Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction

    FEB-20-88 10:18 FROM-FERGUSON, STEIN, WALLAS , ADKINS +7043345654 7-148 P.02/06 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

RALEIGH DIVISION 

F-335 

Civil Acuon No 4.96-CV-104-BO(3) 

MARTIN CROMARTIE, er al., 

Plainnffs, 
PLAINTIFFS’ REPLY TO 

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO STRIKE 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR A 

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

VS. 

JAMES B HUNT, IR, in his official capacity 

as Governor of the State of North Carolina, 

eral., 

I
N
 

N
a
a
t
 

| 
N
i
g
 

N
t
?
 

N
e
t
t
?
 

N
a
n
t
 

N
a
p
?
 

e
t
t
 

Defendants. 
  

Plaintiffs replying 10 Defendants’ motion to strike Plainuffs’ mouon for preliminary 

injuncuon respectfully show the Court: 

1. When Plaintiffs Cromarue, Muse and former Plaintiff Weeks filed their complaint in 

1996 the case was assigned to District Judge Howard but, although the complaint applied for 

appointment of a three-judge district court. no appointment was made because of the stay in 

proceedings pursuant to orders entered by the count with the consent of the partes. 

5 When the amended complaint was filed on October 17. 1997, the plainuffs challenged 

tha Srate's congressional redistricting plan enacted by the Gereeral Assembly cn March 2L. 1097 

and as part of the challenge, the complaint apphed again for appointment of the three-judge 

district court and moved again for declaratory and injunctive relief. including a preliminary 

Injunclon. 

3. The Defendants in their unswer did not in any way dispute that the case should be 

heard by a three-judge court: and from the filing of that answer late in November, 1997. the 

Plunutfs awaited the appointment of a thre2-judge district court. which they initially assumed 

FEB 22 ’98 18:32 +7043345654 PRGE. B82 

 



    
FEB-20-88 10:18 FROM-FERGUSON, STEIN, WALLAS , ADKINS +7043345854 T-148 P.03/06 

would consist of Judge Howard and two other judges. Also from time to time. Plainuffs’ counsel 

F-335 

inquired 1n the office of the Clerk of Count and elsewhere as to whether the pane! had been 

designated. 

4. In January. 1998. the Plainuffs’ counsel was informed that the case would be 

considered by a panel consisung of Chief Judge Boyle, Circuit Judge Ervin and Chiat ule 

Voorhies. 

5. Shonly thereafter, on January 30, 1998, Planufts filed a motion for preliminary 

injunction 10 give notice that they were continuing [0 seek the relief that had been sought in the 

original complaint and in the amended complaint, and thereafter, on February S, they filed a 

motion for summary judgment to which were attached five affidavits, and at the same ume they 

filed a brief in support of the mouon for summary judgment. 

6. From the contents of the mouon for summary judgment, the affidavits and the brief, it 

is apparent that they relate to and support the motion for preliminary injunction and sausty the 

purposes of the Local Rule. Moreover, they provide adequate notice to the Defendants of 

Plaintiffs’ basis for seeking the extraordinary relief of a preliminary 1njuncnon. 

7 As 1s apparent from the pleadings and atfidavits filed by Plainuffs, the basis for their 

seeking a preliminary injunction against the present plan 15 that. 

a) Since January, 1992, North Carolina has conducted its congressional elections 

under a redistricting plan which violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 

Fourteenth Amendment for reasons stated in Shaw v. Reno, 309 U.S. 630, 113 

S'Ct 2816 (1993); 

b) The unconsttutional redistricting plan hus been vigorously challenged from the 

ourset und by its decision in Shaw v. Hunt, 116 S.Ct. 1894 (1996). on June 13, 

FEB 26°98 18:32 +7043345654 PAGE. 83 

 



FEB-20-38 10:20 FROM-FERGUSON, STEIN, WALLAS, ADKINS +7043345654 T-148 P.04/08 F-335 

1996 the Supreme Court made clear that a new plan was necessary 

  

c) The new redistricung plan enacted by the General Assembly on March 31. 1997, 

clearly 1s derived from the unconstitutional 1992 plan and because of the close 

relauonshup between the two pluns. the more recent plan is also consurtutionally 

flawed. 

d) From the statisucs recited in the affidavit of Lee Mortimer, as well as from the 

facts recited in the other four affidavits, it 1s clear that race was a predominant 

motive in drawing the boundaries of the First and Twelfth Congressional Districts, 

as well as of other districts, and the State has offered no justification that will 

survive the “strict scruliny’” test. 

WHEREFORE. having responded to Defendants’ motion to strike, Plaintiffs respectfully 

pray: 

|. That for purposes of compliunce with the Local Rule, the Court treat the mouon for 

summary judgment, affidavits and brief as having been filed nunc pro nc on January 30. 1998, 

when the mouon for preliminary injunction was filed. 

19
 _ That the Defendants’ mouon to strike be denied. 

3 That the Coun proceed forthwith to hold such hearing. if any. 2s may uppear necessary 

and grant a prel.munary injunction and a permanent 1n0juncLion against the conunued use by the 

Defendants of the redistricting plan enacted 7 General Assembly on March 31, 1997. 

Respectfully submitted. this the _// day of February. 1958. 

FEB 28 'S8 10:32 +7043345654 PAGE. 84 

 



    

FEB-20-98 10:20 

FEB 28 °'98 18:33 

FROM-FERGUSON, STEIN, WALLAS , ADKINS +7043345654 T-148 P.05/08 

hn 
Robinson O. Everett 

Everett & Everett 

N.C. State Bar No.: 1385 

As Auorney for the Plainuffs 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham, NC 27702 

Telephone: (919)-682-5691 

  

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

by: vy 4 WH. He 
  

"Martin B. McGee 

State Bar No.: 22198 rT. 

Auomeys for the Plainuffs 

P.O. Box 810 
Concord, NC 28026-0810 

Telephone: (704)-782-1173 

F-335 

+7043345654 PRGE. B85 

 



    
FEB-20-98 10:20 FROM-FERGUSON, STE IN, WALLAS , ADKINS +7043345654 

: . ® 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

7-148 P.06/06 F-335 

I ceruify that I have this day served the foregoing Pluinnuffs’ Reply to Defendants” Mouon 

to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on the Defendants by mailing them a 

copy thereof, postage pre-paid, to the following addresses: 

Mr. Edwin M. Speas, Jr, Esq. 

Senior Deputy Attorney General 

North Carolina Department of Jusuce 

P.O. Box 629 

Raleigh, NC 27602 

Ms. Anita Hougkiss 

Ferguson, Stein, Wallas, Adkins, Gresham, Sumter, P.A. 

741 Kenilworth Avenue 

Suite 300 

Charlotte, NC 28204 

February 11, 1998 Cr il 

Robinson O. Everett 
Plainuff for the Attomeys 

  

FEB 28 98 18: 8:33 +7043345654 PRGE. 86