Daly spoke to me about a plan that Mr. Daly had developed, that I asked Mr. Daly whether his plan 

had two black districts and that I told Mr. Daly that we were not looking at any plans “that don’t 

4 

 



  

# » 
have two black districts,” because the “Senate won't go elit that doesn’t have two black 

districts.” I have known Mr. Daly for several years and have had many conversations with him. 

However, I don’t recall ever having any discussion with Mr. Daly.about any congressional 

redistricting plan. Moreover, am sure that I never made the SEES that the plaintiffs attribute 

to me in paragraphs 70 and 71. 
S 

This the 2 day of January. 1998. 

  

   4 7 /)] ¢ a 
W. Edwin McMahan 

. 
  

Sworn to and subscribed before me this 
2) day of January, 1998. 

ford Neuchar 
igh 1 Publig 
  

ih : My Commiezien Fynieag March 17, 2 My commission expires: "7 Commis 4 , 200